Only a Liberal…

The following is one side of an argument I had with a supporter of federal govt run health care who thinks Wall Street is evil…

535 greedy, evil Wall Street SOBs each run their own insurance company. Greedy SOB #1 is named… Bernie. Bernie charges his customers $200 extra dollars per month over the market price for health insurance.

Greedy SOB #2 decides “You know what… I can steal all of Bernie’s business if I only charge $150 extra dollars per month. Ill steal all his market share, and still make a killing.”

Greedy SOB #3 says, “I’m only going to charge $100 extra.”
Greedy SOB #4 says, “I’m only going to charge $50 extra.”
Greedy SOB #5 says, “I’m going to charge market price.” But at market price, Greedy SOB #5 refuses to pay any claim, taking the money, filling in his hot tub with it, and rolling around on it in his mansion.
Greedy SOB #6 says, “I’m going to charge market price, and only deny half of the legitimate claims that come in. I’ll steal all of SOB #5’s market share. Muwahahaha.”

Bernie says, “I’m going to charge market price and pay for EVERY legitimate claim. I’ll steal all those greedy SOBs market share, and still make a profit.”

Greedy SOBs 2-6 go out of business… OR they follow suit and stay in business… maybe.

535 greedy SOBs, by the forces of competition are thus FORCED to provide consumers with the service they demand. They want to screw you… their very nature wants to steal every stinking penny from you. But they can’t. Their greed in fact lowers the price of insurance, increases the quality of service in the never ending pursuit to steal every last customer from their competition.

NOW… take those same 535 GREEDY WALL STREET SOBs and put them in charge of Congress. I ask you…

1. WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY EVER REDUCE COSTS AND INCREASE THE VALUE OF THEIR SERVICES WITH NO COMPETITION?
2. Which death panel is going to kill more people? The one on Wall Street or the on in Congress?
3. Why would anyone spend billions of dollars researching a cure for cancer with ZERO profit incentive?

You seem to think altruism will make the world a better place, despite all evidence to the contrary. I am perplexed by many people who will willingly hand over power to one political party and then get angry when that power is inevitably passed to the party they hate.

Perhaps you think the threat of elections will serve the same purpose as competition.The problem there is both people running for that office will do EXACTLY the same thing.

We’re stuck with bad politicians for 2-6 years. Bad corporations that mistreat their customers can go out of business OVERNIGHT.

The next time a liberal tells you the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution means the government can do anything they want, quote James Madison:

With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. (Letter to James Robinson, 1831)

I realize liberals aren’t terribly interested in the facts behind the general welfare clause, since they simply want excuses for the federal govt to have more power, but this will at least cause them to stumble temporarily as they deal with their cognitive dissonance.

The “powerless” laborer pitted against the “powerful” executive… illustrated by statements like:

The CEO of Walmart earns more in an hour than his employees will earn in a year… Walmart CEO Michael Duke’s $35 million salary, when converted to an hourly wage, worked out to $16,826.92.

“How can you go to bed at night and sleep knowing you make this kind of money and the people working for you can hardly buy a package of beans and rice?” - Ed Smith, Chicago alderman

What Ed Smith doesn’t know or chooses not to consider is if you CONFISCATED Duke’s entire salary, and distributed it to all the low-level employees, lets say half of ALL Wal-Mart employees, you’d raise their annual salary about $35. If you confiscated it and hired all new employees, you’d pay the salary of 14oo entry level Wal-Mart employees. Let him keep $5 million, and you can still hire 1200 new employees

Question for Ed Smith… how many employees would get laid off downgrading the CEO from one paid $35 million to one paid $5 million? I guarantee you its a lot more than 1200 people. The class-envy crowd always ignores this simple economic fact, but everyone ignores what I consider a more important question…

What about the consumer?

Everyone always want to talk about the employeE vs employeR compensation debate. What about employee compensation vs consumer savings?

Why are the wages of the laborer valued more than the savings of the consumer? If Chinese underwear saves the consumer $2 over the American alternative, it is correct to acknowledge American workers that could be making underwear won’t be. So they won’t make wages from that particular labor. It is incorrect to omit the very relevant effect of saving millions of consumers $2 a pop. That money being saved will be spent elsewhere, creating a new market opportunity for any of those American laborers.

