Tag Archives: Arizona

Mexico Sues Georgia Over Immigration Law

Originally posted at BIG Government

By way of law and order and in an effort to protect its citizenry, the state of Georgia has enacted an anti-illegal immigration law similar to the one proposed by the state of Arizona.

Georgia’s measure seeks to “empower police to investigate the immigration status of certain suspects… punishes people who transport or harbor illegal immigrants in Georgia or use fake identification to get a job.”  The law also “requires many businesses to use the federal E-Verify program to ensure their newly hired workers are eligible to work in the United States.”

It wasn’t long ago that Barack Obama complained about the state of Arizona passing a similar illegal immigration law.  At the time, the President claimed that Arizona’s effort to control illegal immigration abused individuals by unfairly asking for identification from parents taking children out for an ice cream cone. The president warned: “If you [don’t] have your papers and you [take] your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed.”

Despite the deaths of innocent citizens at the hands of marauding interlopers toting guns, not double-scoop ice cream cones, and in an effort to protect aficionados of frozen creamery from undue persecution, the Obama Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit against the Arizona immigration law.

Therefore, it was not surprising when the “Anti-Defamation League” together with “Mexico and the governments of several Central and South American countries filed court papers…in support of efforts to halt Georgia’s tough new immigration enforcement law.”

In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the “Southern Poverty Law Center and several other civil and immigrant rights groups also filed a federal class-action lawsuit … asking a judge to halt the measure pending the outcome of their case.” The line of reasoning is “that the measure – also known as House Bill 87 – is preempted by federal law and is ‘unconstitutional.’”

The opposing groups argue that the Georgia law “establishes a ‘show-me-your-papers’ police state, encourages racial profiling, endangers public safety and betrays American values,” which up until recently included respect for the law and made it a priority to ensure the well-being of American citizens.

In essence, the lawsuits petition the American legal system to back off upholding its own laws by demanding criminals be allowed to infiltrate American borders, steal jobs and earn wages without proper identification.

In its brief, Mexico argues in support of halting the law, citing that “HB 87 substantially and inappropriately burdens the consistent country to country relations between Mexico and the United States of America.” Apparently, Mexico believes that Georgia’s effort to help identify and address illegal perpetrators, gun runners, drug cartels, and banditos who’ve been known to shoot and kill American citizens, Border patrol agents, and ICE officials is what “burdens … consistent country to country relations between Mexico and the US.”

Mexico also parroted the discrimination concept introduced by Barack Obama when he said the Arizona immigration law was a “poorly conceived law” that would “try to make it really tough on people who look like illegal immigrants.” Mexico said Georgia’s immigration law would interfere “with the strategic diplomatic interests of the two countries and [is] encouraging an imminent threat of state-sanctioned bias or discrimination.”  Sound familiar?

State officials in Georgia reacted to the opposition by filing “court papers…seeking to dismiss the lawsuit,” maintaining the “law is constitutional and predict it will survive the court challenge.” In an effort to do the job the federal government won’t do, “Proponents say the state needed to act to curb illegal immigration because the federal government has failed to secure the nation’s borders.

Illegal immigrants, who shouldn’t be in Georgia in the first place, and whose presence burdens “the state’s taxpayer-funded resources, including public schools, jails and hospitals,” spoke out accusing supporters of Georgia’s new law of “burdening the state’s taxpayer-funded resources, including public schools, jails and hospitals” – a comment that makes about as much sense as Obama’s Arizona lawsuit/ice cream argument.

The state of Georgia decided the responsible thing to do was to enforce the immigration law.  However, if the suit that seeks to prevent Georgia from doing so succeeds, it would set a disturbing precedent that would enable foreign countries to dictate and decide what sovereign American states can and cannot do to control the problem of illegal immigration.

Nevertheless, Clinton appointee U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash will ultimately decide, and has indicated that he “might rule from the bench …on the plaintiffs’ request to halt the law” on the first day of the hearing. The way Judge Thrash rules will determine whether Georgia, on behalf of the United States of America, wins or loses a battle against the unrelenting influx of illegal immigrants, the dictates of foreign countries, and the insane demands of liberal organizations that are oblivious to the safety and security concerns of America.

