05/27/2010: Flight School Associated With 911 Attack Busted For 2nd Phoney Visa Scam – DHS Can’t Locate 47 Students

The former owners of a California flight school have pleaded guilty in a massive visa fraud scheme in which they hired illegal immigrants as flight instructors — a scam that immigration officials say posed a “significant” threat to national security.

Andrew Burr and Christopher Watson, the former president and vice president of Anglo-American Aviation, pleaded guilty Thursday to misdemeanor counts of hiring unauthorized workers, part of a larger felony case against their company that was the culmination of a two-year investigation by Federal officials.

“The actions by the defendants in this case not only undermined the integrity of our nation’s legal immigration system, they also posed a significant national security risk.”

The school issued visa documents to more than 100 foreign students, even though the Federal Aviation Administration had revoked their certification to train commercial pilots.

The company was abusing an online database developed in the wake of 9/11 to track foreign students.

Without that FAA certification, the company was forbidden to issue I-20 immigration documents to its students, who used the forms to get visas from the State Department.

Investigators successfully tracked down 53 of the students — more than half of the 100+ trained at the facility – no information was provided on the 47+ students they failed to locate.

The company now operates under a different name — American Aviation Academy — but uses the same mailing address and phone number in San Diego, where two of the 9/11 hijackers received flight training.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/25/ice-busts-flight-school-massive-visa-fraud-scheme/

McAuleysworld: The 47 they cannot locate are probably hiding in one of our “sanctuary cities” where the politicians and “progressive police chiefs” are refusing to enforce our Country’s immigration laws. We won’t know which of the Mayors and Police Chiefs are criminally culpable until after the terrorists are activated and they carry out the next 911 style attack. When that happens, the next 911 style attack, both the politicans and the police officials, responsible for harboring the terrorists in their cities, should be brought to justice in America’s crimnal court system. I hope the families of the next victims demand justice from these “public officials” who refuse to enforce our laws.   

05/27/2010 Homeland Security Reports: Terror Attacks On US At All Time High – Likely To Worsen

05/27/2010: Obama Adminstration Issues Terror Watch for the Texas/Mexico Border.

By Jana Winter: Published May 26, 2010 | FOXNews.com

The Department of Homeland Security is alerting Texas authorities to be on the lookout for a suspected member of the Somalia-based Al Shabaab terrorist group who might be attempting to travel to the U.S. through Mexico, a security expert who has seen the memo tells FOXNews.com.

(McAuleysworld: Did DHS also warn Texas authorities not to ask the illegals crossing the border for their IDs?). 

The warning follows an indictment unsealed this month in Texas federal court that accuses a Somali man in Texas of running a “large-scale smuggling enterprise” responsible for bringing hundreds of Somalis from Brazil through South America and eventually across the Mexican border. Many of the illegal immigrants, who court records say were given fake IDs, are alleged to have ties to other now-defunct Somalian terror organizations that have merged with active organizations like Al Shabaab, al-Barakat and Al-Ittihad Al-Islami.

In 2008, the U.S. government designated Al Shabaab a terrorist organization. Al Shabaab has said its priority is to impose Sharia, or Islamic law, on Somalia; the group has aligned itself with Al Qaeda and has made statements about its intent to harm the United States.

In recent years, American Somalis have been recruited by Al Shabaab to travel to Somalia, where they are often radicalized by more extremist or operational anti-American terror groups, which Al Shabaab supports. The recruiters coming through the Mexican border are the ones who could be the most dangerous, according to law enforcement officials.

Security experts tell FOXNews.com that the influx of hundreds of Somalis over the U.S. border who allegedly have ties to suspected terror cells is evidence of a porous and unsecured border being exploited by groups intent on wrecking deadly havoc on American soil.

The DHS alert was issued to police and sheriff’s deputies in Houston, asking them to keep their eyes open for a Somali man named Mohamed Ali who is believed to be in Mexico preparing to make the illegal crossing into Texas. Officials believe Ali has ties to Al Shabaab, a Somali terrorist organization aligned with Al Qaeda, said Joan Neuhaus Schaan, the homeland security and terrorism fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute, who has seen the alert.

An indictment was unsealed in Texas federal court earlier this month that revealed that a Somali man, Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane, led a human smuggling ring that brought East Africans, including Somalis with ties to terror groups, from Brazil and across the Mexican border and into Texas. 

In a separate case, Anthony Joseph Tracy, of Virginia, who admitted to having ties to Al Shabaab, is currently being prosecuted for his alleged role in an international ring that illegally brought more than 200 Somalis across the Mexican border. Prosecutors say Tracy used his Kenya-based travel business as a cover to fraudulently obtain Cuban travel documents for the Somalis. The smuggled Somalis are believed to have spread out across the United States and remain mostly at large, court records show.

(McAuleysworld: I wonder how many of these terrorists headed straight to one of our “sanctuary cities” where they can safely hide until they are activated for the next 911 style attack?)

Somalis are classified by border and immigration officials as “special interest” — illegal immigrants who get caught trying to cross the Mexican border into the U.S. who come from countries that are considered a high threat to the U.S., Neuhaus Schaan explained.

DHS did not respond to multiple e-mail and phone requests for comment.

In addition to the Somali immigration issue, Mexican smugglers are coaching some Middle Eastern immigrants before they cross the border – schooling them on how to dress and giving them phrases to help them look and sound like Latinos, law enforcement sources told FoxNews.com.

“There have been a number of certain communities that have noticed this, villages in northern Mexico where Middle Easterners try to move into town and learn Spanish,” Neuhaus Schaan said. “People were changing there names from Middle Eastern names to Hispanic names.”
Security experts say the push by illegal immigrants to try to fit in also could be the realization of what officials have feared for years: Latin American drug cartels are helping jihadist groups bring terrorists across the Mexican border.

J. Peter Pham, senior fellow and director of the Africa Project at the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, said that for the past ten years there’s been suspicion by U.S. law enforcement that drug cartels could align with international terrorist organizations to bring would-be-jihadists into the U.S.

That kind of collaboration is already being seen in Africa, said Dr. Walid Phares, director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

McAuleysworld: Are they referring to Somalia, again, where international drug smuggling, human trafficking, piracy and Jihadism go hand in hand? My kudos to President William Jefferson Clinton, January 1993 –  January 2001, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) and his handling of  Mogadishu, Somalia in October 1993. Clinton’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia on March 31, 1994 left a “free field” for the Terrorists to over run and consolidate their control of the Country when Clinton ordered a “U.S. retreat and the surrender of Somalia” to the Terrorists. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993))

“Al Qaeda could easily say, “Ok, now we want your help getting these guys into the United States,” Phares said. “Eventually the federal government will pay more attention, but there is a window of time now where they can get anyone they want to get in already.”

Experts also say the DHS alert and recent court case highlights the threat of terrorists penetrating the Mexican/Texas border — and the growing threat of Somali recruitment efforts to bring Americans of Somali descent back to Somalia for jihadist training, creating homegrown terrorists.
Pham says the DHS alert comes too late. “They’re just covering themselves for the fact that DHS has been failing to date to deal effectively with this,” he said. “They’re already here.

Michael Weinstein, a political science professor at Purdue University and an expert on Somalia, said, “In the past year, it’s become obvious that there’s a spillover into the United States of the transnational revolutionaries in Somalia.”

“It’s something that certainly has to be watched, but I don’t think it’s an imminent threat,” he said. “This has to be put in context with people smuggling — everybody and their brother is getting into the United States through Mexico; I read last week that some Chinese were crossing, it’s just a big market.

Pham disagrees. “The real danger is ‘something along the lines of jihadist version of ‘find a classmate,’ he said, referring to Al Shabaab’s potential to set up sleeper cells in the U.S. “Most of them rely on personal referral and association. That type of social networking is not beyond their capabilities.”

Pham says the DHS alert is too little, too late.

“This is like shutting the barn door after the horses got away,” he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/26/terror-alert-mexican-border/

SPECIAL ALERT FROM McAULEYSWORLD TO AMERICA’S LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY: Remember this, when you encounter one of these terrorists crossing into our Country illegally, under no circumstance should you offend these individuals by asking to see identification. It doesn’t matter what the terrorists are bringing into the Country, be it illegal weapons or illegal drugs, don’t complicate their visit into our Country by asking for identification. I’d suggest you contact your local member of the “Progressive Law Enforcement Officers Association”, the organization that recently met with Attorney General Holder in opposition to the Arizona ID Law, and arrange transit to the nearest Sanctuary City where these “Progressives” refuse to enforce our Immigration Laws. There the terrorists can safely wait for orders to carryout the next 911 style attack on our Country.

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan’s Role In The Development & Implementation of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – The Intellectual Dishonesty Continues

She has never served a single day as a Judge, in any level of the Judiciary. Judge Judy has 30 years more experience than Professor Kagan.

Kagan has, however, been closely associated with two of the most dramatic and publicized instances of intellectual dishonesty in the 20th century.

Intellectual Dishonesty has been defined as “the advocacy of a position known to be false”.  http://africanamerica.org/displayForumTopic/content/128788938052382563         

The Clinton Years 

Between 1991 and 1995 Kagan served as an Associate White House Counsel and Policy Advisor to President Bill Clinton. During her tenor as an Associate White Counsel & Policy Advisor, Kagan advised Clinton during the Monica Lewinski affair.

For those of you too young to remember the Lewinski Affair, President Clinton was charged by a female employee of the State of Arkansas with sexual harassment. Arkansas is Clinton’s home state, and the State where Clinton served as Governor prior to being elected President.

The state employee, Paula Jones, was not the only Arkansas State employee to bring such charges against then President Clinton. As a part of the prosecution of the sexual harassment case, Jones’ attorneys attempted to prove a “pattern of inappropriate sexual conduct” by then President Clinton in both Arkansas and later in the White House. 

The Attorneys for Ms. Jones had knowledge of a subsequent affair with a staffer in the White House, an affair that President Clinton was later forced to admit included “inappropriate sexual conduct”.   Clinton’s ”forced” admission followed the discovery of legal proof of the affair, proof in the form of a Presidential DNA sample left behind on the staffer’s dress.

After making several public denials, the President eventually admitted his guilt.

WHILE ATTEMPTS TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT CLINTON WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL, PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS FOUND GUILTY OF BEING IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND OF GIVING FALSE TESTIMONY UNDER OATH OR PERJURY. CLINTON’S CONVICTION WAS UPHELD BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, HE WAS FINED $90,000 DOLLARS AND HIS LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW WAS SUSPENDED IN ARKANSAS AND BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. (CLINTON WAS DISBARRED).

The basis of Clinton’s conviction was his answer, given while he was under oath, in a court ordered deposition, to the following question,

Monica Lewinski

“”Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky (the staffer), as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?”.

Clinton answered “I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.”

On January 26, President Clinton, with his wife and now Obama Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, standing at his side, spoke at a White House press conference, and issued a forceful denial, which contained what would later become one of the best-known sound bites of his presidency:

“Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.”

Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex. Clinton also argued that the accuracy of his answer would depend on what the definition of word “is”, is! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal      

Clinton’s actions in denying the “inappropriate behavior” were intellectually dishonest and criminal. It was intellectually dishonest for those advising Clinton to suggest it was appropriate for President Clinton to commit perjury. As no other party was “prosecuted” for their actions in the Lewinski/Jones matter, the public will never know if an act of “obstruction of justice” occurred in the President’s defense of the Jones lawsuit.

Clinton eventually settled the Jones Lawsuit for $850,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

Kagan’s exact recommendations to President Clinton during the Lewinski scandal have never been disclosed, however, Clinton nominated Kagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1996. Her nomination to that Court was not approved by Congress.

Congress failed to confirm Kagan to the Court of Appeals in 1996, should she now be moved ahead of the 180 Judges who were confirmed by Congress and are currently rendering the decisions of our Country’s second highest Court?  

Return to Academia 

In 2003 Kagan was appointed as Dean of Harvard Law School by President Obama’s current National Economic Council Director, Lawrence Summers.

Kagan’s intellectual dishonesty during her “deanship” is well documented.

Kagan proudly boasts of her “support for a policy barring military recruiters from the Harvard campus”, because she felt that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy violated the rights of Gays and Lesbians. 

As dean, Kagan supported a lawsuit intended to overturn the Solomon Amendment so military recruiters might be banned from the grounds of schools like Harvard. When a federal appeals court ruled the Pentagon could not withhold funds, she banned the military from Harvard’s campus. Kagan’s “ban” was challenged in the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Kagan and ordered Harvard to eliminate her policy and provide campus access so that the military could fulfill its duty to lawfully recruit on campus. While Kagan was legally obligated to allow the military back on campus, she simultaneously urged students to demonstrate against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

The Military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy?

In October 2003, Kagan transmitted an e-mail to students and faculty “deploring” the fact that military recruiters had shown up on campus “in violation of the school’s anti-discrimination policy”. The email read, “This action causes me deep distress. I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy.” She also wrote that ”the policy” was “a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order.”

