By William L. Garvin
A good friend of mine is a Formula One racing fanatic. He laughingly characterizes NASCAR as nothing more than "left turn, left turn, left turn…." My stock car friends don't appreciate this evaluation but it certainly does describe what passes as progressive thought in this country. The round and round, over and under, in and out pretzel logic of leftist thought has produced a Gordian knot of gigantic and unintelligible proportions. This is mainly due to the lack of consistency in any of their positions or viewpoints.
A month ago, a local contributor charged me with being an anarchist; last week, an anonymous writer charged me with "advocating the wholesale destruction of civil liberties of American citizens…." I'd like to be accommodating but come on people! No one is flexible enough to manage both ends of that 180 degree left turn. Please make up your collective minds. (Yes, I chose "collective" for a purpose.)
Any careful reader of my commentaries would know that I am a Constitutional Conservative and abhor the destruction of civil liberties. Our Federal government is growing at a cancerous rate and is threatening civil liberty on an unprecedented scale. The feds have no right to decide that Lehman Brothers dies and Goldman Sachs lives. The feds have no right to take over automobile manufacturers and give unions precedence over secured bond holders. The feds have no right to nationalize my health records and give access to countless new bureaucratic entities. The feds have no right to access my bank records and seize those assets if I have not purchased their mandated health insurance…which they have no constitutional right to require in the first place. The feds have no right to unilaterally decide that a company is too big to fail, seize their operations, and sell off their components with no right to appeal. However, TARP, Stimulus, Obamacare, and Financial Reform do exactly that.
My unknown critic goes on to proclaim "American citizens should never have to repeatedly prove that they are citizens and have their everyday lives interrupted." Here's where pretzel logic begins. You are arguing against a position I do not hold. It's a straw man argument lacking in context or content. The Arizona law, as do all state laws, requires that someone detained for a violation of the law provide identification. If they can't provide ID and the officer has reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally, he/she can ask for proof of legal admission which federal law requires that they carry. I'm sorry if this inconveniences lawbreakers but…too bad.
The next straw man in pretzel logic: "They should also be able to ride BART and not be shot at." Well of course they should. However, I had nothing to say about Oscar Grant until now. For the record, Oscar Grant was not peacefully riding BART when the incident occurred. Nonetheless, it is tragic that he lost his life. Officer Mehserle was charged, tried, and convicted of involuntary manslaughter by a jury of his peers who heard all the evidence. Apparently, that's not enough for some people. There are those who prefer vigilante justice and there are others who would string him up from the nearest tree. These could be the same folks who carry around the "Free Mumia" signs and would grant immediate clemency for a convicted cop killer. For others, it was just an opportunity to get the latest cool Nike kicks.
As for "I think guys like him get all their news from FOX news and Rush Limbaugh…," you are obviously not a careful reader of my commentaries. If you were, you would know that I am a pretty good researcher and develop my material from a wide variety of sources. It's been said that "you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts." Go ahead and offer your opinion but don't put words in my mouth. I think I'm capable of speaking for myself. It's just more pretzel logic.
If you are really concerned about the "destruction of personal liberty," why don't you research this New York Times article: "The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki…'It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing,' officials said." No arrest, no Miranda, no defense, no trial, just summary execution. No worries about civil liberties there, eh mate?
.
.
.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Beacon--Letter to the Editor--July 25
Dear Editor:
I thought I'd respond to the anonymous (sic) commenter who thinks I'm blindly in love with Sarah Palin. Experience has shown me that the only happily married woman you should be in love with is your own wife. Since my name is not Todd Palin, I guess I'll just stay in love with my beautiful wife right here in little old Rio Vista.
I will say, however, I'd rather be blindly in love than in the blind rage that most PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) sufferers experience. Like most of those on the JournoList, they chorus the same regurgitated and choreographed malevolence that started on day one. "She's a quitter." As if she didn't have a right to protect her family from bankruptcy. If you'd really like to know how her financial failure was being orchestrated check out the links between Andree McLeod, Anchorage Daily News, the Perkins Coie law firm, the Democrat National Committee and the Obama Administration. Or maybe you don't think women should be the primary breadwinner in a family, is that it?
And what's with the"bad mother" motif? You left out the "Trig is not her baby" smear which is supposed to be chanted simultaneously. Her adult son enlisted in the Army and has served a tour in Iraq. Her adult daughter is living on her own, going to college and working. Her two youngest traveled with her on the book tour. Her middle daughter is still in high school and was quite capably cared for by her father while she was on tour. Maybe you think that men aren't capable of being "Mr. Mom"? How traditional. The shrinks would have a field day with that one. Maybe I can drag you kicking and screaming all the way into the twentieth century.
