Help Save Maryland – More Good News From Frederick County

Subject: Help Save Maryland – More Good News From Frederick County

Frederick to Debate Tough Immigration Bill

Updated 11:31 PM EDT, Thu, Aug 26, 2010

Lawmakers in Frederick County will introduce a bill inspired by Arizona‘s tough illegal immigration law.

"We’ve drafted a proposed Maryland law that is very similar, but not identical, to the Arizona law," said John "Lennie" Thompson, a Frederick County Commissioner.

The bill would require state, county and local law enforcement officials check people’s immigration status if they’ve been pulled over for a crime.

It’s being sponsored by Thompson, Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins and Maryland Delegate Charles Jenkins (R – Frederick and Washington counties). The three men say they’re are fed up with what they call the "federal government’s lack of dealing with illegal immigration."

The bill will be introduced at the Frederick County Commissioner’s meeting at Winchester Hall next Tuesday.

If passed, it will go on to the Maryland General Assembly for consideration in the 2011 session.

The War on Arizona

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Not since President Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock and JFK sent U.S. marshals to the University of Alabama has the federal government seemed so at war with a state of the union.

Arkansas and Alabama were defying U.S. court orders to desegregate. But Barack Obama’s war on Arizona is not a war of necessity. It is a war of choice — an unprovoked war, undertaken not to defend constitutional or civil rights, but to pander to his party’s left and Hispanic voters.

New Mexico’s Gov. Bill Richardson, himself Hispanic, gave the game away. At the Boston governors conference, he assured colleagues, nervous over the administration attacks on Arizona’s immigration law, that “Obama is popular with Hispanic voters, and this is going to be a popular move with them nationally.”

Eric Holder fended off criticism of his Justice Department suit against Arizona that alleges the state usurped federal responsibility by saying he has not ruled out a second suit for “racial profiling.”

Rather than work with Arizona to secure the border and send the illegals home, the Obamaites are taking Mexico’s side against Arizona, and against the faithful execution of U.S. law.

In a shocking and telling episode in the Rose Garden, Obama stood by mute as Felipe Calderon attacked the Arizona law as “discriminatory.” The next day, Democrats in Congress, with Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano joining in, cheered the Mexican president’s slander that Arizona introduced “racial profiling to law enforcement.”

There was a time when such an insult to a state of our union, on U.S. soil by a foreign ruler, would have produced a diplomatic crisis, if not pistols at dawn.

Some of us recall Ike walking out of a Paris summit with Nikita Khrushchev rather than apologize for sending U-2s over Russia, and JFK, after the Bay of Pigs, retorting to Khrushchev that the United States did not need any lectures on intervention from people “whose character is forever stamped on the bloody streets of Budapest.”

Democrats cheer as Arizona is attacked by a Mexican leader whose country treats illegal entry as a felony and illegal aliens with a brutality no American would tolerate.

And what exactly is at the heart of the Arizona law?

Simply this: Being in this country illegally is now a misdemeanor in Arizona, as it is in U.S. law. And as a 1940 U.S. law requires resident aliens to carry their green cards or work visas at all times, Arizona will require police to request such identification if, in a “lawful contact” — a traffic violation or altercation — the officer entertains a “reasonable suspicion” the individual may be here illegally.

Is this really Nazi Germany? Does this really justify the hysteria? And if this is the Gestapo, why did Holder not make this feature of the law the grounds for his Justice Department suit?

Answer: Calderon and Obama notwithstanding, racial profiling is prohibited by the Arizona law. Nor is there any evidence racial or ethnic profiling will be condoned by Arizona. The law has not even taken effect.

Unlike San Francisco and other towns that declare themselves to be “sanctuary cities” and refuse to cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities, Arizona is not challenging or usurping U.S. law, but trying to assist the U.S. government in enforcing the immigration laws.

Why is Arizona under attack for simply trying to help enforce our immigration laws? Because the Obama administration cannot, will not or does not even wish to see those laws enforced.

The U.S. government is today derelict in its constitutional duty.

And this is approaching an existential crisis for America. For there are in Arizona 450,000 illegal aliens, a population of law-breakers in a single state approaching the size of the entire U.S. Army.

Though we have 15 million Americans unemployed, near 10 percent of our workforce, with a higher share of African-Americans jobless, we have 8 million illegal aliens holding jobs. And last year the administration handed out over a million green cards and work visas to foreigners to come and take jobs that would have gone to American citizens.

In communist countries in the Cold War, all understood that the government did not represent the people. The state was at war with the nation.

That idea is taking root in America — the idea that our government no longer seeks to represent us. And as one watches Obama and Congress take the side of a foreign leader attacking an American state, and the government refuse to do its duty and defend the borders or send the illegals back home, questions arise.

In this ongoing invasion of the United States that has brought 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens into our midst, whose side is the government on? Ours or theirs? What is the reason for the refusal to secure our border?

Why do Democrats insist that the illegal aliens be put on a “path to citizenship”?

Is the real objective the abolition of the old America we grew up in?

My View | Tired of demagoguery

By Denise Dunbar

A couple week’s ago at a Washington Nationals baseball game was absolutely the last straw for me. My family and I were at Nationals Park with about 20,000 other people, enjoying a Stephen Strasburg start on a pleasant afternoon. Strasburg had pitched five innings and batted for himself in the bottom of the fifth when it happened. First a young man, then a young woman, then two more youths ran onto the field, interrupting play. The game was stopped for at least 10 minutes — long enough to pull the star we came to see, Strasburg, from the game — as overweight security guards tried unsuccessfully to apprehend the elusive young people. The disruption was all part of a planned protest.