Kagan’s intellectual dishonesty at Harvard – where do we begin?

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is not a creation of the “United States Military”. The policy is a creation of politicians, not the military. The policy was devised and written, in total, by politicians, not by the military. When the military applies the  rules enumerated in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the military is, as the military is constitutionally sworn to do, following the legal orders of the military’s political masters.

Just as the military does not chose what wars it will fight, the military fights when and where the politicians direct it to fight, the military did not create “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, it is a creation of the politicians and Washington D.C.. 

Where did ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” come from?

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was and is a creation of the Clinton Administration. Yes, the Clinton Administration. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was created by President Clinton and the Clinton Administration with Defense Department Directive #1304.26, signed by Clinton in 1993. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

That is right. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was conceived and written while Kagan was serving as Associate White House Counsel and Policy Advisor and signed into law by her boss, President William Jefferson Clinton. It was Kagan and the Clinton White House who constructed the “policy” which so offended the good Counsel after she got to Harvard.  

Just one month prior to signing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, President Clinton had signed Defense Directive 1332.14., a directive that included a complete ban on gays or lesbians in the military. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell Yes, that complete ban on gays and lesbians in the military was written, signed and executed while Kagan was Associate White House Counsel and Policy Advisor.

To borrow a phrase we hear often lately, “so let me be perfectly clear”, it was the Clinton Administration, the Administration where Kagan actively participated as Associate White House Counsel and as a Policy Advisor, that, at first, extended a complete ban on gays in the military and then, just 1 month later, created and implemented “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

Fast forward to Harvard where Kagan is “ deploring that military recruiters had shown up on campus in violation of the school’s anti-discrimination policy.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

Remember Kagan’s October 2003 email, “This action causes me deep distress. I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy ….. it [the policy]  is a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order.”  

The military’s discriminatory recruitment policy? A moral injustice of the 1st order?

Who created this ”discriminatory recruitment policy”, the “moral injustice of the 1st order”?

The military?

I think not. The blame, if there is any, rests solely on the Clinton White House and its Associate White House Counsel and Policy Advisor.

The military, when it arrived at Harvard, was attempting to meet the obligations it was sworn to uphold. Specifically, the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and to follow all legal orders received from its political masters and the Commander in Chief of the United States Military – The President of The United States. The military arrived at Harvard for the sole purpose of fulfilling the recruitment quotas set for the Military by Congress and the White House.

The epitome of intellectual dishonesty, blaming the military for enforcing the provisions of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy when it was Kagan and the Clinton White House who created the policy in the 1st place.

Strangely, Harvard University has the following policy in regard to undergraduate admissions and intellectual dishonesty: “Harvard admission is contingent on five conditions enumerated for students upon their acceptance—including one which stipulates admission will be revoked “if you engage in behavior that brings into question your honesty, maturity, or moral character.” http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/7/11/harvard-takes-back-hornstine-admission-offer/

Should we expect less from a Supreme Court nominee?

 Harvard – The Intellectual Dishonesty Continues 

A third and much less publicized instance of Kagan’s intellectual dishonesty occurred while Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law.

In December 2004, then Dean Kagan was severely criticized by other Harvard Professors (most notably, Professor Velvel, in his post “There Is No Room For Morality At Harvard:  http://velvelonnationalaffairs.blogspot.com/2004/12/there-is-no-room-for-morality-at.html) and other Professors around the Country for her failure to respond to acts of plagiarism by two of the Harvard Law Professors then under Kagan’s scope of control. Professor Velvel noted his concerns with, “the lack of morality at Harvard on issues relating to academic honesty” and went on to slam ”in particular Dean Elena Kagan for her failure to do or say anything further on the topic”. Dean Velvel noted that society, “thinks dishonesty should be heavily punished, especially because it strikes at society’s basic, if contemporaneously ignored, need for truth.” 
http://authorskeptics.blogspot.com/2004/12/dean-velvel-criticizes-dean-kagans.html

The New York Times noted the obviously true allegations, which had been reported by “Harvard’s student newspaper”, “The Harvard Crimson”,  noted, ”the university appears to have one set of rules for its famous professors, and another for its students.” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/education/24harvard.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=e41a17ae53c8d045&ex=1259125200&partner=rssuserland 

 True, unfortunate, but true.

The Times noted that, “Professor Ogletree had raised questions … about the “larger problem” of “writers, political office seekers, judges and other high government officials passing off the work of others as their own,”

The Weekly Standard reported that Professor Tribe’s 1985 book about the selection of Supreme Court justices, “God Save This Honorable Court,” (Random House) had “perhaps an ‘uncomfortable reliance’ ” on a book by an emeritus University of Virginia professor, Henry J. Abraham.”. “Professor Tribe, who had been named recently by Harvard’s president, Lawrence H. Summers, as one of 17 university professors, the highest academic ranking at Harvard, immediately issued a public apology. Blaming his allegedly “well-meaning effort to write a book accessible to a lay audience through the omission of any footnotes or endnotes” for his plagiarism.

Kagan’s response? She ignored the issue, after all, the good professors are admired members of the liberal left educational community.

Dereliction of duty as the Dean Of Harvard Law? Hardly a trait to recommend one to the office of Supreme Court Justice. Dereliction of duty as Dean of Harvard Law – to be expected from a seasoned politician, but also a classic example of intellectual dishonesty.

Kagan ignored the plagiarism, however, she never even blinked before she blamed the military for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy she helped formulate in the Clinton White House.

In a sort of perverse, reverse plagiarism, Kagen claimed, “it ain’t mine, I didn’t write it, it’s the military’s fault”.

Not a single day of judicial experience.

A politician through and through and an intellectually dishonest politician at that.

Mr. President, you have 180 Judges who have successfully passed the Congressional Review and Appointment process and are currently hearing cases in the various Federal Appeals Courts.

Stop the politically motivated appointments and select our next Justice from America’s best Appellate Court Judges to fill the seat on our Supreme Court. With 180 Federal Appellate Judges to chose from, I’m certain you can find one who is intellectually honest.

Mr. President you promised us “change” – but all you have done to date is recycle the same old Washington Elite, the Same Old Washington Insiders.

UPDATE: Kagan: From a mock Supreme Court to the real thing

WASHINGTON — The nine students who sat as a mock Supreme Court dissected the cases before them. During weekly classes they picked apart arguments and became frustrated by incomplete briefs. Their seminar professor, Elena Kagan, largely kept quiet, letting her students run the debate.

