Blogito, Ergo Sum

by Gregg Calkins


13 August 2010, a Friday

Which might be an unlucky day for some, but itís also my Dadís birthday...which was also on a Friday, he told me...and he would have been 101 today.

Interesting item from Newsmax:

State Sen. Russell Pearce, the chief architect of Arizonaís tough immigration law, tells Newsmax that the recent court ruling on the law was a "huge win" for Americans fighting to stem the flow of illegal aliens in this country.

Pearce, a Republican who represents parts of suburban Phoenix, also says the law "scares" the Obama administration because it will lead to the enforcement of immigration laws ó and agrees that Obamaís failure to enforce those laws is an "impeachable" offense.

A highly decorated former law officer, Pearce crafted and co-sponsored Arizona SB1070, the immigration bill that was passed in April. Federal Judge Susan Bolton blocked some of the most controversial parts of the legislation, but Pearce remains cheered by the results. ...

Pearce says he is encouraged by other states that are following in Arizonaís footsteps and seeking to pass immigration legislation.

"Over 20 states are going to model legislation after 1070, so Iím extremely encouraged. ...

Former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo has called the refusal to enforce the law an impeachable offense. Pearce was asked if he agrees.

"Absolutely," he declares.

"Five to ten thousand folks come across that border daily, and whatís coming across ó 20 percent have criminal convictions ó are gang members, drug smugglers, human smugglers, child molesters, rapists. Itís an invasion. Itís in violation of the Constitution. Yes, itís impeachable. He not only neglects to do it, now heís refusing to do it. Itís impeachable."

While this is probably true, it has also been probably unlikely to happen. Except...if Obamaís favorability ratings continue to fall, and if enough Democrats see themselves losing in November as a result of Obamaís actions and inactions and enough more look at 2012 as a likely repeat only with even angrier voters, I wouldnít put impeachment off of the table.

Remember, some wanted to impeach Bush over his lagging response Katrina, while the administration and BP are spinning very, very hard to make the oil spill a smaller disaster than that was and also not Obamaís fault or responsibility.

They havenít a leg to stand on, because the states have the primary responsibility for responding to NATURAL disasters, not the federal governmentóthatís another law many apparently did not read--but the feds have primary responsibility for MANMADE disasters, especially offshore in federal waters. Obama, you may recall, later claimed that he had been on top of the issue since Day One, but if so then he was the invisible hand responsible for several continuing blunders, including not accepting the immediate offer made by the technically-capable Dutch to send three very powerful oil skimmers to the region. No, said the unions, and no, said Obama, dutifully.

If failing to respond quickly enough with FEMA was an impeachable offense, as several said in Bushís case, then failing to respond quickly to secure our southern border is clearly one since the responsibility for doing do is plainly spelled out in the constitution.

Remember that Clinton was impeached on what I would consider a significantly lesser offense, so it certainly is not beyond the bounds of possibility in Obamaís case. And Washington is the kind of place where they say loyalty is found only in canines, so Iíd say things hinge now on the way Obama is perceived after November. If anything, Iíd say that Clinton was more popular than Obama, so if heís counting on his personal charisma to save him then I think thatís not going to be enough.

Leave it to Charles Krauthammer to make simple sense in re the Ground Zero mosque controversy:

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

I think the same sensible solution is available on the question of anchor babies or birthright citizenship. A child born to parents LEGALLY in the United States, even if only on a tourist visa, is a citizen by birth; all others are not. Simple.

Blogito, Ergo Sum - HOME

Blogito, Ergo Sum - ARCHIVES