The consumer is EVERYONE, rich and poor, so no one lobbies on behalf of the consumer. The laborer on the other hand, is represented by powerful lobbies, and as a result, their wants are valued above the wants of the consumer.

Why is the laborer more entitled to compensation than the consumer is to keep their own money? If something can be bought from another country for $1 less than in America, we are essentially saying the American worker deserves that $1 more than the American consumer. What is this misguided belief based on? A hodge-podge of disconnected beliefs involving irrational hatred of the employer and outsourcing.

As I illustrated above, you cannot improve the lives of the employee by reducing the pay of the employer. The numbers just don’t work that way, so any talk about how annoyed you are some guy makes more in an hour than some people make in a year is a waste of time.

As for outsourcing, until the recent recession, outsourcing was increasing every year, as were the number of domestic jobs. Outsourcing opponents would have you believe that an outsourced job means someone gets fired in America, and that’s a bad thing. But what is the upside of outsourcing?

Outsourcing increases demand. Every dollar saved by outsourcing goods and labor to make them cheaper saves the American consumer money. All that money turns into more demand for EVERYTHING. That demand turns into consumers spending more on existing stuff, new products being developed to meet that demand, which results in an increase of jobs. No its not a proportional increase when you add up all the outsourcing, BUT it doesn’t have to be in order to be a net-win for America. To think outsourcing is a net-loss to Americans is to value the concerns of the laborer over the consumer.

Demand drives innovation

When you free up time and money with outsourcing, you grease the skids for innovation. Innovation makes us more efficient, smarter, and healthier as it results in new technologies that help us do our jobs faster and cheaper, and new drugs and tools that help save lives. When that money is destroyed by destructive regulations or international tariffs, innovation slows down.

Anti-outsourcing folks and “Buy American” folks will tell you all day about the guy who got laid off because his job got shipped overseas.  They’re only looking at one side of the equation. Buying American when there is a cheaper international alternative is really “Wasting American.”

Artificially propping up labor force inefficiencies is not a positive thing. Putting tariffs on foreign nations with cheaper products directly wastes American money and indirectly wastes even more money when that nation and other nations retaliate. Tariffs are a two-way street, as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 proved. Its idiotic proponents wanted to decrease imports to support “buying American.” Problem is other nations choose to NOT buy American when we do stupid shit like this.

Imports decreased 66% ($2.9 billion), which was the point of those tariffs, but…

Exports decreased 61% ($3.3 billion). Even Canada retaliated with their own tariffs on American goods… that’s how bad it was.

Next time someone says employees don’t get paid enough, tell them consumers don’t save enough.

There are two types of Islamic apologists: liars and deniers. The former is less common than the latter. I will spend no time addressing the liars… they knowingly support the enemy with no remorse. This is an analysis of the deniers.

Let me be clear… I do not assume all Muslims are suicidal, homicidal religious nuts who want to kill all infidels. But the notion that there isn’t a pattern of Muslim males ages 18-39 blowing themselves up in statistically significant numbers is childish denial. I call it Battered Muslim Syndrome.

Battered Wife Syndrome:

In lay terms, this is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, becomes depressed and unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people often do not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers have low self-esteem, and often believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons usually refuse to press criminal charges against their abuser, and refuse all offers of help, often becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance. Often sufferers will even seek out their very abuser for comfort shortly after an incident of abuse.

The battered muslim “denier” constructs strange logical paths to pretend the abuse isn’t happening. The abuse they get comes from both those radicals they feel are giving their good religion a bad name, and the critics who points out the obvious. The denial takes on many forms:

• Islam=Religion of peace, ergo any non-peaceful act renders perpetrator “not Muslim”
• The “so what?” argument - other religions have produced violent radicals, therefore religion has no relation to the terrorism, therefore Islam has nothing to do with terror (Rosie O’Donnell’s attempt at violent religion “match-play”)
• Backlash against critics: instead of being mad about a Muslim radical murdering people, the denier attacks the critics

I had a discussion with a Muslim female where she said the Quran does not preach violence and the violence of Muslim terrorists was not derived from the Quran. So I quoted various passages from the Quran:

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners”

“the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”

No matter how many passages, she claimed they were “out of context.” The phrase “out of context” to a person in denial, as we learned during the Jeremiah Wright controversy, is simply the argument used by Jim Carrey’s character in the movie “Liar, Liar” when he was unable to tell a lie:

Carrey: “Your honor, I object!”

