A commentary on the average American's response to Arizona's new immigration law quoted poll results from Newsweek illustrating that Americans overwhelmingly support Arizona's position. The question was phrased in several different ways. In the different versions of the question, Americans' support of the law ranged from 65% to 78%. The lowest positive rate was of the question, "would you support your state passing a similar law. "Only" 58% answered yes. So, why is everyone in the Obama administration criticizing the law, without ever reading it? What is their goal? In an already contentious mid-term election year, when most experts predict Democrats losing control of at least one branch of congress, why fly into the face of such overwhelming public opinion?
At the risk of sounding racist, I'm going to bring up the stereotypical Jewish mother. You know how they are portrayed as using guilt to get their way with their children? "No, son, you don't have to visit this Mother's day. I know you are busy and all. I wouldn't want to interfere with your hectic schedule. I'm only 98, I'm sure I'll be around for many more Mother's days that I will be able to celebrate with you."
The president's big stick is our collective guilt over slavery, abolished about 145 years ago, by the way. That's why he was never criticized or even challenged during his campaign. Republicans were afraid of being labeled racist. They couldn't question his choice of religion. So what if he is a Muslim? They couldn't question his choice of a pastor. So what if he was a twenty year member of Jeremiah Wright's church that taught, among other outrages, that the 9/11 attacks were justified and even a message from God? They couldn't question his relationship with domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers. His political career started with a meeting in Ayers' basement, but that doesn't mean Obama knew him. They couldn't question his wife's opinion of America when she said "for the first time in my life, I'm proud of America." They couldn't even question his habit of voting "present" as a senator. Any question or challenge was immediately met with charges of racism. Even now, when Tea Party supporters carry signs with slogans such as "I want my country back," they are charged with using racist "code words." And like the Jewish son, we get defensive and give in.
Now immigration policy is the hot topic. Anyone who has read Arizona's law knows that it is only a repeat of current federal law. The law only empowers local and state law enforcement to aid the federal government in enforcing current law. It goes to great lengths to make illegal any type of racial profiling, with strictly worded definitions of restrictions of who can be questioned and why, and punishments for violating those restrictions. So immediately after the law, actually a state bill at the time, was reported on national news, the president publicly called it misguided and requested a department of justice review of its legality. Without ever reading it! He was quickly followed with public condemnations of the law by his attorney general, homeland security secretary, and numerous governors and mayors, most of whom still claim not to have read the law!
Now, last week, the president of Mexico was invited to speak on the floor of the House of Representatives. His topic? The racist components of the United States immigration policy and specifically the Arizona law. His speech was followed by a standing ovation by Democratic members of the House! And remember this is a policy overwhelmingly favored by Americans. What is the progressives' purpose in making these comments. The whole guilt over slavery thing is getting a little tired to most Americans, so if that's the plan, it's obviously not working. Or are they trying to divide the country even further. It is apparent that many Americans will blindly follow the Democratic party no matter what. So they are inclined to believe the charges of racism. Some legal immigrants and minorities are genuinely worried about harassment. And admittedly some have read the law, know that it mirrors federal law, but believe that the federal law should be changed. So at the very least, the progressives seem to be trying to widen a gap between the approximately 60% who oppose them and the 40% who support them. What could be their endgame? The possibilities are a little scary to think about.
Here's a video of Representative McClintock's, a Republican congressman from California, response to Mexican president Calderon's speech last week.
Just to be fair, California gets slammed a lot, but it's obviously not all California that is so completely screwed up. Just the cities, as the case in most of the country. It's just that the rest of us that have to pay for their stupidity! Hope that wasn't too racist. I'm feeling a little guilty.
When I worked for Avis, we were required to take a class on responding to fuel spills. The district manager said that since I had worked in and been around the oilfield when I was younger, I probably didn't need to take the class. I told him that unless the proper response to a spill was to throw some dirt on it, I'd better take the class.
When I visited my grandparents for the summer when I was about 7, I went to work with my Grandpa Tom in the oilfield. When the tanks are full, he would have to hire a truck to come out and haul all the oil to his buyer. Since the cost of having the truck come out is the same no matter how much oil they haul, you would of course want to have as much oil as possible be taken in a trip. A tank could be full, but still have a lot of saltwater in with the oil. Oil sits on top of the saltwater (think oil spill in the Gulf, the oil stays on top). So, there was a valve on the bottom of the tank. Grandpa would open this valve and let the saltwater spray out onto the ground. It was my job to sit beside this spraying valve and watch for the saltwater to turn into oil. Grandpa would go do his maintenance on the pumpjack or whatever else he needed to do. I didn't want to let any oil spray out, that would be just like throwing away money. So I sat staring at the brownish saltwater spraying, waiting it for it to change from coffee with cream color to coffee with no cream color. When oil started spraying out, I would yell for Grandpa and he would close the valve to let the well produce for a couple of more days to maximize the truck's load of oil. It was a great practice economically, but probably not so great environmentally. Oily saltwater leaves an ugly mess on the ground.
I think even the most environmentally insensitive oilman sees this as a bad practice today. So, to a degree regulations were needed. But, as is usually the case with government involvement, they went too far the other direction. And if the federal government is involved, they will go waaaaaaaaaaaay too far. And then go further. And take a minute's break and go a little further. Eventually they go so far that the producers do not make enough money to stay in business. The Democrat/Progressive side seems to forget that the reason oil companies exist is to make a profit. And in most cases, they will do it the right way, both for their profit margin and for the environment.
Eighteen governors, two of them Democrats, have asked Congress to clamp down on the EPA. They say that the EPA doesn't take the economic impact of their rulings into consideration when they impose new restrictions. They have reached the point in some cases, where it is no longer profitable to stay in business. As I mentioned in yesterday's post about the Grand Junction area, trickle down works in both directions. When business is booming for the oil company, it is booming for the construction industry, the fast food industry, grocery stores, retailers, and yes, the government through sales, income, and property taxes. Ever notice all the new schools, libraries, and jails get built during the boom years? Then the EPA steps in with new regulations, and end the boom. For everyone. Including the government.
I don't know if the current Congress has the spine, or even the inclination to stand up to the President and his anti-business policies. But it is nice to see that the states are starting to push back. Over the past 100 plus years, the states have let the federal government take too many of the powers the Constitution relegated to the states. It will be very hard to get those powers back. But it sure is good to see the process start. Not only in the case of the EPA, but Utah has filed suit to prevent the federal government from taking more land and to try to take back the area that President Clinton took by executive action in his last days in office (southern Utah, rich with uranium, imagine that). Montana, Texas, and others have filed or threatened to file suit over federal gun control laws. Texas, Virginia, and others have started the process of challenging federal takeover of healthcare. And with the recent verbal jabs by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts at the president, I think the Supreme Court is signaling that it is ready to reign in some of the federal power grabs.
Maybe the Supreme Court is that seven year old watching money spray out onto the ground. It's time to shut off the valve.
+with+quote+sized+for+web.jpg)
Posts
