Un-flaming believable.  The Guy from Chicago sends a delegation of his White House denizens to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s office to discuss the details of how the regime intends to fulfill its promise - not to mention its constitutional duty - to reinforce Arizona’s porous border with Mexico.  And instead of conveying a message of reassurance, it conveys a message of scorn and contempt.

Out of the 1200 National Guard troops the Chosen One promised would be committed to reinforcing the boundary, fewer than half - 524, to be precise - will be assigned to that part of the border over which the vast majority of illegal immigrants flood into the United States: Arizona. 

Adding insult to injury, we now learn that the regime intends to send to Mexico over twice as much money for drug interdiction and  ”other efforts” there (aka, bribes and payoffs) than will be devoted to border security enhancement measures in Arizona.

This should come as no surprise, though.  After all, The Guy appears to have confirmed to Arizona Senator Jon Kyl that he intends to hold border security hostage to his push for illegal alien amnesty.  Moreover, his lackies at the Justice Department continue to rattle their litigation sabers and threatening to file suit over Arizona’s efforts to defend itself against the grossly negligent omissions of the feds. 

And in a disturbing irony, we now learn that The Guy’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, once argued to the very tribunal where she now seeks a chair that it would be fine with her if the Congress passed a law banning books because the government would never enforce it. 

By troubling analogy, this is the equivalent of saying that it was fine for the Congress to pass a host of laws banning illegal immigration and requiring lawfully-admitted aliens at all times to carry papers documenting their privilege - not to be confused with a “right” - to be present in the country because PC notions of “racial profiling” would prevent the government from enforcing those laws. 

Stated otherwise, under the current Obama administration, it’s fine to “look tough” on paper as long as there is no risk of “acting tough” on the ground.

Indeed, the incandescent rage of those opposing Arizona’s right to legislatively reference and adopt federal immigration laws, in the exercise of its powers as a republican form of government, seems clearly to lie in the dreaded potential that Arizona will actually begin to “walk the walk” instead of continuing to mimic the incompetent federal arabesque of merely “talking the talk.”

In this regard, one could argue that the Obama regime is even engaged in the conscious design and implementation of an intentional tort seeking to undermine the state government itself.  Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution mandates that “…[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.” (Emphasis added). 

The acts and omissions of the current administration, however, more resemble a concerted effort to void and eviscerate any claim of guarantee to a republican form of government by Arizona under that provision.  In fact, the same acts and omissions now being touted by administration apparatchiks as “policy” and a “balanced response” to the problem seem more akin to conspiratorial efforts with a foreign nation to facilitate a continuation of the invasion of Arizona by a largely uncontrolled tidal wave of illegal immigrants across the border.

While it is unlikely that a court of law would elevate these actions to the level of treason, it may be useful and illuminating to again reflect on the provisions of Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.  That section provides, in material part: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” 

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that what we have here is not “treason,” which is a noun and a crime, there are those who would argue that the acts and omissions now being facilitated, implemented and pursued by the Obama administration are “treasonous,” which is an adjective and a condition.

People need to remember that Arizona is merely the gateway on the front lines of the battlefield.  Unless the tsunami of illegal aliens is stopped here, matters will only get worse in the rest of the states of the nation. 

As long, of course, as the place still can be deemed to be a “nation.”

Just when you thought you’d seen the bottom of the pit of artificial indignation belched up by the open-borders crowd and opponents of “SB 1070″ - Arizona’s exercise of its Tenth Amendment right of self-defense in the face of the federal government’s abdication of its duties to secure the southern border as required under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution - the Government of Mexico deepens the hole.  With New York lawyers, no less, assisting in the excavation.

In a “friend of the court” or “amicus curiae” brief prepared and filed by Mexico’s lawyers in one of the cases presently pending where the new Arizona laws (not even yet in effect) are being challenged, Mexico - no doubt inadvertently - further underscores the compelling case for recognizing the legitimacy and constitutionality of the new laws. 

Indeed, the Mexican amicus brief - a thinly-disguised and thus woefully misnamed plaintiff advocacy brief - gives new meaning to the term “hypocrisy.”  Perhaps a brand new term is needed: “disingenuous and misguided intellectual apoplexy.”   From the brief, a copy of which can be seen here, a few of the more amusing and outrageous nuggets:

First, Mexico cites in support of its position that the new Arizona laws will interfere with United States federal policies regarding border security and immigration laws: 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) (see Mexico amicus brief at 4, n. 4).  Interestingly, that federal statute - entitled “Performance of immigration officer functions by State officers and employees” - specifically contemplates the implementation and enforcement of federal immigration laws by state and local law enforcement personnel.  

The new Arizona laws, much as does the federal Assimilative Crimes Act - 18 U.S.C. § 13 - merely references and/or incorporates and “assimilates” into state law the provisions of the federal code… as it has done in 477 other instances, without incident.  The amicus brief offers no explanation for how, in light of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), the Arizona laws must be declared unconstitutional or, as U.S. Attorney General Holder is rumored to believe, preempted by “inconsistent” federal law.

So, thank you, Mexico, for supplying additional support for the application of the new Arizona laws.  