The Nats, you see, were playing the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Yes, that Arizona. The state that had the nerve to pass a law saying it was OK for their police officers to apprehend people who had broken the law. Sunday’s Nats game was delayed because a handful of people thought making a political statement was an appropriate thing to do at a baseball game. It wasn’t. And if I were sitting on the fence on this issue, it would have made me less sympathetic to their cause rather than more.

I am personally tired of people on the left and the right resorting to demagoguery on hot-button political issues. The name-calling and demonizing comes from both sides on issue after issue. Though one may be pro-life, iro-choicers should never be called “baby killers.” In the lead up to the Iraq war, those who raised doubts about the wisdom of military action were labeled “unpatriotic.”

But in recent years the left has made an art of demagoguery. Delegitimizing those who dare to voice opinions that run contrary to the gospel according to the left is favored tactic number one. Why debate the facts — especially when many pesky truths get in the way of your favored position — when you can simply shoot the messenger? Thus, those who oppose gay marriage are “hateful” and “intolerant.” Those who are against illegal immigration, even if they favor greatly expanding legal immigration, are called “xenophobic” and “racist.”

The rhetoric surrounding illegal immigration, the hottest current topic, is especially infuriating. Getting lost in the name-calling is the fact that this is a really complex issue that crosses many political boundaries. Thus, though they won’t say so publicly, many owners of businesses large and small rely on the cheap labor that illegal immigrants provide. (Minimum wage laws have done away with the supply of cheap, legal labor.) Conversely, an awful lot of Democrats in Arizona, who have been personally affected by the swarms of people crossing illegally into their state, side with Republican Governor Jan Brewer on this topic.

It is possible to have a civilized conversation on this and other issues, but the name-calling makes it more difficult. I personally think that legal immigration is what our country was built on and it is essential to our future. We absolutely need people from all over the world with all levels of skills and education coming into America, giving us a fresh infusion of perspective. But, in this age of terror and murderous bombings, I also believe that national security is the most important issue and the primary purpose of government. We must be able to control who comes into our country for security reasons.

But security is not the only reason that I believe illegal immigration is wrong. It’s also an issue of fairness. Why do some people have to play by the rules, while others don’t? To allow people from Mexico or Guatemala or Honduras free access to America but deny that access to people from Nigeria or China or Poland is discriminatory and it’s wrong. Whatever happened to diversity? Isn’t it better to have a multicultural society rather than a bicultural one?

So, agree with my views or don’t. Love the Arizona law or hate it. Let’s talk it out. But leave the demonizing and the name-calling on the playground — and don’t bring it onto the baseball diamond ever again.

The writer is editorial page editor and managing partner at the Alexandria Times.


By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
August 29, 2010
© 2010

When Attorney General Eric Holder should be prosecuting terrorists, he is wasting time manufacturing baseless lawsuits against patriotic sheriffs such as Joe Arpaio and harmless pro-lifers. This [latest] action by the Attorney General is an abuse of power and an example of misplaced priorities, according to a growing number of Americans.

With terrorists lurking throughout the nation, illegal aliens preying on American citizens, and government corruption a daily occurrence, the U.S. Department of Justice is embroiled in a legal battle against a pro-life advocate in Florida.

A public-interest legal group affiliated with Liberty University, has agreed to represent Mary Susan Pine, a sidewalk abortion counselor, who is being sued by the politically motivated U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder.

Using the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) federal law and seeking the maximum fine of $10,000, Holder alleges that Pine “obstructed” a car entering a Florida abortion clinic nearly a year ago, on November 19, 2009. The suit is entitled Holder v. Pine.

Holder’s lawsuit acknowledges that Pine frequently appears at the Presidential Women’s Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. Pine herself has had an abortion and for the past 20 years has counseled women about the tragedy of abortion.

The suit alleges only one act on November 19, 2009, in which Holder claims Pine obstructed a car by stepping in front of the vehicle when it entered the clinic. Pine never obstructs anyone and denies she ever obstructed any vehicle.

Notwithstanding, Holder’s suit alleges Pine is a threat and must be fined the maximum of $10,000. Holder’s complaint is only 3½ pages. Since the passage of FACE in 1994, this case is the first time anyone has been sued in Florida under the law.

In the Liberty Counsel case of Cheffer v. Reno, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that FACE can only be applied to actual physical force or threat of force. Based on the erroneous allegations in Holder’s complaint, the Attorney General has no case, say legal experts.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “This lawsuit by Attorney General Eric Holder is politically motivated and patently frivolous. It is designed to intimidate pro-lifers. We will not allow the Attorney General to push around little people and intimidate them for their pro-life beliefs."

"When Attorney General Eric Holder should be prosecuting terrorists, he is wasting time manufacturing baseless lawsuits against harmless pro-lifers. This action by the Attorney General is an abuse of power and an example of misplaced priorities,” he said.

Holder Protects Illegal Aliens, Attacks Patriots?

U.S. Justice Department attorneys met last Tuesday with representatives of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, as they look into allegations of civil rights violations in his department’s treatment of illegal aliens.

Justice Department investigators say that they gave the sheriff’s lawyers over a week to turn over documents and cooperate with their inquiry.

Attorney General Eric Holder is continuing his more than one year investigation into whether Arpaio’s policies and law enforcement sweeps discriminate against illegal aliens.

The popular Arpaio, who is called "America’s toughest sheriff" by millions of supporters across the nation is known for his opposition to criminal aliens who are committing crimes in his jurisdiction.

His supporters

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: