Socialist Watch

Here is a summary of some of the recent mischief that Obama and his administration have been up to:

1. Suing Arizona. The Department of Justice claims that Arizona's new illegal immigration law "preempts" the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. Hmmm. That argument might be a bit more compelling if the federal government actually WERE enforcing immigration laws. As a matter of fact, interior federal enforcement of immigration laws is down 75% since 2008. It's also a fact that the Arizona law was carefully written to be consistent with federal immigration law. States assist the federal government all the time in enforcing federal laws; this is nothing unusual and certainly nothing unconstitutional. I note that Obama made a big deal about how the AZ law amounted to racial profiling, yet there is nothing in the lawsuit about that. He knows that false claim would not stand up in court. This lawsuit is all about playing racial politics to get his base fired up in an election year. If he cared about the immigration problem, he would fulfill his constitutional obligation to secure the border and enforce existing immigration law, as well as working with Congress to come up with an acceptable bi-partisan immigration reform law.

2. Appointing Donald Berwick to Head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. It is disgraceful that Berwick was snuck in under the public's radar through a recess appointment, which enabled him to avoid being confirmed by the Senate. Of course, previous presidents have used recess appointments too, including Bush, but this is the first time that a top Cabinet-level official has been confirmed without even a hearing! No hearings had even been scheduled in the Senate, and 11 weeks after his nomination his Senate paperwork still had not been completed. In other words, he has had no public vetting whatsoever, yet he is going to have power over a portion of the government that is 4% of GDP (and has a bigger budget than the Dept. of Defense)! Obama would make a great third world dictator.

Of course there's a reason why Obama didn't want this guy to face confirmation hearings, even in a very Obama-friendly Senate. Berwick's views would not be very well received by the public. Here are some very revealing quotes about his views:

"[I am] romantic about the National Health Service" [the government agency
that controls the government-run health care system in Britain]. It is
a "seductress" and a "global treasure."

"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether
we will ration with our eyes open."

One of the "primary functions" of government health care laws is "to
constrain decentralized, individual decision making" and "to weigh public
welfare against the choices of private consumers."

"Any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane
must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and
the less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition redistributional."

“As many as 80% of hysterectomies are scientifically unnecessary, so are more
than a quarter of the drugs used for ear infections, most of the ultrasounds
done in normal pregnancies, and half of cesarean sections in the United States.
Isn’t this, with all due respect, some form of assault and battery, however
unintended?”

“Don't trust market forces." Trust "leaders with plans."

“One over-demanding service [to be cut] is prevention; annual physicals,
screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch disease
early.

“Only a minority of patients, families, and clinicians support prolonged use
of life-sustaining procedures and dramatic interventions in the terminal states
of illness, yet substantial use of these procedures continue.”

This all sounds great -- if you want unelected bureaucrats making your health care decisions for you.

3. Politicizing NASA. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden gave an interview with Al-Jazeera. In this interview, Bolden said that Obama himself had instructed Bolden that his "perhaps foremost" requirement was “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science . . . and math and engineering.” (!) Wow. And all this time I thought NASA was about space exploration. Is there anything that this president touches that he doesn't turn into a vehicle for his radical ideology?

4. Politicizing the Justice Department. Christian Adams, a voting-rights lawyer who recently resigned from the Justice Department, recently testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission about the New Black Panther voter intimidation case in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008. That case, which was filed by the Justice Department in January 2009, said that two members of the New Black Panther party stood in front of a polling station, wearing military garb and brandishing a nightstick. The two men hurled "racial threats and racial insults at both black and white individuals" and "made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements, and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters." No defense was offered by the two individuals or by the New Black Panther party, which means that the case was a guaranteed win for the Justice Department. Yet, the Obama Administration suddenly dropped the case in May 2009, claiming insufficient evidence.

Adams stated in a Washington Times article that "if the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls." He went on to say that the case was dropped because there is an "open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.... Some of my coworkers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation.... Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the [Justice Department's] Voting Section." Not surprisingly, the Justice Department is stonewalling and has refused to allow attorneys involved in the case to respond even to subpoenas.

