The Politicist

common sense thought on current events
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." ~ Abraham Lincoln
  • June 25, 2012 4:29 pm

    How the “Obama Loophole” Helps Illegal Immigrants

    Arizona Governor Jan Brewer scolding President Barack Obama

    On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down three out of four provisions of Arizona’s controversial illegal immigration law. The provision upheld is the one that allows Arizona law enforcement to check the status of an illegal immigrant only after that person has committed a crime.

    Both President Obama and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer are claiming victory from the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decision, with Obama saying that he is “pleased” with the decision and Brewer saying that the “heart” of the bill was upheld.

    Who won the ruling? Obama or Arizona?

    The general consensus is that while neither side ultimately got what they wanted, the winner in all of this are the illegals. And here’s why:

    The high court’s ruling makes more difficult the ability for states to effectively deal with an illegal immigration problem. That wouldn’t be such a big deal if the federal government, under the Obama administration, enforced it’s own immigration laws. To date, they have not.

    In fact, immediately after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Obama administration rescinded an agreement with Arizona to help the state collaborate better with federal immigration officials from ICE (U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement) to help process and deport illegal immigrants convicted of a crime.

    In light of President Obama’s policy change last week to not deport illegal immigrants under the age of 30 if they have not been convicted of a crime, Monday’s SCOTUS judgment is regarded by the Obama administration as a go-ahead in giving Arizona law officers the cold shoulder, so to speak.

    ICE officials today said that they will not respond to requests from Arizona to process an illegal immigrant for deportation unless that illegal has been convicted of a felony.

    What is the “Obama Loophole”?

    First, regarding the provision in Arizona’s law that was upheld, illegal immigrants still should not have to fear being racially profiled. Law enforcement still cannot check on the immigration status of someone unless that person has committed a crime.

    Second, the Obama administration’s refusal to work hand-in-hand with Arizona law enforcement and it’s decision to not even discuss someone’s immigration status unless that person has been convicted of a felony means that Arizona (and the other 49 states) will find it incredibly difficult to deal with illegal immigrants, especially including those who have committed non-felony crimes.

    Why? The result for illegal immigrants is they now have a loophole to exploit.

    Here’s a perfect example…

    Let’s say that Pedro, a Mexican citizen, illegally crosses the border into the United States, and settles down to live in Arizona. One day, while Pedro is driving his car down the streets of Tucson, he decides to speed a little because he might be late for work. As a police car clocks Pedro speeding, pulls him over, and proceeds to check his immigration status, the loophole now comes into effect.

    At this point, the officer knows that he cannot arrest Pedro for failing to show legal immigration documents. Why? Because the Supreme Court just said that Arizona cannot jail someone for failing to present immigration papers. Only federal officers can arrest someone for such an infraction.

    Since the Obama administration refuses to do anything about illegals who have not yet been convicted of a felony, the only thing the state police officer can do is issue Pedro a speeding ticket.

    Now, the above example depicts the most desirable kind of illegal immigrant to grace our fruited plains. A good guy with no prior criminal history. A hard worker and contributor to our society, although he has yet to pay taxes for services he’s using (e.g. roads, hospital, school, etc.). However, statistics say that this is not the kind of illegal immigrant that always crosses our border.

    So, essentially, ICE’s refusal to work with state officials means that the Obama administration is absconding its duty to protect American citizens from intrusion by foreign invaders.

    With this kind of policy in place now, it’s conceivable that every unknown terrorist or drug trafficker can now enter the U.S. illegally without fear of reprisal because if they’re caught committing minor crimes that don’t require arrest, they’ll be set free.

    Why is the Obama administration reversing its immigration policy?

    It’s all about votes.

    In an election year, Obama not only needs as many minority votes as he can get, but he’s willing to do anything to get them, including an attempt to gain favor with the Hispanic community by turning a blind eye toward those entering our country illegally.

    After all, you can always fix the chaos after you’ve been elected to a second term, right?

    We think this change in policy from the Obama administration in exchange for votes is unconscionable and disgraceful. Unfortunately, no one has been able to successfully bring suit against the administration for failing in its duties to protect the American public from foreign intruders.

    Until then, long live the illegal immigrant.

  • June 22, 2012 11:46 am

    Why the U.S. is Not Meddling in Syria… Yet

    Mahmood Ahmadinejad and Bashar al Assad

    "Know your enemy" ~ Sun Tzu

    Russia is Meddling

    Recently, the U.S. State Department publicly accused Russia of arming Bashar Al Assad’s government with tanks and ammunition in Syria’s fight against rebel groups.

    What’s known is why Russia is choosing sides in this complicated conflict. For Russia they not only see in Syria a soft military alliance—they have a hard military alliance with Syria’s ally Iran—but Russia also sees in Syria a loyal customer and purchaser of military equipment (in the Billions of dollars annually).

    Even more than that, Russia views Syria as a strategic partner in maintaining a certain amount of hegemony in the Middle East.

    For several decades, Russia has supplied Syria with weapons. Before the Iraq War began in 2003, Russia was a key partner of Saddam Hussein’s on many fronts, including oil exchanges for military hardware.

    Now that 1 out of 3 of Russia’s strategic Mideast partners—Iraq—is no longer a key ally, Russia cannot afford to let Syria succumb to Western influence.

    Which Opposition Faction to Support?

    So, we understand why Russia is meddling in Syrian affairs. However, what some people may not know is why the U.S. is not.

    To be clear, we aren’t ignorant enough to assume the U.S. is doing absolutely nothing in Syria. On the contrary, the opposite is most likely true. But for the U.S. to be publicly involved in the Syrian conflict requires an understanding of the conflict itself and, moreover, the enemies involved in the conflict.

    The U.S. and the world are sure that the Assad regime has committed atrocities against its own people. It would seem to many that the choice is clear for the U.S. to intervene to stop the massacres.

    The Americans should support those freedom-loving rebels, right? Well, not so fast.

    Unfortunately for the U.S., the opposition in Syria is comprised of at least three main groups: (1) moderate non-Islamic freedom loving rebels, (2) Islamic moderates who favor an Islamic government, and (3) Islamic extremists who favor an extreme Islamic government and who would be hostile to Israel and Western nations.

    Until now, these three opposition factions have been playing somewhat nice with each other. After all, they have a common enemy. If Assad’s regime is to fall, it’s in the best interests of the U.S. if the new government were led by the first group of moderates.

    Most likely, that won’t be the case. The problem is that the U.S. is trying to navigate the trickiness of promoting the whole opposition without supporting certain elements of the opposition.

    The Iran ‘X’ Factor

    It’s no secret that Iran and Syria have been partners for decades now. Though one is Persian and the other Arab, they are both Shia-led governments who despise U.S. meddling in the Middle East.

    Iran has already threatened war with Israel if Western countries (including the U.S.) intervene in Syria. Though the U.S., Israel, and their allies are plenty capable of withstanding any hostility from Iran, the good guys must be sure beyond sure that meddling in Syria is worth a potential conflict with Iran.

    And that’s why the U.S. is not meddling much in Syria just yet. If the U.S. can figure out a way to achieve the end result of a much more friendly (pro-U.S.) government in Syria, then we’ll no doubt do whatever it takes to get there. That’s probably a long shot, though.

    Until then, until the U.S. knows exactly who its enemies are and how to deal with them, it won’t intervene in a public way.

  • June 21, 2012 2:16 pm

    Why “Fast and Furious” Matters

    Attorney General Eric Holder

    As you well know, “Fast and Furious” was the U.S. Justice Department’s botched gun-running program, whereby the ATF allowed thousands of guns to be purchased by known arms dealers in the hope that those guns would make their way into the hands of important drug cartel members.

    We all know why the program was created, but the why was different under George W. Bush’s administration than it is under Barack Obama’s administration.

    Bush Administration’s Good Intent & Even Better Handling

    When “Fast and Furious” was first conceived within President George W. Bush’s administration, the program was called “Operation Wide Receiver”. The goal of the program was for the ATF to be able to track guns used in criminal activity, arrest cartel members involved, and ultimately dismantle the cartels.

    The idea was innovative and sounded promising. Yet, after thoroughly testing the effectiveness of the program run from one ATF branch office, and even after several cartel members were arrested, the Bush administration ultimately decided to halt the program.

    Obama Administration’s Nefarious Intent & Poor Handling

    When Eric Holder became the U.S. Attorney General, he was briefed on the halted “Fast and Furious” program. What’s odd is why Holder decided to continue and expand the program after the Bush administration had already decided the program was too risky.

    Bush’s ATF had already tested the program and concluded that the costs outweighed the benefits. Bush officials didn’t want the U.S. government supplying Mexican drug cartels with guns. It would have just looked bad if the program went south.

