What if the States (and let’s start occasionally capitalizing that term again if we really mean anything at all by Federalism) that are now caught up in challenging the Obamatons on the immigration question were to pass their own laws very simply making it illegal to violate Federal immigration law within their own jurisdictions?
After all, how could the Federal government sue a State for observing Federal law?
That’s what’s happening, anyway, because it is already illegal to be here —wait for it— illegally! Who knew?
You cannot bring down unemployment or fully institute Government Medicine or address Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security until you first “comprehensively” (isn’t that a favorite term of the amnesty lobby?) address immigration. There’s no getting around that.
Next topic of interest: asylum cities. Are municipalities to be condoned in their disregard for Federal immigration law while States are attacked by an idiotic President and Attorney General for essentially enforcing Federal immigration law?
I hope these miserable Democrats lose 60 seats in the House. They deserve it.
Barack Obama’s glib and assholish response to a recent question put to him regarding the legalization of marihuana really pissed me off. A very large number of people submitted questions to him about this online for his so-called town hall meeting on Thursday and here is how he dismissed them:
I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy — (laughter) — and job creation. And I don’t know what this says about the online audience — (laughter) — but I just want — I don’t want people to think that — this was a fairly popular question; we want to make sure that it was answered. The answer is, no, I don’t think that is a good strategy — (laughter) — to grow our economy. (Applause.)
No rationale given, no acknowledgement of the seriousness of the question, no nothing: just the usual ignorance from someone who is in a position to finally stop a very wasteful and destructive front in the so-called War on Drugs —but who will not because of his essential cowardice.
The question isn’t going away, Barry. Hemp is for victory. You’ve got the wife out in the backyard growing vegetables, so why are you afraid of this plant? Hell, you’re a tobacco smoker! You fucking smoke poison every day of the week —so what is your argument against marihuana? Well, there isn’t one —unless you’re an asshole who would prefer to keep marihuana illegal as a pretext for prosecuting and investigating other actual crimes.
At some point, critical political mass will be reached and the logic of ending the criminalization of marihuana will become inescapable. You want cellulosic ethanol? Industrial grade hemp will give you that. It will also give you tens of thousands of “green jobs.” Those are the good ones, right? The ones that don’t get “shipped overseas”? You want natural alternatives to pharmaceutical pain management for people fighting cancer and other diseases? Safely and domestically grown marihuana varieties will give you that. They will also give you hundreds of thousands of home farmers and cottage industrialists of every imaginable kind. And do you want to see a dramatic reduction in the violence and lawlessness inflicted on this country by the smuggling operations of the Mexican criminal class? Then disincentivize what they do, dumbass! After 70 years of ostensibly trying to stop marihuana, how about some real change in the Government’s “thinking” for once?
Eric Holder suggests that changes are coming in the War on Drugs:
San Francisco — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama – who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana – will end raids on pot dispensaries in California.
Asked at a Washington news conference Wednesday about Drug Enforcement Administration raids in California since Obama took office last month, Holder said the administration has changed its policy.
“What the president said during the campaign, you’ll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we’ll be doing here in law enforcement,” he said. “What he said during the campaign is now American policy.”
“You’ll be surprised to know”? Why? Just because Obama was in favor of liberalizing the policy as a candidate, then allowed the raids to continue once in office, and now is reversing himself again?
There’s no doubt that the criminalization of marihuana in America makes for stupid and counterproductive policy and law. How much more effective would our border security be if the rationale for smuggling marihuana into our country were disincentivized? Only those drug dealers who were intent on moving coke and crank and other hardcore drugs into this country would find it worth the risk. And since their numbers are much smaller, our present interdictions would thereby become proportionately more effective.
I applaud the President and his race-baiting attorney general for this important first step towards full legalization, and I hope they are not bullied off their position by the drug war absolutists whose lack of common sense is destroying lives, wasting money, and undermining our border security.
Drudge links to this Bloomberg report:
Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama’s administration will examine a “buy American” requirement in economic stimulus legislation that has raised concern among U.S. trading partners, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
The administration “will review that particular provision,” Gibbs said today at his regular briefing. The president’s advisers understand “all of the concerns that have been heard, not only in this room, but in newspapers produced both up north and down south.”
It may have made the citizens of the world all warm and fuzzy to watch Barack Hussein Obama take the White House —and it may have given liberal partisans great satisfaction to see the stranglehold of the Democratic Party on Washington strengthened— but the reality of a Leftist America is one that will soon unnerve the whole planet and invite new disasters. The first post-American American President is some sort of internationalist, right? I certainly regard him as a cosmopolitan. I am interested in knowing how he is going to reconcile that with trade protectionism here in Unionized and Subsidized America. Our trading partners and neighbors depend on us —and now his own party wants to withdraw and make this Plantation America.
Which is Leftist America’s most ferverent secret wish.
ADDENDUM: “Ferverent” is more interesting than “fervent,” which is somehow lacking, perhaps in its induplicative labio-dentality. If you’re already in tha hiz-ood, the extra syllable is effortless and cold kickin’ it ai’ght p/0<3
Steve Chapman at Reason magazine has put up a great post on the Democratic Presidential candidates’ withdrawal of support for one of Bill Clinton’s greatest achievements: the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Even Hillary Clinton can’t bring herself to defend the deal her husband pushed through. Asked during a recent debate if she thought it was a mistake, she did everything but deny she’d ever met the man.
“All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts,” she chortled, in possibly the least believable statement of the 2008 campaign. “That, sort of, is a vague memory.” In the end, though, Clinton declared that “NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would.”