When Obama's done with our country, there won't be much left.

What Arizona Must Live With

Check out this article by Mark Steyn. Steyn makes me laugh out loud, as always, but his larger point is both sad and true.

What Part About "Illegal" Do You Not Understand?

Arizona has passed a new illegal immigration law that has the usual suspects apoplectic with righteous indignation. I expect most of my readers know at least something about this law, but for those who don't here is the provision in the law that has provoked all the controversy:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…."

Now you tell me: what is so extreme about that provision? Does that language even remotely justify the commentary about this law by the left? "Harkens back to apartheid," claims Cynthia Tucker of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "Shameful," says E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post. "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques," says Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles. Al Sharpton (surprise!) compared Arizona to the Jim Crow South. Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva has called for a boycott of his own state.

Now, there are probably legitimate concerns that could be raised about this law (more on that later). But the left is not interested in constructive criticism. Their sole objective in this debate (as clearly evidenced by the comments mentioned above and many, many more not mentioned) is to score cheap political points with their black and Latino base by accusing conservatives of being racists and extremists. Remember, people who opposed the health care bill were racist too. Oh yeah, and the Tea Parties calling for limited government are racist. Basically, what passes for political disagreement on the left is accusing Republicans of being racist bigots, no matter what the issue is.

To compare enforcing our country's immigration laws to racial discrimination in the Old South or to the secret police tactics of Nazi Germany is worse than irresponsible. It is a despicable attempt to turn justice on its head by smearing the law-abiding citizens of this country who oppose illegal immigration as hate-filled bigots, racists, and criminals, while illegal immigrants are praised as law-abiding people who automatically deserve the full rights of citizens. For people on the left who engage in this kind of rhetoric, right and wrong are irrelevant. The only "right" these people acknowledge is the ability to manipulate the voting patterns of minority groups in this country using racially-charged rhetoric about their opponents.

Let's be clear. The United States has immigration laws for a reason. Like virtually every other country worth living in, we don't let just anyone enter our borders for whatever reason for however long they choose. People must be properly authorized to enter. And if people choose to ignore those laws and enter this country illegally, they are committing a federal crime. That isn't my opinion. That's a fact. When the left claims illegal immigrants have a "right" to be here, that's a lie. Unless, of course, you think our country's laws don't matter. Contrary to fashionable left-wing opinion, we do not have a moral and ethical obligation to accept anyone and everyone into our country. Nor do we have a moral and ethical obligation to provide full treatment as citizens to people who have entered this country in violation of our laws. (Although it's nice to see that the left has finally come around to believing in moral absolutes!)

Arizona is a good case study for why it is necessary, not only to have, but also to enforce immigration laws. There is a good reason why, of all the 50 states, Arizona specifically passed this law and why a recent poll showed a full 70% of all Arizona voters supported the law, with only 23% opposed. And no, it's not because Arizonans are racists. It's because Arizona is experiencing first-hand the devastation that has resulted from the U.S. government's failure to enforce its own immigration laws. With border security stepped up at San Diego and El Paso, Arizona is now the number 1 entry point for illegal immigrants coming from Mexico. The results are tragic. Illegal drug trafficking is everywhere, with an estimated $2 million in drug money passing from Mexico into Arizona each day. The city of Phoenix, a haven for illegal immigrants, has the nation's highest rate of ransom kidnappings (350 per year reported, with probably another 700 per year going unreported). These kidnappings are primarily committed by illegal aliens living in Arizona and recruited by Mexican drug cartels. Many of those people kidnapped from off the street are abused, tortured, and killed. Phoenix and Tucson have among the highest rates of property crime in the nation. The Arizona Cattle Growers' Association described the situation this way: "The U.S./Mexico border in southern Arizona has become a lawless region. Criminals, bandits and an international organized crime unit are operating with impunity in the region. Their trades are burglary, home invasion, drug smuggling, human smuggling, murder, extortion and kidnapping rackets. These organized crime units have been terrorizing northern Mexico for 20 years and have been terrorizing Southern Arizona for at least 10 years. These entities are extremely violent and dangerous and they have now succeeded in creating terror in Southern Arizona as they have in Northern Mexico.” Is it any surprise that 70% of Arizonans support this law? Political pundits living in their comfortable Upper West Side apartments have no idea what it's like to live at Ground Zero of the immigration war.

