J. O. e-mails:
A caller on the Dennis Miller Show called in and said something very insightful I thought you would like. Miller was asking callers to call in about Eric Holder et al. not reading the Arizona Illegal Immigration law, and the caller said that he thought they HAD read it and were lying about not having read it. Why? Because there isn't anything in it that could possibly be unconstitutional. If there was, it would be plastered all over the news, the exact offending line. Of course they've read it, but by saying they haven't they can criticize it without actually having to show what is wrong with it.
I thought this was insightful, and so I shared it with you.
Now I hadn't thought of that, perhaps because I have more respect for these people (Attorney General Holder, et al.) than I should have. But now that you mention it, the caller's supposition is very plausible. How could they fail to have read it? First of all, all three are legally trained. Their reading comprehension extends to legalese, and they have staff members who could have summarized it for them. Second, SB 1070 and the clarificatory HB 2162 are very short as laws go and easily accessible to anyone with Internet access. Third, one of them, Homeland Security 'czar' Janet Napolitano (not to be confused with the astute Judge Andrew Napolitano), is a former governor of Arizona, and one would think she would have a keen interest in any laws enacted there, especially laws that have a direct bearing on national security. Or is Napolitano of Homeland Security unfazed by the possibility of terrorists entering the country via the southern border?
The more I think about it, the more preposterous it sounds for the Attorney General of the U. S. to show no interest in the content of a law when said law mirrors at the State level Federal immigration law. Would he not want to check whether the law perhaps is inconsistent with Federal law? How can he not have an interest in the content of a law that is being debated on the international stage?
The caller's surmise seems quite credible. Why not lie, if it serves your purpose? The purpose being to prevent anything serious being done about the problem of illegal immigration. Bear in mind that, for the Left, the end justifies the means, and 'bourgeois morality' be damned.
Recent Comments