Home » Featured, Headline

Raising Arizona

Thomas F. Roeser 28 April 2010 No Comment

Liberals don’t want to pass an immigration law: they want to exploit the situation in Arizona so as to rev up their base for 2010 and beyond. Under the demagogic leadership of The Great One, the Harvard lawyer whose papers are held in security from readers to see, all they need is to let Him do an angry standup read …and send Looie the Weasel (Rep. Luis Gutierrez) and Al the Sharp One (Al Sharpton) out to fire up the base for 2010. But of course liberal journalists are weighing in with excited responses. Yet there was one systemic failure from a prime liberal yesterday.

Thus for sheer incompetence, I give you the famed Greenhouse Effect, the analysis of dire consequences by the lefty who covered the Supreme Court for 30 years for The Times. Writing angrily in The Times on the Arizona law yesterday, she pontificated that Arizona fascists have passed a law curtailing “a new crime”—

But guess what? Although she is…ahem…Senior Research Scholar in Law, Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence and Joseph Goldstein Lecturer in Law at…where else?…Yale Law School, she made a rookie journalist mistake by getting hold of and commenting on an outdated copy of the law! Gulling a paper to print a welter of inaccuracies based on the outdated law would get a cub reporter bounced. If there were any justice equally meted out, it should nullify anything Greenhouse writes from now on. But of course it won’t.

Here’s the story of her journalistic hit-and-run.

When you go to the bill’s webpage you see “bill versions.” There are three different versions…(a) as introduced, (b) Senate engrossed and (c) House engrossed. The House engrossed version was the one actually signed by the governor. Which means that the fire-breathing Linda had her paper fulminating in error.The Times meekly came across with an apology and correction late yesterday.

The following didn’t make the error. They just blew their tops anyhow to excite the base. These include…
Barack Obama (“misguided and threatens to undermind basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans”)…

…E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post (“shameful!”)…

… the tag-along lip synch and newly coined lefty David Brooks of The New York Times (“Terrible&hellipan invitation to abuse”) and

… the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker (“hearkens back to apartheid”).

Actually, the bill is well-crafted and definitely needed for many reasons.

These include the current tsunami of illegals and drug pushers streaming past the Arizona border and the failure to enforce its borders by a timid Obama administration as well as the failure of the Homeland Security department and Dem congress…some Republicans included…to act because of paralytic fear they will alienate the Hispanic vote—including building a fence that would take care of most of the problem.

But let’s be clear: no one…utterly no one…goofed with more pathetic intensity than the woman who has been over-educated and hyper-praised far more than her meager intelligence warrants—Linda Greenhouse.

If officers stop a person for some legitimate reason and suspect that he or she might be in the U. S. illegally, they are required to check with federal authorities on his/her immigration status. What’s so terrible about that?

The heart of the law is this: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or law enforcement agency… where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made when practicable to deteremine the immigration status of the person….” Hellip means group.

Liberals have zeroed in on “reasonable suspicion” saying the law would give cops the power to pick anyone out of a crowd at random and force them to prove they are in the U. S. legally which might force wholesale deportations of Hispanics. But they don’t understand the phrase “lawful contact.” How would it work? Kris Kobach, a law professor from the University of Missouri-Kansas City, who guided its language told The Washington Examiner:

“The most likely contact where this law would come into play is a traffic stop. Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling. An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody has identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with the U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.”

But what if the driver has shown the cop his driver’s license? The law says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver’s license or other state-issued identification he/she are presumed to be here legally. There is no reasonable suspicion.

Now I ask you: What’s so unreasonable or fascistic or Nazi-like about that? Only to liberal Democrats who want to excite their base…or to Linda Greenhouse who doesn’t have the latest copy of the law.

Loyal Dems to the Last.

You really have to hand it to Capitol Fax. Loyal-loyal-loyal yellowdog Democrat-Lefties to the end. Here you have Alexi Giannoulias with a raft of scandals including his own ineptitude as state treasurer in handling Bright Star…but he will usually have a defender…sometimes grudging to be sure…in this most prestigious of the state’s…ahem…objective daily news bulletins—one, I admit, which is virtually indispensable—on state politics and governance.
But even CF pointed out yesterday that old Soulful Eyes Quinn, all a-twitter about Bill Brady’s not distributing copies of his tax form to all the reporters (necessitating that the poor dears had to copy stuff by hand—ugh!), forgot that he did the same thing when he released his.

Still, on the big issues…pro-tax hike…tell us where to cut the budget `cause it’s all muscle, no fat, no bull…CF can be counted upon as a loyal Dem partrner. Fighting against those who want Alexi out, CF insists the treasurer will stick-stick-stick to the end (I personally hope so because I want to elect Brady). Then it turns favorably to Kristin McQueary the always liberal-predictable pundit working for…where else?…the Southtown Star, in the Sun-Pravda firmament.

“Are voters ready for him?” she wrote the other day. As if to tell us they are not.

Just check the polls, m’dear McQueary.

Now…am I GOP predictable? What—you don’t remember all the times I beat up on Big Jimbo? Jim Edgar? Mark Kirk? And…in the recent past…Brady?

Still, he’s inestimably better than Quinn who can’t even govern when he has a full-legislature of his party: the height of ineptitude.


Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.