    The outcome was obvious. In a worst-case scenario, those guns might be used in murderous activity. Bush officials didn’t want blood on their hands.

    So why did Eric Holder continue with “Fast and Furious”?

    We can answer that if we answer a few other questions first…

    Since President Obama invoked Executive Privilege, we now know that the President was involved in the program as well. How do we know this?

    By law, the President of the United States can only invoke Executive Privilege if he has been involved in the matter himself.

    But why would President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder want to conceal their involvement in the “Fast and Furious” program?

    Unfortunately, only one plausible explanation exists: Obama and Holder conspired to continue “Fast and Furious” with the hope that the program would go south and would therefore result in American outrage at American guns being used in Mexican criminal activity.

    Holder’s ultimate goal was to prove Obama’s statement that “more than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States” and to transition that rage-against-guns momentum into legislation banning certain guns and regulations severely restricting their use.

    Of course, we know that Holder’s “Fast and Furious” ballooned into an eleven-office program, where tragedy soon became a reality. Under Holder, the program resulted in the deaths of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and several Mexican nationals.

    It seems reckless that Holder would have continued the program. So why did he?

    Obama Administration’s Contempt for Second Amendment

    We know that both Obama and Holder have contempt for the Second Amendment. As proof, just before Obama’s inauguration, Newsweek published a story that included Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy’s comments to the Obama team regarding her desired ban of ammunition magazines. “They told me that’s not for now, that’s for later.”

    In January 2011, The Washington Post published a story that referenced a meeting between President Obama and Sarah Brady (whose husband sustained a head injury during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan). The Brady’s were at the White House to “push for a ban on the controversial ‘large magazines’.”

    According to the story, President Obama told Sarah Brady “that [gun control] was very much on his agenda.” She recalls President Obama telling her, “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

    Did one of those “few processes” include the “Fast and Furious” program? You be the judge.

    Connecting the Dots

    So we know that gun control is a top priority for the President. We know that Eric Holder knew about “Fast and Furious” and discussed it with the President. Those discussions weren’t illegal or controversial. In fact, presidents should be aware of programs like this.

    The controversy stems from the fact that Holder and Obama have not been forthcoming about their involvement in the program. After all, if Holder knew about the program and stopped it once Brian Terry was killed, and then would have simply said that he screwed up and that their intent was right, then the American people would have chalked up the incident to incompetence but certainly nothing more.

    Unfortunately for Holder and Obama, their actions have been more than suspect. If you don’t have anything to hide, then why hide whatever it is you’re hiding? That goes for Holder and Obama. Why the need to invoke Executive Privilege if you have nothing to hide?

    The truth is becoming clearer. Both Holder and Obama are attempting to hide evidence of their nefarious intent to knowingly use an already-failing gun-running program (Fast and Furious) in their quest to fuel an anti-gun campaign in the United States. As such, their actions implicate them in some level of involvement.

    Why the Truth Matters

    The whole “Fast and Furious” situation may not have been as big a deal as it is now if Brian Terry and several dead Mexican nationals were alive today. But they aren’t. The recklessness of this operation is unconscionable, and someone needs to be held accountable for their deaths.

    If a silver lining exists at all in this situation, it would be that the Obama administration failed in its attempt to create anti-gun sentiment in the U.S. For that, we can thank Brian Terry’s family for his [and their] sacrifice.

    To be sure, this case proves that guns don’t kill people. Drug cartels supplied with guns from the U.S. government kill people. Sarcastically, this is sad but true.

  • June 20, 2012 10:15 am

    Obama’s Immigration Theft from Rubio

    Marco Rubio

    By now you are probably familiar with last week’s move by President Obama to stop deporting most illegal immigrants under the age of 30.

    What the media hasn’t told you is why Obama chose to act on this policy now.

    To be sure, it was about politics, about pandering to the Hispanic community in an effort to secure votes. But it was also about something more… Marco Rubio.

    Rubio, who is Florida’s young Republican Senator and a potential running mate of Mitt Romney, has been working for months to put together a piece of legislation that accomplishes the exact same thing that Obama did with last week’s policy change.

    When asked about Obama’s immigration theft on Fox News, Rubio responded, “I don’t think that there’s anyone watching this that doubts that it was for political reasons.”

    Indeed, the move by Obama was a slam dunk, as nearly two-thirds of the country approved of his illegal immigration policy change.

