Is there a theme here?
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressed confidence Friday that Congress would introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill in early 2010 and that debate and passage of the legislation could occur before the mid-term elections later that year.
"Comprehensive immigration reform bill"--that's one of those PC phrases that I'm not going to let get by me on this blog anymore. Comprehensive immigration reform = let's give amnesty to all the illegal aliens who have illegally crossed the border. Oh, and let's keep up the fiction that their number is "12 million." Who the hell knows how many there are by now. 20 million? 30 million? 5 million? Who knows, since they are undocumented workers, so by definition any number can only be an estimate. Duh. The Leftists keep throwing out that number I guess because they're pretty sure the rest of us are stupid. And since we act that way so much of the time--that's what we deserve.
So unemployment in America (whoops, another no-no from the PC crowd. Did you know that it's not OK to say "America" if you're referring to the United States? Using "America" suggests geographical chauvinism unless it applies to all people in North America, South America, and Central America; refer instead to people of the United States.) . . . As I was saying, unemployment in America is now north of 10%, but let's push Congress to reward all the illegal aliens for breaking our laws and ignoring our borders. But of course the Dimocrat talking point on the issue continues to be that the illegals are "doing the jobs that Americans won't do." With unemployment "officially" at 10.2%? Really?
It's always bothered me that the very first act of an illegal alien coming across the southern border is to break the laws of the United States, and yet somehow we're supposed to believe these people are going to be upstanding citizens once our laws make them legal. Why? If breaking the law from the very beginning worked so well for them, why would they hesitate to break any damned law they feel like breaking? A nation of laws? Obviously not for them.
This is nothing more than a cynical move by the Obama administration to put the Bush administration on trial. This dirtbag isn't a criminal, entitled to all the rights in court of a U.S. citizen who say, for example, has held up a liquor store. He's a terrorist who was captured on the battlefield and should therefore be tried by a military court. He is not entitled to the protections in court that are available to civilians who commit crimes. The Attorney General's argument that he's "confident" that the scum will be convicted in civil court is completely beside the point.
The ACLU has called the cynical decision "an enormous victory for the rule of law," so we don't have to go any farther than that to understand what an absolutely terrible decision this is. Count on Charles Krauthammer to be the adult in the room, speaking on this issue: Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. Mr. Holder has honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime.
Krauthammer's remarks were mild compared to Rudy Giuliani's earlier in the day. Giuliani is beside himself in this interview. I wish RG had run a better campaign in 2008. I wish I knew what really happened with him in the primaries. I would have voted for him in a New York minute, as they say. He says the President has made a dangerous and irresponsible decision. He also points out, "A week ago we had another Islamic terrorist attack on our soil." And why this administration has trouble figuring that out, Giuliani says he finds that to be "frightingly incompetent." He continues: "They have elevated to a point of irrationality process over safety. . . . This was an act of war. . . . like Pearl Harbor. We would not have tried the people who attacked Pearl Harbor in a civilian court in Hawaii," he said. "These are soldiers in a war against us, and the rules of war should apply." He calls it "a foolish state of denial" and a "terrible mistake."
Giuliani makes another good point: of course the bag of dirt's lawyers will ask for a change of venue. They will argue, how can he possibly get a "fair trial" in Manhattan? Criminal defense lawyers have an obligation to do everything they can to see that their client is acquitted. Duh, Eric Holder. But Holder knows that, which is why this is such a cynical move on his part.Giuliani: "The defense lawyers will try to put the United States government on trial. . . . Our criminal justice system is geared to let guilty people go free, if there is any doubt."
Giuliani says that this decision on the part of the Obama administration is part of a bigger picture. It goes back to the fact that we're not supposed to use the word "war on terror." "Who do we think we're fooling by that?" He points out that we've elevated political correctness and elevated what other people think of us and elevated concerns of people in the Islamic community. He calls the decision "a discretionary choice of political ideology. . . . This is the application of a political ideology which is now overcoming what I would regard as common sense. It comes right from the top. Absolutely. It began by telling us that we can't describe this as the war on terror, the failure to use the word, 'Islamic extremism.' The failure, immediately, to point out that Hasan's attack was for the same reason as the attack on September 11th. . . coming out of the same movement, Islamic terrorism. That should be distinguished at every point from honest, decent Muslims. . . . If we are in denial, we are going to put ourselves in greater danger, and we are going to have more casualties."
This is on your head, Barack. You own it, Champ. He's your attorney general and he's doing your bidding. You can run away from owning this decision (oh, it's my attorney general who decided this--bull!), but you can't hide. Eric Holder is reporting that this was his decision--he told Obama about it but didn't consult with him. What's the Svengali thing that Obama seems to have over all these people around him, that so many of them are willing to give him cover? OF COURSE he made this decision with Obama's knowledge and approval. Oh, and a reminder: Eric Holder worked for a law firm that represented Gitmo detainees. Holder's background is one of defending terrorists, not of prosecuting them. Are we really meant to believe him when he says that he's "confident" this dirtbag will be found guilty?
A person can only take so much of this shit, which is part of the Leftists' Saul Alinsky tactics, straight up, baby. I know that, yet I still can't take it. So I'm going to go away for a few days and work on my own stuff--that's all I really can control anyway, right? I'll be back; I just need a break from the ugly Leftist loons who have taken over my country.
No comments:
Post a Comment