Second, Mexico cites (p. 12 Mexico amicus) to The Federalist, the series of essays penned by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay as a guide to the then-proposed new United States Constitution.  In particular, Mexico quotes Madison (presumed author of Federalist 42) for the proposition espoused by him that “… [i]f we are to be one nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other nations.” 

Ironically - or perhaps intentionally - Mexico’s New York lawyers neglect to include in their amicus brief a discussion of Madison’s other comments in Federalist 42 regarding the additional authority of nations, including the United States, to “… establish a uniform rule of naturalization…,” the very rules from which Mexico seeks exemption for its citizens who have knowingly and defiantly violated same.   

To repeat: the new Arizona laws are even less draconian than the federal laws which have been on the books for many decades, including federal laws which require all lawful aliens (and the term “alien” is a federal, not an Arizona, term) present in the country to at all times “carry their papers.” 

Specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1304(d) requires all lawfully-admitted aliens to be issued an alien registration card and 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) requires that the alien “…shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him….”   

In addition, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a) states: “Powers without warrant.  Any officer or employee of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have the power without warrant - (1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.”  (Emphasis added)

But wait: there’s more: 8 U.S.C. § 1357(c) states: “(c) Search without warrant. Any officer or employee of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Service authorized and designated under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, whether individually or as one of a class, shall have power to conduct a search, without warrant, of the person, and of the personal effects in the possession of any person seeking admission to the United States, concerning whom such officer or employee may have reasonable cause to suspect that grounds exist for denial of admission to the United States under this chapter which would be disclosed by such search.” (Emphasis added).

In effect, Mexico’s amicus brief adopts the anti-SB 1070 crowd’s argument advocating that those who have entered the country illegally must be accorded rights superior to those possessed by lawfully-admitted aliens who have obeyed the law.  The color of their skin somehow constitutes a shield against the equal application of the laws, not only a “get-out-of-jail-free” card, but a “don’t-even-ask-me-the-question” card.  This is the mindset which passes for “reasoning” in the pro-illegal immigrant lobby and, apparently, in Mexico City.  Absurd, not to mention laughable.  Must be the water.

Third, in what can only be described as a first-year law student blunder, Mexico’s lawyers cite (again, at p. 12 of the amicus brief) a case from the Ninth Circuit - United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) - which recognized and upheld an investigatory stop by Border Patrol agents that was justified by… wait for it… wait for it… a “reasonable suspicion” that violations of immigration, drug and/or firearm laws had occurred. 

Two Mexican citizens, originally lawfully-admitted to the United States under federal immigration I-586 cards, but now in violation of its restrictions, were stopped by the agents.  Because they were in violation of the travel limitations under the I-586 cards - which they carried on their persons and produced on demand -  they were detained.  Later, large quantities of marijuana were found in a companion car and a loaded .32 caliber pistol was found in the two Mexican citizens’ car. 

At trial, they all moved to suppress the evidence discovered after the stop and search on the grounds that the stop was not based on reasonable suspicion and was thus illegal.  The trial court denied the motion and they appealed.

Not only did a majority of the Ninth Circuit court disagree with the Mexicans, it summarily affirmed the lower court’s decision to allow the evidence in the prosecution.  Moreover, four Circuit Judges filed a concurring opinion saying that a prior Ninth Circuit case upon which the Mexicans’ lawyers relied - United States v. Oglivie, 527 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1975) - was “… just plain wrong and we should overrule it.”

Indeed, the out-of-context language from the case cited by the Mexico amicus brief comes from the concurring opinion in the case, not the majority opinion, which thought that the majority did not go far enough in validating the basis for the stop and overruling a prior decision of the court favoring the Mexicans’ position because it was “… just plain wrong.” 

Memo to Mexico’s first-year law students: when you’re trying to make a legal point to a court through citation to case law, try to find a decision that doesn’t support your opponent’s arguments. 

Yes, Virginia, there may yet be hope for the Ninth Circuit.  

Finally, and most troubling, the Mexican amicus brief literally puts words into Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s mouth in support of its objectives.  Mind you, these are words which the governor never uttered, at least not if one goes to the source where Mexico’s lawyers say the court and readers should look to confirm her words, i.e. here, but which are falsely (or, to be charitable, “erroneously”) attributed to her. 

Specifically, at page 15 of the brief, Mexico attributes to Governor Brewer the statement that she does “… not know what an illegal immigrant looks like….”  True.  She said that, although apparently in response to a reporter’s question and not as part of the video speech.  So assuming the CNN reporter got it right…. ahem… then let us assume Governor Brewer did say it.

However, the Mexico amicus brief then adds (see Mexico amicus at 15) the following inflammatory language attributed to Governor Brewer, which appears in neither the CNN video nor the textual quotes accompanying the video: “I can tell you that there are people in Arizona that assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like.  I don’t know if they know that for a fact or not, but…” and then the quote is merged into additional, accurate transcript.

This is outrageous.  If Mexico, Mexico’s lawyers, CNN or anyone else can produce proof that Governor Brewer uttered these words, they should produce the proof now.  Otherwise, the “sovereign” nation of Mexico is perpetrating a fraud upon a United States District Court.  

But then again, what’s a little fraud when the stakes are so high and the continued feckless enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws and its border with Mexico by the Obama regime is threatened.  Hey, if Obama can get away with “the Chicago way,” why can’t we also have “the Mexico City way?”

When all is said and done, Mexico’s amicus curiae brief - perhaps more accurately labeled an “amusing curious” brief - does more to assist Arizona’s position in the litigation than that of the plaintiffs it purports to support.  

Only in America.

There are several things which need to be kept in mind as the debate over Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigrant laws continues to boil. 

As a preliminary matter, however, consider this legal nugget: when a “bill” gets passed by the Legislature and sent to the Governor for signing, it thereafter gets filed with the Secretary of State for permanent safekeeping.  It is then assigned a “chapter” designation consisting of a number, usually determined by the sequence in the legislative session when the bill is delivered to the Secretary of State, and the Legislative session when it was enacted.  Thereafter, the “bill” number - in this debate, “SB 1070″ - becomes a footnote.  The “law” is “Chapter 113, Laws 2010, as amended Chapter 211, Laws 2010.”

OK, on to the meat.

First, if the federal government had been doing its job over the past, say, fifty years (yes, Virginia, both Republicans and Democrats must share responsibility for the nonfeasance which has produced the crisis), there would likely have been no need for Chapter 113, Laws 2010, as amended Chapter 211, Laws 2010. 

Because of the mind-boggling incompetence of federal officials in the past - including then-U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, now-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano - to do the necessary things to secure the border, the new laws are a direct outgrowth of that federal misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance in office.  Thank you so much, Secretary Napolitano… et al.

Second, if you understand nothing else in the debate, understand this: the furor over the new Arizona laws has nothing to do with any legitimate fear of “racial profiling,” that convenient, generic bromide coughed up by the Al Sharpton’s and Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon’s of the world who can muster no other rational argument against the law.

Instead, the faux rage has everything to do with fear that a largely race-based claimed license to violate immigration law based on skin color which federal indifference has allowed to grow and take root in the past will be put at risk of being suspended or, worse, revoked.  ¡Ay, Chihuahuas! 

Those who cry “racial profiling” when a state - today, Arizona; tomorrow, who knows? - tries to protect its citizens from the onslaught of illegal immigrants pouring over the border… somehow get a bad case of laryngitis when federal officials, however sporadically and ineffectively, ask: “may I see your papers, please?” 

Remember, Virginia, for over seventy years, the federal law has been that any non-citizen who has been allowed into the country - such a person being defined by federal statute as an “alien,” and not as a PC “undocumented immigrant” - must carry and be prepared to display documentary evidence confirming his authorized presence.  And it matters not if the person be a Hispanic from Mexico, a Caucasian from Canada or an Aborigine from Tasmania: race has nothing to do with it.  Nationality, rather than racial ethnicity, is what drives the law.

Oddly enough, virtually all of the illegal immigrants now crushing the economy of Arizona - not to mention those committing (in alphabetical order) assaults, burglaries, car-jackings, kidnappings, murders, rapes and robberies - are from Mexico or nations south of Mexico.  And, by the way, have you checked lately how Mexico treats illegal aliens from Guatemala, Nicaragua or El Salvador?

Because the vast majority of those people are also of Hispanic or mixed indigenous races, it is much easier and convenient to accuse those who would enforce the law as being motivated by racial bias rather than by what the real motivation is: protection of the border of one nation against the unlawful crossings and predations of citizens and residents of other nations.  Then again, reason and rational thought has never characterized the fulminations of the open-borders crowd.

A “nation” that fails - or as in the case of the United States under the current regime in charge, refuses - to enforce its borders is no longer a “nation;” it has become merely a Balkanized “region.”  That did not work out so well in Europe, so why the regime now in power seems so infatuated with it here remains a bit of a mystery.

Third, a distinction needs to be observed between situations when a law is held “unconstitutional” and situations when it is held “preempted.”  The new Arizona laws, utilizing the identical templates employed (but fallen into desuetude) by the federal government and which templates have long-ago been held constitutional by the United States Supreme Court, are not unconstitutional. 

That is why the focus of the sabers now being rattled by Eric “No-of-Course-I’ve-not-Read-the-Law” Holder is on the “preemption” legal doctrine.  Preemption does not depend upon the constitutionality of a law, but rather analyzes whether there is a compelling federal reason to preclude its operation, even if otherwise constitutional. Stated otherwise, a state law may still be completely constitutional, but nonetheless held not to apply because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution allows the federal law or scheme to simply trump or suspend its application.

That legal principle, distilled to its essence, states merely that if there is a subject matter area (say, immigration) as to which the federal government has so “occupied the field” as to leave no room for further involvement or “intrusion” by conflicting state laws which could impinge upon or impede the efficient execution and enforcement of the laws by the feds, then the state law will be “preempted” and not allowed to interfere.  Sadly, to use the terms “efficient” and “enforcement” in the same sentence when referring to federal actions regarding border security and illegal immigration is a gigantic linguistic non sequitur.

The Supreme Court has held that a state law can be pre-empted in one or more of three different ways.  First, Congress can define explicitly the extent to which its enactments pre-empt state law; second, in the absence of explicit statutory language, state law is pre-empted where it regulates conduct in a field that Congress intended the federal government to occupy exclusively; and third, state law is pre-empted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law.  See English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78-79 (1990). 

Despite what will undoubtedly be Señor Holder’s arguments to the contrary, none of those criteria fit the relationship between Arizona’s new laws and the federal scheme devised by Congress - not to be confused with the scheme for ”solving” the illegal immigration problem as seen by the Obama administration and its apparatchiks, also known as “amnesty” and automatic registration as a Democrat - to control illegal immigration.

As to the first criterion, nowhere in the federal laws addressing the issue is there the “explicit” directive that the states can have no role.  On the contrary, federal immigration laws are replete with references to instances where state law enforcement personnel and employees can be called upon to assist.  For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) is titled, and specifically addresses, the “Performance of immigration officer functions by State officers and employees.” 

Those functions, of course, are to be carried out under cooperative agreements between the state and the federal government, overseen by the Attorney General, and which must certify that the state personnel “shall have knowledge of, and adhere to, federal law relating to the function, and shall contain a written certification that the officers or employees performing the function under the agreement have received adequate training regarding the enforcement of relevant federal immigration laws.”  

To those with keen powers of observation, it should become readily apparent that, under this law, one way in which Señor Holder might be able to impede the efficient operation of Arizona’s new laws would be to simply refuse to enter into the required agreement.  In this way, he would be assured of garnering the approval of his boss, who has already labeled Arizona’s efforts as “misguided” and who has praised Mexico’s president (and Harvard alum) Felipe Calderon for bashing Arizona’s efforts from host-supplied podiums in the Rose Garden and in the Well of the House.  The new Arizona laws, however, are not dependent upon federal execution of such agreements. 

Still, the fact that the current Attorney General might be tempted to make the federal government an accomplice to and facilitator of the continued flood of illegal immigrants over Arizona’s southern border by refusing to enter into such agreements or threaten to do so does nothing to assist in his preemption argument.    

Plainly, Congress - not some transient executive branch employee - has not only refused explicitly to preempt state laws such as Arizona’s in the area, it has articulated precisely the opposite intent through enactment of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g).  The only thing Holder’s intransigence would do is underscore his sympathy for and support of the continued feckless federal policy of border non-enforcement and illegal immigrant free-passage across the border.

As for the second basis upon which preemption might occur, a congressional intent to preempt - again, not to be confused with an executive branch refusal to enforce - may be inferred from a scheme of federal regulation so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the states to supplement it, or where an act of Congress touches a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject. 

Once more, the enactment by Congress of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) answers the question, and answers it in an unambiguous and dispositive way.  Congress intends for the states to assist the federal government in the attainment of control and securing of the borders against foreign invasion.  Such a congressional intent can be equated with “frustrating” or “impeding” attainment of the federal goals only in the inverted, PC recesses of Eric Holder’s brain.

Finally, as to the third prong, state laws have been found pre-empted where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.  Since the Arizona laws track the federal laws regarding the identification and detainment of illegal border crossers, this criterion for preemption is also missing.

In short, the new Arizona laws will not only fail to impede or frustrate attainment of the congressional objectives, they will fill the void created by a lax, incompetent and insouciant federal immigration law enforcement bureaucracy which has allowed the problem to grow into the 900-pound gorilla now sulking in the corner and inexorably continuing to take its burdensome toll on the citizens and lawful residents of Arizona.

The irony of Attorney General Holder’s synthetic indignation over Arizona’s law (which of course he had not read before blasting) is that it actually emphasizes his true sentiments on the topic.  By falsely asserting that the law will encourage “racial profiling” - which, by the way, the law specifically prohibits… explicitly… - Holder buys into the prevarication that the color of one’s skin should be the litmus test for investigating whether one is an illegal alien or not. 

While lawfully-admitted aliens of whatever skin color can by federal immigration personnel be stopped and asked for their papers, and upon presentation of same be sent on their way with wishes to “have a good day,” illegal immigrants are somehow, through a weird, PC-driven, goof-ball process, to be accorded rights superior to those who have obeyed the law.  In this “1984″ world of hope and change we now enjoy - some might use the term “endure” instead - the Newspeak of Obama, coupled with the Doublethink of Holder, turns the notion of the “rule of law” on its head… and then excoriates as “racists” all who refuse to pay homage to such lunacy.

Earth to Eric Holder: lighten up on the Starbucks lattés and switch over to Walgreen’s smelling salts.

Mercifully, Arizona has seen through the fog - thickened and emulsified through misrepresentation, fabrication and journalistic malpractice by those who oppose the enforecement of the law - and enacted a set of laws which, with any kind of luck, will finally either stem the flow of illegal immigrants across the border or prod the federal government, at long last, to actually do something as opposed to merely rant over the temerity of a sovereign state of the union taking tangible steps to clean up the mess created by the federal government.  

Obama, Holder, Napolitano and their enablers are hypocrites; worse, they are hypocrites in office.  

For the moment.