    Essentially Obama killed four birds with one stone by attempting to secure votes from Hispanics, doing something that’s popular with a majority of the American people, denying Marco Rubio his legacy of fixing illegal immigration, and denying Mitt Romney the opportunity to attack Obama for another failed policy.

    Whether you agree or disagree with Obama’s move (Rubio says it was not constitutionally defensible), it was probably his only good political move this year.

    The only saving grace (counter punch) for Rubio is that he can now talk about his efforts in the Senate to accomplish what Obama did and prove to the American public that Obama’s stunt was purely for political reasons.

  • June 13, 2012 11:10 am

    Congress To-Do List (Translation)

    State of the Union Adress

    The White House posted a Congress To-Do List before Congress breaks for the summer recess. We’ve posted the list here (with translation):


    White House explanation of what Congress should do:

    Pass legislation to attract and keep good jobs in the United States by rewarding companies who bring jobs back to America with lower taxes and pay for it by eliminating tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas.

    The Politicist translation of the White House explanation:

    We at the White House need a way to connect with the American people. Our polling and focus groups say that outsourcing is a hot topic among Americans, so we’d like to offer a tax incentive to companies that only hire Americans… just this once because we realize that favoring tax incentives is uncharacteristic for us. Usually we like to punish upward mobility by taking from those who have (via taxation) and giving to those who don’t have as much. We also realize that we know nothing about how the free market economy works and therefore have decided to punish those companies who cannot afford American workers — companies who choose to use overseas labor. If we had known how the free market economy works, we’d have realized the need to simply entice companies to use American labor instead of also punishing companies that don’t use American labor. But we digress.


    White House explanation of what Congress should do:

    Pass legislation to cut red tape so hard working, responsible homeowners who are paying their mortgage can refinance at today’s low interest rates. Part of the basic American promise is that if you work hard and act responsibly, home ownership should be an achievable dream. While government can’t fix the housing crisis alone, responsible homeowners shouldn’t have to wait for the market to hit bottom to get some relief and get back on their feet.

    The Politicist translation of the White House explanation:

    We at the White House don’t really care if you have a house or not. We care about votes from people who think they are entitled to owning a house of their choice. Like you, we think that if you work hard at your job, regardless of what your job is and regardless of the risk and sacrifices that others have taken to achieve better-paying jobs, you should have the opportunity to own your own home because, again, you work just as hard as anyone else. While we realize the government is grossly inefficient, and at times can be somewhat tyrannical, we are benevolent and will try as hard as possible to make you dependent on the government for sustaining your livelihoods and ultimately create a Utopian society where everyone is on the same, level playing field… except for us, of course, because we know better than you on how to manage a nation. We promise that when we’re in power and you all are on a level playing field, we won’t rub it in your face that we’re eating cheesecake while you’re standing in line to buy bread. Okay, that was a bad joke. That’s never happened before in history. No, seriously, it hasn’t… Anyway, how ‘bout them Jets?


    White House explanation of what Congress should do:

    Pass legislation to help hard working small business owners create jobs by giving them a tax credit for new hires and tax relief for investments they make.

    The Politicist translation of the White House explanation:

    We at the White House have not ourselves created jobs in the private sector. In fact, we don’t really know what the private sector is. Don’t those include policemen, firefighters, and teachers? Anyway, we’re trying really hard to appeal to small businesses. That’s why we’re offering a tax credit for new hires and tax relief for investments they make. Although if you think about it — which we haven’t — why would a business owner hire an extra employee if they can’t afford to? A tax credit won’t help incentivize business owners. Oh well. We can’t take back our offer… or else we’d look like fools… or worse, idiots.


    White House explanation of what Congress should do:

    Pass legislation to invest in American clean energy manufacturers who create American jobs through innovative new technologies and fuels that reduce our reliance on foreign oil and lead to more secure energy sources.

    The Politicist translation of the White House explanation:

    Basically, we’re going to regulate the hell [and profits] out of you. By the way, forget about Solyndra. That’s old news. Green is the new black.


    White House explanation of what Congress should do:

    Pass legislation to honor our commitment to returning veterans by creating a Veterans Job Corps to help Afghanistan and Iraq veterans get jobs as cops, firefighters, and serving their communities.

    The Politicist translation of the White House explanation:

    We at the White House are trying really, really hard to win military votes. Won’t you love us, veterans? Pretty please? We promise we’re not just trying to create even more government-dependent citizens.

  • May 14, 2012 11:13 am

    "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."

    — Abraham Lincoln