Of course, it shouldn't be Arizona's responsibility to enforce illegal immigration laws. Those are federal laws, and should be enforced by the federal government. That is why it is so galling to hear President Obama calling this law "irresponsible," when it is the irresponsibility of him and his government (and his predecessor government) that have caused this problem in the first place. Obama has done nothing to deal with this problem and even stopped some half-hearted border control measures put in place by Bush. It is disgraceful that Mexican criminals are wreaking havoc on our country's soil with impunity. As Arizona Governor Jan Brewer put it, "It’s a problem that we did not create and Washington refuses to fix." First and foremost, we need to gain control of the border. We need to build a wall to stop the tidal wave of illegal aliens walking into our country, and we need U.S. troops deployed to the border to get the violence under control. Second, we need to come up with some kind of logical method to deal with illegal immigrants already living here. I think this should involve requiring all illegals currently living in the U.S. to register with the government. Illegals who are gainfully employed with clean criminal records should be allowed to stay in this country (after paying a fine and any required back taxes). Illegals who have committed crimes or who refuse to comply with registration requirements should be deported. And individuals and businesses who help illegals avoid compliance should face stiff penalties.

Now, I don't think this Arizona law is a perfect law, and it is certainly not going to perfectly solve the illegal immigration problem. Critics have raised the concern that engaging local police to enforce illegal immigration laws will lead to distrust between Latino communities and law enforcement and will keep immigrants from cooperating with police or reporting crimes. This is a valid concern. It is also possible that this law could lead to unfair targeting or questioning of Latino citizens or legal immigrants. However, it is important to point out that the law specifically prohibits racial profiling and that ethnicity alone cannot constitute "reasonable suspicion" under the law. Also, a person's immigration status can only be questioned by the police if that person has already been stopped for another crime already. So President Obama's claim that some Hispanic person could be walking down the street to "get ice cream" and suddenly get stopped by the police and questioned is ridiculous. They would have to be committing a crime, and they would also have to arouse reasonable suspicion from the police for some reason other than being Hispanic (for example, being unable to produce a driver's license or other identification in a traffic stop, an overloaded vehicle, evasive behavior, being in a known smuggling corridor, etc.)

The bottom line is that the federal government's inaction has forced Arizona to take action to try to protect its citizens. Much has been made of the rights of illegal immigrants, but what about the rights of American citizens to be able to walk the streets of their cities or sleep in their beds at night without fear of kidnapping or other drug-related violence? What about the rights of American citizens to be able to own property without fear of having it stolen or destroyed? What about the rights of law-abiding people around the world who are waiting to come to the U.S. legally, only to see illegal border-crossers from Mexico unfairly steal into this country ahead of them? What message do we send to the immigrants who are going through the long, painstaking process of becoming a U.S. citizen, when they see others living here illegally and using government services with impunity? Our President and our Congress need to realize how messed up our current immigration situation is and take immediate action to fix it. We need to expedite the legal immigration process and the path to citizenship or permanent legal status for legal immigrants to show that we value immigrants and to reward honest hard-working people who follow our laws. It is inexcusable that it can take 10+ years for an immigrant to get permanent legal status. We need to be careful not to restrict too much the number of legal immigrants coming in to this country. And we need to take severe action to stop illegal immigration. Legal immigration should be easy and illegal immigration should be hard, but our ridiculous immigration policy has made it easy to come illegally and hard to come legally. Most of all, we need to stop playing racial politics with this issue and come together to fix this important problem for the wellbeing of our hard-working, law-abiding citizens.