As a follow-up to the prior post noting that the federal Justice Department is considering taking legal action against Arizona for having the gall to try to defend itself against the flood of illegal immigrants Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder seem incapable of identifying, much less stopping, the Arizona Ministry of Truth now reports on Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard’s position.

On Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer announced that, pursuant to a new grant of authority given to her by the Legislature, she intended to engage Arizona’s largest law firm, Snell & Wilmer, to defend the state against the various assaults now being launched by the open borders, amnesty now crowd.

Goddard, a Democrat, today responded that, as the elected Attorney General and chief legal officer of Arizona, his office - not S&W - would “continue defending Arizona” in the cases.  Goddard’s office noted that the grant of authority for Brewer to hire outside counsel would not, in any event, go into effect until July 28, 2010, the general effective date of the now widely-known (and erroneously labeled) SB 1070.

Interestingly, both Brewer and Goddard have a point.  Plainly, Brewer’s authority as governor to select legal representation other than the one which has in the past shown, at best, indifference to the problems of illegal immigration burdening the state in the aftermath of federal nonfeasance, is confirmed under Art. 5, Sections 1 and 9 of the Arizona Constitution. 

But until the law actually goes into effect, the Attorney General’s duties to defend the constitutionality of the law remain “as prescribed by law” already in existence.

Hmmmm…

The Ministry of Truth quotes Goddard as saying that, if the Justice Department files its threatened suit, he would “… vigorously defend the law.”   OOOoooo…. does that not make you feel soooo much better?  If Goddard’s assurance of a “vigorous defense” of the law is anything like the federal government’s “vigorous defense” of the southern border against the invasion under way from Mexico, Brewer’s actions in preparing to engage S&W would seem to be way more than prudent.

Let’s just hope that, between now and July 28, Goddard doesn’t get a call from Bill Clinton suggesting that if, before S&W can take the cases over, he could see his way to “vigorously defend” them in such a way that it will be easier to get the law killed after Brewer’s selected legal counsel gets it, well, maybe there’s something in it for him. Maybe a position in… say… Washington… after his likely loss to Brewer in November? 

Nah.  That could never happen. Could it….?  Could it?

The Arizona Ministry of Truth tabloid (formerly known as the “Arizona Republic”) now reports that the U.S. Justice Department - under the steady leadership of Eric “No-of-Course-I’ve-not-Read-the-Law” Holder - is prepared to challenge Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigrant laws (yes, Virginia, there actually are several different statutes involved).

The Ministry reports that the gist of the theory underlying the Justice Department’s case is that “…the state’s new immigration law is unconstitutional because it impinges on the federal government’s inherent authority to police the nation’s Southwest border with Mexico.”

Say what? 

For a state law legitimately to be “preempted” under the Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause,” the state law must impinge on an area of responsibility as to which the federal government still can make a credible claim of stewardship and enforcement. 

That is most assuredly NOT the case when it comes to enforcement of the border and protection of the citizens of Arizona and the United States or to “repel Invasions” as required under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 of the U.S. Constitution. 

The fact that “some” of the illegal aliens pouring over the border are not wielding AK-47’s does nothing to alter the truth that an invasion is nonetheless taking place and for decades has been accelerating under the increasingly non-existent presence of the federal government.  It’s almost as if the folks back in the Beltway want Arizona and California and much of the Southwest to revert to Aztlan.

Indeed, for decades - not just under the current Obama regime - the federal government has de facto abdicated and jettisoned any legitimate claim that it has effectively enforced the laws against illegal immigration.  Any claim at this point in time to the contrary is laughable.  Worse, the current regime seems intent on facilitating the continuing invasion of the nation rather than repelling it. 

And the recent announcement by the Guy from Chicago that 1,200 National Guard troops would be sent to the border is a joke, consistent with the laughable nature of the administration’s feckless treatment of the overall illegal immigration problem.  Bromides of “immigration reform” are no substitute for safety and freedom from the physical and financial burdens foisted on Arizonans by uncontrolled illegal immigration.

Even John “I’ve-had-an-Immigration-Epiphany-Because-J.D.-Wants-me-Out” McCain sees through what is essentially a PR stunt seemingly calculated to bolster Rep. Gabrielle Gifford’s fading campaign to remain in Congress, noting that at least 6,000 troops would be needed to give the effort a reasonable chance of succeeding. 

In fact, marching in lockstep with the Guy’s desires, the Senate yesterday “… repelled a move by… [Senator McCain] to send an additional 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.“  Ironic, no?  The Constitution requires the federal government to “repel Invasions,” yet The Chosen One’s congressional sycophants choose to “repel efforts” to impede the invasion. 

Is this a great country or what, now that hope and change are upon us?

Meanwhile, the State Department assures everyone (including Mexico) that even the 1,200 troops will not be used to intercept illegal immigrants.  Rather, their purpose will be to interdict drug traffickers and human smugglers (aka: illegal aliens).