At the end of class she might ask: How do you think the real court will decide?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/24/AR2010062400518.html

McAuley’s World Comments: A compliant press again. Cheerleading for another liberal appointment. If we have learned anything in the Gulf of Mexico over that last 2 1/2 months, there is nothing like practical experience. Practical experience, experience actuallydoing the job you are assigned to do, beats hell out of “theoretical practice” in the class room.

If we have learned anything during the Gulf crisis it is this, the real world is what happens outside of the confines of that comfortable little classroom.

Will the Country be “best served” by appointing an academic without a single day’s experience serving as a judge, at any level, to our Nation’s highest Court. Mr. President, I urge you again to withdraw your nomination and select someone from the 180 sitting members of the Federal Appellate bench or one of the Nation’s experienced Federal Trial judges. Do we really need a “novice” judge to get her “on the job training” sitting in one of the nine chairs reserved for our Supreme Court Justices?

Mr. President, those without experience are much more likely to lack the “wisdom” necessary to appreciate the “unintended consequences” that arise from their actions.

UPDATE: New York Times

The New York Times Article on Kagan’s nomination, “Obama Picks Kagan, Scholar but Not Judge, for Court Seat”.

The New York Times, when it discussed Obama’s reasons for nominating an “academic” rather than one of the 180 Judges currently hearing cases in our Federal Appellate Court system stated. “As he (Obama) presses an ambitious agenda expanding the reach of government, Mr. Obama has come to worry that a conservative Supreme Court could become an obstacle down the road, aides said. It is conceivable that the Roberts court could eventually hear challenges to aspects of Mr. Obama’s health care program or to other policies like restrictions on carbon emissions and counterterrorism practices.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/us/politics/11court.html?pagewanted=2&sq=kagan&st=cse&scp=5

Surprisingly, the Ne York Times correctly compared Kagan’s experience and lack of “judicial temperament” with Bush nominee Harriet Miers, “Critics have been pre-emptively attacking her in the days leading up to the president’s announcement. Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, writing on The Daily Beast, compared her to Harriet E. Miers, whose nomination by President George W. Bush collapsed amid an uprising among conservatives who considered her unqualified”.

M. Edward Whelan III, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, wrote on National Review’s Web site that even Ms. Kagan’s nonjudicial experience was inadequate. “Kagan may well have less experience relevant to the work of being a justice than any entering justice in decades,” Mr. Whelan wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/us/politics/11court.html?pagewanted=2&sq=kagan&st=cse&scp=5

Will the Country be best served by appointing a Justice who has never worked a day as a Judge, whose main claim to being “qualified” to serve was a scandal marred tenor as Dean of Harvard Law. A term plagued by the intellectually dishonest “don’t ask, don’t tell” activities of the nominee and the unseemly disgrace of Harvard Law with a plagiarism scandal involving not one but two of the Professors under Kagan’s direction.

Will the Country be best served by the appointment of a Justice who supports the expansion of the “Executive Branch” powers and the diminution of the powers preserved for the Congress and the Judicial Branch of our Constitutional Republic? A diminution of our Constitutional Republic today, when the President appoints individuals like former Police Chief Harold Hurtt to lead the ICE, when Hurtt is a leading supporter of Sanctuary Cities, an individual, who like the President, has no respect for the Constitutional separation of powers and Congress imperative to pass immigration laws that the Executive Branch is “required” to enforce.

Is Kagan the correct nominee, an “academic” who agrees with an expansion of the Executive Powers through the use of “Executive Order”, even when those orders implement a “defacto” usurpation of the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution?

Senate Hearings: Kagan insists she didn’t block military at Harvard

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan maneuvered carefully through tough Republican questioning on military recruitment at Harvard Law School, gun owners’ rights and free speech Tuesday, drawing strong praise from Senate Democrats who command the votes to confirm her.

In a long day of questioning at a hearing that stretched into the evening, Kagan came under fire from Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, for her decision as dean of Harvard Law to bar recruiters from the school’s career services office over the Pentagon’s policy against openly gay soldiers. He said that amounted to “punishing” the military services, treating them in a “second-class way” and creating a hostile environment for the military on campus.

“We were trying to make sure that military recruiters had full and complete access to our students, but we were also trying to protect our own antidiscrimination policy and to protect the students whom it is … supposed to protect, which in this case were our gay and lesbian students,” Kagan said.

Sessions rejected her version of events, calling Kagan’s explanation “disconnected from reality” and accused Kagan of defying federal law because of her strong opposition to the military’s treatment of homosexuals.

“I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy,” Sessions said “I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy and deny those military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government of loss of federal funds.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100629/ap_on_go_su_co/us_kagan_supreme_court

UPDATE: 06/29/10  

McAuley’s World Comments:

Inspector General Kagan continues her intellectual dishonesty.

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan – Intellectual Dishonesty & “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

She has never served a single day as a Judge, in any level of the Judiciary. Judge Judy has 30 years more experience than Professor Kagan.

Kagan has, however, been closely associated with two of the most dramatic and publicized instances of intellectual dishonesty in the 20th century.

Intellectual Dishonesty has been defined as “the advocacy of a position known to be false”.  http://africanamerica.org/displayForumTopic/content/128788938052382563         

The Clinton Years 

Between 1991 and 1995 Kagan served as an Associate White House Counsel and Policy Advisor to President Bill Clinton. During her tenor as an Associate White Counsel & Policy Advisor, Kagan advised Clinton during the Monica Lewinski affair.

For those of you too young to remember the Lewinski Affair, President Clinton was charged by a female employee of the State of Arkansas with sexual harassment. Arkansas is Clinton’s home state, and the State where Clinton served as Governor prior to being elected President.

The state employee, Paula Jones, was not the only Arkansas State employee to bring such charges against then President Clinton. As a part of the prosecution of the sexual harassment case, Jones’ attorneys attempted to prove a “pattern of inappropriate sexual conduct” by then President Clinton in both Arkansas and later in the White House. 

The Attorneys for Ms. Jones had knowledge of a subsequent affair with a staffer in the White House, an affair that President Clinton was later forced to admit included “inappropriate sexual conduct”.   Clinton’s ”forced” admission followed the discovery of legal proof of the affair, proof in the form of a Presidential DNA sample left behind on the staffer’s dress.

After making several public denials, the President eventually admitted his guilt.

WHILE ATTEMPTS TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT CLINTON WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL, PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS FOUND GUILTY OF BEING IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND OF GIVING FALSE TESTIMONY UNDER OATH OR PERJURY. CLINTON’S CONVICTION WAS UPHELD BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, HE WAS FINED $90,000 DOLLARS AND HIS LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW WAS SUSPENDED IN ARKANSAS AND BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. (CLINTON WAS DISBARRED).