I think Hillary’s joke is a reference to Ross Perot, whose low-tech slideshow explanation for why he disliked NAFTA was no match for the wit of Al Gore, as memorably demonstrated in their 1993 debate on Larry King’s CNN program. Remember that? Remember when the Gorebot was a New Democrat and Americans didn’t have to be ashamed of voting Democrat anymore? Ah, yes. The Good Old Days.
Some NAFTA supporters thought it might generate enough growth in Mexico to keep Mexican workers at home. When the tide of illegal immigrants grew, it bred resentment here.
That reaction partly helps to explain the Democratic retreat. By denouncing NAFTA, the presidential candidates can appeal to Americans alarmed about our porous borders without offending Hispanic voters.
I think that’s exactly right. The Democrats have done everything they can to avoid taking responsibility for their part in illegal immigration —and have obviously been abetted in this by Big Media as they do. Trashing up NAFTA only now, in service of whatever retarded protectionist agenda now before them as a party, is still something of a surprise, though.
Both parties are guilty on illegal immigration. And the word is guilty. Whichever one of them who can make the most sense on it is going to win in 2008.
But only if they’re made to swear before a shrine to the Virgin of Guadalupe and the Deparment of Motor Vehicles that they understand: Left lane rapido, right lane burro.
Seriously. I’m one more road rage incident away from having a .50 cal mounted to my hood.
The United States of America and the United States of Mexico are going to be the same thing some day. It will all be one playground of industry and indolence —just like it is now— but by some other name. That name will be the United States of America. Our flag will look very much like the American flag we know today. Our capital will remain where it is. Our tongue will be nimbler and our women more beautiful. The great-grandson of Oaxacan farmers will sit in the Oval Office. And you won’t have to worry about keeping up with the Joneses anymore because the Perezes and Garcias will be —are now— the common style.
If you had known me when I was a young man, you’d laugh at what I’ve said just now. But the truth is that demography is destiny and the only thing that’s left to us to do is insist on pressing one for English. And I won’t apologize for that. I don’t want people paying fines; I want them to send their kids to school and learn the English language.
No. Not that I can see.
So it must be that Mexicans are wanting to be Americans. By the millions. And since it is so, then they ought to do a few things to become Americans.
Paying a fine? That’s fucking nonsense. That’s a sop to asshole politicians who want to be seen to be punitive. But that isn’t how you make an American, is it? By being punitive ab initio? What the fuck?
Instead, Mexicans who want to be Americans should submit themselves to unfalsifiable identification measures by which they can be known forever. Biometric IDs are the way to go. That’s a start. And the rest of us must do the same. Don’t give me your Big Brother nonsense, either: it’s clear that the future will demand that we be known to our government, creditors, and society. Even if it means that we are that much closer to embracing the mark of the beast, we cannot avoid the issue. If we try to avoid the issue, we will be subjecting ourselves to a future of identity theft and fraud that will only worsen.
So get to loving on that microchip up your ass, friend, because that’s how it is going to be.
The other thing is that Mexicans need to learn English. My great-great-great-grandfather Robert Allison Davis (1819-1847) didn’t fight, die, and get dumped in a mass grave in Mexico City along with hundreds of other brave young Yankee men just so that Montezuma could have his revenge.
Assimiliation? That can be a mutual thing. It will be a mutual thing. But it goddamned well ought to start from the premise that Mexicans want to become Americans —and that that hierarchy must be respected.
Ahh, yes. That old Mexican hospitality (emphasis mine):
Hundreds of union members rallied Monday to support Mexican migrants working in the United States and call for a boycott of U.S. goods in what was dubbed “A Day Without Gringos.” The boycott call by unions came as Mexico celebrated May Day, a holiday dedicated to workers and when business is a fraction of the normal.Immigration rallies also are planned across the United States, where immigrants are being urged to boycott work, school and shopping as part of the “Day Without Immigrants.”At least a half-dozen state governors in Mexico endorsed the boycott of McDonald’s, Wal-Mart and hundreds of other U.S. companies here. Measuring the impact of the actions was likely to prove difficult.
And this thing had the support of state governors?
Why shouldn’t I be offended? I’m not walking around talking about a Day without Spicks, after all.
What’s going on here?
Once again, I cannot find at home a great article I happened across at work —this one about Mexican demography. But, until I find it, have a look at this article by Richard D. Vogel. It is suitably socialist and anti-American in its examination of our history, but it explains something about why Mexican immigration is its own thing and cannot be compared to any other group of immigrants:
Two elemental factors have affected the history of Mexicans in the U.S.: first, unlike both the African American and Native American people, they have had sanctuaries — the borderlands of the American Southwest and Mexico itself — places to recuperate from the relentless exploitation and regenerate, and, second, their labor power remains essential to American capitalism. These two factors have saved the Mexican people from the dismal fate of so many Native and African Americans.
That first factor is correct: Mexico’s eventual reconquest of the American Southwest is a demographic certainty because of the law of propinquity. But the second factor is not uniquely Mexican. Or does Vogel mean to suggest that the labor of black and Native Americans is no longer ”essential” to our capitalist system? Maybe he meant “cost-effective,” instead.
(Oh, and Vogel basically makes the story of the independence of Texas into that of a huge land-grab for slave-owning Anglo-Americans —because, as we know, anything that is not American or Texan enjoys inherent moral superiority, which, as we also know, is not to be understood as romanticizing or whitewashing the nature of Mexico’s own racist and classist history— but it’s still a useful essay.)
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »