Arizona Immigration Law and California Prop 8:

We believe that it is, and will turn out to be a mistake for the President to lead the outrageous charges against the recent Immigration Reform bill passed by the Arizona legislature and signed into law by the governor. 

 The fact that the advocate groups are speaking loudly via the media cannot, and should not,  change the Constitutionality of the law.

To lead the charge against a law that in fact mimics an existing federal law that is not sufficiently enforced in the first place, and a primary reason for the new law's creation, will not only make a President look unwise, but in Obama's case, it will also reinforce the view that more and more Americans have now; that President Obama is hopelessly attached to the radical left, and the more one's argument against an issue is based primarily on innuendo validated in the mind by amplification, then the more a lack of reasoning is revealed. 

We do understand the concern for the potential "unintended consequences" that some sincere and smart people are highlighting (people who are admired by the website), but when the federal government continues to create ambiguous laws that generate multiple interpretations that reflect the ambiguity of political communications, and then to make it worse, fails to implement those laws, especially laws regarding its national borders, then you eventually create over a long period of time an unworkable situation literally controlled  by the  unintended consequences.   That's where we are with immigration reform.

That in turn causes a border state like Arizona to become fed up to the point of using its clearly defined Constitutional  state's right option via the 10th Amendment to change its laws or prompt the federal government to do its job.

This website along with lots of other conservative communication points still believes the only way to solve the illegal immigration issue is to secure the border first, and then solve the illegal immigration issue in a rational manner only after you have parameters in place.   Throughout the past decade,  it is painfully obvious that the illegal immigration issue cannot be solved, I mean, it is impossible unless the border is secure.   How long does it take Congress to understand this?

How can reasonable laws governing the assimilation of immigrants who genuinely want to become American citizens be created effectively, or seriously debated for that matter,  while the border is not secure?  How long will we elect Congressmen and Senators who cannot, or will not, resolve this issue once and for all. 

What happens is, most of the very same people distraught over the new Arizona law are also the people who consider securing the border as a "political" issue related to all the politically twisted terminology of  discrimination and profiling, and then weak politicians get cold feet and corrupt politicians get money so the border does not become secure, which brings us to the Arizona situation today.

For example, the federal government, with its top representative now speaking out on this volatile and explosive issue, should promise to do something about the border, and then do it,  instead of leading a charge, and based a great deal on presumption,  against the people and the lawmakers  of Arizona.  Who in their right mind could blame them at this point.

Later this afternoon we found a video on the web of a Greta Van Suster (Fox News) interview with Arizona Senator John Kyl on the new Arizona law.  What Senator Kyl said reinforces what we have said in the blog above.  Greta Van Suster asked the Senator what his view of the Arizona law is: "First of all, you can see why after years of inadequate enforcement by the federal government that states are driven to do this.  People demand action and the political representatives of the people then decide finally to do something.  I don't know if I would write the same law but I understand what's behind it.  My view is that until the federal government does out part back here, by providing the resources that are necessary, which would include by the way, financial support for National Guard Troops on the border, you'll see more of this and it won't just be the state of Arizona that passes laws like this."

We also noticed while Senator Kyl was pointing out areas in Arizona where illegal border crossing was now under control, the video had the visual representation of each area, and each of those areas had a physical border fence.  Senator Kyl also pointed out the areas where border crossings and dangerous criminal activity were rampart, and those were the areas for whatever reason, where Arizona did not have a physical border fence.

We were pleased to see that Florida's conservative Republican candidate for the Senate Marco Rubio has stated his support for the Arizona immigration law.  

It is similar to what's happening with the charge against the Constitutionally sound Proposition 8 in California.  For example, to convince the Supreme Court, which is where it looks like that case is going instead of the trash can, the homosexuals and their supporters  will have to convince the high court to redefine marriage because that would clearly be synonymous with declaring Prop 8 invalid. 

We would find it almost impossible to believe that a majority within the Supreme Court is prepared or even inclined to do that.  As we have stated before, we believe the Supreme Court should not even hear that case on the grounds that the burden of proof (so to speak) is on the challengers, and everyone knows before hand already that they have no proof, they are simply asking the high court to agree with them because they are all emotionally upset (to the point of becoming violent in California) over the passage of Prop 8, and that's not what the Supreme is there for. 
God help us all the day there is a majority of minds on the Supreme Court that reasons  like that.  We do not believe that  even super celebrity lawyers David Boise and Ted Olson (attorneys for those trying to invalidate Prop 8) can manipulate and twist the language far enough to convince a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court that the people of California have done something "unconstitutional."  In poker terminology they have already shown some of the blank cards they are bluffing with by demanding communication documents from the opposition, while refusing to turn over their own documents of the same nature.  When lawyers start trying to play those tricks you can reasonably presume they have a weak case.

The Raptor... January-February-March 2010 Blogs

It's been a long time since we posted a blog entries here.  The LBP site producer returned to school in early 2009 and has been spending a lot of time on school work,  restructuring the site, and working the day job.  So we are very grateful for the extraordinary number of new site visitors this past year, which kepts growing, despite our not posting a great deal of new material during the year except our new 2012 and Education sections.

Earlier this year Ann Coulter mentioned in an essay that the people of the State of Nevada should apologize for sending Harry Reid to the Senate, and we would add to that observation that the people of Massachusetts should profusely apologize to the American people for sending Representative Barney Frank to Washington all these years. 

In late 2008, just a few days before the Presidential election we posted what we thought then was a primary reason among many other reasons, not to vote for Obama. 

At that time we quoted the Economist magazine, even though the British based magazine endorsed Obama with a couple of reservations.

The reservation we thought, and the one that gave us more pause than other reservations was the perception that Obama did not have what it would take to challenge, or control, the extreme psychopathic liberalism of his fellow Democrats in Congress already two years in the working.  Especially the powerful and dictatorial leadership style of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Now, one year later, it appears that this weakness may be a major factor in what looks like it might be a serious crack in the wall.  The people of Massachusetts, of all places, decided to revolt against that state's ultra liberal history and elect, instead of a liberal Democrat, a Republican who publicly stated he would vote against the Obama Health Care overhaul, which also came to be known as Pelosicare.

As former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said on Fox News: "It was just a matter of time."

Small business owner and Milwaukee resident Trisha Vukodinivich said in a USA Today feature in mid-January: "He has no control over that ridiculous congress.  They're spending money like there's no tomorrow, and he is pretty lackadaisical about security too."

Ms Vukodinivish also hit on a point that conservatives keep saying over and over again (including this website) regarding the basic principles of liberal policy making, and of course the prohibitively expensive,  and downright incomprehensible ... gigantic health care overhaul is a classic example.  In the same USA Today interview she says that the tons of time wasted on the health care bill so far: "... is just a freight train wreck waiting to happen.  Eventually they will run out of people to tax and money to give away."

Cheney Interview quote:

We thought that the response from the Director of Homeland Security to the so called "underware bomber" in December 2009 was so pathetic and confused with politics that we concurred with David Asman on Fox Business News, that without further thought, Janet Napolitano should be replaced. 

Like the Administration's apologetic obsession with providing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay public trials on US territory, Napolitano's reaction  represents a culture of mixed signals that translates on the geopolitical landscape as weakness based on a disturbing lack of strategic determination.   

January 30, 2010

Separate yet related to the latest news item regarding CNN's Christie Amanpour's bias reporting, it was interesting to watch at random the mainstream media's take on the "Underware bomber" issue.

Immediately following Napolitano's official response, a CNN anchor manipulated a reporter's story on that issue when the reporter informed the anchor of her research and interviews with people that could have no other conclusion than Napolitano's initial response was insufficient and unbelievable, and they were justifiably furious.  The anchor said with an authoritative tone (paraphrase) Well, that's one take on it, and went on to another story. 

What LightBookproductions would like to ask is:  What other reasonable "take" was there then? 

The biased CNN news anchor apparently wanted the viewer to think that the reporter was reporting on people who were over-reacting because the Obama Administration's media marching orders require that terrorist be portrayed as mere misfits. 

The President's subsequent statements and actions have not solved the problem of having someone who thinks like Napolitano at the head of Homeland Security, but the President's actions regarding that particular situation have validated the view that Napolitano might be alarmingly detached, because of her political ideology, from understanding at the very least that the parameters of her job reach far beyond politics.

Blogs continued below
Copyright © LightBookproductions.com