System Abuse v. Rights Violation v. War on Drugs

Arizona, yeah. You know whats going on.

I am writing in response directly to "Backwood Political Insight."

Mr. Backwood made some great points in with his "political insight."
He address the obvious issue; illegal immigrants and their abuse of our democracy.
But in addition to that, he addressed a more subtle issue; what some of these immigrants are bringing with them besides wishes of the American Dream.

Of which include, mostly, narcotics.
Did anyone look beyond the civil rights issues of this law and see the other dangers that this new law might be trying prevent? I did not.

Also, did anyone know about the part of the new legislature that collects money from illegal immigrants in productive ways towards their citizenship. Great idea.
Its not that these people prefer being illegal and subjected to racial profiling, they just cannot jump through the necessary hoops to become legal tax-paying citizens.

Here we go.."Well, they should go back to Mexico then!"

Let's invite these people in and allow them to help with our democracy and stimulate our economy and perpetuate our industrial power.
But first, lets help make them ez 1040 equal.

The incident that ignited the proposal of this law,(according to Mr. Backwood) is a little frightening and makes me reluctant to shed any sympathy toward any one trying to become a legal citizen, But we cannot judge a whole nation and race by a few bad apples.
This story about the rancher was news to me, so not only was this blog insightful and abstarct but it is also informational about the new Arizona law.

Fix it or trash it?

With the recent controversy in Arizona surrounding immigration, undocumented people in the U.S. are subject to more current threats.

Undocumented meaning, people from Mexico and Central America.
Not only are the civil rights of Hispanic communities being compromised, but so are the legal citizens who may or may not be contributing to some of the issues with illegal immigration.

One reason for illegals to leave their homeland for America?
Better wages.

An industry well suited for such a hope?-restaurant

Its become almost a standard that most restaurant kitchens are filled with people of a Latin descent. This is the norm.

Some restaurants get away with it, some do not.

One well-to-do establishment is more concerned with staying open than they are with staying swank.

The French Gourmet Restaurant is being federally indicted for its conscience role in the hiring of undocumented workers.
The government basically wants to seize the land occupied by the restaurant where elegant high-end cuisine has been served for over 30 years.

If convicted, the restaurant would be forced to forfeit their two land parcels which estimate to be worth over 1.3 million.

The case began in May of 2008 when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested 18 undocumented workers.



Being employed by the service industry for over 3 years, I have come in contact with this issue first hand.

Given this restaurant's history, the discipline seems fair.
The consequence however; ill-suited.

Increased fines, temporary suspension of buisness, stern hiring practices; sure.
Forefieture of land; yikes!

I understand this case being an example for other buisnesses, but what I do not understand is how this action is productive in the prevention of illegal immigration?
Even though I'm glad to see the beneficiaries and contributors of illegal immigration punished, this act will just give more insight and create more loopholes for hopeful new American citizens.

*notice I used "new American citizens" and not "illegals".
*can't remeber the last time I was referred to as a "legal?"

This consequence seems counterproductive. It will give more technique and method to workers and send a red flag for this area which will in turn cause concentrated illegal work somewhere nearby.

Shutting down a buisness that serves its community and provides economic stimulation does not seem logical.
A better approach to immigration reform could be easier and more attainable ways for workers to become legal.

The problem originates here, not in Mexico.
We need a way to make immigration work for America.


Besides... While on the subject, Americans are the real immigrants. The southwest area of our nation was never ours. Does manifest destiny ring a bell?

Ethics reluctant as guest.

The Founding Fathers were interested in building an empire that would contend and possibly lead the world.

In order for this to happen, discipline was necessary.
Economics and leadership structure are the core principles of written documents that are interpreted in an ever changing republic which guide our time through history.

The Government of this abundant country has one job; interpret the Constitution.
What is that profound document primarily based on: John Locke's theory of a social contract.
Yes, we give up sovereignty in order to have control in a broad world of ideas and power, but never were we or are we subjected to give up our personal freedoms that relate to the broad well being of a culture.

Let us not forget what guided the American experience, (dissent from Great Britain)...Liberal Democracy.

-Liberal democracy reveres INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and express faith in popular control of government.

I trust my government to do what is best for my country and the majority, based on the majority. That is logical.

What is not logical?
My Government supplementing individual morals and ethics.

Slavery is an ethical issue. My government intervened which makes my stance somewhat incredible.

But what is wrong about slavery..the lack of equality and personal freedom, right? obviously.
these are the concepts that championed after amendments 13,14, and 15 were added to the Constitution.
It was unethical and immoral to not grant these individuals the liberty that every other person in America was exercising and taking advantage of.

