Conservatives, Please Stop Calling Yourselves "Constitutionalists"

At first, I hoped it was a fluke.  Maybe a few rogue conservatives that started calling themselves "constitutionalists."  Maybe Sarah Palin loyalists?  Unfortunately, I keep hearing this absurd claim from conservatives.  They really think that they are constitutional loyalists! 

It drives me crazy to hear this, and it doesn't even take a lot to discredit them.  A few simple questions will dispel this ridiculous attempt to make them feel that they are no longer a party of backwards, anti-equality, anti-progress religious fanatics. 

• Do you support the implied right to privacy in our Constitution that has been recognized by our Supreme Court...including the right to choose abortion?
• Do you support the equal protection (14th Amendment) of all people within the boundaries of a state?  Including illegal immigrants?  Including homosexuals who choose to enter into the contract of marriage?
• Do you believe in the freedom of, and from religion, that is provided in the First Amendment?  Including not allowing the government to write any laws respecting the establishment of religion?  (This means no anti-abortion laws.)

There are more questions that I could ask to disqualify any conservative as a "constitutionalist."  However, I've never had to ask more than this.  If they can truthfully answer yes to the above questions, you should probably follow up with something like, "are you aware that you are actually a liberal?"

I do understand that conservatives recognize that there is a bad connotation with the term "conservative."  It tells people that you are against progress.  That you want to go back to the way things used to be and don't want our society to progress...at least not at a reasonable rate.  Don't be mad, conservatives...you've done this to yourselves.  This makes them want to find a new term for themselves that sounds a little more positive.  Unfortunately, the closest term I could find for conservative ideology is "constitutionalists of convenience."  I use this term to mean that they passionately believe in the Constitution when it fits neatly into their ideology.  However, they believe that anything that falls outside of those ideals, like gay marriage and abortion, should not be protected by the Constitution because it offends their religious and moral beliefs.  This means they are willing to ignore the Constitution when it is not convenient for them.

Conservatives, whatever you choose to call yourselves...and I can think of a few more terms if you would like.  Please...I beg you...stop calling yourselves "constitutionalists."  You're just making yourselves look worse.

Presidential Debate: Top Romney Bullcrap

Some of my favorite Romney bullshit of the debate:

“The role of government...look behind us.  The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents.  First, life and liberty.  We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people.”

“Second.  In the line that says we are endowed by our creator with our rights...I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country.  That statement also says that we are endowed by our creator to pursue happiness as we choose.   One – making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can’t care for themselves are cared for by one another.  We’re a nation that believes that we’re all children of the same God.  And we care for those that have difficulties.  Those that are elderly and have problems and challenges.  Those that are disabled.  We care for them.” 

“But we also believe in maintaining, for individuals, the right to pursue their dreams.  And not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals.” 

I guess none of this doesn’t apply to women or homosexuals.  His own words contradict everything he said.  Many of his responses sound great at face value, but he never backs up his claims!  The sad thing is that many people believe the crap that he spews!

 And by the way, Mitt...religious freedom means that we don't all believe that we are all children of the same God.  We give each person the CHOICE to determine what they believe.  Apparently you don't hold that same belief. 

Response: SB 1070

I was asked for my opinion on the SB 1070 law.  Great topic…I thought it deserved its own blog entry.  The question was asked:

“SB1070 - what do you think about it/ Do you believe the American people in the sovereign state of Arizona have a right if the police legally stop someone they can request they show citizenship since they are being over ran by illegal aliens that are smuggling drugs, killing locals, stealing, and etc.? What is racist about admitting that Mexicans come from Mexico? If they are legal aliens they should have no problem with being asked. Just like if I am not drunk I don't worry about taking a sobriety test.”

Thank you for asking.

I covered some of this in my Entitlement…Part 3:  Immigration Post.  Here are some excerpts from that post:

If you’ve read my previous posts on entitlement, you know how I feel about people feeling that they have rights that others don’t. This applies, in part, to immigration as well. I hear a lot of people use the fact that an alien is unregistered as an excuse for them having no rights. Let me respond to this with a huge, resounding, “YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.” It would appear that those of you who say this have never actually read the Constitution. Let me enlighten you…section one of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

There is not a lot of ambiguity there. The founding fathers wrote this amendment and used the term “citizen” in it five times. They specifically chose not to use the term citizen in this sentence for a reason. They knew that everyone needed protection of the law in the United States. They did not make any exceptions for immigration status, country of origin, or color of skin.

So what are your other arguments? The economic burden? I won’t argue that point with you because I don’t disagree. I do believe that there is an economic burden with unregistered aliens. It’s the same problem I have with anyone working off the books and not paying taxes. There’s just nothing we can do about it at this time. Of course, that healthcare reform so many of you are complaining about will help when they are all required to carry insurance. This will ease the burden on our healthcare system and reduce the cost of healthcare for the rest of us. But that’s another blog entirely.

So the other argument is crime. Let’s look at the actual impact of immigration on crime (which is really an impossible statistic to measure.) To do this, we need to look at the overall crime rate. The FBI reports on the cities with the highest crime rate relative to the national rate to create a list of the most dangerous cities. They have only released the preliminary report for 2011 so we will use the data from 2010 and earlier. Based on an analysis Onboard Informatics did of the last seven years of data the most dangerous cities are:

1. St. Louis (34)

2. Atlanta (7)

3. Birmingham Alabama (tie) (31)

3. Orlando (tie) (5)

5. Detroit (16)

6. Memphis (22)

7. Miami (5)

8. Baltimore (19)

9. Kansas City, Missouri (34)

10. Minneapolis (tie) (18)

10. Cleveland (tie) (26)

Look over that list again. See the numbers in parentheses? Those are the rankings for the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the states. Do you see a glaring and obvious problem with the crime argument yet? Only three of the top 11 dangerous cities are even in the top 10 states for illegal immigrant population. Arizona’s not even on the list! I’m not a statistician, but I have done some statistics study in my educational career, but I don’t even need to use my meager skills to say, with confidence, that there is not a relationship with the overall rate of crime and the number of illegal immigrants in a state. Before you ask – these statistics took into consideration incidents of property crime, such burglary and motor vehicle theft, as well as violent crime, like murder and robbery. So pretty much all areas of criminal activity were with the exception of financial crimes, but that would only make Wall Street number one and Washington D.C. number two on the list.

The fact that people are so upset over this issue is just another facet of the entitlement diamond that so many American’s (meaning U.S. citizens) have been wearing lately. We live in a country with the 12th highest per capita GDP in the world. Our poverty level is higher than the per capita GDP of over 120 nations. Do we really expect that people will not want to come to our country to try to form a life for their family? What would you do if you lived in Mexico, only miles from a land where the per capita GDP was three times your country’s? When you had to feed your family or watch them starve, I’m betting you would run across that border…rules be damned. Am I saying that illegal immigration is okay? No. I don’t agree with it…I don’t like it. However, if we want to live in a country as well off as the United States, then we had damn well better get used to it.

That being said, I do think something should be done about it. I’m actually a proponent of building a huge wall at the Mexican border. I think it would help reduce the illegal immigration into the United States, and put a lot of people to work for a while at a time when people are begging for jobs. You like that idea, don’t you? Here’s the rub…it has to be paid for. It is an expensive concept. The money will have to come from somewhere. In our society, somewhere means taxpayers. So if you want the problem solved, you will have to pony up the dough. I also believe that, since the border states are the ones that will be benefiting from the wall, they should be shouldering the vast majority of the cost. Don’t ask for the government to fix a problem for you if you aren’t willing to pay for the fix. But put this proposal in front of the people of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California and see how quickly their sense of entitlement starts them screaming about raised taxes…

Finally, to the Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona’s immigration law. I have three things to say…well done, shame on you, and well done. First, well done on striking down most of the garbage in those laws. Article VI of the Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, places the laws and treaties of the federal government over the state laws. In this case, the federal government has been the established source of laws, policies, and procedures regarding immigration and deportation. A state cannot interfere with the execution of the federal government’s authority in this area. Basically, Arizona can’t just get pissed about how immigration is being handled and decide to take care of it themselves. As the Opinion of the Court describes, it takes a lot of training for a federal immigration agent to be able to determine who is eligible to be detained for deportation proceedings. (Yes, I did read the Opinion of the Court – I don’t rely on political analysts to tell me about these decisions). Some people are detained while some are simply issued a notice to appear. A state cannot override this protocol by making a law that they can detain anyone they suspect is an illegal immigrant. This leads to the next problem.

Racial profiling. It is a fact. It can be a problem. Most of us don’t know what that feels like. That’s because the majority of us have never been profiled based on the color of our skin. Unfortunately, many people have. The one part of this law that was not stricken down was the piece that allows officers to verify citizenship for anyone they have a suspicion is here illegally, providing that they have already stopped them for another reason. This law should really read, “Officers can detain any Hispanic so that they can verify their citizenship.” Let’s be honest…officers will look for any reason to stop someone and question them. There is always a reason to stop someone – speeding, a rolling stop, a burned out tail light, jaywalking, suspicious activity, etc. They can now ask people to prove their citizenship. Let’s say that you are a Hispanic person who was born in the U.S. You are a citizen, but you are walking (because you don’t like driving), and you are stopped for jaywalking. While you are issued a warning or a ticket, the officer looks at you and asks you to prove your citizenship. You don’t have your ID because you don’t need it and you don’t have immigration papers because you are a natural born citizen. What happens next? They can’t legally detain you. Fortunately, the Supreme Court issued guidelines along with their ruling that officers can’t detain people for longer than it would reasonably take to handle the original reason for being stopped.

But, why did the officer ask you to prove that you are a citizen? You weren’t committing any action that would lead him to believe that you were in the country illegally. So he just based it on the color of your skin and your appearance. You know, we used to do something similar to people. We looked at them and told them that they didn’t have the same freedoms as the rest of us because they were black. They were harassed and segregated from the rest of us. It took a long long time for us to get over our stupidity concerning civil rights. Oh, wait. We haven’t. We are now just disguising it as immigration policy. The great thing about the ruling is that the Supreme Court specifically said that the only reason they didn’t strike down this part of the legislation was that it had not yet been enforced. They said they couldn’t determine that this is what would happen, but that it would be left open to legal challenges if it did happen. That is a bright, shining star in the future of living without this kind of discrimination and profiling. They left the door open for us to get there; we just have to walk through.