If there's a Jerry Springer wannabe in "elite journalism", I'd suggest you check out Ed Schultz, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow. If you do, you'll double their viewing audience at MessNBC. Inquiring minds would also like to know, exactly what are "winkled noses"?
There is hope. Admit you have a problem. Seek professional help. Give up the hating. Just forget about that irrelevant, quitter, uneducated, bad mom, money making, folksy Momma Grizzly from Wasilly and go out and have yourself a really good day!
SINCERELY!
William L. Garvin
.
.
.
I thought I'd respond to the anonymous (sic) commenter who thinks I'm blindly in love with Sarah Palin. Experience has shown me that the only happily married woman you should be in love with is your own wife. Since my name is not Todd Palin, I guess I'll just stay in love with my beautiful wife right here in little old Rio Vista.
I will say, however, I'd rather be blindly in love than in the blind rage that most PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) sufferers experience. Like most of those on the JournoList, they chorus the same regurgitated and choreographed malevolence that started on day one. "She's a quitter." As if she didn't have a right to protect her family from bankruptcy. If you'd really like to know how her financial failure was being orchestrated check out the links between Andree McLeod, Anchorage Daily News, the Perkins Coie law firm, the Democrat National Committee and the Obama Administration. Or maybe you don't think women should be the primary breadwinner in a family, is that it?
And what's with the"bad mother" motif? You left out the "Trig is not her baby" smear which is supposed to be chanted simultaneously. Her adult son enlisted in the Army and has served a tour in Iraq. Her adult daughter is living on her own, going to college and working. Her two youngest traveled with her on the book tour. Her middle daughter is still in high school and was quite capably cared for by her father while she was on tour. Maybe you think that men aren't capable of being "Mr. Mom"? How traditional. The shrinks would have a field day with that one. Maybe I can drag you kicking and screaming all the way into the twentieth century.
If there's a Jerry Springer wannabe in "elite journalism", I'd suggest you check out Ed Schultz, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow. If you do, you'll double their viewing audience at MessNBC. Inquiring minds would also like to know, exactly what are "winkled noses"?
There is hope. Admit you have a problem. Seek professional help. Give up the hating. Just forget about that irrelevant, quitter, uneducated, bad mom, money making, folksy Momma Grizzly from Wasilly and go out and have yourself a really good day!
SINCERELY!
William L. Garvin
.
.
.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
NAACP—You Lie!
By William L. Garvin
“Be angry but do not sin.”Ephesians 4:26
Anger is usually an unproductive emotion but there are times when righteous anger is appropriate. When Michelle Obama delivered her keynote speech to the 101st meeting of the NAACP, she encouraged them to “increase our intensity.” Since she was talking about childhood obesity and failures in education, the NAACP had the opportunity to come out in support of vouchers so black children could escape failing schools. Did they? No!
Did they choose to condemn irresponsible fathers for 70% of black children being born out of wedlock? No! Did they condemn the lawless element of the black community for being 39% of the criminal convictions even though blacks only comprise 12% of the population? No! Did they further condemn this lawless black element for being responsible for 90% of the homicides of black brothers and sisters? No!
Surely then they would increase their intensity and distance themselves from the blatant and hateful racist speech of Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party who proclaimed the world’s number one terrorist to be George Bush and lauded Osama Bin Laden or his acolyte Malik Zulu Shabazz who shouted “…every last iota of cracker, I hate him…kill some crackers…kill some of their white babies!” Oh, no! Instead they chose to attack the Tea Party Movement and Sarah Palin for their alleged “explicit racist behavior.” Excuse me?!
If ever there was a time when the pot called the kettle black, this was it. The aptly named Ben Jealous, National President of the NAACP said he had seen signs saying “Lynch Barack Hussein Obama.” He has no proof. He said he had seen signs saying “Lynch Eric Holder.” He has no proof. Once again he repeated the charge that members of the Congressional Black Caucus had been spit on and called the “n” word. Every camera angle that recorded this event indicates that these phantom incidents did not happen. The $100,000 reward for proof of any these scurrilous charges remains unclaimed. If you’re going to levy the ugliest and heaviest of charges, you need to have clear and convincing evidence and he has no substantiation or basis in fact whatsoever!