The basis of Clinton’s conviction was his answer, given while he was under oath, in a court ordered deposition, to the following question,

Monica Lewinski

“”Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky (the staffer), as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?”.

Clinton answered “I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.”

On January 26, President Clinton, with his wife and now Obama Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, standing at his side, spoke at a White House press conference, and issued a forceful denial, which contained what would later become one of the best-known sound bites of his presidency:

“Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.”

Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex. Clinton also argued that the accuracy of his answer would depend on what the definition of word “is”, is! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal      

Clinton’s actions in denying the “inappropriate behavior” were intellectually dishonest and criminal. It was intellectually dishonest for those advising Clinton to suggest it was appropriate for President Clinton to commit perjury. As no other party was “prosecuted” for their actions in the Lewinski/Jones matter, the public will never know if an act of “obstruction of justice” occurred in the President’s defense of the Jones lawsuit.

Clinton eventually settled the Jones Lawsuit for $850,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

Kagan’s exact recommendations to President Clinton during the Lewinski scandal have never been disclosed, however, Clinton nominated Kagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1996. Her nomination to that Court was not approved by Congress.

Congress failed to confirm Kagan to the Court of Appeals in 1996, should she now be moved ahead of the 180 Judges who were confirmed by Congress and are currently rendering the decisions of our Country’s second highest Court?  

Return to Academia 

In 2003 Kagan was appointed as Dean of Harvard Law School by President Obama’s current National Economic Council Director, Lawrence Summers.

Kagan’s intellectual dishonesty during her “deanship” is well documented.

Kagan proudly boasts of her “support for a policy barring military recruiters from the Harvard campus”, because she felt that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy violated the rights of Gays and Lesbians. 

As dean, Kagan supported a lawsuit intended to overturn the Solomon Amendment so military recruiters might be banned from the grounds of schools like Harvard. When a federal appeals court ruled the Pentagon could not withhold funds, she banned the military from Harvard’s campus. Kagan’s “ban” was challenged in the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Kagan and ordered Harvard to eliminate her policy and provide campus access so that the military could fulfill its duty to lawfully recruit on campus. While Kagan was legally obligated to allow the military back on campus, she simultaneously urged students to demonstrate against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

The Military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy?

In October 2003, Kagan transmitted an e-mail to students and faculty “deploring” the fact that military recruiters had shown up on campus “in violation of the school’s anti-discrimination policy”. The email read, “This action causes me deep distress. I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy.” She also wrote that ”the policy” was “a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order.”

Kagan’s intellectual dishonesty at Harvard – where do we begin?

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is not a creation of the “United States Military”. The policy is a creation of politicians, not the military. The policy was devised and written, in total, by politicians, not by the military. When the military applies the  rules enumerated in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the military is, as the military is constitutionally sworn to do, following the legal orders of the military’s political masters.

Just as the military does not chose what wars it will fight, the military fights when and where the politicians direct it to fight, the military did not create “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, it is a creation of the politicians and Washington D.C.. 

Where did ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” come from?

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was and is a creation of the Clinton Administration. Yes, the Clinton Administration. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was created by President Clinton and the Clinton Administration with Defense Department Directive #1304.26, signed by Clinton in 1993. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

That is right. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was conceived and written while Kagan was serving as Associate White House Counsel and Policy Advisor and signed into law by her boss, President William Jefferson Clinton. It was Kagan and the Clinton White House who constructed the “policy” which so offended the good Counsel after she got to Harvard.  

Just one month prior to signing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, President Clinton had signed Defense Directive 1332.14., a directive that included a complete ban on gays or lesbians in the military. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell Yes, that complete ban on gays and lesbians in the military was written, signed and executed while Kagan was Associate White House Counsel and Policy Advisor.

To borrow a phrase we hear often lately, “so let me be perfectly clear”, it was the Clinton Administration, the Administration where Kagan actively participated as Associate White House Counsel and as a Policy Advisor, that, at first, extended a complete ban on gays in the military and then, just 1 month later, created and implemented “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

Fast forward to Harvard where Kagan is “ deploring that military recruiters had shown up on campus in violation of the school’s anti-discrimination policy.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

Remember Kagan’s October 2003 email, “This action causes me deep distress. I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy ….. it [the policy]  is a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order.”  

The military’s discriminatory recruitment policy? A moral injustice of the 1st order?

Who created this ”discriminatory recruitment policy”, the “moral injustice of the 1st order”?

The military?

I think not. The blame, if there is any, rests solely on the Clinton White House and its Associate White House Counsel and Policy Advisor.

The military, when it arrived at Harvard, was attempting to meet the obligations it was sworn to uphold. Specifically, the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and to follow all legal orders received from its political masters and the Commander in Chief of the United States Military – The President of The United States. The military arrived at Harvard for the sole purpose of fulfilling the recruitment quotas set for the Military by Congress and the White House.

The epitome of intellectual dishonesty, blaming the military for enforcing the provisions of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy when it was Kagan and the Clinton White House who created the policy in the 1st place.

Strangely, Harvard University has the following policy in regard to undergraduate admissions and intellectual dishonesty: “Harvard admission is contingent on five conditions enumerated for students upon their acceptance—including one which stipulates admission will be revoked “if you engage in behavior that brings into question your honesty, maturity, or moral character.” http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/7/11/harvard-takes-back-hornstine-admission-offer/

Should we expect less from a Supreme Court nominee?

 Harvard – The Intellectual Dishonesty Continues 

A third and much less publicized instance of Kagan’s intellectual dishonesty occurred while Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law.

In December 2004, then Dean Kagan was severely criticized by other Harvard Professors (most notably, Professor Velvel, in his post “There Is No Room For Morality At Harvard:  http://velvelonnationalaffairs.blogspot.com/2004/12/there-is-no-room-for-morality-at.html) and other Professors around the Country for her failure to respond to acts of plagiarism by two of the Harvard Law Professors then under Kagan’s scope of control. Professor Velvel noted his concerns with, “the lack of morality at Harvard on issues relating to academic honesty” and went on to slam ”in particular Dean Elena Kagan for her failure to do or say anything further on the topic”. Dean Velvel noted that society, “thinks dishonesty should be heavily punished, especially because it strikes at society’s basic, if contemporaneously ignored, need for truth.” 
http://authorskeptics.blogspot.com/2004/12/dean-velvel-criticizes-dean-kagans.html

The New York Times noted the obviously true allegations, which had been reported by “Harvard’s student newspaper”, “The Harvard Crimson”,  noted, ”the university appears to have one set of rules for its famous professors, and another for its students.” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/education/24harvard.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=e41a17ae53c8d045&ex=1259125200&partner=rssuserland 

 True, unfortunate, but true.