With all of that said, it is very easy to fall into the trap of hate. Our economy is struggling so we want to find someone that is causing the problems. We still have crime so we want someone to be responsible. Who can we blame? It’s no longer okay to blame the Irish, the Italians, or African-Americans. So who is next on the list? How about the fastest growing racial demographic in the country: Hispanics. A number of them are even here illegally so let’s use that as a mask for our anger and fear. Then we can just say that we are being patriotic. We can even make it a political argument because someone hasn’t solved all of the problems that have existed for decades within four years. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d much rather accept people as they are, welcome them to our nation, and increase diversity so that my children can live in a more intelligent, diverse, and prosperous country at my age. Like the man said, “I have a dream…”

To specifically answer the questions you asked:

Question:  Do you believe the American people in the sovereign state of Arizona have a right if the police legally stop someone they can request they show citizenship since they are being over ran by illegal aliens that are smuggling drugs, killing locals, stealing, and etc.?
Answer:  No.  I don’t believe that this is a law that will do much of anything other than encourage racial profiling by police.  The U.S. is not a place that requires me to carry any form of identification at all times.  If an Hispanic natural-born citizen is walking down the street and is stopped for something like jay walking, there should be no requirement for that person to present proof of citizenship.  The color of his skin should not dictate any of his rights in our country. 

Question:  What is racist about admitting that Mexicans come from Mexico?
Answer:  Nothing at all.  The only issue I have at all is that some people are called Mexican that are, in fact, born in the U.S.  Some Hispanics who aren’t born in the U.S. aren’t from Mexico.  I have friends whose have been called Mexican, but whose families are from the Dominican Republic.  It would be equivalent to a proud U.S. citizen being called a Canadian simply because we speak English and are from North America.  So, no, I don’t see any problem with that as long as care is taken for the term to be used correctly, and without intent to discriminate.

Question (after a fashion):  If they are legal aliens they should have no problem with being asked. Just like if I am not drunk I don't worry about taking a sobriety test.
Answer:  I’ll respond to this by going into the second statement.  I have no problem taking a sobriety test if the officer has every reason to suspect that I am drunk.  The problem here lies with the reason to suspect.  A person’s skin color is not a reason to suspect someone is an illegal alien.  I have the same problem with this that I have with sobriety checkpoints.  If the police have no real reason to suspect that I am operating a vehicle under the influence, why am I being asked to provide proof that I am not?  In my opinion, this is contrary to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.  So do I give up my Fourth Amendment rights for some security (on the roads or in Arizona)?  No.  A very wise man, Benjamin Franklin, once said, “Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”  When the government takes away the rights of one group of people, they take away the rights of all people. 

The Pot and the Kettle

It’s kind of funny.  As I’m writing this, I realize that, this blog didn’t start out as a conservative-bashing forum.  I also didn’t previously identify myself as a Democrat or liberal.  While I still won’t declare myself as a Democrat, I do now proudly proclaim myself liberal.  I have backed into this position over the last few years of listening to Republicans and conservatives spout nonsense that they say is in my best interest.  The scary thing is that I live in the “heartland of America.”  This is code for conservative hell.  I am basically behind enemy lines.  Maybe I should change the name of this blog…just a thought.  This post is a discussion of some of the hypocrisies that have driven me to this point.

I’ll start with the thing we are all so very sick of hearing about:  healthcare reform.  I’m not talking about whether it’s good or not, I’m more concerned with the outrage that all of the conservatives have about it.  You may have heard in passing that Republicans were the first group to suggest many of the reforms that the current law has implemented.  This is a fact that conservatives have glossed over every time I have heard it mentioned.  What everyone is talking about is the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 (HEART Act).  This bill looks very similar to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  In fact, a look at the areas covered in the two bills leave only a handful of differences.  The most notable differences include the fact that the PPACA included the expansion of Medicaid, eliminated lifetime limits on coverage, and extended coverage for children up to the age of 26.  What is did include was an individual mandate.  What I find most interesting is that the HEART Act was sponsored by a Republican, Senator John H. Chafee.  I’ll go one step further – it had 20 co-sponsors.  Of those 20, 18 were Republicans!  Notable names on the list include Arlen Specter (when he was Republican), Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, and Bob Dole.  So this party, which is screaming that the United States as we know it has ended because of the PPACA, is actually responsible for the first proposal of the majority of the PPACA’s provisions.  Did you know this?  I mean really understand.  Think about it before you cast that vote in November.  The same people telling you that they will “protect your freedoms” are actually the ones to originally propose the very legislation about which you are complaining.

So we move on the economy.  If I never hear the words spending or deficit again I could die a happy man.  I keep hearing conservatives (which I use interchangeably with Republicans for the purpose of this post) talk about how spending is out of control and we can’t keep running these kinds of deficits.  My response is usually related to the fact that our country runs on Keynesian economics.  For those of you who don’t know what this means, here is an overly basic run-down:  run deficits during a recession and surpluses during a boom.  What I don’t usually get into is the hypocrisy that exists when Republicans are in power versus the times that they are not in power.  While I’m sure I can go into multiple examples of this…I’ll stick with words from the elephant’s mouth.  In a meeting with the Secretary of the Treasury in 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney was warned that the extreme budget deficits of that time were threatening the economy.  According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Cheney told him that “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.”  He continued by saying, “We won the midterms [congressional elections]. This is our due.”  Sooooo, they matter now?  Just not during the Reagan and Bush administrations?  Oh, I forgot, they earned that right by convincing the voters that they would actually work to improve their lives.  It’s their “due.”  

The last issue is the one something I have been hearing constantly since the Ron Paul bandwagon started to roll - The Constitution.  According to most of the conservatives I know, everything Obama has done since he took office has been unconstitutional…including the fact that he took office!  Try getting into a debate with a conservative about the merits of Obama’s term without his ethnic background or religion being questioned.  But, I digress…we will talk about the Constitutionality of Obama’s actions.  The healthcare debate doesn’t take much discussion.  It’s been before the Supreme Court, and the PPACA has been found Constitutional.  Unless anyone has the training and experience to refute the opinions of the five justices who determined that this was Constitutional (Including Justice Roberts – shocking), then all of your arguments are immediately moot. 

So let’s look at some other issues.  We’ll start with the mild uproar over the action in Libya.  People claimed that Obama’s decision to strike Libya without Congressional approval was unconstitutional.   This is a slightly more complicated matter.  First, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military.  Congress is granted sole authority to declare war.  How many conflicts have we been in that weren’t actually declared a war?  So they were pissed because he did it without their permission.  Get over it.  Complicating this further is the fact that we never sent troops into Libya.  The surgical strikes used in the action managed to rid the world of a tyrant without the cost of American soldiers.  Dare I mention – John McCain is even quoted as saying, “I think the administration deserves great credit…Obviously, I had different ideas on the tactical side, but the world is a better place.”

On the other side of the coin, we have the Patriot Act.  This legislation was passed in 2001 and signed into law by President Bush a month and a half after the 9/11 attacks.  Basically, it reduces the requirements necessary for law enforcement to gather intelligence on people in the United States.  Here are some scary provisions:

Ø  A search can be executed without a warrant if an FBI agent provides a National Security Letter – and a gag order is instituted on the ISP’s, banks, credit card companies, and phone companies who must turn over the information!

Ø  Section 215 of the act allows the government to obtain records by simply showing “relevance” to a terrorism of espionage investigation.  Notice that I didn’t say “probable cause” as is defined in the Fourth Amendment.

Ø  “John Doe” roving wiretaps can be issued which do not name a target, place, or facility to be monitored.  (Senator Rand Paul’s Letter of Opposition to the Patriot Act)

So do the people that are so worried about the constitutionality of the PPACA have anything to say?  I see days of uproar over a tax and healthcare issue, but the government can get a blank ticket to spy on anyone they want without a warrant?  However, we’re not hearing about this right now because it was championed by a conservative.  You had better believe that, if Obama had introduced this legislation, we would be hearing about how he was turning the U.S. into a police state where no one would have any freedom. 

This list could go on forever…conservatives want a smaller government, but they want to enforce their religious beliefs on the rest of us, etc.  But I’d like to get this posted so I’ll end with a thought.  One of our greatest founding fathers, George Washington, warned us to “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism,” in his farewell address.  What would you consider an imposture?  A group pretending to be morally outraged by legislation that they proposed themselves originally?  The same group crying out that we can’t handle the deficits that two of their own administrations ran?  The very same group that claims that the President has been acting unconstitutionally while they have passed a law that defies the people their constitutional rights?  All of this is being done in an effort to convince the people that they are the true patriots of our country.  While we seem to have forgotten most of what Washington warned us about, I implore you to heed his advice. 

Ignorance is Bliss...

Since the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, I have spent a lot of time debating the issue with some conservatives.  This isn’t another attempt to do that.  This is a discussion of the problems I have with debating these people. 

I have a fairly simple request when I debate people…support your arguments.  It’s not a difficult thing to do if you are using sound, reasoned arguments.  That’s the problem.  While I did have a couple of people actually use sources, the majority of these people just posted the same recycled arguments that they have heard on television, radio, or read on their conservative websites.  After using articles from peer-reviewed journals and trusted sources that included facts and figures, I was met with people who just chose to turn a blind eye.  First, they would try to dispute the validity of the facts and figures.  Unless there is a valid reason to dispute them, such as them coming from an untrustworthy source, they are valid.  For statistics like the population of the United States, the commonly accepted trusted source is the Census Department.  (Yes, I used this and it was questioned.)  Then they would attack the journal articles.  Now, I’m not saying everyone has to agree, but don’t tell me an article from a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal is invalid if you haven’t even read the research and have a real point of opposition.  Because you don’t like the fact that it totally invalidates most of your argument is not justification for the conclusions being valid.  These kinds of articles are the standard for academic discussion.  Finally, in a last, desperate attempt to have an argument, my citations were completely ignored.  I was first told that I didn’t use any, and when I proved it, I was told all of my information was refuted.  Well, that’s pretty impossible since I know that not one person I was debating can refute the Census Department or a journal article for which they only have access to read the abstract. 

Retrieved from http://www.politicalruminations.com/2010/09/cartoon-of-the-week.html

Now, I have some friends who might read this and say, “Wait a minute!  I don’t do that.”  I do have some conservative friends who can give me a very challenging and worthy debate.  I have even lost debates with a couple of them (I’m looking at you, Josh.)  Not because I think my position was wrong, just because I wasn’t prepared enough to provide reasonable responses.  Obviously, this is not directed at those people.  In fact, none of those people even attempted to debate the issue.  (I wonder why?) 

After two days of repeating myself over and over for two days and having people stare at the face of my arguments and ignore reason, I have grown tired.  I usually enjoy these kinds of debates.  I like proving people wrong.  It’s even easy in most cases.  But, when the only response you get is nonsense, it stops being fun.  I have fully embraced the fact that I am truly a full-blooded liberal at heart.  I don’t apologize for it, and I don’t apologize for the fact that I think conservative philosophy is nonsense founded in stupidity.  All I’m asking is, please, for the love of Pete, have at least some standards when you debate me.  While I love stomping on conservative ideas, it’s becoming too easy.  It’s almost not even fun anymore.  Almost.

© Keith Tucker

 

 

 

Run! Aliens! a.k.a. Entitlement...Part 3: Immigration

Immigration…finally!

I’ve been teasing you with a post about immigration for a while now. Well, the time has come. There have been a few developments in the immigration debate lately.

The President has issued an executive order to remove deportation proceedings from student aliens.

Romney has been incredibly silent on an issue he knows can only hurt him.

And…the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on the Arizona “We don’t like Mexicans” law. (Yes, that’s what I call it. You’ll live)

Let’s start with a continuation of the entitlement issue. If you’ve read my previous posts on entitlement, you know how I feel about people feeling that they have rights that others don’t. This applies, in part, to immigration as well. I hear a lot of people use the fact that an alien is unregistered as an excuse for them having no rights. Let me respond to this with a huge, resounding, “YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.” It would appear that those of you who say this have never actually read the Constitution. Let me enlighten you…section one of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

There is not a lot of ambiguity there. The founding fathers wrote this amendment and used the term “citizen” in it five times. They specifically chose not to use the term citizen in this sentence for a reason. They knew that everyone needed protection of the law in the United States. They did not make any exceptions for immigration status, country of origin, or color of skin.

So what are your other arguments? The economic burden? I won’t argue that point with you because I don’t disagree. I do believe that there is an economic burden with unregistered aliens. It’s the same problem I have with anyone working off the books and not paying taxes. There’s just nothing we can do about it at this time. Of course, that healthcare reform so many of you are complaining about will help when they are all required to carry insurance. This will ease the burden on our healthcare system and reduce the cost of healthcare for the rest of us. But that’s another blog entirely.

So the other argument is crime. Let’s look at the actual impact of immigration on crime (which is really an impossible statistic to measure.) To do this, we need to look at the overall crime rate. The FBI reports on the cities with the highest crime rate relative to the national rate to create a list of the most dangerous cities. They have only released the preliminary report for 2011 so we will use the data from 2010 and earlier. Based on an analysis Onboard Informatics did of the last seven years of data the most dangerous cities are:

1. St. Louis (34)
2. Atlanta (7)
3. Birmingham Alabama (tie) (31)
3. Orlando (tie) (5)
5. Detroit (16)
6. Memphis (22)
7. Miami (5)
8. Baltimore (19)
9. Kansas City, Missouri (34)
10. Minneapolis (tie) (18)
10. Cleveland (tie) (26)

Look over that list again. See the numbers in parentheses? Those are the rankings for the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the states. Do you see a glaring and obvious problem with the crime argument yet? Only three of the top 11 dangerous cities are even in the top 10 states for illegal immigrant population. Arizona’s not even on the list! I’m not a statistician, but I have done some statistics study in my educational career, but I don’t even need to use my meager skills to say, with confidence, that there is not a relationship with the overall rate of crime and the number of illegal immigrants in a state. Before you ask – these statistics took into consideration incidents of property crime, such burglary and motor vehicle theft, as well as violent crime, like murder and robbery. So pretty much all areas of criminal activity were with the exception of financial crimes, but that would only make Wall Street number one and Washington D.C. number two on the list.

The fact that people are so upset over this issue is just another facet of the entitlement diamond that so many American’s (meaning U.S. citizens) have been wearing lately. We live in a country with the 12th highest per capita GDP in the world. Our poverty level is higher than the per capita GDP of over 120 nations. Do we really expect that people will not want to come to our country to try to form a life for their family? What would you do if you lived in Mexico, only miles from a land where the per capita GDP was three times your country’s? When you had to feed your family or watch them starve, I’m betting you would run across that border…rules be damned. Am I saying that illegal immigration is okay? No. I don’t agree with it…I don’t like it. However, if we want to live in a country as well off as the United States, then we had damn well better get used to it.

That being said, I do think something should be done about it. I’m actually a proponent of building a huge wall at the Mexican border. I think it would help reduce the illegal immigration into the United States, and put a lot of people to work for a while at a time when people are begging for jobs. You like that idea, don’t you? Here’s the rub…it has to be paid for. It is an expensive concept. The money will have to come from somewhere. In our society, somewhere means taxpayers. So if you want the problem solved, you will have to pony up the dough. I also believe that, since the border states are the ones that will be benefiting from the wall, they should be shouldering the vast majority of the cost. Don’t ask for the government to fix a problem for you if you aren’t willing to pay for the fix. But put this proposal in front of the people of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California and see how quickly their sense of entitlement starts them screaming about raised taxes.

Now on to the political realm…

We’ll start with Obama’s easing of the deportation rules for students who entered the U.S. illegally as children. First, it’s not the child’s fault that their parents entered the U.S. illegally and brought them. They are children. What should they have done, gone to the immigration office and told them that their parents brought them here illegally? Let’s not be stupid. So, when these children grow up and become successful students they are suddenly faced with deportation. Never mind the fact that they are positively contributing to a society that they have become a part of over most of their lives. Many of them were so young when they came that they don’t even remember anything else. Why would we want to send educated people, who are contributing to our society, away? Because of something their parents did? Do you have to answer for the crimes of your parents? So I say, good for Obama. I’m glad he stood and made a statement to a Congress that has actually come out and said that their goal was to do everything in their power to stop the Obama administration from doing anything over the last two years. I hope to see more executive orders over the end of his term (whether that is months or years) to show Congress that their refusal to work together will not be tolerated.

Mitt Romney’s response to the immigration issue….silence. He barely utters a word about immigration. Why? Because he knows that anything he says will hurt him. He is in a party built primarily by, and for, upper class white men. If he supports any immigration leniency, he is going against his party. If he comes out against any leniency, he is going to be blasted by moderates, independents, and minorities. He is doing the only thing a man in a monotone party can do…shutting up. I just wish he would employ this tactic on all of the other issues.

Finally, to the Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona’s immigration law. I have three things to say…well done, shame on you, and well done. First, well done on striking down most of the garbage in those laws. Article VI of the Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, places the laws and treaties of the federal government over the state laws. In this case, the federal government has been the established source of laws, policies, and procedures regarding immigration and deportation. A state cannot interfere with the execution of the federal government’s authority in this area. Basically, Arizona can’t just get pissed about how immigration is being handled and decide to take care of it themselves. As the Opinion of the Court describes, it takes a lot of training for a federal immigration agent to be able to determine who is eligible to be detained for deportation proceedings. (Yes, I did read the Opinion of the Court – I don’t rely on political analysts to tell me about these decisions). Some people are detained while some are simply issued a notice to appear. A state cannot override this protocol by making a law that they can detain anyone they suspect is an illegal immigrant. This leads to the next problem.

Racial profiling. It is a fact. It can be a problem. Most of us don’t know what that feels like. That’s because the majority of us have never been profiled based on the color of our skin. Unfortunately, many people have. The one part of this law that was not stricken down was the piece that allows officers to verify citizenship for anyone they have a suspicion is here illegally, providing that they have already stopped them for another reason. This law should really read, “Officers can detain any Hispanic so that they can verify their citizenship.” Let’s be honest…officers will look for any reason to stop someone and question them. There is always a reason to stop someone – speeding, a rolling stop, a burned out tail light, jaywalking, suspicious activity, etc. They can now ask people to prove their citizenship. Let’s say that you are a Hispanic person who was born in the U.S. You are a citizen, but you are walking (because you don’t like driving), and you are stopped for jaywalking. While you are issued a warning or a ticket, the officer looks at you and asks you to prove your citizenship. You don’t have your ID because you don’t need it and you don’t have immigration papers because you are a natural born citizen. What happens next? They can’t legally detain you. Fortunately, the Supreme Court issued guidelines along with their ruling that officers can’t detain people for longer than it would reasonably take to handle the original reason for being stopped.

But, why did the officer ask you to prove that you are a citizen? You weren’t committing any action that would lead him to believe that you were in the country illegally. So he just based it on the color of your skin and your appearance. You know, we used to do something similar to people. We looked at them and told them that they didn’t have the same freedoms as the rest of us because they were black. They were harassed and segregated from the rest of us. It took a long long time for us to get over our stupidity concerning civil rights. Oh, wait. We haven’t. We are now just disguising it as immigration policy. The great thing about the ruling is that the Supreme Court specifically said that the only reason they didn’t strike down this part of the legislation was that it had not yet been enforced. They said they couldn’t determine that this is what would happen, but that it would be left open to legal challenges if it did happen. That is a bright, shining star in the future of living without this kind of discrimination and profiling. They left the door open for us to get there; we just have to walk through.

With all of that said, it is very easy to fall into the trap of hate. Our economy is struggling so we want to find someone that is causing the problems. We still have crime so we want someone to be responsible. Who can we blame? It’s no longer okay to blame the Irish, the Italians, or African-Americans. So who is next on the list? How about the fastest growing racial demographic in the country: Hispanics. A number of them are even here illegally so let’s use that as a mask for our anger and fear. Then we can just say that we are being patriotic. We can even make it a political argument because someone hasn’t solved all of the problems that have existed for decades within four years. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d much rather accept people as they are, welcome them to our nation, and increase diversity so that my children can live in a more intelligent, diverse, and prosperous country at my age. Like the man said, “I have a dream…”

Buzzwords

Earmarks! Conservative! Liberal! Amnesty! Illegals! Taxes! Spending! Obamacare! Jobs! Debt! Job Creators!

Heard enough? Are you ready to walk into the polls and cast your vote for me? No? Why not? Most likely, you will walk into the polls and vote for a candidate this November with little more than a list of buzzwords you heard from their commercials or from some political analyst. I’ve seen a trend in the recent elections that has been disturbing me. Many political ads and commercials have been using buzzwords to entice voters lately. Now I have no problem with the use of buzzwords. I know a little bit about marketing and I know that buzzwords are a part of marketing that is used every day in advertising. This isn’t about the use of buzzwords along with clever marketing…it’s about people voting simply on buzzwords.

Oh, you don’t do that? Well, let’s test that statement. Have you said, “The government can’t just keep spending” anytime recently? Or maybe you’ve talked about how the country is going so far into debt? I doubt that very many can honestly say that they haven’t uttered something along these lines in the last few years. So the next question is, what do you really know about these topics? What is the country’s debt? What was it before the incumbents took office? How does the government spend money? What is the debt ceiling? What does Keynesian economics mean? Does our government practice this? If you can answer these questions accurately, then this post doesn’t apply to you. If not, you may have fallen into the buzzwords trap along with the majority of the country.

Seriously, what do they really tell you when you listen to an analyst or watch a commercial? Let’s take a look at a typical commercial from the recent primaries. This commercial was for Richard Mourdock, a candidate running against 35 year Senator Dick Lugar. This commercial has absolutely nothing to say. There are some checklists though…they have Dick Lugar with the words “Bailouts,” “Tax Hikes,” and “Obama Justices.” Then they have one with Mourdock with the words “Opposes Bailouts,” “Fights Obamacare,” “Balanced Budget,” and “Less Debt.” There is literally no substantial information or justification for voting for this guy except for the fact that he knows how to use buzzwords. Ask yourself…what is his record? What are his qualifications? Don’t know? Maybe because they don’t want to tell you anything if they know they can get the votes by using a few key terms with no real meaning. Here’s the scary thing…he won the primary. A 35-year incumbent lost his seat to buzz words. Now, I’m not saying that I would want Lugar in office. I had a problem with him that had nothing to do with any of the buzzwords. I think that some people had the same problem concerning his residency, which cost him dearly. Regardless…he still lost to a man who campaigned with buzzwords.

This brings me to the use of social hot topics to scare people into voting. While I’m vehemently against political parties (a topic for a later blog), I do recognize that the chances of them going away any time soon is insanely slim to none. Unfortunately, what I have seen many politicians doing lately is using social issues as selling points to scare people away from voting for the other party. Both sides use gay marriage to scare people – immigration has become an issue – and if I hear one more thing about the President’s nationality or religion, I might just snap. First, unless you are gay, why in the hell does it matter to you if marriage between two homosexuals is legally recognized in the U.S.? If you believe marriage is a legal contract, then the government has no right to refuse marriage based on a religious belief. If you believe that it is a religious institution then THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO REGULATE IT BASED ON A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Here’s the bottom line…it comes up before elections because one side says that if you vote for the other party gays will be able to marry and we’ll all go to hell, turn gay ourselves, or your marriage will mean nothing and your spouse will leave you. This is to scare you into voting how they want you to vote. The other side presents the issue hoping to look like the defenders of the weak riding in on their stallions to defeat the evil oppressors. While I must say that I do support gay marriage, I would really love to see something actually done about the issue so that the political pandering would all just go away.

Immigration – good grief. Everyone is blaming everyone else for the immigration problem. Here’s the fix…build a big ass wall. It will put a crap load of people to work and reduce the amount of illegal immigration. But, wait! Don’t forget that it has to be paid for…so your taxes will have to go up. You can’t have everything you want. To fix this immigration problem the government will have to spend money. Deal with it and stop letting the politicians scare you into thinking that we will lose our sovereignty and become Mexico, Jr. if you don’t vote for them.

The last one that I will briefly address is the nationality and religion of the President. Here’s the thing…stop questioning it. It’s old and boring. The man will not be removed from office. His credentials have been checked, verified, and re-verified so many times that he is probably the most confirmed citizen in United States history. Every court case that has been lost trying to prove he’s not is just adding to the mountain of evidence that there is no justification for this garbage. Oh, and I do believe that this has everything to do with the man’s race. Don’t like being called a racist? Deal with it. If you are still questioning this after this amount of time and all of the evidence that has been put forth, you are doing it for reasons of race. If you say otherwise, you are a liar, sir.

Now his religion. Oh my gosh…he’s a MUSLIM! Well, he’s not…but that’s a great way to scare the hell out of the ignorant rednecks in the U.S. After 9/11, the words Muslim and Islam have almost become profanity. Who gives a crap if the man is a Muslim? Since when did that have any bearing on his Presidency? Oh, I forgot…it’s because bigotry against Muslims is accepted now that a few extremists who called themselves Muslims (which I take issue with) attacked and killed a bunch of Americans. As I have written before…these kinds of views are the most unpatriotic and offensive views that I can imagine coming from citizens of this great country. A few weeks ago, my cousin was interred in Arlington National Cemetery after he was killed in action serving as a Marine. Do me a favor and don’t spit on his grave, the graves of those like him, and the face of those who have served and still serve to protect our freedoms by spreading your hate and fear. This is a nation of acceptance and tolerance. If you are afraid of a Muslim in office then you belong elsewhere. And if you allow this kind of garbage to sway your vote, then you are as bad as those who spew this filth in the first place.

These people think that you are dumb. They think that they can throw a bunch of words with no substance at you and you will run right out and cast your vote for them. The question is: are you going to prove them right? Are you going to vote for buzzwords, or for a representative?

Entitlement...Part 2: Homophobia

Okay, I know part 2 was supposed to be about immigration, but I couldn't resist...

It's been a while, but I can't stay silent with the incredible spotlight being shined recently on the problem of homophobia in our country. My previous post discussed how people's sense of entitlement leads them to feel that they should control the relationships of others. This post is about the general sense of homophobia in our country.

I have had many a heated discussion about President Obama's support of gay marriage recently. Some have praised him for his support, some have condemned him as a liar who is just out for votes, and many have said they are happy he came out in support, but they recognize the timing. I'm not so naive as to believe that this is an actual call for support that doesn't have something to do with the upcoming election; however, I can't stand at the doorstep of a momentous occasion, where the tide of discrimination may be starting to change, and refuse to recognize the historic actions of President Obama.

Tonight, I was attempting to catch up on my recorded shows that were filling up my DVR. My wife turned on Harry's Law. This show has been fantastic in its courage to confront some of the compelling and divisive issues facing our justice system today. Tonight, I was confronted with an episode in which a gay man was denied the opportunity to donate blood to his brother simply because he was gay. It is based on the reality that exists in our country today. In 1983, the decision was made to ban any man who has ever had sex with another man the right to donate blood. Thirty years later, that law still exists. A law based upon the fear of homosexuality and an epidemic that was attacking the gay community at the time. Now, we understand AIDS, and have the ability to screen for the disease within 12 days of contracting the virus. Donated blood is screened for the disease. Regardless, the question still exists on the blood donation questionnaire as to whether or not a man has had sex with another man. I saw the actor on Harry's Law confront the judge with the following words which I found powerful, "We can’t get married in most states…we don’t have the same adoption rights…we die for this country in our wars, but had to endure ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ Where does it end?! We get beat up and harassed. Where does it all stop? And where are you?! Where’s the court that’s supposed to stand up for the disenfranchised? Where are you?!...My brother is dying...and all I want to do is give him my blood to save him. And now, as he is bleeding out, now the law, which has been so silent when we needed you, now the law rears up to tell me that I can't save him?! What country is this?!" This passionate plea hit me very hard. I'm going to approach this from two angles.

The first angle is one of my favorite, and most powerful perspectives. The legal question involves a couple of aspects of the Constitution. The first aspect is the violation of the First Amendment by passing a law that respects the establishment of beliefs of particular religions. There are some religions that accept same-sex marriage. These include the United Church of Christ, Reform Judaism, Quakers, the Metropolitan Community Church, and the Unitarian Universalists. Forcing these churches to deny a right that they specifically grant their believers is a clear violation of the First Amendment by supporting the religions who believe otherwise.

The second problem I have is the violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This is the text of that law:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This law guarantees equal protection of the law to any person within the jurisdiction of the state. This includes the legal protection of marriage laws, adoption laws, and harassment laws - apparently, unless you are gay. I don't remember reading that in the text of the Constitution, but it seems that many people feel it is implied. Or is that just their personal prejudice rearing its ugly head?

Now that I have attacked the legal problems with the homophobic trend in the U.S., (I think sufficiently enough to dispel any lingering doubt about the legal aspect of the homophobic laws) I will continue by attacking the religious aspect of homophobia. I will start with a concession. I am a Christian. I believe in the Bible and attend church. I do understand that the Bible specifies that homosexuality is a sin. I won't even begin to argue that point. What I haven't done is cling to that one, small fact as the entire basis of my belief system. Instead, I prefer to cling to the words of the man who is the basis of Christianity. To do this I will give you two passages from the Bible:

“One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, ‘Of all the commandments, which is the most important?’ ‘The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.’” Mark 12:28-31

This passage is a specific command by Jesus that, of the commandments given by God, one of the two most important is that we love our neighbor as ourselves. Would you deny yourself the opportunity for love? To see the one you love on their death bed? To spend the rest of your life with the person you love simply to make someone else feel better? To watch your loved one die because someone didn't think your blood was clean enough to save them? I doubt it. So if you wouldn't deny yourself that love, how can you call yourself a Christian if you deny your homosexual neighbor that love, in violation of the greatest commandments set forth by Jesus Christ? Will you have to answer to God for your refusal to love your neighbor as you love yourself?

The primary defense I get to the previous argument is that it is love that drives people to push this homophobic agenda. I respond to that defense with another command from the Bible:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Matthew 7:1-2

This is pretty obvious. It is not our place to judge our fellow man. That is God's job. In fact, I find it the epitome of arrogance to assume that we can stand in the shadow of God and pass judgment on our fellow men and women regardless of the fact that God specifically instructs us otherwise. Are you so pure that you can cast the first stone? Are you comfortable with the judgment that you are passing on your fellow man? Are you comfortable that you can pass the same scrutiny in your life when you stand before God and he looks at your transgressions? Are you comfortable with the fact that you will be judged based on the fact that you attempted to step into the shoes of your God and condemn someone for the love they had for another? If you answered yes to all of the questions above, then maybe you have a basis for your prejudice. However, I don't think there is a person out there who could honestly pass that test.

The legal standings of this homophobic behavior are frail. The religious standings for it are even more flimsy. It has been dis-proven not only with the Constitution, but with the Word of God itself. I could go on forever, but I'll leave you with a quick plea. Two days ago, I buried a cousin of mine who died defending the cause of freedom as a Marine. This man gave his life so that I could sit here and write this opinion. I feel it would be a poor memorial for him to discriminate against people whose Constitutional rights he died to defend. As far as religion is concerned...even if you believe it is a sin, the laws of man do not change the fact that homosexuality is a sin. If you give up your hatred and anger towards homosexuals, you will be following the commandments of Jesus Christ. You are in no danger of hell as long as you do not commit the sin of homosexuality. However, if you deny your neighbor the love you have for yourself and sit in judgment of him, you are, by the word of Jesus Christ, violating the very commandment of the Lord. So...look deep inside yourself and decide what you truly believe.

Your thoughts?