Judge: “Why?”

Carrey: “Because it’s devastating to my case!”

I asked her to explain the context… she ignored me. She loves her religion… I respect that. I have no doubt she is a peace-loving Muslim who is no direct threat to me because I don’t kiss Allah’s butt. What I don’t respect is her denial of the overwhelming evidence that her religion is responsible for a lot of cavemen type violence.

How any woman, especially an American, could be Muslim is beyond me. The violent sexism and approval of wife-beating is disgusting. Any mention of this caused this woman to tell me that the people perpetrating those atrocities are not “true Muslims” but evil people committing evil acts in the name of a non-evil religion.

The Bible and the Quran are both violent, uncivilized books. The only difference is Christians as a group have pretty much dismissed the violent nonsense and only practice the peaceful parts of the Bible. Muslims, for some reason, have decided to stick with the whole book… unabridged Islam is the choice of the Middle East. I submit that unabridged Islam is incompatible with a free society, and it must be destroyed. Abridged Islam, on the other hand, is as welcome as abridged Christianity. Welcome abridged Muslims!

The battered Muslim denier is not your enemy, per se. Sure, if there are too many of them, they enable Muslim liars and Muslim terrorists. Every day they remain in denial is another day we waste trying to reason with these psychos. I take solace in the fact that one day, most of the deniers will wake up, and wake away from their abusers. They’ll accept the advice of the critics who told them “He doesn’t love you… he is not a good person at heart.” Unabridged Islam will kill us all, or convert us all.

As Dennis Miller said, “There’s no al-Kinda.”

First let me start of by making something crystal clear:

The original video released by Andrew Breitbart did NOT take Sherrod’s comments out of context.

I don’t care what you heard from MSNBC and Fox last week… its total nonsense. Enter hot potato syndrome.

First, Breitbart via BigGovernment.com released the video to the public on Monday July 19. At this point, the hot potato was thrown to the NAACP and the White House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY&feature=player_embedded

They saw this video, decided they didn’t want the potato, so the White House pressured Shirley Sherrod to resign IMMEDIATELY. Not to sleep on it, not to hear her side of the story, but for her to literally pull her car over and resign before 5pm EST, when Glenn Beck’s program came on Fox News. So Sherrod did. The NAACP released a statement condemning Ms. Sherrod’s racism unequivocally. Fox News reported her resignation and played the video.

Then comes Tuesday, where the coverage of the story takes a turn. The mainstream and left-wing cable media finds out that Sherrod not only didn’t work for the federal govt when her story took place, but that her story took place in 1986. Instead of simply clarifying that part of the equation, the media declared the entire video an out-of-context “fake” and threw the hot potato to Fox News and Andrew Breitbart. Fox News went with it, declaring they had made a mistake and praising the inspirational story Sherrod told, throwing the hot potato to Breitbart, who continues to defend himself today.

The coverage on Tuesday was an amazing display of Fox-News-attack journalism. Critics of Fox News found ONE hole in the delivery of the speech and tried to use it to damage the credibility of the entire network and the Tea Party as well (I guess because Breitbart is a member).The misconstrued timeline of the original video does not change the following statements:

• Shirley Sherrod is a racist to her core.
• Shirley Sherrod still sent the white farmer off to “one of his kind.”
• The NAACP audience at her speech still laughed and applauded when Sherrod told them she didn’t help the white farmer. They did not know the end of her story.

Let’s break down the original video bit by bit. It starts with two slides of text:

“On July 25, 2009, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack appointed Shirley Sherrod as Georgia Director of Rural Development. USDA Rural Development spends over $1.2 billion in the State of Georgia each year. On March 27, 2010 while speaking at the NAACP… Ms Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position overseeing over a billion dollars… She discriminates against people due to their race.”

