It was bad enough that the Miami Heat won the NBA championship, and now the bureaucratic monstrosity known as ObamaCare is the law of the land. Could anything be more depressing or disillusioning or disheartening?
We haven't blogged about it up until know because we kept hoping that there would be a follow-up announcement from the Supreme Court to the effect that "hey, we were just messing with you, America...of course ObamaCare is unconstitutional and null and void."
But it is not to be.
Although ruling that the law imposing socialized medicine on the U.S.was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Roberts inexplicably upheld the law by a 5-4 vote based on Congress' taxing powers in the decision released on Thursday morning.
Up until the Arizona immigration law decision, Roberts was in general doing a fine job on the court, but here he let American down in a massive way.
Regardless of all the hype, despite the Obama administration's empty promises, virtually everyone's insurance premiums will go up along with their taxes. And, government-run healthcare means government-rationed healthcare, which leads to, yes, death panels.
If you're like most Americans, you probably suffered a severe case of heartburn today about the Supreme Court decision tossing most of Arizona's immigration law, S.B. 1070. While the High Court did uphold the "status check" part of the legislation, every silver lining has a cloud:
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police...“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
Raise your hand if you are fed up with this lawless, pandering administration. Apparently Justice Scalia is:
In a far more rational decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Knox v. SEIU late last week that the big union couldn't continue to steal money from government workers' paychecks. This decision was also discussed on FNC, but please disregard the liberal's tired and lame "police, firefighters and teachers" reference as the public sector is mostly made up of paper shufflers on perpetual coffee break who have nothing whatsoever to do with law enforcement:
Instead of securing the border and enforcing immigration law, the Obama administration would rather use its resources to file lawsuits against states that want to get serious about enforcement when the federal government won't do it's job. Similarly, rather than rooting out vote fraud, the U.S. Justice Department wants to make vote fraud easier.
Do you see a trend here?
It's almost as if DOJ lawyers decided to emulate Seinfeld's George Costanza by doing the opposite of what is rational--except that Costanza's reversal made sense in the context of the show!
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Arizona's appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling that blocked the state's immigration measure. Justice Kagan has recused herself from the case, as she should also do in the upcoming Obamacare appeal.
The expectation is that the High Court will allow at least part of the Arizona law to go into effect, but time will tell.
In the meantime, there are reports that the administration will draw down the token number of National Guard troops at the border.
It was disappointing but far from surprising that a Clinton-appointed liberal judge blocked key portions of SB 1070, the Arizona immigration law. That the 9th Circuit was unwilling to hear an expedited appeal, and therefore won't take up the case until November, is also disheartening. Only in an upside world would the federal government prefer to spend money on lawyers than in securing the border. But ultimately Arizona and the American people will prevail, although the statute may be headed toward a 5-4 Supreme Court decision sometime down the line.
We've previously referred to Chris Christie as America's governor, but perhaps that honor also belongs to Jan Brewer. The Arizona governor, who is running for re-election to be sure, might not come across as the most prepared politician during television interviews, but she's unwavering when it comes to protecting the border. She's already said that she will be "relentless" when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. The vast majority of the American people logically want the border secured first before any legislative initiatives on immigration reform, so-called, should be considered. The media and the Obama administration (is there a difference?) are out of step with the American people.
She's going to do all that she can to continue down the litigation path to allow secure borders. Jan Brewer has the cojones that our president does not have to look out for all Americans, not just Arizonans, but all Americans, in this desire of ours to secure our borders and allow legal immigration to help build this country, as was the purpose of immigration laws.
Last month, Boston Herald columnist Joe Fitzgerald sounded a similar theme:
The Arizona governor knows what she believes and has the courage of her convictions, making her a breath of fresh air here in Massachusetts where public officials cower at incurring the wrath of a politically correct lunatic fringe.
In town this weekend for a meeting of the National Governors Association, Brewer’s sure to hear from malcontents enraged by her state’s crackdown on illegal immigration.
They’d have us believe it’s hateful to suggest new arrivals ought to comply with America’s expectations.
Learn our language? How insensitive. Apply for citizenship? How inhospitable. Obey our laws? How mean-spirited.
Please. We’re sicker than they are if we pay any attention to them.
Fitzgerald's Herald colleague Howie Carr added the following:
It’s not about immigration. It’s about illegal immigration. You cannot have a society where one group is expected to obey the laws, play by the rules, pay taxes and speak a common language, and another group sneaking in and not asking, but demanding, to be given everything, for free, with no consequences whatsoever for any crimes they commit.
Last night on FNC, a focus group of Arizona voters, many of whom voted for Obama, spoke out on the situation in their state when it comes to illegal immigration:
What's the best use of Justice Department resources when you have a border overrun by drug gangs, human traffickers, potential terrorists, and other violent criminals? Well, it is to sue the state of Arizona, of course, over SB 1070, even though the Arizona law is a mirror image of federal immigration law.
In the meantime, RedState.com broke the story that per U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, Obama is using border security as a bargaining chip to get comprehensive, so called, immigration reform through the Congress. Sen. Kyl says the administration is holding its constitutional duty to secure the border "hostage" for political reasons. The idea that this administration would politicize national security as if it's merely another shakedown, another Chicago-style deal like the "cornhusker kickback" or the "Louisiana purchase," speaks for itself. Here's the video featuring Sen. Kyl at a town hall meeting:The White House has denied the senator's claim, but Kyl, who has no reputation for grandstanding, isn't backing down.
Janet Napolitano, the placeholder at the Homeland Security Department, is as you know the former governor of Arizona. While she opposes Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and just about anything else involving actual border security, as governor she signed a law that gave her state the authority to suspend or terminate business licenses of those employers who hire illegal aliens. Federal law does not preempt states from imposing licensing restrictions on those business who hire undocumented workers.
Her new boss, however, wants the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the measure, even though it was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, considered the most far-left appellate panel in the federal system. "The Obama administration apparently worries letting that law stand would leave in place a precedent that states have a legitimate role in enforcing immigration laws – a notion the administration fiercely opposes," FoxNews.com reports.
Mexican President Calderon is good on some issues, especially in his fight against the drug cartels. He is, however, way off base in his criticism of Arizona's new immigration law, given his own country's draconian immigration statutes. Mexico also has troops protecting its southern border.
Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals. The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer for once escaped the liberal cocoon and politely calls out President Calderon on his hypocrisy--starting at the 4-minute mark:
Another usually reliable liberal voice, CNN's Jack Cafferty, blasts the administration's failure to enforce immigration law:
Why is it that government officials, past or present, seem to be so helpless? For example, the glib and personable former Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, got fired on The Celebrity Apprentice because he couldn't type on a laptop or figure out how to send e-mail. Now, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who has joined with her colleague Eric Holder in bashing Arizona's immigration law, admits that she--like Holder--didn't read the law either. Moreover, as Arizona governor, Napolitano only gave lip service to border security so it comes as no surprise that it's "not the kind of law" that she would have signed. Click here for the link to the video of her Senate testimony.
And here is a link to the full text of the law as well as the governor's related executive order.
You probably thought that Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano was the most incompetent official in the administration. Here's the video of Attorney General Holder admitting that he hasn't even read the Arizona law about which he has been so critical.
[The law] is neither especially long nor complex, as statutes go. The fact that Holder has not read it yet is unconscionable, bizarre, negligent, outrageous—especially since he has long been voicing an opinion on it in his official capacity as Attorney General. He seems to also be unaware that there would be anything odd or wrong about this time lag.
Led by two-time MVP point guard Steve Nash, the up-tempo Phoenix Suns are perhaps the only team in the NBA worth watching, especially in the increasing meaningless regular season. The Suns were literally seconds away from winning the championship in 2007 if it wasn't for that crazy, unfair suspension of Amare Stoudemire under the league's arcane disciplinary rules. You may recall that the Spurs' Robert Horry ("Cheap Shot Bob," formerly "Big Shot Bob") knocked Nash down at the end of the Game 4 of the semi-finals; because Stoudamire wandered a few feet from the bench area following the collision, he was suspended. Absent the suspension, the Suns would have defeated the Spurs and cruised through the championship round. In the world of sports, this was a grave injustice.
Nash's playmaking, ball-handling skills, and shooting epitomize team play in the otherwise me-first NBA. However, Nash and the Suns unfortunately just made it very hard to root for them against the Lakers by publicly opposing Arizona's new immigration law. Even Phil Jackson, who is a big liberal, said that sports and politics don't mix. And as Dennis Miller aptly points on FNC (starting at around the five-minute mark), the Suns and other of the law's opponents have conveniently forgotten about the innocent Arizona rancher (among others) who was murdered by a criminal alien:
Update: Phil Mushnick's New York Post column makes an excellent point about the hypocrisy of the Suns:
What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into Suns' games without paying? What if the owners had a good idea as to who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected.
Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?
...If charity in Arizona begins at home, why not at home games?
Virtually every country in the world, including Mexico, controls its own border. If you don't have secure borders, you really no longer have a country. Out of control immigration is one of the major issues in Thursday's parliamentary elections in the UK, where the Conservatives are projected to capture about 300 seats. Here, the federal government--under President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano--has failed in its responsibility, so the state of Arizona enacted a statute to give the police additional authority. Predictably, the usual open-borders advocates went completely bonkers. One of the bill's authors responds in the New York Times:
On Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government...
In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.
President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?
