I was just reading some blurbs on the immigration subject.  Someone was asking why the judge’s ruling was wrong.  Let me start with the actual text of the law that was struck down by Judge Bolton.

“Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person.”

Why is she wrong for striking this down? She is wrong because the wording that the legislature of the State of Arizona used was carefully chosen. The term "reasonable suspicion" is nothing more than saying that a police officer has the right to question someone if something just doesn’t seem right with the situation. Here is an example for you. Suppose a police officer, working just a mile or two from the border, sees a car traveling, at night, with its lights off and 7 or 8 people stuffed into a tiny beat up car. Remember, this is hypothetical. Suppose that the police officer stops the car for failing to turn on their headlights. The officer, using standard procedures that are used, I believe, in every state, asks for the driver’s license. The driver is unable to present a valid driver’s license that belongs to any state. At this point, I have made no mention what the color of the person’s skin is. For my example, let’s say that the person’s skin color gives them the label of “white” and the other people in the car can also be labeled as "white." Oh, I forgot to mention, this was the border between Minnesota and Canada. This judge is basically saying that police officers cannot use their best judgment to determine if someone is legally in this country or not. The fact is that the example I gave you was for human smuggling from Canada into the US. Based on the smack down of the Arizona law, the officer would not be allowed to question the immigration status of the driver or the occupants. Because of the inability of our laws to allow police officers to use their best trained judgment, 5 women are now working as sex slaves. If you are thinking that the officer would see two men with 5 women and they should know that something is wrong well you have just profiled these two men.

The fact is that police officers need to make judgments every day. Some are right and some are wrong. The broader question was whether or not it is an infringement on someone’s civil liberties if they are forced to have some identification as to who they are. In my opinion, I don’t believe that we should have to prove, at any time “who” we are (i.e. “Let me see your papers!”) but I believe that need to be “able” to prove it at some point “who” we are. For me, I have a birth certificate from the State of California, in a file cabinet, to my immediate left. I have my Social Security card in the same cabinet and my driver’s license in my wallet. Have I ever been asked for these? Actually, yes! As a matter of fact, within the last week I have had to present all three of them at one point and all I was doing was going to the doctor. All the doctor was doing was making a “reasonable attempt” to see if I 1.)was who I said I was and 2.) able to pay for the services.

The Obama administration, with all of its knowledge and wisdom, thought that it would be a good idea to spend $20,000,000 on signs around the country to let everyone know that the project causing them to stand still in traffic is being funded by the Recovery Act (yes, I could have said 20 million but it would have lost the impact). 

I wish I could use more colorful words but it suffices to say that you have got to be kidding me.  Someone, anyone, please tell me why I need advertising about something that I have basically already purchased?  Is the Obama administration so insecure that they feel the need to let everyone know, at every possible moment, exactly how wonderfully everything is? 

Ok, let me give them the benefit of the doubt.  Let’s say that it is a good idea to let the public know how their dollars are being spent.  And, let’s say, that spending $20,000,000 was just enough money to get this message out.  Here is my problem.  I thought the Recovery Act was meant to stimulate the economy.  If this was the case, then shouldn’t these signs have said something about the contractor working on the project or, God forbid, promote some of the local businesses that are helping to pay for this stuff?

President Obama and the rest of you folks in Washington:  I want you to know that we get it.  Stop with the marketing.  We know what you are doing.  We hear it all the time.  We know you are wonderful and all powerful.  Do me a favor.  The next time that you have $20,000,000 lying around please don’t spend it on a sign.  Do something smart like investing it in something as basic as a simple savings account.  At least there you would actually be making money for the country.

I need to get this straight.  The Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters has a specific goal in mind.  They want to let Washington know just how important it is for companies to hire skilled, union workers.  After all, it should be mandatory that every business hire only union workers because these folks know how to relate to the common man and woman.  It is only because of unions that wages are fair, working conditions are safe, health care is provided and, most importantly, the work is done correctly.  

Now, because most of these workers can’t take time off to stand on the picket lines, the MARCC has hired non-union employees to stand in line for them. 

I refer back to my first statement because I need to really understand this.  A union, mad that people should hire only union workers, hires non-union workers to protest the fact that companies shouldn’t hire non-union workers.  So, essentially, the MARCC union will eventually have to hire its own workers to protest against the non-union workers that it hired to protest the use of non-union workers. 

In essence, it will have to protest against itself.

If you think that I am writing this because I don’t like unions then you are just wrong.  I am upset with the hypocrisy of this group.  I would be really curious to find out if this group of non-union people will be receiving the same benefits as the union people.  This of course would make the most sense.  I have a feeling, though, that this union is treating these people the same way that they feel every company treats its employees. 

Congratulations MARCC.  By your own hand you have just become the thing you hate.

So, let me get this straight.  For the past 85 days people around the world have watched as a major oil company and the resources of a nation have tried to put a cap on a well that is gushing with oil.  For argument’s sake, let’s leave BP out of the following diatribe.  That leaves the resources of an entire nation trying to, and I quote the President, “Plug the damn hole!”  (His words not mine).  Essentially, put a cork in it.  Oh I am sure that there are plenty of oil terms that describe the situation but when you boil it down to its simplest form the cork analogy works.  But we have to face the facts America that our nation is doing its best and, well, that should be good enough.  As a matter of fact, I think that everyone in the government that is trying should feel really good about themselves for even showing up for work.  So what if they don’t fix it right away or even at all.  The most important thing is that we tried.  Even if it never gets fixed, all those involved, even our highest ranking officials should feel good.  Isn’t this correct?  Isn’t this what we teach in school these days?  Shouldn’t just trying be good enough to keep your job, your office and the Presidency? 

The next time you folks out there think that there shouldn’t be any competition in school or that the kids in school should have to take a math test because it is too hard, I want you to think really hard about this situation.  The reason that we don’t have an answer is because we are no longer striving for excellence, independence and ingenuity in this country, specifically in our schools.  So, in 10, 20 or 30 years when another disaster like this happens and no one has an answer don’t come crying to me.  We are losing answers every day in our schools because we no longer require our students to think.

That, my friends, is the real tragedy.