If Mr. Jealous actually wanted fact instead of fiction, he could have gone to the Black Tea Party Patriots website. He could have talked to the black Americans who have founded or co –founded local Tea Party groups. He could have listened to some of the speakers at the Tea Party gatherings who are black. But he didn’t want fact; he wanted his ugly, divisive fiction.
Many black Americans have real experiences with racism. Unfortunately, some of these experiences are with organizations such as the NAACP who label black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams with names like “Uncle Tom”, “Oreo”, or “Negro.” They are ostracized because they aren’t black enough when they don’t vote the Democrat party line. Now, millions of white Americans who believe that this country is on the wrong path and exercise their right to gather and protest have now been unfairly tainted with the label of racist by Mr. Jealous. It’s a lie and the charge will not stand.
Mr. Jealous also charged the Tea Party with being a progeny of the White Citizens Council. That’s sheer stupidity. The WCC was founded in 1954 by Mississippi Democrats to fight the integration of schools after the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. This is more revisionist history by an organization that wants to forget that the Ku Klux Klan was a Democrat domestic terrorist organization that targeted Republicans along with black Americans.
These charges reek of desperation. It’s a transparent attempt to intimidate, to distract, and to change the subject. It is becoming clearer each day that the $862 billion stimulus gamble has failed. It is becoming clearer each day that unemployment will not improve this year. It is becoming clearer each day that Obamacare is not going to reduce health care costs. It is patently obvious today that Obamacare will fund abortions despite the Presidential Executive Order. It’s patently obvious that Financial Reform has ignored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the flash point catalysts to the housing bust.
Worst of all is the inescapable conclusion that the august NAACP organization, with these spurious and baseless charges, has reduced itself to nothing more than a pathetic propaganda arm for a failing and flailing administration. Nice try but the Tea Party is not willing to sit passively by and become your whipping boy. And before you jump up and shout that “whipping boy” is a racist term, look it up. A mind is a terrible thing to waste!
.
.
.
“Be angry but do not sin.”Ephesians 4:26
Anger is usually an unproductive emotion but there are times when righteous anger is appropriate. When Michelle Obama delivered her keynote speech to the 101st meeting of the NAACP, she encouraged them to “increase our intensity.” Since she was talking about childhood obesity and failures in education, the NAACP had the opportunity to come out in support of vouchers so black children could escape failing schools. Did they? No!
Did they choose to condemn irresponsible fathers for 70% of black children being born out of wedlock? No! Did they condemn the lawless element of the black community for being 39% of the criminal convictions even though blacks only comprise 12% of the population? No! Did they further condemn this lawless black element for being responsible for 90% of the homicides of black brothers and sisters? No!
Surely then they would increase their intensity and distance themselves from the blatant and hateful racist speech of Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party who proclaimed the world’s number one terrorist to be George Bush and lauded Osama Bin Laden or his acolyte Malik Zulu Shabazz who shouted “…every last iota of cracker, I hate him…kill some crackers…kill some of their white babies!” Oh, no! Instead they chose to attack the Tea Party Movement and Sarah Palin for their alleged “explicit racist behavior.” Excuse me?!
If ever there was a time when the pot called the kettle black, this was it. The aptly named Ben Jealous, National President of the NAACP said he had seen signs saying “Lynch Barack Hussein Obama.” He has no proof. He said he had seen signs saying “Lynch Eric Holder.” He has no proof. Once again he repeated the charge that members of the Congressional Black Caucus had been spit on and called the “n” word. Every camera angle that recorded this event indicates that these phantom incidents did not happen. The $100,000 reward for proof of any these scurrilous charges remains unclaimed. If you’re going to levy the ugliest and heaviest of charges, you need to have clear and convincing evidence and he has no substantiation or basis in fact whatsoever!
If Mr. Jealous actually wanted fact instead of fiction, he could have gone to the Black Tea Party Patriots website. He could have talked to the black Americans who have founded or co –founded local Tea Party groups. He could have listened to some of the speakers at the Tea Party gatherings who are black. But he didn’t want fact; he wanted his ugly, divisive fiction.
Many black Americans have real experiences with racism. Unfortunately, some of these experiences are with organizations such as the NAACP who label black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams with names like “Uncle Tom”, “Oreo”, or “Negro.” They are ostracized because they aren’t black enough when they don’t vote the Democrat party line. Now, millions of white Americans who believe that this country is on the wrong path and exercise their right to gather and protest have now been unfairly tainted with the label of racist by Mr. Jealous. It’s a lie and the charge will not stand.