The Times noted that, “Professor Ogletree had raised questions … about the “larger problem” of “writers, political office seekers, judges and other high government officials passing off the work of others as their own,”

The Weekly Standard reported that Professor Tribe’s 1985 book about the selection of Supreme Court justices, “God Save This Honorable Court,” (Random House) had “perhaps an ‘uncomfortable reliance’ ” on a book by an emeritus University of Virginia professor, Henry J. Abraham.”. “Professor Tribe, who had been named recently by Harvard’s president, Lawrence H. Summers, as one of 17 university professors, the highest academic ranking at Harvard, immediately issued a public apology. Blaming his allegedly “well-meaning effort to write a book accessible to a lay audience through the omission of any footnotes or endnotes” for his plagiarism.

Kagan’s response? She ignored the issue, after all, the good professors are admired members of the liberal left educational community.

Dereliction of duty as the Dean Of Harvard Law? Hardly a trait to recommend one to the office of Supreme Court Justice. Dereliction of duty as Dean of Harvard Law – to be expected from a seasoned politician, but also a classic example of intellectual dishonesty.

Kagan ignored the plagiarism, however, she never even blinked before she blamed the military for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy she helped formulate in the Clinton White House.

In a sort of perverse, reverse plagiarism, Kagen claimed, “it ain’t mine, I didn’t write it, it’s the military’s fault”.

Not a single day of judicial experience.

A politician through and through and an intellectually dishonest politician at that.

Mr. President, you have 180 Judges who have successfully passed the Congressional Review and Appointment process and are currently hearing cases in the various Federal Appeals Courts.

Stop the politically motivated appointments and select our next Justice from America’s best Appellate Court Judges to fill the seat on our Supreme Court. With 180 Federal Appellate Judges to chose from, I’m certain you can find one who is intellectually honest.

Mr. President you promised us “change” – but all you have done to date is recycle the same old Washington Elite, the Same Old Washington Insiders.

UPDATE: Kagan: From a mock Supreme Court to the real thing

WASHINGTON — The nine students who sat as a mock Supreme Court dissected the cases before them. During weekly classes they picked apart arguments and became frustrated by incomplete briefs. Their seminar professor, Elena Kagan, largely kept quiet, letting her students run the debate.

At the end of class she might ask: How do you think the real court will decide?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/24/AR2010062400518.html

McAuley’s World Comments: A compliant press again. Cheerleading for another liberal appointment. If we have learned anything in the Gulf of Mexico over that last 2 1/2 months, there is nothing like practical experience. Practical experience, experience actuallydoing the job you are assigned to do, beats hell out of “theoretical practice” in the class room.

If we have learned anything during the Gulf crisis it is this, the real world is what happens outside of the confines of that comfortable little classroom.

Will the Country be “best served” by appointing an academic without a single day’s experience serving as a judge, at any level, to our Nation’s highest Court. Mr. President, I urge you again to withdraw your nomination and select someone from the 180 sitting members of the Federal Appellate bench or one of the Nation’s experienced Federal Trial judges. Do we really need a “novice” judge to get her “on the job training” sitting in one of the nine chairs reserved for our Supreme Court Justices?

Mr. President, those without experience are much more likely to lack the “wisdom” necessary to appreciate the “unintended consequences” that arise from their actions.

UPDATE: New York Times

The New York Times Article on Kagan’s nomination, “Obama Picks Kagan, Scholar but Not Judge, for Court Seat”.

The New York Times, when it discussed Obama’s reasons for nominating an “academic” rather than one of the 180 Judges currently hearing cases in our Federal Appellate Court system stated. “As he (Obama) presses an ambitious agenda expanding the reach of government, Mr. Obama has come to worry that a conservative Supreme Court could become an obstacle down the road, aides said. It is conceivable that the Roberts court could eventually hear challenges to aspects of Mr. Obama’s health care program or to other policies like restrictions on carbon emissions and counterterrorism practices.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/us/politics/11court.html?pagewanted=2&sq=kagan&st=cse&scp=5

Surprisingly, the Ne York Times correctly compared Kagan’s experience and lack of “judicial temperament” with Bush nominee Harriet Miers, “Critics have been pre-emptively attacking her in the days leading up to the president’s announcement. Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, writing on The Daily Beast, compared her to Harriet E. Miers, whose nomination by President George W. Bush collapsed amid an uprising among conservatives who considered her unqualified”.

M. Edward Whelan III, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, wrote on National Review’s Web site that even Ms. Kagan’s nonjudicial experience was inadequate. “Kagan may well have less experience relevant to the work of being a justice than any entering justice in decades,” Mr. Whelan wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/us/politics/11court.html?pagewanted=2&sq=kagan&st=cse&scp=5

Will the Country be best served by appointing a Justice who has never worked a day as a Judge, whose main claim to being “qualified” to serve was a scandal marred tenor as Dean of Harvard Law. A term plagued by the intellectually dishonest “don’t ask, don’t tell” activities of the nominee and the unseemly disgrace of Harvard Law with a plagiarism scandal involving not one but two of the Professors under Kagan’s direction.

Will the Country be best served by the appointment of a Justice who supports the expansion of the “Executive Branch” powers and the diminution of the powers preserved for the Congress and the Judicial Branch of our Constitutional Republic? A diminution of our Constitutional Republic today, when the President appoints individuals like former Police Chief Harold Hurtt to lead the ICE, when Hurtt is a leading supporter of Sanctuary Cities, an individual, who like the President, has no respect for the Constitutional separation of powers and Congress imperative to pass immigration laws that the Executive Branch is “required” to enforce.

Is Kagan the correct nominee, an “academic” who agrees with an expansion of the Executive Powers through the use of “Executive Order”, even when those orders implement a “defacto” usurpation of the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution?

UPDATE: 06/29/10 Senate Hearings

Kagan insists she didn’t block military at Harvard

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan maneuvered carefully through tough Republican questioning on military recruitment at Harvard Law School, gun owners’ rights and free speech Tuesday, drawing strong praise from Senate Democrats who command the votes to confirm her.

In a long day of questioning at a hearing that stretched into the evening, Kagan came under fire from Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, for her decision as dean of Harvard Law to bar recruiters from the school’s career services office over the Pentagon’s policy against openly gay soldiers. He said that amounted to “punishing” the military services, treating them in a “second-class way” and creating a hostile environment for the military on campus.

