I do not claim to be a Constitutional Law scholar (unlike Barack Hussein Obama, apologist for racists and terrorists), but I am glad to see the Supreme Court come down on the side of reason on Medellin v. Texas.
In case you are unaware, Medellin v. Texas is the criminal case of Jose Ernesto Medellin who was convicted in Texas of rape and murder. Medellin was found guilty in a Texas state court and was sentenced to death. And thus began his appeals process.
The issue that took him to the Supreme Court is not one that he brought up in his original trial, and yet, it bears on international relations and international courts. You see, Medellin is an illegal alien. He came to the United States illegally, and then chose to spend his time in the US breaking her laws and committing crimes against her law-abiding citizens.
But, Medellin argued, the State of Texas refused him access to his country's consular officials. Essentially, the argument goes, that being denied access to Mexican diplomats flies in the face of international courts and treaties. The World Court says that people arrested abroad are entitled to this diplomatic counsel. Muddying the waters in the dispute is the fact that President Bush sent a memo to Texas requesting that the courts give effect to the World Court in this matter.
Fifty other illegal aliens on death row, all also denied diplomatic counsel, have been waiting on tenterhooks to see if the Supreme Court would rule for a new trial for Medellin (and them as well by default).
Unfortunately for these individuals, but fortunate for States' Rights, the Supreme Court found in favor of Texas.
The Court found, quite rightly I believe, that the President doesn't get to send a memo and interfere in state justice matters, at least not without an act of Congress. There were no other issues with Medellin's criminal trial, and so the court seems to indicate that state justice must not be intruded upon by the world court. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the decision that the Executive Branch may not "establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law." All told, this is great news for States Rights as it recognizes that the ruling law of this land is the Constitution and the laws enacted by Congress, not the whimsies of an international body.
In my opinion, Medellin's argument was weakened by one single fact - his illegal status in this country. I could see the validity of his claims had Medellin been in this country legally. Had he gone through the legal steps and proper procedures of entering the United States, I would say that he is eligible for such diplomatic counsel as a courtesy, but not as any sort of binding legal element. However, the fact that he showed little respect for this country's laws disinclines me to grant him any special privileges.
From all accounts, he came to this country illegally by choice and as such, has eschewed any claim to the counsel of a country he has unlawfully departed. Indeed, by coming to this country illegally, one could argue that he committed fraud, claiming lawful US citizenship. In my opinion, he should be made to sleep in the bed he made for himself. Indeed, he seems to prefer the US to his native home of Mexico, so claiming some sort of status after his hand has been caught in the cookie jar...has no merit in my eyes.
The individual justice systems in the 50 states, as well as that of the Federal Government, are among the most fair and defendant-friendly in the world. Claiming an inequity because he was denied access to a diplomat is simply ridiculous. He had legal counsel, likely paid for by Texas taxpayers, and that is what matters. He had the regular rights afforded to all defendants in Texas justice; claiming an exemption or special status because you broke immigration laws as well doesn't sit well with me.
The MSM, in its liberal bias way, is painting this SCOTUS decision as a defeat for President Bush. However, the Bush Administration didn't so much agree with the World Court as much as they tried to enforce it. And, insofar as "enforcement" goes, a memo is kind of weak.
I don't really think their heart was in it.
So, less than a failure for the Bush Administration, this is a victory for the states who have just been given notice that the Supreme Court, and, more importantly, international courts, will not be permitted to arbitrarily interfere in the states' criminal prosecutions. Good news!
There is also a take-home message for illegal aliens too: Come to this country illegally, commit crimes to harm US Citizens, you are going to be treated to the full effect of criminal justice.
Much more to be found on this matter at SCOTUSblog.
Cynics will think I'm linking to this story because of the illegal status of the perpetrator, but that is not my focus.
All too often, we women tend to do what is expected of us and that get's us into trouble. When there are flashing lights behind you, you are supposed to pull over. Had I not once been in a similar situation (which I'll retell if commentors request it), this might not have been posted.
But, in the day and age of cell phones, we have a tool that will help keep us safe. Far better to call 911 and confirm that the suspicious car with the flashing lights is a cop, than be in the trunk of some vehicle, tied up, and desperately trying to find your cell phone.
Once upon a time (heehee), I wrote up some modern day lessons to take away from the age old classic fairytales. Those posts can be found here and here.
They are pretty good for a laugh, if you are in need of one.
I bring up those old posts for a good reason and that is I recently read Goldilocks and The Three Bears to Bunny Boop. Bedtime story, doncha know. Not surprisingly (at least to me because I'm kind of twisted), it prompted in me the realization that these fairytales and bedtime stories oft have lessons the likes of which the modern woman can reflect upon. Let us examine the story, shall we...
If you recall, the law-abiding Three Bears were a solid family unit who lived at peace with their environment and their neighborhood. Indeed, they even ate a high-fiber diet with all of that porridge in the morning stuff. They were nature lovers too, taking long walks in the morning while their porridge cooled. Right?
So here comes Goldilocks who has such a broken moral compass that she decides to break and enter the Bear home and make herself at home. This is not acceptable behavior for nice young ladies! She trespasses in their home and leaves the place worse for wear!
Furthermore, she has the audacity to complain about the accomodations!
"This porridge is too hot" you can hear the whiny voice, can't you? "This porridge is too cold" do you want to smack her as much as I do? "This porridge is just right" nice, bitch, glad we could find something for you to steal that pleases you.
"This chair is too big" nervy complaining whelp "This chair is also too big" seriously, complaining isn't the mark of a lady "This chair is just right" you know, hard to please young women end up miserable... And then, of course, the chair breaks from her weight and she has added destruction of personal property to her list of crimes.
And then, after eating the bears' breakfast and breaking their furnishings, she violates the inner sanctum and goes into the bedroom. Even a welcomed, honored, invited guest wouldn't stray into their host's bedroom unless on a tour. Seriously! Goldilocks is the very worst sort!
And, again, with the complaining...
"This bed is too hard" nobody asked you your opinion "This bed is too soft" clearly she's no princess... "This bed is just right" so our house-breaking, theiving, incredibly rude girl curls up in this bed and takes a nap. Her feelings of entitlement are off the chart!
Then, when she is awoken by Mr. and Mrs. Bear and Junior, she shrieks, jumps up, and runs out in such a manner we are supposed to feel she is the victim. Wrong-o, honey. We aren't falling for the poor, poor, pitiful you routine. Goldilocks is a bad bad girl who needs to learn some manners. And possibly do some time...
Okay, seriously though, as I was reading the story I was reminded of the problem with illegal immigration in this country. Stick with me here...
They come in uninvited and make themselves at home. They want porridge that they haven't paid for, complain about the conditions, and then in full-on entitlement mode, expect to be given the Bear House, lock stock and barrel.
It is no wonder I take issues with illegal immigration. In contrast, there are those who knock on the door and wait to be invited in, then are gracious about taking what porridge they are offered and say please and thank you like nice polite guests...
Oversimplified? Perhaps. But also spot-on, methinks.
First thing this morning I was accosted by the note below (reprinted in entirety from the original, not a word has been altered or omitted) from Anonymous with regard to this post from May 18, 2005.
The original post was about the Madison, WI city council voting to approve low interest home loans to illegal aliens. It appears that Anonymous wanted to bitch slap me over it. Here is what Anonymous wrote:
Wow! These people are paying for your social security and will never benefit from it. They are getting a loan to buy a house (non exactly anti-social behavior) as long as they take the risk of being randomly deported and agree to pay money that will go to your kids social insurance. You make me shudder with the creeply xenophobic evil wierdness about immigrants wrapped in kitch kook language.
To quote one of your other postings "I am the Fucking Grand Master of Bitch." I can only say yes indeed - you are.
Why is it Americans of such evidently common origins rush to view points such as those expressed by you?
Your mannerisms and politics are very assumed and false I speculate when you were in high school you tried very hard to fit in and worked hard on a false, shallow and ultra conformist persona. Camoflage to hide your real self maybe so the other kids would not find out about something -your family probably. Was the problem money or something else? From from a insecure teenager a shallow and mean moth came.
Does creating additional layes of misery and poverty help you to psychologically distance yourself from your mud caked origins?
Altogether this blog is very yuck. I only came here because I googled for Wisconsin! It's like finding a piece of rotten peach at the bottom of the intetnet fruit basket.
I've said a quick prayer that all your children may marry Mexicans.
PS You husband sounds like a bit of a dork in my opinion. My opinion is formed by your writings so I wonder if somehow you actually resent or dislike him, you seem to need to consult with him before you form an opinion and when talking about the secretary of state you refer to rape compeltely out of context.
I smell a divorce.
You know, this is not quite as ugly as it gets, but it gets close. Anonymous still needs to ramp up the hate, but he/she has the personal attacks down pat.
Now, most of the time I just reject comments like this because I don't like to invite hatred into my own house, but this time I'm going to respond.
First, on the merits of the original post:
Look, my problem with the city and/or state making low-interest home loans available to illegal aliens is that, first and foremost, it is unfair. The subsidization of these loans comes at some cost and that cost must be absorbed by the law-abiding taxpayer. This practice goes out of its way to encourage illegal behavior and actually benefits a law breaker in a monetary way. You'll note that there is no such special loans for regular law-abiding citizens just for being law-abiding citizens. And this offends me. It identifies a subset of the population and gives them special benefits that the people who are paying for it are not eligible for. For example, I pay into the system and should I need it, social services will be there to help me pick up the pieces and rebuild my life. But, in this case, because I am not in this country illegally, I am not eligible for these special loans. Is that fair? I don't think so. Moreover and more importantly, these self-same loans are not available to legal immigrants who arrived in this country on the same day as the illegal immigrant, so it is discriminatory.
Furthermore, this practice provides no enticement to following a path to lawful citizenship. It practically encourages a permanent underclass and this is truly loathsome. Anonymous takes me to task as some sort of racist hater of brown people but nothing could be further from the truth. Being a conservative doesn't mean you are a racist. On the contrary, I simply feel that the playing ground should be level and even for all players.
Anonymous says that these illegal immigrants are "paying for your social security and will never benefit from it." I call bullshit on two counts. First, they aren't paying for me. I am paying for me. I am also investing in my own future because I have absolutely zero expectation that Social Security will still be around when it is my turn to retire. So, any suggestion that the illegal immigrant is paying my way is absolutely and completely false. Secondly, the notion that they won't benefit from paying into the system is also dubious. The recent immigration reform bills that were before Congress included a way for illegal immigrants to claim the social security that they paid in, so don't try to pull the wool over my eyes.
Now, to the personal attacks...
Apparently Anonymous has misconstrued my desire for a level playing field and twisted it into xenophobic racism. Frankly, I don't care what color anybody is or where they come from. But, I do expect that if you are going to live in this country that you do so in such a way that abides by the laws of the land. My family - both sides - immigrants. On my father's side, we came to this country before the Revolutionary War. On my mother's side, we came to this country around WWII, I believe, in response to persecution. The suggestion that I am xenophobic or afraid of brown people is ridiculous and I would suggest that Anonymous's own words suggest a deeper hatred of his/her fellow man than I can claim.
For instance, Anonymous refers to my "common origins." It that isn't class-ist and elitist enough for you, perhaps his/her aspersions to my "mud caked origins" will be. Those are the words of a bigot, not mine. Those are the words of someone with some pretty nasty prejudices. If you read this blog for any time at all you will quickly realize that I'm not about color, I'm about action. I seek justice and equality before the law. To suggest that my "origins" are "common" or "mud caked" reveals a hell of a lot more about you than it does about me. And, while we are on the subject, your "prayer" that all of my children will marry Mexicans - again, more hatred from you, cloaked in some sort of bastardized piety masquerading as an insult, let's be clear: if my children decide to marry they will be free to choose whomever they wish. I will accept and love my children's spouses as I should. If they are Hispanic it will honestly make no difference whatsoever to me. They can be martians for all I care. I am only going to be concerned with whether the person(s) are of good character, law-abiding, and will treat my child well. Thank you, Anonymous, for your concern, but I'm not all that concerned.
As to your opinion that this blog is "very yuck", well, I would invite you to search out some other den in which to spew your hatred and your bigotry. You are not welcome here. By all means, click somewhere else.
Let's get back to the personal attacks, shall we?
You take issue with my manners and my politics labeling them - how did you put it? - oh, yes "very assumed and false." I would suggest that you sir/madam could do with assuming some manners yourself. And, as to my politics, there is no "right" and "wrong" in politics. My politics may not meet with your approval, but it is quite clear to me at least, that I neither need nor want your stamp of approval, bigoted as you are and impolite as you are. This is still a free country and I am entitled to my opinion, the free expression of it, and there's nothing in the Constitution that says I have to seek editorial approval from Anonymous, thank god!
As to my high school years, which you trot out as some sort of window to my soul, your arguments are specious and laughable. I've not met a high school student yet who didn't try to fit in with others in high school - at least in some way. I did work hard - at my studies - and I think if you ask around you'll find that I'm not the conforming boob you believe me to be. Why, because if I were, surely by now, as a conformist, I'd be espousing your views...right? So, color me a flower of a different hue, will you? I never camouflaged or hid who I was, despite your suggestions otherwise. All of my friends knew exactly who I was. And let me assure you that I wasn't just another one just like them. I freakin' was the different one in the group! It isn't easy being the farm girl who lives in the Chicago suburbs. I was made fun of for my clothes, my projects, and yes, even my views. And yet, I managed to come out of high school with my head held high knowing that I was still me.
I hide no deep dark family secrets. I am proud of my family and would never seek to hide anything about it - except for from creepy internet stalkers like yourself, that is. And, let's take you to task on that insecure teenager - mean moth bit...I've never known a teenager who wasn't insecure - and frankly, your hate is a lot more vile than mine. Seems to me you are a hell of a lot "meaner" than me. Because, I'm still attempting to answer your vile accusations with a degree of etiquette and grace while you used a chainsaw.
You ask if "creating additional layers of misery and poverty help to psychologically distance" myself from my "mud caked origins." First, I neither invented misery or poverty nor do I seek to perpetuate them. Frankly, you are the one spreading misery - I just want everyone to be treated equally within the law. I don't think breaking the law should confer special status, that's all. And, the only thing I want to distance myself from is you and my attempted rapist.
Lastly, I don't give a flying fuck what you think of my husband or my marriage. We are blissfully happy, in love, and that's enough for us. He is a much better person than you are, I can assure you of that much based on nothing more than your elitist, class-ist, insufferably superior, I-know-better-than-you self. I neither resent nor dislike him - that's so funny my ribs hurt - on the contrary, I adore him. He is the light of my life, my anchor, my peace. And I can't wait to tell him that you think I consult with him before forming my own opinions - he's going to laugh for days on that little ditty. The truth of the matter is people find me too opinionated, not some sort of opinion lemming, so thanks for the giggles!
I'm not sure what that last sentence was supposed to be about, but I've already put too much time into responding to your asinine rudeness to bother to research and refute it. Yes, I was almost raped in college. Yes, as experiences go it was one that changed my life and altered my viewpoint forever. But, your crass bigoted hate doesn't deserve a single detail or any sharing on my part on that item. Why? I don't need to be victimized again, thank you very much.
So, in conclusion, I would again entreat you to not visit this site further, hating the content as you do.
Signed,
The Grand Master of Bitch
P.S. Just for the record, I could have been much nastier and loaded my response with invective and personal attacks. I considered it, but instead chose the high road and class. You might try it sometime.
The Shamnesty advocates were calling the Anti-Amnesty folks racists. Mighty nice, the level of discourse in our nation's capitol, eh?
Look, at least for me, this wasn't about race. This is about the fact that the last Amnesty failed miserably and we don't need to repeat our mistakes. This is about the fact that waving a pen and suddenly eliminating the criminality of actions taken by many illegal aliens no longer criminal, doesn't eliminate the victims or the simple fact that these actions were wrong on their faces. This was about the fact that there was no enforcement measures to speak of in the bill. This was about the fact that THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WERE AGAINST THE BILL. And that, I'm afraid, is the most important thing. And, of course, this is about the way this bill was practically force-fed to us. They don't want to discuss it, a small number of people crafted it secretly behind closed doors, and then they didn't even make the text available in a timely fashion so that the other Senators could read it before voting. That's not the way the system is supposed to work. In fact, it is a snakeoil salesman's technique and it sucks.
Your Senators and Representatives to Congress work for you. They are your employees. At the end of the day, they might try to make the case a different way, but they are supposed to act in the interests of their constituents or face their own dismissal at their bosses hands. This is the way representative democracy works. It turns out that some of those Senators decided to wake up and listen to the flood of phone calls and vote the way their constituents wanted instead of pushing through the bill that was almost universally hated.
I am glad the bill is dead and I am grateful to the leaders of the opposition who stuck to their guns. I am glad that the nay votes for cloture saw the writing on the wall too.
But, at the end of the day, we still have a problem with illegal immigration. The bill was bad, no question, but something still needs to be done. We need more enforcement - both for the country's financial well-being and for security. We need to assert our sovereignty. We need to take our country back.
And I'm serious about that.
What else do you call it when 12-19 million people invade a country? It is an attack on our sovereignty and it is our job to do the hard work of dealing with it. Like it or not, the illegal immigration problem puts significant stress in terms of logistics on small communities.
And, my sense of fairness dictates that the people who are waiting patiently in line peaceably and lawfully should be given preference to the lawbreakers who are trying to cut in line.
On Amnesty or Shamnesty or That Bill Everyone's Talking About
Here's my bitch with the Illegal Immigration Amnesty Bill currently before the Senate: It it fundamentally unfair and unlikely to actually solve the problem of illegal immigration.
First, citizenship in this country, the finest country in the world, is a treasure and a privilege and not the fucking prize at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box. And, for absofuckinglutely certain, it should not be granted because we are being held hostage. Granting preference to the immigrants who came here illegally by sneaking in on foot (or otherwise over our very porous borders) does a huge disservice to the people who have been waiting overseas to come to the US for years. Basically, the way I see it, this Amnesty forgives the people who don't respect our laws and punishes those that do. How the fuck is that right?!?
Moreover, if this Amnesty passes, all it does is encourage more illegal immigration. How, you ask? Simple. The Amnesty passed during the 1980's gave us another 12-15 million more illegal aliens. Do you think that passing another Amnesty isn't going to do the same? Of course it is! Another 12-30 million people will sneak in and wait 20-some odd years for the next fucking Amnesty. In the meantime, not only does this bill not deal with the problems, it seems to turn a blind eye to them.
There is no attempt to work harder on enforcement of the laws currently on the books. There are no real increased provisions for border security. And, there is no reason to believe that this bill makes us any safer as a nation. Basically, it is FUBAR. Worse, it is unfair, thoroughly un-American in its blatant disregard for the rule of law, and despite overwhelming public disapproval, The Senate doesn't fucking care.
The Senate doesn't seem to give a shit that over 70% (according to polls) of the public is against this Amnesty. Those sunzabitches are gonna pass it anyway. They know better than you or I (or their pockets are getting fat at our expense).
I won't discuss the bigger social issues and costs in terms of education, medical attention, and assimilation issues that are brought to bear by the unforeseen (by The Senate) consequences of another Amnesty. Instead, I'd like to bring up what I fear will be another ugly repercussion.
Here you have an overwhelming majority of Americans against an action. And, like it or not, this particular bill, while it will impact a large number of illegal immigrants across numerous ethnicities, is largely aimed at one particular group: Hispanics.
My fear is that because the action is so overwhelmingly opposed by Americans, that a new type of racism will rear its ugly head. Racism that will see people lashing out and seeking to undermine the rights of a group as retaliation. It won't be right. It will be very ugly indeed. This is my fear. That rather than doing a good thing, it will drive a wedge between society's haves and have-nots. I don't think this sort of thing is in the nation's best interests.
Moreover, I am largely concerned with the message we are sending when we don't make people earn citizenship. If you just hand it over, what is it worth? And then, there is this troubling aspect of people who are inclined to break one law being disinclined necessarily to follow all the others.
Just take this for example...Are you aware that it is apparently a culturally acceptable practice to drink and drive across the border to the South? Are you aware of how many DUI victims have died because of some illegal aliens' predilictions to turn their cars into deadly weapons because they can't so "no" to the cerveza and tequila? Absolutely, not all illegal immigrants are DUI's waiting to happen. But, certainly there are other concerns as well. There are gangs of violent latino males in some Southwestern towns and cities running rampant and causing trouble. Do we really need this sort of borrowed trouble? I don't think so.
I don't care who you are or where you come from. If you want to be a citizen of the United States you ought to damn well be willing to work for it. And, if you want to be here, show some fucking respect for the law of the land and the other citizens of this country. That, really, is not too much to ask.
I wish I had a BofA card so that I could cancel it, noisily, as is my raging desire. Where does this company get off trying to make it easier to break federal law?