Mr. Jealous also charged the Tea Party with being a progeny of the White Citizens Council. That’s sheer stupidity. The WCC was founded in 1954 by Mississippi Democrats to fight the integration of schools after the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. This is more revisionist history by an organization that wants to forget that the Ku Klux Klan was a Democrat domestic terrorist organization that targeted Republicans along with black Americans.
These charges reek of desperation. It’s a transparent attempt to intimidate, to distract, and to change the subject. It is becoming clearer each day that the $862 billion stimulus gamble has failed. It is becoming clearer each day that unemployment will not improve this year. It is becoming clearer each day that Obamacare is not going to reduce health care costs. It is patently obvious today that Obamacare will fund abortions despite the Presidential Executive Order. It’s patently obvious that Financial Reform has ignored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the flash point catalysts to the housing bust.
Worst of all is the inescapable conclusion that the august NAACP organization, with these spurious and baseless charges, has reduced itself to nothing more than a pathetic propaganda arm for a failing and flailing administration. Nice try but the Tea Party is not willing to sit passively by and become your whipping boy. And before you jump up and shout that “whipping boy” is a racist term, look it up. A mind is a terrible thing to waste!
.
.
.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Border Security is NOT Racism!—Part Two
By William L. Garvin
“A nation without borders is not a nation.” President Ronald Reagan
A nation that cannot control its borders cannot control its culture. A nation that cannot control its borders or its culture cannot survive. Rather than deploying federal troops to tame Arizona’s chaotic and lawless border with Mexico, the Obama Administration chose to deploy its lawyers to sue a state that is desperately trying to defend itself from an invasion of drug cartels and human smugglers.
Apparently the Justice Department freed up the necessary resources by refusing to prosecute the New Black Panther Party members who were blatantly intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place. It also refuses to prosecute “sanctuary cities” that actively interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Attorney General Holder (who previously accused Americans of being “cowardly” on race) has declined to elaborate on either issue. One can at least hope that by now he has actually read the Arizona law.
All the hue and cry and handwringing to date about the “ill conceived” Arizona legislation (which parallels the federal law) was about potential racial profiling and civil rights violations. Curiously, the DOJ lawsuit does NOT cite this as a cause for action. Do you think it’s because careful crafting of the Arizona law specifically prohibits racial profiling and is even more restrictive in this regard than the federal law?
Why are they putting so much time, money, and energy into suing a state for a law that does not take effect until the end of the month? After all, Missouri has already taken a stand against illegal immigration. Voters in the “Show Me” state declared English to be the official language in 2007 by an overwhelming margin. The next year, Governor Matt Blunt signed House Bill 1549 which his office called “some of the strongest legislation in the country to fight illegal immigration.” It prohibits the state from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants and imposes criminal penalties for anyone who tries to help them get one. It requires that commercial driver’s license written tests only be given in English. Sanctuary cities are prohibited from receiving any grant money from the state. It requires that the immigration status of anyone who is arrested be determined. Businesses can be penalized for hiring illegal immigrants and the courts have already ruled that provision lawful and not preempted by Federal law. It requires proof of legal status when applying for food stamps, housing, or other public benefits. It also prohibits illegal aliens from attending state universities or receiving state grants or scholarships. Why no uproar?
So who profits by continuing the “open border” chaos in Arizona? Certainly the Mexican drug cartels will profit. Since they are already homesteading the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, maybe they will branch out into real estate and subdivide the lots for commercial development. Certainly the coyotes will profit as they continue their human trafficking. There are already significant concerns about terrorists “hooking up” with the drug traffickers for access onto American soil. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Queda don’t have to reinvent the wheel. All they have to do is pay for passage through the impotent Federal security forces. Mexico profits by getting a goodly portion of the salaries illegal immigrants earn in the United States returned to families in Mexico.
Let’s not forget Mexican nationalists. The La Reconquista movement is heartened and probably profits by a continued open border. This is a concept advanced by the Chicano nationalists of the 1970’s to create the mythical Aztec homeland of “Aztlan.” This requires the “reconquering” of the American Southwest, i.e., California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. This goal is supported by La Raza and MECHA. They are prominent participants in immigration rallies.
The La Reconquista goal pales in comparison to the Mexica Movement which claims that all of North and Central America belongs to indigenous peoples and current borders and governments are all colonial. Their goal is to deport all “white Europeans” back to Europe. They are currently actively soliciting funds to protest “Nazi Arizona.” These and many other latino and “human rights” organizations actively support this illegal invasion by providing maps, water, food, clothing and sanctuary to those who are unlawfully entering this country.
In utter defiance of the will of the American public, the Obama administration not only fails to secure the Arizona border (as did its predecessors) but it deliberately interferes with a state’s ability to protect itself and its citizens. Mr. President, a nation without borders is not a nation. Protect your country!
“A nation without borders is not a nation.” President Ronald Reagan
A nation that cannot control its borders cannot control its culture. A nation that cannot control its borders or its culture cannot survive. Rather than deploying federal troops to tame Arizona’s chaotic and lawless border with Mexico, the Obama Administration chose to deploy its lawyers to sue a state that is desperately trying to defend itself from an invasion of drug cartels and human smugglers.
Apparently the Justice Department freed up the necessary resources by refusing to prosecute the New Black Panther Party members who were blatantly intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place. It also refuses to prosecute “sanctuary cities” that actively interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Attorney General Holder (who previously accused Americans of being “cowardly” on race) has declined to elaborate on either issue. One can at least hope that by now he has actually read the Arizona law.
All the hue and cry and handwringing to date about the “ill conceived” Arizona legislation (which parallels the federal law) was about potential racial profiling and civil rights violations. Curiously, the DOJ lawsuit does NOT cite this as a cause for action. Do you think it’s because careful crafting of the Arizona law specifically prohibits racial profiling and is even more restrictive in this regard than the federal law?
Why are they putting so much time, money, and energy into suing a state for a law that does not take effect until the end of the month? After all, Missouri has already taken a stand against illegal immigration. Voters in the “Show Me” state declared English to be the official language in 2007 by an overwhelming margin. The next year, Governor Matt Blunt signed House Bill 1549 which his office called “some of the strongest legislation in the country to fight illegal immigration.” It prohibits the state from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants and imposes criminal penalties for anyone who tries to help them get one. It requires that commercial driver’s license written tests only be given in English. Sanctuary cities are prohibited from receiving any grant money from the state. It requires that the immigration status of anyone who is arrested be determined. Businesses can be penalized for hiring illegal immigrants and the courts have already ruled that provision lawful and not preempted by Federal law. It requires proof of legal status when applying for food stamps, housing, or other public benefits. It also prohibits illegal aliens from attending state universities or receiving state grants or scholarships. Why no uproar?
So who profits by continuing the “open border” chaos in Arizona? Certainly the Mexican drug cartels will profit. Since they are already homesteading the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, maybe they will branch out into real estate and subdivide the lots for commercial development. Certainly the coyotes will profit as they continue their human trafficking. There are already significant concerns about terrorists “hooking up” with the drug traffickers for access onto American soil. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Queda don’t have to reinvent the wheel. All they have to do is pay for passage through the impotent Federal security forces. Mexico profits by getting a goodly portion of the salaries illegal immigrants earn in the United States returned to families in Mexico.
Let’s not forget Mexican nationalists. The La Reconquista movement is heartened and probably profits by a continued open border. This is a concept advanced by the Chicano nationalists of the 1970’s to create the mythical Aztec homeland of “Aztlan.” This requires the “reconquering” of the American Southwest, i.e., California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. This goal is supported by La Raza and MECHA. They are prominent participants in immigration rallies.
The La Reconquista goal pales in comparison to the Mexica Movement which claims that all of North and Central America belongs to indigenous peoples and current borders and governments are all colonial. Their goal is to deport all “white Europeans” back to Europe. They are currently actively soliciting funds to protest “Nazi Arizona.” These and many other latino and “human rights” organizations actively support this illegal invasion by providing maps, water, food, clothing and sanctuary to those who are unlawfully entering this country.
In utter defiance of the will of the American public, the Obama administration not only fails to secure the Arizona border (as did its predecessors) but it deliberately interferes with a state’s ability to protect itself and its citizens. Mr. President, a nation without borders is not a nation. Protect your country!
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye! Style Court is now in session.
Allegation: People who use exclamation points or write in capitals "have difficulty formulating a convincing argument."
Rebuttal: The premise is...PATENTLY ABSURD! Capitals, exclamation points and bolded fonts are common and acceptable literary devices used for emphasis or to demonstrate intensity.