Our Government may decide what is ethical or unethical and act accordingly which benefits the greater good.
The fine line is drawn once you consider what is immoral enough for action in legislation.
Does the effect or cause of the issue a question of ethics or individual right? or both?

In the case of American bondage, both issues were addressed, so thus the outcome is a part of history.

When it comes to abortion, the undeniable liberty of choice is most emphasized.
LIBERTY,hmmmm.... I have heard that word somewhere before?
I think its part of our country's foundational doctrine, i dunno...

Abortion is an ethical issue. Most would agree it is wrong. Therefore the Government is currently playing a neutral and moral pleasing role.
Unless the unwanted pregnancy involves rape, incest, or is medically necessary, the gov't stays out.
This position keeps our innate human rights in respect.

That concept of humans being naturally free is the core pillar of our world.

Jennifer, you tend to agree with Republicans?

You must not agree with the concept of mandated health care? (in addition to other aspects of the bill)

So, then it disconcerts me that you would be on board with mandating human life!?

Now, I know comparing health insurance to human life is grossly distinctive but lets take a look at the broad scheme, the bigger picture. It comes to down to essence of existence.
What is the essence of our existence?
-consciousness
-liberty
-freedom
These are the things we are left with once everything else is stripped.
Our Goverment should never manipulate, control, of inhibite these elements.

Just like Megan stated, after abortion becomes illegal, what's next?

I don't even get to choose the doctor that will help me through a pregnancy... maybe its too late!

Give credit where credit is closed (minded)...

Our President is arrogant!

Our President is incompetent!

Our President is spending too much!

Our President is a socialist!

...thanks, I have heard enough.

Our President is the symbol of change and potential fairness/equality for every single American.
-President Barrack Obama is America.

I'm not interested in what his birth certificate states.

Obama's campaign theme and catch phrase was so well created as "Hope."
President Obama embodies the concept of hope, indeed.

Less than a hundred years ago, a black man ran the risk of losing his life without any legal consequence for just looking at someone in a country he helped build and fight in a war for.

In 2010, a black man is the supreme leader of that same "free" world power.
To get to the position that this man has reached considering his background and race is literally "ground-breaking." And I think any American Historian would concede with my last statement. The Presidential office that a black man currently holds and what that means is, in my opinion, beyond the comprehension of most people living in this country.

President Obama is a walking cultural landmark.
He is a sentient collection of hope, change, and inspiration.


President Obama gives the minorities in this country a voice and that was voice was cast aloud with his victory in 2008.
His election also spoke on how powerful those minorities and the youth really are.
President Obama recognizes the needs of the youth, and every other American in this country that has been overlooked for many years.

President Obama's triumphs should be regarded and applied to as the further greatness of this country. African Americans should not be the only group of people motivated and inspired by the President's work. His climb to the very top of power in the United States of America just adds to the old cliche, "no matter what, whatever you put your mind and heart to, you can have." His story and the current home he raises his family in is a representation of the American Dream.
-His opportunity and the results of his plans equal freedom.

A"black" man in the "White" House is examplary of our Nation's move away from stagnate political dogma.

----Wow Wade, with all that praise you must approve of everything that President Obama is doing with our country, huh?
When your done with your romance sonnet there, why don't ya go save some trees or smoke a doobie or somethin'?

Do I personally agree and approve of all of Mr. Obama and his cabinet's decisions and policies? Not hardly...

Do I beleive that the President and his party's "agenda" is a sign of positive and bigger steps in a direction of stabilizing this country's nationwide handshake of mutual respect and catapulting global frienship? Yes.

Bash him all you want.... thats your freedom. But the man has done something that has never been done in American political history and his rise to power is the essence of your right(s) to read my blog.

Loss of Life vs. Loss of Liberty?

Back on January 22nd of this year, the 37nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade was marked. For the less informed, Roe v. Wade was a very important landmark supreme court case involving personal freedom and abortion. Under certain stipulations, it basically gave women the personal choice and option of abortion. Ever since then, abortion has been subject of hot debate in the political arena.

One Utah republican representative, Carl Wimmer, wishes to overturn that controversial decision that defended women's choice and liberty.

The U.S. recorded over 1,200,000 abortions in 2006-7 and Carl Wimmer hopes to decrease those numbers. His legislation ideas have already passed as law in Utah and he hopes all other U.S. states will follow his lead in a way of "slowly chipping away at the nation's abortion laws." Under Wimmer's new "Criminal and Abortion Revisions," women and girls are charged with murder for having miscarriages caused by an "intentional or knowing act." Follow the above link to find out why Mr. Wimmer was subsequently motivated to design this new Utah statewide law.



Ha! This is another great example of some political official doing whatever HE thinks is good for the community. So many other issues/people/systems should be held accountable here; not these women who are, in my opinion, most likely getting knocked up by deadbeats. And that is without even talking about the personal problem of liberty and right here!

Do I think killing an unborn baby is right?
No.

Do I think abortion should be a choice?
Yes.

The determining decision in Roe v. Wade sustained the principles of our Nation's birth!
FREEDOM=CHOICE
CHOICE=FREEDOM

I'm not evil. Is killing a unborn baby who has no say in the matter selfish and wrong? Of course. But more importantly, is it right for our national Gov't to make the most private and personal decisions for us?
Fill in your own responses here....

Rose Aguiler, a journalist for the "Smirking Chimp," interviews Rep. Wimmer and is able to poke him enough until the standard bureaucratic backpedal was spoken. Replies from Mr. Wimmer were contradicting.

-The Smirking Chimp is a source more utilized by all types of liberal minded individuals. The more socially liberal group will find Rose Aguilar's opinions agreeable and suitable. The Libertarian crowd could also enjoy her editorial. The rhetoric used in her discussion makes her logic plausible and her argument sound.

Have your freedom, fighter!

I ran across an article from the Statesman that covers the notion of fully integrating openly gay soldiers into our nation's military. Our current President is in hopes of ending all restrictions on gay men and women serving in our nation's defense. Without some politicians in Congress and military leaders who are hindering soldier equality, Mr. Obama's hope could be in effect. Soldiers are still being subjected to dismissal for outing themselves or being outed by others for being gay. "Don't ask, don't tell" is still being utilized in a way that allows individuals who fight for our freedom to lie about themselves and who they are.

This is one issue I agree with president Obama and the editor on...

It all boils down to equality. We are all the same. Backgrounds, cultures, tradition, values, and legacies are the the only things that seperate the human race. If a man or woman chooses to VOLUNTARILY risk his/her own life for individuals like myself, who choose not to, than that soldier should not be rejected or unaccepted simply because of their sexual preference. The freedom to be open about their sexuality should not be grounds for dismissal! A large number of Americans are unaccepting. This will never change. But I think when it comes to soldiers in the military,(especially in a time of war!) a huge exception should made.

The author of this article shares my opinion on this issue. Coming from the Statesman, the intended audience are the accepting more left leaning liberal citizens of Austin, Texas. I can imagine many readers who took the time to review this editorial toatlly agree with the author. This is one geographic area, poltically, that can generally agree on such issues. Austin's targeted social liberal poulation and the wide gay community is very accepting and needs to be updated on civil liberties and freedoms that extend beyond their realm of everyday life. Especially if some young gay Austinite is considering joining the militray, he can now know that President Obama has their back.

In some other more conservative city, this article most likely may have gone in a different direction. The Statesman is generally known for being a publication that favors the left, so the article has more compassion and connection behind it. Remarks by the chairman of Joint Cheifs of Staff and the desire of our president that is mentioned here are evidential of the author's argument. Just some plain unbiased and fair logic would would provide for this argument to be vlaid. The Staesman is utilized around Austin for one of the nation's greatest and most open cities to receive its news. Anything found here in the persuasion of civil liberties can be conceived as suitable, honest, and commendable.

Dems respectful of GOP win in Mass...

With Republican candidate Scott Brown winning the senate election and the seat for a libreal Massachusetts over Democratic Martha Coakley in an upset, one major concern is a reality...Health care legislation hindrance, possible termination. With the late Ted Kennedy filling Mass.'s senate seat, the Democrats were leading the House of Senate with a supermajority fillled with sixty seats. Now that the democratic rule over the senate with Brown's 41st republican seat is over, legislation like universal health care, climate change, and other components of the left legislation agenda is subject to compromise and/or the end. The Democrats have lost their fillibuster-proof 60 majority vote security blanket and Brown's opposition to the current health care legislation was a key part of his campaign. Post election strategies used by fearful Dems for delaying or possibly preventing Brown from reaching Washington swiflty or quickly passing the bill, is something of urgency for Democratic officials. In response, surprisingly, powerful Democartic officials inluding the President himself, are almost embracing Brown's victory. President Obama even related his own victory to Brown's in being quoted saying,"Here's my assesment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office, People are angry and they are frusrated. Not just because of what's happened in the past year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." Obama also suggests that Congress "shouldn't try to jam anything through" before Brown takes his seat in Washington.

So with Democrats giving democracy a chance, time will tell how powerful Mr. Brown really is. Or how the concept of senate vote really is....bring on the fillibusters!

read more...http://http//www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6120485.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody