There is an intenet hoax email being circulated perporting to cite the words of Dr. Emanuel Tanay. The words are not his, but the contents of the email are real. They are the words of Paul E. Marek and were published in 2007. The article can be found here http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6996 and it is presented below.
For the record, Paul E. Marek is a second-generation Canadian, whose grandparents fled Czechoslovakia just prior to the Nazi takeover. He is an educational consultant specializing in programs that protect children from predatory adults.
Published: 03/18/07, 4:46 PM
Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant
by Paul E. Marek
History lessons are often incredibly simple.
I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.
“Very few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”
We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians - most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Adar 28, 5767 / 18 March 07
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Obama as God
So where's the cover with Obama as Mohammed? Oh, that's right, if you annoy the Religion of Peace, or would that be the religion of blow you to pieces, they might declare that you should be killed.
Of course Obama isn't God or even "a god" with a small g. After all he can't even keep his stories straight without the assistance of a teleprompter. As such, he's not even a particularly adept empty suit.
Instead, Obama is just the latest "installed" figure head for those who pull the strings to advance their agenda for further control of the masses. He's just the front man.
Manipulation is often achieved by offering people two choices, neither one of which is actually a real choice, while hiding the other possible choices.
For example, you can have my healthcare changes or none, you can have my immigration policies or none, you can have my economic policies or none, you can have naked body scanning by the TSA or sexual molestation frisking by the same TSA.
Those who are informed know there are other choices. Putting up with manipulation is not required.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
TSA Psychological Warfare
Listen to this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig
I think it can be successfully argued that both body scanners and the agressive pat downs one can be subjected to if choosing to "opt out" is little more than psychological warfare being perpetrated on the general public. It does nothing to enhance security by virtue of the way it is being done. However, psycholgical warfare is a two way street.
Imagine asking a TSA agent if he is aware that the latest terrorist bomb designs are triggered by body scanners and asking him where he figures it might be a safe place for him to stand?
Imagine asking the "pat down" person if they are aware that the latest terrorist bombs are pressure triggered and asking them if they are getting paid enough to risk triggering one?
Of course you better have a recording of what you say to be able to prove you made no threats.
The truth is that if there were any credible bomb threat they wouldn't be radiating the bombs and having unprotected minimum wage untrained personnel risk setting them off in the middle of a crowd of people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig
I think it can be successfully argued that both body scanners and the agressive pat downs one can be subjected to if choosing to "opt out" is little more than psychological warfare being perpetrated on the general public. It does nothing to enhance security by virtue of the way it is being done. However, psycholgical warfare is a two way street.
Imagine asking a TSA agent if he is aware that the latest terrorist bomb designs are triggered by body scanners and asking him where he figures it might be a safe place for him to stand?
Imagine asking the "pat down" person if they are aware that the latest terrorist bombs are pressure triggered and asking them if they are getting paid enough to risk triggering one?
Of course you better have a recording of what you say to be able to prove you made no threats.
The truth is that if there were any credible bomb threat they wouldn't be radiating the bombs and having unprotected minimum wage untrained personnel risk setting them off in the middle of a crowd of people.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Liberals don't relize what they are saying
Colin Powell said that he sees illegals all the time and that they are working all around his house. However, it is actually a violation of federal law to knowingly hire an illegal alien, or once you know someone is illegal to keep employing them. Someone must have pointed this out to Mr. Powell.
So, now it is time for a clarification. Now his comment has been further "clarified" to point out that he doesn't actaully employ any of them. He just sees them working for other people. So what is the problem with that?
Well, one would assume he didn't walk up to any of these people who are working for someone else and ask them "for their papers." Heaven forbid. Only a Nazi would do that. Mr. Powell wouldn't be caught dead doing it. So, how does he know they are illegal? Obviously by just looking at them. What?
Mr. Powell is racial profiling? He is determining someones legal status by their appearance?
If so Mr. Powell is a racist and doesn't even realize he admitting to it. Way to go.
For those of you who are illegal, you might find it interesting what liberals really think. The bottom line is that they need a "poor" class that depends upon them to keep them in a position of power. However, for them to stay in power they need the "poor" class to never go away. Yes, that's right. You won't really get anywhere by depending on them, because they are depending on you to stay "oppressed."
So, now it is time for a clarification. Now his comment has been further "clarified" to point out that he doesn't actaully employ any of them. He just sees them working for other people. So what is the problem with that?
Well, one would assume he didn't walk up to any of these people who are working for someone else and ask them "for their papers." Heaven forbid. Only a Nazi would do that. Mr. Powell wouldn't be caught dead doing it. So, how does he know they are illegal? Obviously by just looking at them. What?
Mr. Powell is racial profiling? He is determining someones legal status by their appearance?
If so Mr. Powell is a racist and doesn't even realize he admitting to it. Way to go.
For those of you who are illegal, you might find it interesting what liberals really think. The bottom line is that they need a "poor" class that depends upon them to keep them in a position of power. However, for them to stay in power they need the "poor" class to never go away. Yes, that's right. You won't really get anywhere by depending on them, because they are depending on you to stay "oppressed."
Monday, July 5, 2010
Immigration legal precedents
I thought this was a rather good summary of the situation.
Former Los Angeles candidate for mayor attorney Walter Moore says police can enforce federal immigration law
• May 1, 2010
Arizona Police Can Enforce Federal Immigration Law
The national media are inundating airwaves and bandwidth with legal opinions on Arizona’s new immigration law — from people who are not lawyers.
We heard from a wise Latina, but it was Shakira, not Sotomayor. We also heard Mayor Villaraigosa, but he is an “undocumented lawyer:” he never passed the bar despite four tries.
Yours truly is a real lawyer, with over 25 years’ experience protecting people’s rights in state and federal courts. Two years ago, I had occasion to look into the law concerning the very same issues implicated by Arizona’s new law.
You see, two years ago, an outstanding young man named Jamiel Shaw II, who was being recruited by colleges for their football teams, was murdered two doors down from his house by an illegal alien gang member — a criminal who should never have been in our country in the first place, and who had just been released from jail back into the community a day or two earlier rather than being deported. Jamiel’s mother got the news in Iraq, where she was serving our country as a sergeant in the U.S. Army.
I had to do something about the heartbreaking, preventable murder; had to try to stop it from happening again. So I researched and drafted a proposed ordinance, which I called “Jamiel’s Law,” to try to spare other young people the same tragic and preventable fate. Jamiel’s Law was as simple as simple gets: all it would have done was carve out an narrow exception to L.A.’s “sanctuary city” policy, aka “Special Order 40,” to let the police enforce federal immigration laws against known gang members.
Then, as now, people claimed that immigration is a federal issue, and that the police cannot enforce federal law, and blah blah blah. They didn’t really care about the law. They just wanted to stop anyone from doing anything about illegal immigration.
Anyway, as a real lawyer, with real experience in this field, let me de-bunk for you some of the baloney being peddled by the armies of “undocumented lawyers” on whom the media have chosen to focus. Unlike those faux attorneys, moreover, I will support what I say with actual legal authority — you know, the way real lawyers do.
Here’s what I want to get through your head: state and local police can enforce federal immigration law. Federal law does not prevent them from doing so.
Don’t take my word for it. Here are federal court opinions saying so:
In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — you read that right, the Ninth Circuit — concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.”
In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”
Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘ to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.
In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.”
In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, that “[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”
in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.
In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
Hips don’t lie, but hips don’t count as legal precedent.
The people whose legal opinion matters are the men and women who wear black robes, and they have ruled, again and again and again that federal law lets local police enforce federal immigration law. So the next time some wanna-be lawyer tells you that federal law prevents local police from enforcing immigration laws, I want you to remember this two-word legal term: “Prove it!”
If you want a great song, Shakira is your go-to gal. If you want to know what the law is, I’m you go-to guy. But bring your checkbook.
Former Los Angeles candidate for mayor attorney Walter Moore says police can enforce federal immigration law
• May 1, 2010
Arizona Police Can Enforce Federal Immigration Law
The national media are inundating airwaves and bandwidth with legal opinions on Arizona’s new immigration law — from people who are not lawyers.
We heard from a wise Latina, but it was Shakira, not Sotomayor. We also heard Mayor Villaraigosa, but he is an “undocumented lawyer:” he never passed the bar despite four tries.
Yours truly is a real lawyer, with over 25 years’ experience protecting people’s rights in state and federal courts. Two years ago, I had occasion to look into the law concerning the very same issues implicated by Arizona’s new law.
You see, two years ago, an outstanding young man named Jamiel Shaw II, who was being recruited by colleges for their football teams, was murdered two doors down from his house by an illegal alien gang member — a criminal who should never have been in our country in the first place, and who had just been released from jail back into the community a day or two earlier rather than being deported. Jamiel’s mother got the news in Iraq, where she was serving our country as a sergeant in the U.S. Army.
I had to do something about the heartbreaking, preventable murder; had to try to stop it from happening again. So I researched and drafted a proposed ordinance, which I called “Jamiel’s Law,” to try to spare other young people the same tragic and preventable fate. Jamiel’s Law was as simple as simple gets: all it would have done was carve out an narrow exception to L.A.’s “sanctuary city” policy, aka “Special Order 40,” to let the police enforce federal immigration laws against known gang members.
Then, as now, people claimed that immigration is a federal issue, and that the police cannot enforce federal law, and blah blah blah. They didn’t really care about the law. They just wanted to stop anyone from doing anything about illegal immigration.
Anyway, as a real lawyer, with real experience in this field, let me de-bunk for you some of the baloney being peddled by the armies of “undocumented lawyers” on whom the media have chosen to focus. Unlike those faux attorneys, moreover, I will support what I say with actual legal authority — you know, the way real lawyers do.
Here’s what I want to get through your head: state and local police can enforce federal immigration law. Federal law does not prevent them from doing so.
Don’t take my word for it. Here are federal court opinions saying so:
In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — you read that right, the Ninth Circuit — concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.”
In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”
Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘ to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.
In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.”
In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, that “[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”
in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.
In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
Hips don’t lie, but hips don’t count as legal precedent.
The people whose legal opinion matters are the men and women who wear black robes, and they have ruled, again and again and again that federal law lets local police enforce federal immigration law. So the next time some wanna-be lawyer tells you that federal law prevents local police from enforcing immigration laws, I want you to remember this two-word legal term: “Prove it!”
If you want a great song, Shakira is your go-to gal. If you want to know what the law is, I’m you go-to guy. But bring your checkbook.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Reality versus Talk
President Obama produces a lot of talk that sounds like he is doing something, but the reality is very different.
Well after the promised timing of representatives from Washington being promised to arrive to “discuss” things with Governor Brewer, the anticipated meeting finally took place. It amounted to an hour and a half of sitting through White House Security Adviser John Brennan’s power point presentation. Despite requests they did not provide any hard copies to follow or keep for reference. For anyone with gray matter between their ears, providing a hard or soft copy of a power point presentation is easy. So this is clearly a matter of refusal as opposed to inability. That is, they didn’t want any record of what they presented to leak out.
Governor Brewer was clearly frustrated with Obama’s underwhelming response to secure Arizona’s border and here is why:
1. Up to 524 National Guard personnel will be sent to AZ (not the promised 1200).
2. National Guard personnel will be implemented in small numbers and fluctuate incrementally.
3. National Guard personnel will conduct surveillance and support – not ‘boots on the ground’ apprehension duty.
4. National Guard personnel at the peak number of 524 will be available for a limited time.
5. 22 miles of existing border fence will be repaired (we’re talking about a 3 or 4 strand barbed wire fence that can be cut with wire cutters).
6. The $500 million originally pledged to Gov Brewer has been changed to $445 million. $310 million will be given to Mexico. Arizona will receive a whopping $135 million.
So, first of all, the 524 Guard troops will not be here all at the same time, but even if they were this would be ludicrous. This would amount to one solder for every 11 miles of border if they worked 24 hours in 8 hour shifts. But that’s OK because they are not going to be allowed to patrol the border anyway. They are going to be desk jockeys.
It’s all smoke and mirrors to look like the administration is doing something without doing anything at all. The big accomplishment is giving Mexico $310 million. For what? So they can upgrade the equipment the Cartels are using to cross the border and shoot at us?
Well after the promised timing of representatives from Washington being promised to arrive to “discuss” things with Governor Brewer, the anticipated meeting finally took place. It amounted to an hour and a half of sitting through White House Security Adviser John Brennan’s power point presentation. Despite requests they did not provide any hard copies to follow or keep for reference. For anyone with gray matter between their ears, providing a hard or soft copy of a power point presentation is easy. So this is clearly a matter of refusal as opposed to inability. That is, they didn’t want any record of what they presented to leak out.
Governor Brewer was clearly frustrated with Obama’s underwhelming response to secure Arizona’s border and here is why:
1. Up to 524 National Guard personnel will be sent to AZ (not the promised 1200).
2. National Guard personnel will be implemented in small numbers and fluctuate incrementally.
3. National Guard personnel will conduct surveillance and support – not ‘boots on the ground’ apprehension duty.
4. National Guard personnel at the peak number of 524 will be available for a limited time.
5. 22 miles of existing border fence will be repaired (we’re talking about a 3 or 4 strand barbed wire fence that can be cut with wire cutters).
6. The $500 million originally pledged to Gov Brewer has been changed to $445 million. $310 million will be given to Mexico. Arizona will receive a whopping $135 million.
So, first of all, the 524 Guard troops will not be here all at the same time, but even if they were this would be ludicrous. This would amount to one solder for every 11 miles of border if they worked 24 hours in 8 hour shifts. But that’s OK because they are not going to be allowed to patrol the border anyway. They are going to be desk jockeys.
It’s all smoke and mirrors to look like the administration is doing something without doing anything at all. The big accomplishment is giving Mexico $310 million. For what? So they can upgrade the equipment the Cartels are using to cross the border and shoot at us?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Boycott Arizona?
In regard to boycotting Arizona…
I hope you understand that "illegal" is not a race. It is not a religion. It is not a color. It is people who direspect the laws of our country. It is people who have murdered citizens of our state. It is people who have raped people in our state. It is people who have shot, wounded and killed police officers in our state. It is people who are running drugs into our state. It is people who are crushing the ability of our medical care facilities to take care of them. It is people who are taking jobs of our citizens while we sit here with a 10% unemployment rate. It is people who have stolen cars from us, wrecked our cars without having insurance, and running from the scene of major accidents.
Armed illegal aliens in this state are responsible for 3500 acres of our state being off limits to Arizona citizens. The National Guard you might think have been sent here by President Obama are still nowhere to be seen. Of course when they arrive they will be relegated to desk jobs, unarmed and prevented from actually patrolling the border. The people President Obama said would be here to discuss options with our Governor in two weeks are still not here a month later.
So, do you want the illegal aliens in your state? Should we send them to you? Do you want them on the streets driving cars with no respect for our laws while your family is on the road with them? When the first thing they do is disrespect the laws of the United States by entering it ILLEGALLY, why would you expect them to respect any other laws? Oh, and you realize the illegal aliens who are entering Arizona are not just from Mexico, right? They are also from Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Somalia, Yemen, and a whole lot of places that support terrorism.
You probably also fail to realize that there are a lot of legal immigrants to the United States here in Arizona that are dismayed, frustrated and even more angry about these people who are breaking the laws of the country of which they worked so hard to become a legal citizen.
Do you realize that the 1070 law that everyone is so upset about has more restrictions against profiling than existing Federal law? Have you actually read the law? It is available right here so you don’t have to be ignorant of what it actually says: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf It’s a whole 16 pages so it won’t take long to read.
Ignorance can be remedied. I hope it is possible for you to learn from this before you become the next target of uninformed attack.
Remember, there are those who are always ready to manipulate the uninformed as pawns in the quest to achieve their hidden agendas.
I hope you understand that "illegal" is not a race. It is not a religion. It is not a color. It is people who direspect the laws of our country. It is people who have murdered citizens of our state. It is people who have raped people in our state. It is people who have shot, wounded and killed police officers in our state. It is people who are running drugs into our state. It is people who are crushing the ability of our medical care facilities to take care of them. It is people who are taking jobs of our citizens while we sit here with a 10% unemployment rate. It is people who have stolen cars from us, wrecked our cars without having insurance, and running from the scene of major accidents.
Armed illegal aliens in this state are responsible for 3500 acres of our state being off limits to Arizona citizens. The National Guard you might think have been sent here by President Obama are still nowhere to be seen. Of course when they arrive they will be relegated to desk jobs, unarmed and prevented from actually patrolling the border. The people President Obama said would be here to discuss options with our Governor in two weeks are still not here a month later.
So, do you want the illegal aliens in your state? Should we send them to you? Do you want them on the streets driving cars with no respect for our laws while your family is on the road with them? When the first thing they do is disrespect the laws of the United States by entering it ILLEGALLY, why would you expect them to respect any other laws? Oh, and you realize the illegal aliens who are entering Arizona are not just from Mexico, right? They are also from Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Somalia, Yemen, and a whole lot of places that support terrorism.
You probably also fail to realize that there are a lot of legal immigrants to the United States here in Arizona that are dismayed, frustrated and even more angry about these people who are breaking the laws of the country of which they worked so hard to become a legal citizen.
Do you realize that the 1070 law that everyone is so upset about has more restrictions against profiling than existing Federal law? Have you actually read the law? It is available right here so you don’t have to be ignorant of what it actually says: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf It’s a whole 16 pages so it won’t take long to read.
Ignorance can be remedied. I hope it is possible for you to learn from this before you become the next target of uninformed attack.
Remember, there are those who are always ready to manipulate the uninformed as pawns in the quest to achieve their hidden agendas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