Allegation: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Monroe were unfairly criticized because of their "well written and thought out" letters.
Rebuttal: That is revisionist history. Neither individual was an innocent victim of unprovoked attacks. In fact, they both instigated the conflict. Mr. Monroe oxymoronically equated the Tea Party movement with anarchy. He provided no factual basis or logic to support his indefensible statement. Mr. Cohen knowingly and persistently uses an insulting and offensive slur in his references to the Tea Party. Not everyone is willing to turn the other cheek.
When you decide to impose rules of discourse, please insure that liberal contributors follow the same rules of engagement. You ask for "intelligent debate" and fear Mr. Mann and Dr. Bellrose will be subjected to criticism. Did you note that Mr. Mann in his criticisms of the Tea Party said "Their hero is Sarah Palin, who is poorly educated and uninformed but believes herself fit for the presidency." Do you support or oppose his unsupported, inaccurate and elitist statement?
For the record, after working and paying her way through college, Sarah Palin was elected to city council, elected for two terms as the youngest mayor/city manager of her hometown, elected to serve as president of the council of mayors, appointed to serve on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, elected to serve as chair, subsequently chaired the U.S. Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, elected as Governor of Alaska after taking on corruption in her own party, accomplished 95% of her policy initiatives including taking on and defeating Big Oil within three years, maintained an 80% approval rating and improved a state budget that was six times larger than the budget of Arkansas when Bill Clinton was Governor. She subsequently received the GOP nomination for Vice President, only the second woman to achieve these heights. All the while, she was raising five children and helping run the family's small business. Since then she has written a national best seller, penned numerous op-ed pieces for major metropolitan newspapers, become a Fox News analyst and is a much in demand speaker represented by the prestigious Washington Speakers Bureau.
You stated "So if you want to discuss the constitutionality of something, then by all means specifically quote the part of the Constitution or the amendment that you are referring to." Dr. Bellrose in her lengthy criticism of the Tea Party and things in general said "The Constitution is a document with many amendments--can someone provide me with more detail?" Does that meet your expectation of the requisite specificity and detail? Now if she wants to know why I think the unconstitutional expansion and interpretation of the Commerce Clause by the current legislature and its continually expanding interpretation of General Welfare would render the limited and enumerated powers of the Federal government nonsensical, we could have that discussion.
Until such time as liberal and/or leftist contributors live up to your stated expectations, don't expect unilateral disarmament. Don't expect a date certain for withdrawal. Don't expect the nuclear option to be taken off the table. I reserve my right to respond to various subject matter that I deem appropriate in the manner, in the style that I choose to employ, at the time of my choosing.
Sincerely,
William L. Garvin
Rebuttal: The premise is...PATENTLY ABSURD! Capitals, exclamation points and bolded fonts are common and acceptable literary devices used for emphasis or to demonstrate intensity.
Allegation: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Monroe were unfairly criticized because of their "well written and thought out" letters.
Rebuttal: That is revisionist history. Neither individual was an innocent victim of unprovoked attacks. In fact, they both instigated the conflict. Mr. Monroe oxymoronically equated the Tea Party movement with anarchy. He provided no factual basis or logic to support his indefensible statement. Mr. Cohen knowingly and persistently uses an insulting and offensive slur in his references to the Tea Party. Not everyone is willing to turn the other cheek.
When you decide to impose rules of discourse, please insure that liberal contributors follow the same rules of engagement. You ask for "intelligent debate" and fear Mr. Mann and Dr. Bellrose will be subjected to criticism. Did you note that Mr. Mann in his criticisms of the Tea Party said "Their hero is Sarah Palin, who is poorly educated and uninformed but believes herself fit for the presidency." Do you support or oppose his unsupported, inaccurate and elitist statement?
For the record, after working and paying her way through college, Sarah Palin was elected to city council, elected for two terms as the youngest mayor/city manager of her hometown, elected to serve as president of the council of mayors, appointed to serve on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, elected to serve as chair, subsequently chaired the U.S. Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, elected as Governor of Alaska after taking on corruption in her own party, accomplished 95% of her policy initiatives including taking on and defeating Big Oil within three years, maintained an 80% approval rating and improved a state budget that was six times larger than the budget of Arkansas when Bill Clinton was Governor. She subsequently received the GOP nomination for Vice President, only the second woman to achieve these heights. All the while, she was raising five children and helping run the family's small business. Since then she has written a national best seller, penned numerous op-ed pieces for major metropolitan newspapers, become a Fox News analyst and is a much in demand speaker represented by the prestigious Washington Speakers Bureau.
You stated "So if you want to discuss the constitutionality of something, then by all means specifically quote the part of the Constitution or the amendment that you are referring to." Dr. Bellrose in her lengthy criticism of the Tea Party and things in general said "The Constitution is a document with many amendments--can someone provide me with more detail?" Does that meet your expectation of the requisite specificity and detail? Now if she wants to know why I think the unconstitutional expansion and interpretation of the Commerce Clause by the current legislature and its continually expanding interpretation of General Welfare would render the limited and enumerated powers of the Federal government nonsensical, we could have that discussion.
Until such time as liberal and/or leftist contributors live up to your stated expectations, don't expect unilateral disarmament. Don't expect a date certain for withdrawal. Don't expect the nuclear option to be taken off the table. I reserve my right to respond to various subject matter that I deem appropriate in the manner, in the style that I choose to employ, at the time of my choosing.
Sincerely,
William L. Garvin
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Border Security is NOT Racism-Part 1
By William L. Garvin
Leading up to President Obama’s speech on immigration reform, liberal columnists pushed a repetitive theme (frequently using identical wording) trying to make their divisive point. Their overall strategy is to attack Arizona’s SB 1070 and those who support it as racist. Will it work?
Democrat Representative Linda Sanchez said “There’s a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state by state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups.” There are approximately twenty states who are proposing legislation similar to that of Arizona. Americans continue to support the Arizona law by a two-to-one margin. Seventy percent of Arizonans support the law and that includes 12 percent of second-generation Latinos and 30 percent of fourth-generation Latinos according to a Latino Decisions poll. Are they all under the thumb of “white supremacy groups”?
The second thrust in the “racist” argument is to deliberately fail to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. In Peter O’Dowd’s article for National Public Radio, he quotes Jesse Hernandez, a second-generation Latino from Phoenix: “We don’t have time to be marching down the street waving the Mexican flag saying we want rights, because you know what? We did it the right way, and we have rights.” Mr. Hernandez’s Mexican-born parents waited in line for years in order to enter the U.S. legally. However, Ruben Navarrette, columnist and immigration rights advocate, refers to SB 1070 as the “Mexican Removal Act.” In the interest of journalistic accuracy, he should refer to it as the “Illegal Mexican Removal Act.” He and his followers then attempt to hedge their bets saying SB 1070 may not be racist in content, but it is certainly not “race neutral.”
There were also numerous commentaries that resurrected the “Chandler Roundup,” a five day immigration sweep conducted by the Chandler, Arizona Police Department in 1999. Great attention is paid to the fact that 29 plaintiffs received a settlement of $400,000 but there is scant notice of the 400 plus legal deportations. There is also no notice of the reprimand given to the police chief for the manner in which he conducted the sweep or that Arizona’s Attorney General was Janet Napolitano!
Another consistent claim in the liberal articles is that in the 1930’s the U.S. had rounded up and deported somewhere between one and two million Mexicans back to Mexico. Furthermore, “over sixty percent of those deported were U.S. citizens”! The latter has supposedly been determined by “researchers.” When you start off with “between one and two million” you know that the scientific method and empirical research went out the window. Apparently the “sixty percent” estimate came from Francisco Balderrama, a professor of “Chicano Studies” at Cal State, Los Angeles. A review of his book states: “By combining extensive archival research with oral history testimony, the authors have created a compelling narrative that blends individual recollections with scholarly interpretation.” However, much of his research was based on Mexican consulate records which are notoriously suspect for their lack of authenticity. Much like global warming data, “scholarly interpretation” cuts a wide swath and is easily influenced by the author’s ideology.
For argument’s sake, let’s accept the data. If the 40% of “legal” deportations were all women, each woman would have to have birthed 1.5 children in the U.S. Very unlikely. If 20% were male and 20% female (equally unlikely), each woman would have birthed three children in the U.S. If we’re talking 10% female and 30% male (much more likely), we are talking about six children per woman. That’s quite a heavy burden, in more ways than one.
Another recurring theme was that the Arizona law is too broad or vague: identification may be required for “trespassing” or “being at a social gathering where the music is too loud.” Trespassing is specifically listed in the law but it is neither vague nor trivial. Arizona ranchers have had property stolen, animals killed, butchered and barbecued. A rancher has been murdered. A national park is declared “off limits.” Trespassing is NOT a quixotic addition. A word search of the text of the law comes up empty for “music” and “gathering.” If municipal codes are broad or vague, deal with them. Until you do, expect them to be enforced.
It’s abundantly clear that when liberals say “comprehensive immigration reform,” they mean “amnesty.” If you oppose amnesty, you’re a racist. If you oppose illegal immigration and support border security, you’re a “racist.” You are told it’s because you are “insecure” and “feel threatened” or are “anti-Mexican.” In reality, it’s because you think “illegal” means “illegal” and you already know the meaning of “is”!
Leading up to President Obama’s speech on immigration reform, liberal columnists pushed a repetitive theme (frequently using identical wording) trying to make their divisive point. Their overall strategy is to attack Arizona’s SB 1070 and those who support it as racist. Will it work?
Democrat Representative Linda Sanchez said “There’s a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state by state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups.” There are approximately twenty states who are proposing legislation similar to that of Arizona. Americans continue to support the Arizona law by a two-to-one margin. Seventy percent of Arizonans support the law and that includes 12 percent of second-generation Latinos and 30 percent of fourth-generation Latinos according to a Latino Decisions poll. Are they all under the thumb of “white supremacy groups”?
The second thrust in the “racist” argument is to deliberately fail to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. In Peter O’Dowd’s article for National Public Radio, he quotes Jesse Hernandez, a second-generation Latino from Phoenix: “We don’t have time to be marching down the street waving the Mexican flag saying we want rights, because you know what? We did it the right way, and we have rights.” Mr. Hernandez’s Mexican-born parents waited in line for years in order to enter the U.S. legally. However, Ruben Navarrette, columnist and immigration rights advocate, refers to SB 1070 as the “Mexican Removal Act.” In the interest of journalistic accuracy, he should refer to it as the “Illegal Mexican Removal Act.” He and his followers then attempt to hedge their bets saying SB 1070 may not be racist in content, but it is certainly not “race neutral.”
There were also numerous commentaries that resurrected the “Chandler Roundup,” a five day immigration sweep conducted by the Chandler, Arizona Police Department in 1999. Great attention is paid to the fact that 29 plaintiffs received a settlement of $400,000 but there is scant notice of the 400 plus legal deportations. There is also no notice of the reprimand given to the police chief for the manner in which he conducted the sweep or that Arizona’s Attorney General was Janet Napolitano!
Another consistent claim in the liberal articles is that in the 1930’s the U.S. had rounded up and deported somewhere between one and two million Mexicans back to Mexico. Furthermore, “over sixty percent of those deported were U.S. citizens”! The latter has supposedly been determined by “researchers.” When you start off with “between one and two million” you know that the scientific method and empirical research went out the window. Apparently the “sixty percent” estimate came from Francisco Balderrama, a professor of “Chicano Studies” at Cal State, Los Angeles. A review of his book states: “By combining extensive archival research with oral history testimony, the authors have created a compelling narrative that blends individual recollections with scholarly interpretation.” However, much of his research was based on Mexican consulate records which are notoriously suspect for their lack of authenticity. Much like global warming data, “scholarly interpretation” cuts a wide swath and is easily influenced by the author’s ideology.
For argument’s sake, let’s accept the data. If the 40% of “legal” deportations were all women, each woman would have to have birthed 1.5 children in the U.S. Very unlikely. If 20% were male and 20% female (equally unlikely), each woman would have birthed three children in the U.S. If we’re talking 10% female and 30% male (much more likely), we are talking about six children per woman. That’s quite a heavy burden, in more ways than one.
Another recurring theme was that the Arizona law is too broad or vague: identification may be required for “trespassing” or “being at a social gathering where the music is too loud.” Trespassing is specifically listed in the law but it is neither vague nor trivial. Arizona ranchers have had property stolen, animals killed, butchered and barbecued. A rancher has been murdered. A national park is declared “off limits.” Trespassing is NOT a quixotic addition. A word search of the text of the law comes up empty for “music” and “gathering.” If municipal codes are broad or vague, deal with them. Until you do, expect them to be enforced.
It’s abundantly clear that when liberals say “comprehensive immigration reform,” they mean “amnesty.” If you oppose amnesty, you’re a racist. If you oppose illegal immigration and support border security, you’re a “racist.” You are told it’s because you are “insecure” and “feel threatened” or are “anti-Mexican.” In reality, it’s because you think “illegal” means “illegal” and you already know the meaning of “is”!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)