“We were trying to make sure that military recruiters had full and complete access to our students, but we were also trying to protect our own antidiscrimination policy and to protect the students whom it is … supposed to protect, which in this case were our gay and lesbian students,” Kagan said.

Sessions rejected her version of events calling Kagan’s explanation  “disconnected from reality” and accused Kagan of defying federal law because of her strong opposition to the military’s treatment of homosexuals.

“I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy,” Sessions said “I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy and deny those military recruiters equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government of loss of federal funds.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100629/ap_on_go_su_co/us_kagan_supreme_court

McAuley’s World Comments:

Solicitor General Kagan continues ger intellectual dishonesty.

The Immigration Debate: Obama’s National ID Card & Race Baiting – What is the True Agenda?

They said “this man” was going to unite the Country, ‘The Great Uniter”, has tuned out to be just another race baiting divider, ready and willing to say or do anything, to divide and destroy, as long as it provides the smallest political advantage to his person.

Race baiting is the use of racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical, and often harmful to their personal or group interests. Race baiting can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race-based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists. The term “race” in this context can be construed very broadly to include the social constructs which define race or racial difference, as well as ethnic, religious, gender and economic differences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_baiting

Race baiting is the lowest form of hypocrisy: hyprocrisy / – a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. A pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude. See: Deceitful. Deceit is the quality that prompts intentional concealment or perversion of truth for the purpose of misleading: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deceit

Anyone who has read the Arizona Immigration Law now knows, the law specifically and repeatedly states that racial profiling is prohibited under the law. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

The law also identifies 11 pieces of identification, that if produced, create a “presumption of legal residency”. The 11 types of ID are:

1.  An Arizona driver license issued after 1996 or an Arizona nonoperating identification license.

 2.  A birth certificate or delayed birth certificate issued in any state, territory or possession of the United States.

 3.  A United States certificate of birth abroad.

 4.  A United States passport.

 5.  A foreign passport with a United States visa.

 6.  An I-94 form with a photograph.

 7.  A United States citizenship and immigration services employment authorization document or refugee travel document.

 8.  A United States certificate of naturalization.

 9.  A United States certificate of citizenship.

 10.  A tribal certificate of Indian blood.

 11.  A tribal or bureau of Indian affairs affidavit of birth.

Produce one of these IDs and it is presumed that you are a “lawful” U.S. resident. Issues resolved!

Is it possible that the law could be abused? Of course, any law can be abused, just as the Race Baiter in Chief is abusing the position of power that the people of the United States entrusted to him, a position he is betraying while he tries to divide this Nation for his personal political advantage.

You might recall that the far left media has repeatedly told us how amazingly smart this Harvard educated lawyer is.

How then, is it, that this Harvard educated lawyer doesn’t know the diference between “misfeasance” and “unconstitutional”. As most 1st year law students can distinguish between the two, how is it that a Harvard Educated Constitutional Law professor, his Attorney General and his Secretary of Homeland Security can’t comprehend the distinction between “misfeasance” and “unconstitutional”?

Misfeasance is defined as: 1). a wrong, actual or alleged, arising from or consisting of affirmative action. 2). the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; the wrongful and injurious exercise of lawful authority. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misfeasance

Unconstitutional is defined as: unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unconstitutional   

If the President, Attorney General and Secretary of Home Land Security don’t understand the difference, they are not competent to hold office.

The truth is that the 3 of them know, full well, that their claims that the Arizona Law is unconstitutional are false. The 3 are guilty of race baiting and deceit!

Example 1: The speed limit in front of my home is 25 miles per hour. There is nothing “unconstitutional” about that law. If a law enforcement officer pulls over a black driver, because they are black and not because they were speeding, that officer has committed an act of malfeasance which is punishable in both the criminal and civil courts, however, the speed limit law is constitutional and there is no question that the speed limit law is constitutional. None!

Example 2: The United States passed a Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act in 1964. The Laws were Amended in 1965. These Civil Rights laws were passed despite strong and united opposition from southern Democrats. The 1965 Voting rights Act called for Federal oversight of elections. http://www.conservapedia.com/Voting_Rights_Act , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 

If I, as individual, happen to be working as an election official and I intentionally act to exclude any individual’s vote, based on that persons race, does my action make the “Civil Rights Act & The Voting Rights Act” of 1965 unconstitutional? Of course not – those laws are Constitutional – it is my individual act of “misfeasance” that is unlawful. The Civil Rights Act is Constitutional, my act would be “unlawful”. 

A race baiter and hater, not an individual committed to uniting.

The Arizona Law permits law enforcement officials to ask for ID and if the “suspect” can’t produce one of the 11 IDs listed above, the officer may question the suspect about his or her immigration status.

What is unconstitutional about asking a “criminal suspect” to identify themselves? Nothing is the answer and the Supreme Court of the United States has said so on many occassions. https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/comprehensive-immigration-reform-the-history-of-immigration-reform-in-america-1790-to-2009/

THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION’S SOLUTION

The National ID Card 

The complaint against the Arizona law has been clearly articulated by the Obama Administration; asking an individual for ID leads to racial profiling and that must not stand.

The proposed solution – Open Borders, No Immigration Quotas, No Immigrant screening – Eliminate the current “excludeable” catergories that bar immigrants from entry into the United States (such as past criminal conduct, rape, murder, sex & drug trafficking, etc) and the implementation of a National ID Card.

A National ID Card?

Just what will this National ID Card be used for? Identification?

Just how stupid do they think we are?

For the National ID Card to be of any use, you will need to allow individuals to actually ask to see the card, won’t you? To actually ask suspects to show the ID?

After all, what good is a National ID Card, if you can’t ask to see it?

Once you ask to see the National ID Card we are back where we started, correct, asking for someone, who is under Police investigation, to identify themselves? Exactly what difference does it make – Law Enforcement Officers don’t care what type of ID you produce – just produce some ID? A National ID card or one of the 11 IDs already listed in the Arizona Law – you’ll need to produce sometype of ID – correct?

Exactly what do you think will happen when the individual can’t produce a National ID Card? How does that differ from not producing one of the 11 IDs listed in the Arizona Law? 

Obviously, the real issue is about not asking for ID. The real issue is that Obama wants open borders and no immigration limits.

To get to where he wants to go, Obama is willing to race bait!

Endangering the Citizens of Arizona    

The Race Baiter In Chief has instructed the head of ICE to threaten the State of Arizona and the citizens of Arizona with the suspension of ICE activities in the State of Arizona.