Sherrod did not admit to discriminating while in her recent position… she admitted to discriminating in the position she held in 1986. That’s it. That’s the only genuine out-of-context part of the video. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and others would have you believe otherwise, but they’re lying.

Critics of Andrew Breitbart and Fox News claim that the original video only showed Sherrod admitting to discrimination and that the video omitted her exculpatory comments where she learned she was wrong.

THIS IS 100% FALSE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY&feature=player_embedded#t=1m37s

That link will take you to 1:37 in the video… she makes two exculpatory statements before the 2:05 mark.

“That’s when it was revealed to me that.. y’all it’s about the poor versus those who have.”

There it is. The charges that her racist comments were completely out of context is a fabricated lie. You heard it here, not from Fox, cuz they don’t want the hot potato anymore. Who knows why. Sherrod continues:

“It’s not so much about white… it IS about white and black, but its not… you know… it opened my eyes. Because I took him to one of his own.”

Now if you listen to the cable news outlets, both MSNBC and Fox, you might believe the Shirley Sherrod is a former racist who learned the error of her ways, and she was victimized by Andrew Breitbart as well as Fox News.

SHE COULDN’T EVEN FINISH HER SENTENCE ABOUT IT NOT BEING ABOUT WHITE AND BLACK. Couldn’t do it. Not only did Breitbart’s video release include her exculpatory statements, her statements aren’t even that exculpatory.

Ok, back to her original story… you know the one where she’s an innocent bystander talking about her journey away from racism…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY&feature=player_embedded#t=0m21s

“The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm… he took a lonnnnnnng time talking, but… he… he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing.” [Audience member yells "That's right.]“

So let me get this straight… a white farmer who is afraid of losing his farm goes to the Georgia Agriculture department looking for help, sees a black woman there, and decides “screw the assistance I came here to get” for an opportunity to show a black person that he is superior. This woman is more paranoid than Hunter S. Thompson in bat country.

So at best, Sherrod was a racist kook once upon a time, but now she is color blind, right?

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/23/sherrod-breitbart-wants-to-take-us-back-to-the-days-of-slavery/

Comment from Andrew Breitbart read by Anderson Cooper: “If anybody reads the sainted, martyred Sherrod’s entire speech, this person has not gotten past black vs white.”

Cooper: Do you think you have gotten past black vs white?

So let’s see if she did… here’s her response from last Thursday (not 1986):

“I know I’ve gotten past black vs. white…I think [Breitbart would] like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again… I don’t even think it was the NAACP he was totally after. I think he was after a black President.”

She can’t even finish an interview without contradicting herself. This woman wants us to believe that Andrew Breitbart published an unedited video of some nobody black woman in the GA agriculture dept speaking at the NAACP in order to attack Barack Obama. Not only is she a racist, but she’s a paranoid kook.

The Anderson Cooper interview was last Thursday, not 25 years ago. She believes that Andrew Breitbart wants all black people to be slaves. Criticize her and the NAACP, make Obama look bad, and that is tantamount to wanting black slaves.

Here’s the full video. The original video made her look like a racist kook who abused her power. The full video makes her look like a racist kook who decided not to abuse her power fully, but still thought the white guy was talking down to her and wants to abuse her power for the class war instead of the race war. What a hero. I’m making fries.

I have no illusions about the general demographics of my small audience… conservatives and liberatarians. But for this post, I will pretend I am speaking to the reasonable wing of the Progressive/Statist/Liberal movement.

I warned you. I told you he was not only radical, but perhaps the most radical senator in recent memory. Decades in Reverend Wright’s church not only made the man a friend and a mentor, but a father-figure to Barack. After all, Barry’s dad was the bum father of all bum fathers. I know Barack seemed so nice and clean (to quote Biden) but he is as angry and radical as Jeremiah.

Yes, Barry Soetoro was 8 years old when Bill Ayers took part in the bombings of the NYPD, the Capitol, and the Pentagon. But Barack Obama was 34 years old when he met Bill Ayers and started working for him, and he chose to continue working for him until he was 42 years old. Barack Obama was 36 when he wrote a rave review of Ayers’s book. Bill Ayers founded the Chicago Annenburg Challenge and hired Barack Obama as the first chairman. The notion that they were casual acquaintances requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Ayers and Jeremiah Wright are enough for me, but the list doesn’t end there, and the man’s own words are plenty evidence. A white Massachusetts police officer arrested a black professor friend of President Obama, and admitting he didn’t know the facts labeled the white police officer as having “acted stupidly.” Without his trusty teleprompter, he told the world and Joe the Plumber that everyone is better off when you redistribute wealth, which is just a cute way of saying “steal money from productive people and give it to unproductive people.”

He naively announced he would seek a global ban on nuclear weapons which is as childish as a global ban on alcohol. It is silly to bring it up as a regular citizen, and dangerously irresponsible as a national politician, let alone one with Presidential aspirations. He is the most inexperienced person in any room he walks into. He associates with racists and Marxists and Communists.

His predecessor set new deficit records with the help of Congress and his response has been to accelerate those records like a child on PCP behind the wheel of a car. Pundits on both sides have admitted there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell he would have been elected had he not had a black father and yet everyone acts surprised when his lack of a resume results in him acting incompetently. He is not incompetent because he is black… he is incompetent because he is incomeptent. He was merely elected despite his incompetence because of the romance Americans felt with electing someone with a darker skin pigment than the previous guys.

Barack Obama does not have a CLUE what he is doing. If he does, he should be charged with treason, because every action he takes is an attack on America. I do not say these things lightly… I choose my words very carefully. He demonizes just about everything that is American, attacks the most productive members of society, celebrates the least productive, allows his underlings to let racists off the legal hook, impedes the actions of private companies that would clean up the oil spill, continues to hire and nominate radicals of the highest order, and hems and haws his way through interviews like a nervous 12-year-old. He is an embarrassment.

No question he is the anti-Bush. A well-spoken radical leftist with a disdain for this country and its military. And quite possibly the most unqualified and incompetent moron to set foot in the White House.

I don’t know how pervasive this myth is, but I keep hearing various quotes about the Gulf being destroyed forever, or its dying, or whatever. While this is a devastating oil spill that should not have happened and BP should pay for it, here is some perspective.

Like the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Ixtoc 1 spill on June 3, 1979, involved the failure of a blowout preventer device, a kind of emergency shutoff valve. In both cases, metal domes put over the well failed to stop the leaks. - USA Today

So in 1979 off the coast of Mexico, a similar spill occurred. So what were the drastic repercussions of that spill?

The Ixtoc spill wiped out fishing along the Mexican coast for nearly two years.

Two years is a long time for fishermen who make their living out there… a tragedy, but far from a “dead Gulf of Mexico.” So obviously the 2010 spill is worse, right? Wrong. The current spill is about 20 million gallons…

The [1979] Ixtoc 1 leak spilled between 126 million and 210 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, making it second only to the intentional oil spill of about 462 million gallons caused by retreating Iraqi troops in 1991 during the Gulf War, according to the Interior Department.

If this spill goes on a while longer, it may surpass the Ixtoc leak in size, but don’t believe anyone that says a measly 200 million gallons of oil can “destroy” the frigging Gulf of Mexico. How many gallons of water are in the Gulf? Someone on Wiki Answers calculated it was this…

530,000,000,000,000,000

One way to say it would be 530,000 TRILLION.

Folks, the Gulf is going NOWHERE.

Rand Paul, in a politically stupid move, told the world that he disagreed with the part of the Civil Rights Act that required private businesses to serve everyone. Democrats have chosen to purposely avoid his point and brand him a racist. While I think his choice of words and his inability to verbalize his position were terrible, Rand Paul is absolutely correct.

Paul is not right because black people should be refused service by private businesses. What a stupid policy to have… I can just see the rednecks of America lining up their foot in the site of their guns. Judging a person based on the pigment of their skin is so stupid I can’t get my head around it.

Everyone keeps portraying Rand Paul as saying white people should be able to refuse service to black people if they want to. He is also saying that black people should be able to refuse service to white people, or brown people, or any combination you wish. It has nothing to do with approving of racism. It has to do with accepting the premise that the government should have ANYTHING to say about what a private business chooses to do. It has to do with making an exception to the first amendment.

Michael Steele even got in on the action of criticizing Paul, I assume to distance the Republican party from him, while still defending him.

Let me be absolutely clear: if it weren’t for that part of the Civil Rights Act, we likely would not be as “racially mature” in America as we are now. Americans who had misconceptions about one race or another now know they were wrong. I agree that it achieved a few good things, but the problem with justifying the law with “it did one good thing” will ruin us all, because politicians will use that rationale to pass anything and everything they see as “helping” us. I am glad it was passed, but the notion that repealing that part of the CRA would bring back segregated lunch counters is absurd.

What would happen if it was repealed?

If that portion of the civil rights act was repealed, here is what would happen: really racist business owners, if there are any left, would post signs saying “I’m a racist, don’t spend you money here and come destroy my property.” I paraphrased of course, but you see the problem. In the vast majority of areas in this country, there is ABSOLUTELY no need for that section of the Civil Rights Act. The people would police it themselves. Not only would those owners go out of business, but they would likely have their business property destroyed as well as their residential property if the rejected patrons could determine where it was. Other businesses would take ALL their patrons in and succeed at a much higher rate than the racist businesses.

Now most or all of you when I said “really racist business owners” likely pictured a white person… if so, perhaps we’re not as racially mature as I thought. I would argue that if this portion of the civil rights act were repealed, you would mostly see non-white business owners exercising their right to free speech. And they would get away with it.

Any white person that attempted to reject black or brown people would not only lose the business of black and brown people, but the business of white people who disapprove of such ignorant racist stupidity, and they’d probably end up in the hospital as well. Black and brown people who did this would be excused as some sort of misguided moral “reparations” for some convoluted past crimes against other people that look like them.

Liberal politicians, rather than engage Rand Paul on the issue he is bringing up, decided to take the opportunity to paint him and all Republicans as racists. The Democrats rely on keeping black and brown people working on their political plantation forever by framing the political world as only giving non-whites one option: the Democrat Party. The fact is Liberals in both parties are infinitely more racist than the Conservatives are. They treat non-white people like impotent children that have to be attached to the federal umbilical cord to survive. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

I find the continued race debates in this country to be ridiculously ignorant and insultingly condescending to non-whites. Liberals spend their days giving losers of all colors excuses for failing. In 2010, no one fails because of the color of their skin or a crime committed against a person they never met by a person they never met. People of every color, gender, and whatever other irrelevant characteristic you want to cite have reached the heights of success and fame in this country despite all the fake obstacles Liberals would have you believe exist. Liberals scream about those obstacles because it causes a substantial number of people to think they “care” more than their political opponents. All they care about it your vote. Stop giving it to them.

I used the words white, black and brown because they are the most predominantly used terms to describe certain ethnicities in this country. I wish I never had to use them, because they are stupid. Especially for people who are mixed color, like myself and the president. Not to mention all black people refer to themselves as African-Americans, whether their ancestors were enslaved or not. I think hyphenated Americans should be scoffed at in the first place, but if Obama is going to use that hyphen, it should be Kenyan-American. Africa is a continent… his father is from Kenya.

Rand Paul may have committed political suicide because he chose to start a debate that can be easily spun to paint him as a racist for people who don’t pay enough attention. The fact of the matter is even if the encroachment on the first amendment has noble intentions, it paves the road to others encroachment upon the first amendment with ignoble intentions. (Read fairness doctrine)

Here it is… all 17 pages of it.

Synopsis: Arizona has passed a law that explicitly requires local law enforcement to attempt to enforce federal immigration laws. The law explicitly restricts “race, color, or natural origin” as a sole determinant for “reasonable suspicion” (no profiling). Open-border groups whose cause is hurt by this law have managed to convince otherwise reasonable people, who don’t want to see illegal aliens prosecuted if they are law-abiding, that Arizona has passed a racist law meant to target Latinos and Hispanics. This charge is 100% false, and these groups have zero proof to backup their claim. The political backlash to this law is what is unreasonable, not the law.

The first three pages of this bill contain 2 important things: the “reasonable suspicion” verbiage that has rocked the political world and numerous references to enforcing federal immigration laws.

Section 2 Article 8:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

This is what people claim has made them angry… what they claim will cause racial profiling. In response to this bill, the LA city council voted for a boycott of Arizona. This is the same Los Angeles that is located in California, where Section 834b of the CA penal code doesn’t even require “reasonable” suspicion: just suspicion.

Every law enforcement agency shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is SUSPECTED of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws… The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and DEMANDING DOCUMENTATION to indicate his or her legal status.

For weeks now, you’ve been hearing about Arizona profiling brown people, starting their own little Nazi Germany. All along, California had essentially the same law.

So are both CA and AZ racially profiling Latinos and Hispanics with this verbiage? Since the law prohibits profiling based on race, to assume profiling will occur assumes a breach of conduct by police, independent of the law.

Page 4 talks about enforcement of the law only being allowed for a “law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.” Another reference to the federal law.

Page 5 again mentions the term “reasonable suspicion” in regards to traffic stops for suspicion of human smuggling.

E. A peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law and THIS SECTION (smuggling classifications, definitions).

Turns out this type of verbiage is the rule, not the exception, of border state smuggling laws. In other words, SB1070 doesn’t really change anything in regards to human smuggling laws.

Page 6 makes it illegal to pick up day workers if your vehicle impedes traffic. So you can still pick up illegal alien workers, which is a crime, as long as you don’t impede traffic. I suspect the real effect of this section will be that a certain percentage of illegal aliens will be arrested due to their lack of awareness of this law, but most will simply avoid “impeding traffic.”

Page 7 talks about it being illegal to employ an illegal alien (nothing new). I would note that this section of the bill also states:

Section 6&7 23-12 B: The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.

Profiling based on race, color, or national origin is explicitly FORBIDDEN. Any opinion that assumes this law makes profiling legal or will increase illegal profiling is simply projecting unfounded racism upon Arizona cops. The law does not allow it.

Furthermore this section goes on to state:

A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien’s immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

In other words, in contrast to what LA Councilman Ed Reyes has claimed, you cannot be deported by an Arizona police officer who is “having a bad day” if you don’t have your passport. Arizona police may use their “reasonable suspicion” to turn you over to the Federal government, and only they can deport you. Arizona officials are not allowed to make a final determination of someone’s immigration status.

Reyes and other opponents of this bill would have you believe the Arizona police department is going to deport you if you don’t have papers. This is absolutely false.

27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

In other words, the Arizona police will turn people without papers over to the Feds. That’s it.

The rest of the bill talks about other legalities of illegal employment and impounding of cars with no mention of anything related to reasonable suspicion or checking immigration status.

The fact is reasonable liberals have overreacted to a reasonable bill that unreasonable open-border proponents oppose for various reasons, including the belief that south-west America belongs to Mexico. The fact of the matter is no civilized country in the world has an open-borders policy, and the United States has one of the most lenient policies in the world. Not only are our laws benign in comparison to some of our neighbors and allies (particularly Mexico) but we generally don’t enforce them, and some jurisdictions go out of their way to encourage law-breaking by calling themselves “sanctuary” cities and expressly prohibiting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials.

You’ve been lied to about the reality of this Arizona law. I don’t blame you, as there are hundreds of faces on television beating the same incorrect drum, and most people do not have the time or inclination to research it as I do. My advice: if something sounds ridiculous, it probably is. Look it up before you make a judgment.

File this under AYFKM… check out the two videos side by side and listen to this partisan dirtbag pretend there’s no difference between the two protests. I came across the video at Hotair.

watch?v=2HvqRWqClSc&feature=player_embedded

If there was a Tea Party video that even remotely resembled the Arizona immigration law protests, the left would be having a collective orgasm/shit fit. They don’t even try to hide the double standard anymore… its breathtaking.