2010-07-30

In response to Montana - Commenter on my "Remember the Alamo!!!" post

@ Montana
Your post shows that I publish all comments, not just those that support my ideals.  Second, I see that you've been a very busy liberal today, posting this same exact response to multitudes of sites (See here, here, and here to name a few).

I try very hard to be rational and non-insulting to comments.  I make the effort to be respectful and open-minded to all posts that come across my site, but you, you are as ignorant as you are brain-washed.'

First, you go on a diatribe regarding Jan Brewer, never minding the fact that I did not once, in my post, make any mention of Gov. Brewer, her personal ideals, or her character.  While I applaud her for having the fortitude to stand up for her state, and her constituents, my post had nothing to do with Jan Brewer, but more on the Fed over reaching their power for an ideologic means.

You spout, and provide what you state as examples, of "hate filled" legislation, but you do not look at that legislation and provide how it is hate filled.  So let me educate you.

1. S.B. 1070 - The so called, Immigration Law.  As I stated, this is not an immigration law, it is an enforcement law that allows the state to step in an fill the void of enforcing the federal law that the government (both current and priors) have failed miserably to enforce.  It specifically denies racial profiling, only providing an officer of the law to verify citizenship in the course of other, legal contact.  If a person is questioned due to the participation of a crime, traffic violation, domestic disturbance, etc, then it provides the law enforcement official the ability to verify citizenship.  If you are pulled over and asked for your driver's license and you are able to provide it, then that is the end of it.  If you are unable to provide a DL, or other form of ID, then you should be questioned.  Let us not forget, if a person is here ILLEGALLY, then they are breaking the law.  So please tell me, how is it "hate" to simply enforce a federal law?  How is "hate" to expect the federal government to uphold it's Constitutional duty to protect the border at all cost?

Supporting cases:  Article 9, Section 4 of the US Constitution:  The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, "and shall protect each of them against invasion..."

1884 Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 - Upheld that Indian Tribes were exempt from the 14th amendment as they were an independent political power that had "no allegiance" to the United States.  Would this not also apply to people who enter this country illegally and in contradiction to our laws?

1898 US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 - Held that those born to foreigners where were here "lawfully" and were not employed for diplomatic purposes  were considered citizens.  Note, LAWFULLY.

2. HB 2013 - Again, a misguided attempt to claim bias where none exists.  In this bill, Arizona deny's domestic partnership benefits for all "non-spouse" dependents on the government payroll.  This bill does not exempt just homosexual relations, but also same sex partnerships.  So, if it applies equally across the board, how is this "hate-filled" legislation?  In a state that currently pays $625M in support to state employees, this bill would have saved the state $3M in expenditure.  Where does it state within the constitution, or even the state constitution, that the taxpayer must bear the weight of support for government employee dependents?  You claim that "we" do not follow the constitution, yet can you provide me with a single instance with this document that states the above?  You can not, because it does not exist.  You only scream "unconstitutional" when it fits your agenda, not when it actually comes to the rule of law.

3. No permit conceal weapons - Again, this is strictly a statement of ignorance and stupidity.  In what way does not requiring a permit to carry a weapon, the bearing of which is guaranteed by the US constitution, bare to becoming a "hate-filled".  Who is discriminated against by this law?  Are only white people allowed by law to carry a concealed weapon?  No, it opens up the right to all people. It is perfectly within a state's right to enact such law.  If you do not like, you can move to a state with much stronger control laws, however, it is not "hate-filled" nor is it discrimnatory.  To even state that this bill is such, shows your complete lack of understanding of current affairs.

4.  Birther Law - Again, this bill simply looks to enforce, and provide a check and balance, WITHIN the confines of the US Constitution.  The bill, simply put, requires that a presidential candidate's birth certificate be reviewed by the AX Secretary of State, prior to that candidate being put upon the ballot within the state.   Article 2, Section 1, of the US Constitution requires the following:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So I ask, if the Constitution mandates that the President be a natural born citizen, why do you consider a law that seeks to verify that condition to be "hate-filled"?  How do you throw out claims that anything is unconstitutional, or seeking to deny rights to anyone, when each law is only seeking to ensure up-holding of constitutional provisions or of federal law.  Again, you throw out talking points, but are uneducated on reality. 

5. Banning of ethic studies:  In a time when most every state is feeling the effects of a recession, exploding budgets, and national debt, it is within a state's right to make cost cutting measures where it sees appropriate.  We are Americans and as such, we have a duty to teach our history.  We do not have a responsibility to teach the history of other countries.  To do so, is only by grace and where it is financially viable.  The bill did not cut just "Mexican" studies or "African" studies, but all ethnic studies.  It keeps only American history, which, in case you do not know, is not a race.  We are a country and we have a duty to ensure that our children know where we came from and how we got here. 

6.  Mural in Prescott - This is pure speculation written only to slander and provide "liberal fluff" to your post.  It doesn't deserve a response.

7. No citizenship to babies born to undocumented workers - See the above citation for US v Wong Kim Ark.  Personally, I believe in a different approach, in which, if a baby is born within the US to an illegal alien, then the parents have a time period (say 1 year) in which they become legal citizens.  If able to comply with the requirements of citizenship, then they are allowed to stay and contribute to our country, but if not, then deportation is warranted.  "Anchor babies" are a drain on our economy and a danger to our system.  Border hospitals have cited significant rises in maternal admittances of people coming for the express purpose of finding a method around legal citizenship.  This is not hate-filled.  It does not discriminate.  All persons entering this country illegally would be subjected.  Unless we protect our borders and LEGAL citizenship, our country will be destroyed from within.  Please tell me how, and in what way, providing for open borders and open amnesty provides for the growth or protection of this country.

8.  HB 2779 - Dealt with employers hiring illegal workers and enacted penalties for doing so.  Even as then Gov. Janet Napolitano signed it into law, she stated that it was absence of a discrimination clause, of which 1070 has.

So, Montana, I see you deploy the same leftist tactics that I see everyday.  If you don't agree, claim unconstitutionality, shout racism, and contend that it is hate.  However, when looking at facts, at reality, you are unable to support the claims of any.  Your tactics prove inferior when faced with rational thought and fact-based arguments.  You are uneducated, ignorant, and serve only to distract from the real issues that are facing this country and it's survival.  Learn to think for yourself and research before you speak. 

3 comments:

jess said...

Niki, Rant on Buddie! WE SUPPORT YOU

american girl in italy said...

sweet.
well done.

72Jawas said...

Good stuff Nicky (Jim here). I'm glad you rebutted in detail a comment with no point. The only issue I have is with your second rebuttal re HB 2013.

First, was your statement "This bill does not exempt just homosexual relations, but also same sex partnerships" meant to indicate both same-sex and opposite-sex partners?

You're correct that the law is explicitly non-discriminatory in that it severs benefits for non-spousal couples. Unfortunately, the state of Arizona apparently does not recognize same-sex spousal couples. So the law implicitly discriminates.

Post a Comment