So, while the folks in the Beltway fiddle, Arizona burns.  People march in the streets protesting Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigrant laws.  And while everyone from Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris to the editors at the Ministry of Truth fall all over themselves to assure everyone that Daniel Ledezma Martinez - accused murderer of Phoenix Police Officer Travis Murphy - was not an illegal alien but was born in Arizona and grew up here… will anyone dare ask the question: were his parents here lawfully when he was born, or is he merely an “anchor baby” born to an “undocumented immigrant” mother?

Oh…. sorry…. there are some questions which are just not allowed.  Forgive me.

Regrettably, until there is true “regime change” in Washington, D.C., look for more of the same here in Arizona.  Steps to defend Arizona’s sovereignty and the safety of its citizens will be met with ridicule and disdain.  Efforts to actually implement a halt to the tsunami of illegal immigrants will be “repelled” by the likes of, among others, Janet Napolitano.  And, sadly, more people - including police officers - will likely be sacrificed in the process. 

And if you doubt it, take a close look again at the picture above.       

Perhaps you watched Felipe Calderon, president of the largest third-world nation in the hemisphere, Mexico, this week while visiting el presidente (for the moment) Obama in the Rose Garden.  Later, Calderon addressed the Congress from the Well of the House, with Joe (”this-is-a-big-*******-deal”) Biden and Nancy (”partnership-not-partisanship”) Pelosi swooning in the background.

At both the Rose Garden set-up and the House charade, Calderon, courtesy of the loons now in charge (again, for the moment), was provided a perfect, red carpet platform…. to bash Arizona for having the gall to rise in its self defense against federal insouciance over the flood of illegal aliens pouring across the border. 

Never mind that the problem originates in Mexico; never mind that the federal government has virtually abdicated its responsibilities to enforce the nation’s southern boundaries against invasion; all that matters is that Arizona must be slammed for having the nerve to object.

In the House speech, Calderon relished the opportunity to criticize Arizona, in English, for its enactment of laws intended to fight the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico.  But the Rose Garden delivery was in Spanish, accompanied by an extraordinarily clumsy and awkward attempt at contemporaneous translation. 

Ah, but Virginia, thanks to new technology recently developed and leaked to us here by “reliable sources,” we now have access to a transcript of an accurate translation of both Calderon’s Rose Garden speech and clarification of the House delivery.  Check it out:

“Buenos morning, muchachos.  I am pleased that el presidente Obama … for now… and Señora Pelosi have given me thees opportunity to trash one of the states of your nation.  I speak, of course, of Arizona.  

“¡Ay, chihuahuas!   Who do theese people think they are?  Their enactment of SB 1070, seeking to stem the flow of my people into their state, ees outrageous!  Do they really tink my country can geeve the people who trek north the kind of rights and benefits they could get in America and Arizona?  Free emergency health care?  Anchor baby status for newborns?  Jobs that could be filled by otherwise unemployed Arizonans?  Better meals in prison for those convicted of crimes against Arizonans - usually wrongfully, I might add - than they could get in Meheeko?  Geeve me a break.

“Seriously, eat is shameful that Arizona has taken these steps - el presidente Obama called them ‘misguided’ I believe - in an attempt to upset the, how you say, apple-cart of free flow of my people north.  We are perfectly happy to have the federales of the U.S. of A. een charge of the eemmigration issue, because (eef I may speak confidentially), eat does such a wonderful job of allowing more and more of my people to take advantage of the benefits provided een Arizona and elsewhere. 

“Bear een mind, many of my people simply use Arizona as a gateway to other states een your country.  Once Arizona ees sucked dry of resources for my peoples’ healthcare, education of their kids, eencarceration for (did I mention, unjustly convicted?) felons, my people will need to go elsewhere to get these benefits.  How can they be expected to get to these other states eef Arizona, with eets misguided (thank you for that description, Mr. el presidente Obama) anti-eemmigrant policies are allowed to stand?  They will have to cross elsewhere, and that ees a grave injustice. 

“Eef they want to cross into Arizona, they should not be forced to divert to Caleefornia or Texas. That weel just increase global warming.  ¡Carambas!  The Arizona law must be overturned.  I demand it!

“Finally, I want to offer my deep, personal tanks, along weeth the tanks of my people, for the outstanding … truly magnificent way that your propagan…. excuse me… your free press in the U.S. of A. has misrep…. excuse me again… has represented and reported on the evils of thees Arizona law.  As we all know, reality must give way to perception when matters of thees nature are involved.  To do otherwise ees to encourage … forgive my use of the vulgarity… ‘racial profiling’. 

“Never mind that thee law of thee U.S. of A. has for over sixty years required foreigners to carry their ‘papers’ on them and answer questions regarding their status when asked by U.S. of A. immigration personnel.  What matters is the perception your nation’s media creates and leaves with the people that the Arizona law weel foster… again, forgive my use of the vulgarity… ‘racial profiling’… which can be performed only by U.S. of A. federales, and not Arizona law enforcement people.  As long, of course, as the federales decide to keep ignoring enforcement of the federal law.

“So, in closing, muchas gracias, el presidente y Señora Pelosi for allowing me thees forum to trash and denigrate Arizona.  Weethout your support and assistance, eat would have not been possible. ¡Muchas gracias!  ¡Viva la raza!  ¡Viva Meheeko!  ¡Si se puede!”  

But wait!  There’s more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ4AFE0aU8A

Tell me again the hypocrisy of Obama, Pelosi and the likes of Calderon is the species of “hope and change” everyone expected.  Go ahead… tell me.

Unbelievable.  Absolutely unbelievable.  The hysterical, irrational and baseless rage being coughed up by the mainstream media, liberals and leftist “thinkers” over Governor Brewer’s signing of SB 1070.  To listen to Al Sharpton, Phil Gordon, Raul Grijalva and even the current tenant of the White House, you’d think she had teamed up with Lucifer himself to convert Arizona into a racist, Nazi concentration camp.  And Steve Benson’s juvenile, third-grade scrawls in the Arizona Ministry of Truth tabloid merely underscore the goofy reaction of those peddling their “boycott Arizona” message from San Francisco to the Potomac.

Attention all who wish learn the truth: read on.

Ah, I see that we’ve now lost Barack (”I-am-too-eligible”) Obama, Janet (”I-fear-trepidation-in-the-illegal-immigrant-community”) Napolitano and Eric (”I-um-er-well-that’s-something-I’ll-need-to-research”) Holder.  Oh well, no big deal.  For those still here, consider the following “inconvenient truths” which Messrs. Obama and Holder, as well as Ms. Napolitano and the tide of illegal immigrant advocates surrounding them “hope” you will ignore regarding SB 1070.

First, speaking of Napolitano, had she done anything more than approximately zip while serving as U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona (yes, Virginia, as a federal officer under Bill Clinton), when the tsunami of illegal aliens now flooding over the southern border was but a small fraction of what it now is, perhaps SB 1070 would not have been needed at all. 

But since she essentially ignored the problem - not only as U.S. Attorney, but also when she was Arizona Attorney General and Arizona Governor - it comes with ill grace for her to now criticize Arizona and Governor Brewer’s proactive efforts to clean up the mess she helped create before she high-tailed it out of town to join the regime now in charge in Washington.  But then again, no one ever accused Napolitano of being graceful.

Second, the cries of “racial profiling” and “jackbooted police” indiscriminately stopping “brown-skinned people” and demanding that they “show me your papers, please” rings as hollow and an empty piñata.  Why?  Well, because if SB 1070 causes or facilitates racial profiling, it is in much the same way that spoons cause or facilitate obesity. 

Current federal law must therefore also cause or facilitate racial profiling, since it already requires all legally-admitted aliens to carry “at all times” their alien registration documents.  Specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1304(d) requires all aliens to be issued an alien registration card and 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) requires that the alien “…shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him….” 

Third, if a federal officer (or, after SB 1070 training, an Arizona officer) has Fourth Amendment “probable cause” coupled with a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is not in the country lawfully, that person can be stopped and the alien registration documents requested (the dreaded “may I see your papers, please?”).  But as noted, federal law already specifically requires that the person who has entered lawfully into the country carry those papers on his/her person at all times, and whether the paper is a visa, an alien registration card, a passport or other similar document. 

The inflammatory anti-SB 1070 crowd thus seems to be advocating that those who have entered the country illegally have rights superior to those possessed by persons who have obeyed the law.  The color of their skin somehow constitutes a shield against the equal application of the laws, not only a “get-out-of-jail-free” card, but a “don’t-even-ask-me-the-question” card.  This is the mindset which passes for “reasoning” in the pro-illegal immigrant lobby.

Will there be instances where the potential for “profiling” is higher than others?  Of course.  But as the Supreme Court has already noted in Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996): “The standards of ‘reasonable suspicion’ and ‘probable cause,’ as used to evaluate the constitutionality of investigative stops and searches, are not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules but rather are commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent persons, not legal technicians, act; these standards are fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts in which the standards are being assessed.”

Accordingly, the appropriate remedy is to address those instances of “real” (as well as “purported”) “profiling” as and when they arise rather than completely eliminating federal immigration laws - and along with them, laws like SB 1070 - which is essentially what the “amnesty-now” crowd wants.  People like Sharpton, Gordon and Grijalva much prefer the amnesty-lite approach to enforcement that people like Janet Napolitano gave to Arizona than the expanded enforcement that SB 1070, thanks to Governor Brewer, now authorizes.  At least Arizona now has a Governor looking out for Arizonans rather than maneuvering for the next governmental appointment.

So, boys and girls, the fact is that SB 1070 is no more unconstitutional than is 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e)…. meaning: it is not unconstitutional.  Those who oppose reasonable, rational attempts by governors like Jan Brewer to protect Arizonans by addressing the very problems that the federal government has created, yet refuses to competently rectify, are from the same DNA pool of “useful idiots” that Lenin applauded as Russia careened down the hole of communism last century. 

These apparatchiks of amnesty are content with keeping the federal scheme in place, as long as it remains feckless and ineffective.  But as soon as initiatives appear which portend effective enforcement of the law or threaten the continuation of porous and incompetent border enforcement, the cries of “profiling,” “racism,” “police state” and “immigration reform now” reach a crescendo… much of it in Spanish.

Enough, already.  If the regime now in charge in Washington cares not about the fate of the State of Arizona, then it is time for Arizona to fend for itself.  Let us see if the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment still have any vitality.  Through the steady hand of Jan Brewer, applying her signature to SB 1070, the process has begun. 

After having endured the immigration insouciance and incompetency of the prior governor, it’s about time that Arizona got back on track.  SB 1070 is a start… and a welcome “change” from the past, at that.

From the Internet, and too good not to pass along:

Dear Lord, in the past year you have taken away my favorite actor (Patrick Swayze), my favorite actress (Farah Fawcett), my favorite musician (Michael Jackson), and my favorite salesperson (Billy Mays).  I just wanted to let you know that my favorite legislator is Nancy Pelosi.  Amen.

As the dictatorship of the American proletariat gathers steam through the now-seeming inevitable passage of legislation which will nationalize one-sixth of the nation’s economy, the electorate should consider a few things.

First, none of this had to happen.  Had congressional Republicans as a whole been more responsible stewards of the public trust that had been deposited with them following the 1994 Contract With America, the disaffection of the voters with George W. Bush and Republicans in general would likely not have been as deep or pronounced.  Oh, and some unknown politician/community organizer from Illinois likely would not now be occupying the Oval Office.

Second, I’m not kidding when I use the word “dictatorship” to reference what is overtaking the country.  When sixty people in the U.S. Senate, goaded forward by The Guy from Chicago, can ram up America’s collective nose a piece of legislation intended to nationalize one-sixth of the nation’s economy, and over the protests of nearly two-thirds of them, no word other than “dictatorship” comes closer. 

And never mind that the proposed legislation is patently unconstitutional.  These guys are from Chicago, as in, “they send one of our statutes to the hospital, we send their Constitution to the morgue.”  As Rham Emanuel instructs us: “We won, you lost.  Get over it.”  Oh, and if the regime gets one or two new Supreme Court nomination opportunities, look out.

Third, the only thing that now might drive a stake through this vampire’s ticker is an outbreak of statesmanship, an exceedingly unlikely pandemic, but not completely beyond the realm of possibility.  To indulge in a really appealing fantasy, if enough Blue Dog Democrat Senators - and plain old Democrat Senators with half a brain left after being laundered by Harry Reid (thus excluding Al Franken) - would come to their senses and, at minimum, vote against The Monstrosity Masquerading as Healthcare Reform, perhaps we will survive and the dictatorship could be crippled.  Sorry… how un-PC… the dictatorship could be prosthesis necessitated.

Otherwise, it’s anyone’s guess.  I know… I know… on a scale of 1-10, the likelihood of that happening is around 0.00003.  Still, 0.00003 is bigger than zero.  And remember what Churchill said: “Never give up.  Never.”  To that point, just yesterday, one Democrat House member - Parker Griffith - announced his intention to switch parties and become a Republican, but not because he’s had a sudden epiphany that he’s secretly always been a conservative. 

Rather, in a fit of statesmanship, Griffith, a radiation oncologist in his prior life, explained: “I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt.”

Precisely.  

Look, if one rational congressman can come to his senses and actually place country ahead of politics, as from appearances has Griffith, maybe others will follow, not only in the House, but in the Senate.  Whoa… Joe Lieberman could make a lot of Americans happy if he would emulate Griffith.  As an added bonus, Harry Reid would be really torqued.  Cool.

And if Lieberman started a trend, who knows, perhaps a bunch of others would succumb to the pestilence of statesmanship beginning to infect Congress, despite all efforts of The Guy from Chicago, Harry Reid and Janet Napolitano to rush more federal vaccine - also known as taxpayer money - to the Senate.  And maybe the nation would enjoy a Merry Christmas after all. 

Hey, you have your fantasies, I have mine…. get over it.

The lunacy of placing into the hands of the federal government the responsibility for the healthcare of Americans seems to be finally dawning on the Congress and the White House.  Who says an American grassroots movement can’t accomplish anything?

Tell me again why we should turn over 15% of our economy - healthcare - to the federal government when virtually everything it has touched for over two and a quarter centuries has gone or is going broke?  

For example, Congress established the U.S. Postal Service in 1775 - they have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke. Social Security was established in 1935 - they have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke. Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - they have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.  The “War on Poverty” started in 1964 - they have had 45 years to get it right, with trillions of dollars in taxes and borrowed money being spent only to be told the problem is that we haven’t spent nearly enough.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - they have had 44 years to get it right; they’re broke. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - they have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.

Trillions of dollars in the massive stimulus called the TARP bill and they don’t know where billions of it went or if they will ever get it back.  And The Fed refuses to disclose to whom it has loaned over two trillion dollars, claiming “irreparable damage” will occur to the borrowers if their identities are disclosed.

And the country is now in debt to the tune of some 9 trillion dollars and the government wants to “save money” by running healthcare, the same government that spends 1.4 cents to make a single penny?
Are they crazy?

To quote Richard Russell, from a Dow Theory Letters excerpt now circulating on the Internet: “Let me get this straight - Obama’s health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it, and whose members are exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes in secret, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.  What could possibly go wrong?”

To quote another sage mind on the issues, Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Like Obama cares.