In the end, Judge Thrash holds the power to decide whether ice cream-eating illegals in Georgia get to celebrate the defeat of the rule of law and join their unlawful brethren in Arizona, who already enjoy Obama-sanctioned ice cream cones without being harassed for identification.


Scott Walker’s ‘Difficult Choices’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

At the 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington, regular Americans were treated with derision by the President of the United States as they gathered to voice an opinion on high taxes, out of control government and the loss of traditional values.

Last year Obama dared the Tea Party by saying: “So the challenge, I think, for the Tea Party movement is to identify, specifically, what would you do? It’s not enough just to say get control of spending. I think it’s important for you to say, I’m willing to cut veterans’ benefits or I’m willing to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits or I’m willing to see these taxes go up… some of these are very difficult choices.”

In response to Barry’s “challenge,” the newly elected Wisconsin governor, Republican Scott Walker, “identified and specified.”  In the face of a $3.6 billion budget deficit and in an effort to rein in out-of-control spending, Walker made the difficult choice to cut state worker benefits 8%, as well as curtail the power of unions in the collective bargaining process.

After Governor Walker responded to Obama’s provocative confrontation, rather than praise the effort to address the deficit the President stood with unions and state workers storming the Wisconsin state capital in opposition to the Walker’s proposal. The President sided with the wrong crowd by befriending unruly protestors whose signage conveyed the antithesis of the President’s moving civility-first message in Tucson.

Quite contrary to his criticism of the Tea Party, the President endorsed the DNC’s “Organizing for America – the remnant of the 2008 Obama campaign -playing an active role in organizing protests” that are raining bedlam down on the Badger State.

After mocking the Tea Party for “waving tea bags around,” the President has said nothing about Organizing for America “Filling buses and building turnout for the rallies…in Madison organizing 15 rapid response phone banks urging supporters to call their state legislators, and working on planning and producing rallies.”

This arm of Obama’s operation – campaigning against conservative change – is predictable. Organizing for America‘s support for the protesters is right in line with the President’s “clear stance against Walker.” History tells us that when it comes to dealing with Republican governors, Obama’s policy is poles apart from his positive response to progressive disorder.

In Arizona, Barack defended illegal aliens, sued the state, and abandoned Governor Jan Brewer in her fight against a relentless invasion from the south. The President remains nonchalant about the war on the border as US federal and border patrol agents and US citizens are murdered daily by drug cartels.

Moreover, if challenged on any level, Barack refuses to budge. After he “won,” Governor Walker came up with a plan to address Wisconsin’s huge budget shortfall and despite opposition has not faltered. Obama should be praising the governor for “ignoring Wisconsin voices today and asking for the power to drown them out permanently tomorrow.” Doesn’t Walker’s stance typify the Barack Obama pay-no-heed-to-those-who-oppose-you style of governing?

In response to the Wisconsin unrest, even House Speaker John Boehner implored the President to get Organizing for America to retreat from inappropriately organizing the disruptive political protest. Boehner said: “I urge the president to order the DNC to suspend these tactics.”

Regardless of the outcome, it is unlikely President Obama will respond to Boehner’s plea in a mature, bipartisan way. In fact, if Scott Walker’s bill passes, Barack will likely retaliate by suing the state of Wisconsin and then turning his negative attention to yet another Republican governor and go after the reputation of, oh…let’s see…maybe someone like New Jersey’s Chris Christie?

Pick-pocketing the Dead

In Tucson, Arizona, Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was gravely injured in a horrific shooting that seriously injured 12 and killed six, including a nine year-old child. “Shocked and saddened lawmakers” are now grappling with the idea that “new laws and regulations are needed to curb incendiary speech.”