ICE stands for Immigration Control & Enforcement.

ICE is responsible for fighting organized criminal activity involving drugs, gangs and sexual trafficking. For a summary of the law enforcement activities the President has threatened to withhold from the citizens of Arizona see: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/obama-administration-threatens-to-abandon-law-enforcement-in-arizona/

Isn’t the President responsible for securing our borders and protecting the citizens of Arizona? Mr. President, if you don’t want to do the job you promised to do when you took your oath of office – resign – and we, the people, will be glad to replace you. Sooner, rather than later ….

The Immigration Debate: Mr President – Apologize To The State Of Arizona: “Misfeasance” is not “Unconstitutional”. Obama – Race Baiter In Chief

They said “this man” was going to unite the Country, ‘The Great Uniter”, has tuned out to be just another race baiting divider, ready and willing to say or do anything, to divide and destroy, as long as it provides the smallest political advantage to his person.

Race baiting is the use of racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical, and often harmful to their personal or group interests. Race baiting can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race-based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists. The term “race” in this context can be construed very broadly to include the social constructs which define race or racial difference, as well as ethnic, religious, gender and economic differences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_baiting

Anyone who has read the Arizona Immigration Law now knows, the law specifically and repeatedly states that racial profiling is prohibited under the law. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

The law also identifies 11 pieces of identification, that if produced, create a “presumption of legal residency”. The 11 types of ID are:

1.  An Arizona driver license issued after 1996 or an Arizona nonoperating identification license.

 2.  A birth certificate or delayed birth certificate issued in any state, territory or possession of the United States.

 3.  A United States certificate of birth abroad.

 4.  A United States passport.

 5.  A foreign passport with a United States visa.

 6.  An I-94 form with a photograph.

 7.  A United States citizenship and immigration services employment authorization document or refugee travel document.

 8.  A United States certificate of naturalization.

 9.  A United States certificate of citizenship.

 10.  A tribal certificate of Indian blood.

 11.  A tribal or bureau of Indian affairs affidavit of birth.

Is it possible that the law could be abused? Of course, any law can be abused, just as the Race Baiter in Chief is abusing the position of power that the people of the United States entrusted to him, a position he is betraying while he tries to divide this Nation for his personal political advantage.

You might recall that the far left media has repeatedly told us how amazingly smart this Harvard educated lawyer is.

How then, is it, that this Harvard educated lawyer doesn’t know the diference between “misfeasance” and “unconstitutional”. As most 1st year law students can distinguish between the two, how is it that a Harvard Educated Constitutional Law professor, his Attorney General and his Secretary of Homeland Security can’t comprehend the distinction between “misfeasance” and “unconstitutional”?

Misfeasance is defined as: 1). a wrong, actual or alleged, arising from or consisting of affirmative action. 2). the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; the wrongful and injurious exercise of lawful authority. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misfeasance

Unconstitutional is defined as: unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unconstitutional   

If the President, Attorney General and Secretary of Home Land Security don’t understand the difference, they are not competent to hold office.

The truth is that the 3 of them know, full well, that their claims that the Arizona Law is unconstitutional are false.

Example 1: The speed limit in front of my home is 25 miles per hour. There is nothing “unconstitutional” about that law. If a law enforcement officer pulls over a black driver, because they are black and not because they were speeding, that officer has committed an act of malfeasance which is punishable in both the criminal and civil courts, however, the speed limit law is constitutional and there is no question that the speed limit law is constitutional. None!

Example 2: The United States passed a Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act in 1964. The Laws were Amended in 1965. These Civil Rights laws were passed despite strong opposition from southern Democrats. The 1965 Voting rights Act called for Federal oversight of elections. http://www.conservapedia.com/Voting_Rights_Act , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 

If I, as individual, happen to be working as an election official during an election, and I intentionally act to exclude any individual’s vote, based on that persons race, does my action make the “Civil Rights Act & The Voting Rights Act” of 1965 unconstitutional? Of course not – those laws are Constitutional – it is my individual act of “misfeasance” that is unlawful. The Civil Rights Act is Constitutional, my act would be “unlawful”. 

A race baiter and hater, not an individual committed to uniting.

The Arizona Law permits law enforcement officials to ask for ID and if the “suspect” can’t produce one of the 11 IDs listed above, the officer may question the suspect about his or her immigration status. What is unconstitutional about asking a “criminal suspect” to identify themselves? Nothing is the answer and the Supreme Court of the United States has said so on many occassions.

THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION’S SOLUTION

The National ID Card 

The complaint against the Arizona law has been clearly articulated by the Obama Administration; asking for ID leads to racial profiling and that must not stand.

The proposed solution – Open Borders, No Immigration Quotas, No Immigrant screening – Eliminate the current “excludeable” catergories that bar immigrants from entry into the United States (such as past criminal conduct, rape, murder, sex & drug trafficking, etc) and the implementation of a National ID Card.

A National ID Card?

Just what will this National ID Card be used for? Identification?

Just how stupid do they think we are?

For the National ID Card to be of any use, you will need to allow individuals to actually ask to see the card, won’t you? To actually ask suspects to show the ID?

After all, what good is a National ID Card, if you can’t ask to see it?

Once you ask to see the National ID Card we are back where we started, correct, asking for someone, who is under Police investigation, to identify themselves? Exactly what difference does it make – Law Enforcement Officers don’t care what type of ID you produce – just produce some ID? A National ID card or one of the 11 IDs already listed in the Arizona Law – you need to produce IDs. Exactly what do you think will happen when the individual can’t produce a National ID Card? How does that differ from not producing one of the 11 IDs listed in the Arizona Law? 

The real issue is not asking for ID, obviously. The real issue is that Obama wants open borders and no immigration limits.

To get to where he wants to go, Obama is willing to race bait!

Endangering the Citizens of Arizona    

The Race Baiter In Chief has instructed the head of ICE to threaten the State of Arizona and the citizens of Arizona with the suspension of ICE activities in Arizona.

ICE stands for Immigration Control & Enforcement.

ICE is responsible for fighting organized criminal activity involving drugs, gangs and sexual trafficking. For a summary of the law enforcement activities the President has threatened to withhold from the citizens of Arizona see: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/obama-administration-threatens-to-abandon-law-enforcement-in-arizona/

Isn’t the President responsible for securing our borders and protecting the citizens of Arizona? Mr. President, if you don’t want to do the job you promised to do when you took your oath of office – resign – and we, the people, will be glad to replace you.

%d bloggers like this: