Thursday, July 15, 2010

Obama sues AZ but passes on sanctuary cities who violate two specific laws of Congress.

http://tinyurl.com/3yv4d3b
Obama's Illegal Immigration Policy: Break the Law, Don't get Sued By Bobby Eberle July 15, 2010
Usually if someone does something illegal, they face criminal charges, a lawsuit, or some other law enforcement action. If someone follows the law, then everything is OK. Afterall, the whole basis for having a law is so that people will follow it, right? Now, let's look at that idea in terms of local governments. Applying the same principle, a state or local government that attempts to follow a federal law, should be in good shape. But those governments which don't uphold the law should be subject to prosecution and lawsuits, right? Well, maybe in a "normal" country under "normal" circumstances. However, we are in Obama's world now, and if you try to enforce illegal-immigration laws, you will be sued. Ignore them, and you'll be fine.
The Washington Times reports that the Obama administration "said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that 'actively interferes.'" That's right... as Obama's team actively tries to shut down Arizona's new illegal immigration law that simply reiterates federal law, they are ignoring local governments which are actively BREAKING the law.*...***Holder's spokesperson seemed unaware that Congress had specifically passed two laws prohibiting sanctuary cities. Competence in the Justice Department is anti-correlated with leftedness. Actually, not just in the Justice Department although Eric Holder is the poster child of an "affirmative action hire."****
http://tinyurl.com/2b5yzys
Adamo: Obama And Holder Weaponize American 'Justice' By Christopher G. Adamo
In the past few weeks, America's legal system has been subjected to an avalanche of outrages from the White House and Department of Justice. But while each individual event, if considered apart from the others, would be sufficient to warrant investigations of corruption and gross ethical lapses, when examined in its entirety the situation represents a methodical and premeditated effort to fundamentally reinvent the American concept of justice.
The stage was set for the current, abominable state of affairs during the Clinton years. Scrutiny of the Internal Revenue Service during the 1990s revealed a dubious pattern of highly prejudicial behavior, wherein its audits of non-profit organizations were heavily weighted towards conservatives. In short, Clinton's political enemies faced harassment and incurred financial burdens of proving their innocence and legitimacy while liberal groups were spared any similar treatment. As the decade dragged on the pattern became glaringly obvious.
Also during that time, Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno brazenly opted to ignore or pursue evidence of malfeasance in individual cases as a direct result of the political affiliation of the subject in question. Thus, in the midst of a congressional investigation into the flagrant influence peddling of the Clinton White House by the Communist Chinese, Reno shamelessly endeavored to deflect attention by concocting a baseless case against then Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour.
When George W. Bush was elected president in 2000, he had the opportunity and arguably the duty to investigate the perversions of law committed during the preceding administration. Yet in foolish deference to the misbegotten "new tone" strategy, Bush opted to do nothing, and in the process guaranteed that upon the eventual ascension of another liberal to the nation's highest office, the chain of transgressions could resume...***Let's not forget Holder's role as Assistant AG in the Clinton administration where his only claim to fame was pushing for the amnesty granted to the ubercrook (but Clinton donor), Marc Rich.***

No comments:

Post a Comment