Although despondent and disgusted over the bloodbath, Americans should not be fooled. Compassionate concern from the left has little to do with protection for politicians and everything to do with reining in freedom of speech.  If inflammatory words – not politics – were the real issue, “Allahu Akbar” would be relegated along with “targeted…crosshairs…kill the bill…the ‘N’ word and Hawaiian Punch” to the no-no column of the vocabulary list. The last time I checked, the terrorist battle cry “Allahu Akbar” was not on that list.

It’s safe to say that it’s not beneath liberal logic to tie together fire/arson/shouting/panic and Rush Limbaugh if the result accomplishes the curtailing of First Amendment rights. Democrats would love to apply to unrelated circumstances the 1919 US Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States where Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Using legislative duct tape, the left can seal the mouths of anyone who disagrees with liberalism and promote it as prevention of political violence ignited by the use of combustible words.

In 2007, a tow truck driver was convicted of stealing from a victim “in a double-fatal car crash.”  As the crumpled casualties lay in the road, Ronald Forget of Pawtucket, Massachusetts “took the wallet of one of the victims and used credit cards from the wallet to pay his cell phone bill and to buy gasoline.”

The truck driver’s actions, cold as they seem, are eerily similar to the response of liberal politicians and left-wing media types to the carnage brought about by the psychotic madman in Tucson, Arizona.   The left smells blood from miles away and will pull up alongside any convenient casualty.  In this case, liberals all but politically picked the pockets of the deceased in hopes of furthering a freedom-stifling agenda.

Granted, caution should be used when accusing anyone of heartlessly exploiting tragedy.  However, following the horrendous shooting, and based on the left’s ghoulish behavior, the only conclusion that seems reasonable is that the crisis provided a prime opening for liberal government bureaucrats to look for another excuse to further restrict the Constitutional rights and freedoms of US citizens, and to do it on the backs of those who suffered and died.

Based on public disapproval of healthcare reform and reeling from stinging defeat, Democrats came across a pileup in Arizona that has provided a liberal Thought Police scenario with the potential to justify a “warning against a return to [what they call] the divisive rhetoric of last year’s healthcare debate.”

Misfortune provided post-election Democrats the perfect storm.  The situation culminated in an impeccably timed critical mass, where politics, guns, conservatism, the healthcare reform debate, and the Tea Party could be directly tied to a massacre.  Rather than focus on truth, the left chose to manipulate terror to quash telltale condemnation of an out-of-control left-wing ideologue President, an ousted Congress, and a Democrat-controlled Senate hell-bent on placing a yoke of socialism on the back of a resistant nation.

After the fact, in a pseudo-display of false solidarity, the shooting is now being described as a “rare moment of unity on Capitol Hill.”  That is pure political spin. What transpired was the Democrat ambuscade hit pay dirt.  The left patiently laid in wait for an excuse to blame unrelated violence on “inflammatory rhetoric,” Fox News, conservative talk radio, and popular politicians, and in the process are using a self-righteous demeanor to chide anyone who dares disparage liberal/Democrat policies or politicians.

Rhetoric-reaction to the shooting has been so bizarre that Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree proposed expunging the word “killing” from the name of the “Repeal the Job-Killing Healthcare Law Act.”

Phantom Democrats are parsing words and pointing fingers at the innocent, making ridiculous statements such as Pingree saying “I’m not suggesting that the name of that one piece of legislation somehow led to the horror of this weekend — but is it really necessary to put the word ‘killing’ in the title of a major piece of legislation?”

Hey Chellie, do we really need the word “punch” in punch line? How about bullet proof, gun shy, slaphappy, choke hold, and shoot off your mouth?  The words kilt and kiln sound too much like “kill,” which poses a potential problem in a heated political environment. How about cutting the rug, loaded for bear or pipe down?

So far, despite the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the shootings, the left has yet to acknowledge the multitudinous examples of provocative language used by Democrats. For example, for twenty years, Barack Obama was mentored by a racist, anti-Semite, anti-American deranged preacher whose revolting rhetoric far exceeded use of the word “target,” or the metaphoric placement of benign symbols on a map.

There is still not one scintilla of evidence that the Arizona shooter was motivated by political rhetoric.  Nevertheless, even before the police and ambulance arrive the left continues to cruise the Arizona crash site by censuring crosshairs, touting the merits of the Fairness Doctrine, and blaming Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle for influencing a person who was unbalanced long before either woman showed up on the national scene.

So as Gabrielle Giffords heals and six innocent murder victims, including nine year-old Christina-Taylor Green, are laid to rest, it appears the left will continue to pick-pocket the dead by taking advantage of heartbreak, feigning righteous indignation over nothing more than hyperbole, and looking for obscure excuses to muzzle political opposition in the name of moderating incendiary rhetoric.

The untimely and unnecessary death of Agent Terry

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Taking a page from the drug cartels that fearlessly take on Mexican Marines in gun battles, bandits north of the border between Arizona and Mexico felt invincible enough to challenge and kill a US border agent.

Agent Brian A. Terry was “shot dead after he confronted several suspects while on duty with a special tactical team in a mountainous area a few miles northwest of the border city of Nogales.” Apparently, armed banditos figured, “Hey, America doesn’t stop us from crossing over, robbing and raping illegals entering Arizona from Mexico, so what’s a few dead border patrol agents?”

The shooting comes amid growing concern in the United States over the potential for drug cartel violence to spill across the border from Mexico, where more than 33,000 people have been killed since President Vicente Calderon took office in 2006 and vowed to crush the cartels.

Brian Terry , who was gunned down, was a 40 year-old former Marine and ex- metro Detroit police officer.  Although able to survive the mean streets of Detroit as well as surmount the challenges of the US Marine Corps, Brian couldn’t survive a band of illegal marauders causing havoc on the Arizona-Mexican border.

Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said the assailants were likely … either smugglers who use the rugged, mountainous area west of Nogales to haul both drugs and illegal immigrants into the United States, or bandits who frequently prey on them.

Terry was “part of an elite squad similar to a police SWAT team that was sent to the remote areas of north Nogales known for border banditry, drug smuggling and violence.”  Obviously an American patriot, Brian’s sister said: “His dream all his life was to be a federal agent.  It was always ‘I want to be a cop; I want to get the bad guys.'”  Well, the tragedy is that illegal bad guys got Agent Terry instead.

The Sheriff said, “We don’t know if they were protecting a load or preying on people who were coming through … the area … with drugs or humans.” Does it matter? Agent Brian Terry is dead.

Brian Terry’s sister said that being a US Border Patrol agent was “his life. He said it was very dangerous but he loved what he did and wanted to make a difference,” – on a border that DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano insists is “more secure than ever before.”

T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council said, “This is a sign that the politicians and bureaucrats are overly optimistic in their assessment that the borders are more secure now than at any point in our history.”

Instead of condolences, Janet and Barack both owe Agent Terry’s family an apology.

Rather than spend ten days with their beloved son and brother over Christmas, the Terry family will be prematurely burying a United States veteran who needlessly lost his life on American soil.

The harsh truth is that Agent Terry is being laid to rest thanks to a lax Obama administration whose policies have allowed our nation to be invaded from the south and whose ridiculous concern over unfair racial profiling takes precedence over dead Border Patrol agents.

CBP Commissioner Alan Bersin said, “Our commitment to Agent Terry and his family is that we will do everything possible to bring to justice those responsible for this despicable act.”  Someone should inform the well-meaning commissioner that true justice is impossible because those responsible for Agent Terry’s untimely death are in Washington DC, safely ensconced in positions of political power and far from the danger on the border.

Opportunity Obama-style – American Thinker – July 13, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

It’s no secret Obama can always squeeze in time for a few rounds of golf.  In addition, the put-your-feet-up President is also an aficionado of extended weekends relaxing and availing himself of what he perceives as frequent well-deserved breaks.

Yet, the President whose administration has chosen to sue the state of Arizona has set nary a wingtip on the border of the Grand Canyon State to assess the illegal immigration dilemma.

Obama eagerly motored on into Nevada to campaign for “fighter” Harry Reid who is about to turn over the title to Republican Sharron Angle.  While in Nevada, Barry chose to forgo the opportunity to fly AF1 over one state to visit some of the trouble spots between Mexico and the U.S.

Rather than venture toward the border to evaluate the area where 21 people died in a drug-related gang war, Obama chose to spend precious time slamming Republicans, whining about the mess he was left with and blaming Bush.

Obama had loads of time for snow cones and shrimp on the Gulf Coast, but can’t seem to find a second to meet with besieged Arizona law enforcement.  It seems Barack is more concerned about people being inconvenienced in ice cream parlors than the ever-increasing pile of dead Arizona police officers, murdered at the hands of illegal immigrants.

If priorities were appraised according to importance, Obama’s next scheduled event reveals everything America needs to know about how Obama evaluates criteria and sets precedence. Just prior to flying up to Maine for a little Mt. Desert Island R & R, Obama will be attending a groundbreaking ceremony for an LG Chemical plant in Holland, Michigan.  Ever the opportunist, it appears that the new plant will manufacture batteries for the electric vehicle Obama has plans to jam every living breathing American into in the coming years.

Barack Obama is a master of pick-and-choose crisis concern.  Obama Express whistle stops are not chosen based on what benefits America, oh no.  In between vacations and Republican demonization tours, the President rearranges the calendar to fit in public appearances at venues that make statements about what Obama deems important and what he adamantly dismisses. Arizona is a perfect example of a dismissal.

Frequent stopovers to the beleaguered Gulf Coast are merely Obama pushes for cap and trade. Racial profiling is unforgivable in Arizona, but Obama can overlook racial remarks by Harry Reid. Obama needs Reid to maintain his Senate seat, so look out Las Vegas, here comes Barry.

In the meantime, murder and mayhem overtake a state a few hundred miles south of Las Vegas. Rather than act like a leader and attend to a serious issue, the President chooses to diss Governor Brewer, criticize the effort of the state to impose the law, and stunningly drag Arizona into court to justify self-defense.

The state of Arizona is being forced to stand up against drug traffickers, gangs and illegals as well a Chief Executive who hopes to use the death and bloodshed on the border between Mexico and the United States as a vehicle to transport new voters to the polls in 2010 and 2012.

Obama continuing to disregard Arizona is as much a ploy for promoting policy as visiting LG Chemical Plant is a strategy to ensure resistant Americans end up stuffed like sardines into little battery-operated cars.

Commodus Castigates a Centurion – American Thinker – June 25, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

Emperor Lucius Aurelius Commodus, son of Marcus Aurielus, the “last of five good emperors,” ruled Rome from AD 177 to AD 192.   History tells us that Commodus “proved to be a self-indulgent, disconnected leader.”  In fact, Commodus‘ “accession to power ended a spell of 80 years in Roman history which had brought men to the throne by merit rather than birth.”

Supposedly, Imperator Caesar Lucius Aurelius Commodus Augustus was filled with “cruelty, vanity, power and fear,” which “formed into a terrifyingly dangerous mix of bloodlust, suspicion and megalomania.”

Thousands of years have passed and presently America is being ruled by Barack Obama.  Obama also maneuvers his way through the political empire like a Roman Emperor whose objective is retention of power by way of wile, stealth, and intimidation.

Defy or disparage Obama, and a suspicious president adopts dealing with the offender as his top priority and behaves like an obsessed Commodus, pursuing enemies who are armed only with blunted weapons. In fact, Obama’s ancient predecessor, Commodus “is said to have feigned a plot against his own life, in order that he might have an excuse for putting many to death.

Take for example Arizona daring to enact immigration law as a means of self-preservation. Obama views the state under siege, defending itself from mutiny against the empire, and intends to drag the Grand Canyon state into the coliseum to spank the living daylights out of defiant politicians and policy.

Top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal also did the inexcusable.  In a Rolling Stone article entitled “The Runaway General,” McChrystal candidly described an encounter with Commodus-in-Chief.

McChrystal thought Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn’t go much better. “It was a 10-minute photo op,” says an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his [expletive] war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.”

A highly trained general at the pinnacle of his military career certainly has experience enough to recognize “unpreparedness” when he sees it.  Yet, the observant General found that one dare not defy Obama, because harsh recompense can befall the mighty at the hand of the weak. Remember, “Whosoever ridiculed [Commodus] he cast to the wild beasts.”

The President, like a power-hungry Roman emperor, seems driven by insecurity and exhibits disdain for disagreement. McChrystal’s comments were defined as flippant insubordination by the “furious” Obama. Thus, America’s highest-ranking legate was summoned from the heat of battle for a face-to-face reproof in Washington, D.C.

If McChrystal thought fighting the Taliban was rough, the Afghan war is nothing compared to being dressed down by a Chicago community organizer whom McChrystal all but called a “wimp in the White House.”

Although imprudent, General McChrystal and his aides spoke with unadulterated veracity about Obama’s inexperience and ineptness. Obama chastising a “Spartan commander” of McChrystal’s caliber can be likened to a Roman emperor throwing an unarmed centurion to the lions.

Though reported as a resignation, truth is President Barack Obama “ousted Gen. Stanley McChrystal” as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan for contemptuous remarks about administration officials, which Obama contends “undermined civilian control of the military and eroded trust on the president’s war team.”

Ironically, Obama’s irresponsible international diplomacy and “poor judgment” has compromised the safety of our troops numerous times. For an amateur like Barack to intimate that McChrystal’s personal statement compromises the safety of the military in Afghanistan encapsulates the paranoid character of a current-day Commodus.

The comparisons between Barack Obama and Commodus are unsettling. According to historical texts, Commodus was a weak, inexperienced leader who came to power with great pomp and ceremony and fancied himself the god Hercules. Yet, Commodus’ reign is credited with “ending years of Roman stability and prosperity.”

Like Barack Obama, Commodus entered Rome “in a triumphal procession, receiving a hero’s welcome.”  To the young, “Commodus [was] an icon of new, happier days to come; his arrival sparked the highest hopes in the Roman people.”
In the name of peace, Commodus relinquished military advances the Roman Empire celebrated under Marcus Aurelius.

Militarily, the Roman Emperor “surrendered all his father had achieved” and retreated from “direly contested territories.”  Emperor Commodus’ retreat was viewed as “an utter betrayal of everything the beloved Marcus Aurelius had stood for.”

Similar retreats from hard-won military advances may be at the crux of General McChrystal’s beef with Obama.

Like Obama, Commodus was “loved by the lower classes” because “generosity was indeed a part of his imperial program…the emperor obtained some of this funding by taxing members of the senatorial class.” The Emperor “nearly bankrupted the imperial treasury with his expensive lifestyle,” and then “replenished it by accusing senators of treason and having their property seized.”

Can anybody say $13 trillion dollar deficit, “BP shakedown,” or tax the rich and “redistribute the wealth?”

Commodus identified with Roman gladiators who were drawn from the dregs of society. Commodus “played gladiator” while “the empire itself faced hard times.”  Two thousand years later, Obama plays golf while American experience hard times.
According to Roman historian Herodian (1.15-17), “In his gladiatorial combats, [Commodus] defeated his opponents with ease, and he did no more than wound them, since they all submitted to him only because they knew he was the emperor, not because he was truly a gladiator.”

Even today Emperor Obama nibbles clusters of grapes while terrorists sneak over the border, the economy falters, Ahmedinejad is in the process of starting a nuclear friction fire by rubbing a bomb between Iran’s Israel-hating hands, and oil hemorrhages like a severed artery into the Gulf of Mexico, smothering the American coastline.

At a sensitive time in the Afghan conflict, retribution for impertinence toward the Imperious One takes precedence over both strategy and security. General Stanley McChrystal’s resignation is merely additional collateral damage delivered by a disgraceful administration that makes sport of “degrad[ing] the most honorable either by insulting them directly or giving them offices far below their deserts.”

Commodus’ reign was filled with bad decisions, causing the people of Rome to suffer.” Truth be known, Obama is nothing more than a high-handed modern-day Commodus whose disproportionate focus is dealing harshly with critics while Rome burns.

Highland’s Low Road – American Thinker – May 15, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

For fifteen years, underage girls have neither been deterred in the quest to terminate a pregnancy nor placed in the precarious position of giving notice to a parent or legal guardian, because the state of Illinois does not take kindly to certain laws.

Specifically, there’s the Illinois Parental Notification of Abortion Act: “[A]lthough the state legislature passed the law in 1995, [the act] has never been enforced thanks to lawsuits and a delay from the state.” Thus, underage girls have been protected by strangers from the abuses that follow when devoted, concerned parents are notified that a young child is pregnant and seeking an abortion.

In order to uphold a similar level of safety, an Illinois high school recently deemed it too risky for female athletes to play basketball in the state of Arizona because Grand Canyon state lawmakers insist on enforcing immigration law. It appears, according to some Illinois educators, that playing basketball in Arizona poses dangers similar to those that arise when a blood relative is made aware a daughter, supposedly in study hall, is instead submitting to vacuum aspiration.

Regardless, powerless parents of Highland Park High School female athletes are still “outraged over [the] move … to scrap its girl’s basketball team trip to Arizona over the new immigration law.” These are the same irate folks who have nothing to say about suction curettage being done on junior high school students because Illinois doctors required “to notify parents or guardians of girls 17 or younger” never bother to enforce the law.

School administrators from a state that doesn’t respect parental notification laws likely have the same attitude as doctors when underage girls seek abortion counseling. Teacher’s union members usually concede a teenager’s right to choose, handing girls off to clinic-approved health care providers and trusted adults.

Yet while minors are afforded the right to invasive surgical procedures without benefit of parental notification, administrators at Highland Park High School recently felt authorized to exercise say-so over other people’s children by canceling a long-anticipated basketball tournament in Arizona. The reason? According to Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson, “safety concerns and because the trip ‘would not be aligned’ with the school’s ‘beliefs and values.'”

Interestingly, Suzan Hebson knows a thing or two about “beliefs and values.” It seems that Ms. Hebson hosted a parent-restricted panel discussion for 14-year olds led by the Gay and Straight Alliance Network.

Based on non-enforcement of the Illinois Parental Notification of Abortion Act of 1995, it would be interesting to hear the maternal Ms. Hebson expound on “safety concerns” associated with teenagers making unsupervised trips to Illinois abortion clinics. In addition, parents would likely welcome further detail about the “beliefs and values” shared by the Highland Park High School “girl’s issues”counselor when confronted by a 9th-grader with a right to privacy question.

According to Suzan Hebson, basketball in Arizona is treacherous terrain. The controversial Hebsonemphatically stressed, “Arizona is off-limits, at least until it’s more clear how the state’s new law, which makes it a crime to be in the country illegally, will be enforced.”

Apparently, when it comes to certain policies, Suzan is a stickler for legal clarity. To date, ongoing disputes, restraining orders, and sixty-day grace periods still prevent Illinois parental notification from being enacted. Surely Ms. Hebson plans to approach the parental notification law with same desire for enforcement clarification as the superintendent demanded from the new Arizona immigration law.

Clarifying further on the reasons for Highland Park High School’s decision to cancel the varsity trip to Arizona, Hebson added, “We would want to ensure that all of our students had the opportunity to be included and to be safe and be able to enjoy the experience. We wouldn’t necessarily be able to guarantee that.”

Hebson’s statement sounds more like concern for students in her “controversial program requiring ninth-graders to attend a ‘freshman advisory’ class at which gay upperclassmen shared stories of their high school experiences” than for Highland Park Giants being guaranteed the right to play basketball.

Furthermore, why does Suzan Hebson insist on conveying a message to impressionable, school-age children implying that American citizens need defense from the rule of law?

Mike Evans, father of one of the team members, questioned the school’s decision to cancel the trip, asking, “Whose values and what values and what beliefs [is the school] talking about?” Why, certainly not Mr. Evans’s values and beliefs. Evans must know by now that in the “go to” state of Illinois, parents have nothing to say about gay lifestyle panel discussions, canceled basketball tournaments, or the procurement of underage abortions.

Attempting to understand the school’s decision, a confounded Mr. Evans questioned Highland Park’s approval of other school trips. “The school has sent children to China, they’ve sent children to South America, they’ve sent children to the Czech Republic, but somehow Arizona is more unsafe for them than those places.”

The astute Mr. Evans sarcastically quipped, “The beliefs and values of China are apparently aligned, since they approved that trip.”

What brilliant insight on the part of a potentially “dangerous” father, especially in light of China’s harmless and accessible abortion law.  The “safe,” “enjoyable” basketball tournament realm of the always-welcoming China likely upholds “beliefs and values” similar to those of Planned Parenthood, the ACLU-IL and most public high school counselors and administrators concerned with “girl’s issues,” like the overly protective Suzan Hebson.

So if safeguarding Illinois teenagers from parental notification and unfriendly immigration law is the goal, then Highland Park school administrators are correct: Red China is a far better choice for a high school trip than Arizona.

The Next Woman on the Left’s Hate List – American Thinker Blog – April 26, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

In the spirit of former Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris and Sarah Palin, a conservative woman from Arizona stepped forward exhibiting the type of  guts it takes to uphold “truth, justice and the American way.”

Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation’s busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.

Let’s hope the woman doesn’t wear Naughty Monkey shoes because Brewer’s clothes, hairstyle, and makeup techniques are sure to be mocked and derided.

How long will it be before Jan Brewer is parodied on SNL dressed as a border patrol officer blowing smoke off the end of a pistol after disposing of innocent, law-abiding illegals?

Expect to see Governor Brewer portrayed all over the liberal media as both inarticulate and intellectually challenged. Within days it’s likely someone will step forward claiming to have overheard Brewer sharing that from the porch of the Governor’s mansion, she can see Mexico.

In the face of extreme pressure, the Arizona Governor chose to do the unthinkable: her job.  Brewer refused to acquiesce to Barack Obama-style liberal intimidation or RINO politicians more concerned with being politically correct than with upholding the rule of law.

The Governor said, “We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.”
The Washington Post reported,

The legislation, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

Is it possible that Arizona now views “illegal,” as against the law?

Yet Barack Obama, America’s most misguided president to date, called the bill “misguided.” Clearly, Obama must consider restraining illegal immigrants, Los Zetas gang members, drug traffickers, and murdering interlopers, running amok in Arizona, unlawful.

Obama contends the “federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to “irresponsibility by others.” The Arizona Governor takes an oath to govern responsibly, follows through on the pledge, and is then called irresponsible by a President with a federal plan to rein in state-level renegades as if they were illegal immigrants.

Obama scolded Brewer saying, “That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

When Obama brings up fair and safe, is he referring to Robert Krentz the 58-year old rancher found shot to death on a family owned ranch, allegedly murdered by an illegal smuggler tied to a Mexican drug cartel?

Barry’s distorted views would be better expressed in a straightforward manner.  Obama should just come out and say, “Brewer’s Arizona law is unfair because it discourages illegal immigration, which directly threatens carefully planned election fraud for 2010 and 2012.”

Either way, while preparing for the impending deluge of derision, Jan Brewer can exasperate the likes of Tina Fey by refraining from playing the flute, as well as swearing off Delegate Lady shoes, lip-liner and Kazuo Kawasaki eyewear. But, above all else, the Arizona Governor should avoid being seen staring southward, toward Mexico from her house.

%d bloggers like this: