The Confusion Of Insanity
State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley became the - what is it now, fourth? Fifth? - bottle of Obamunist Arizona Immigration Law Ignorance Narrative beer on the wall, proving, if nothing else, that The One desperately needs Laura Bush to bring back her literacy campaign, beginning with some loooooong overdue remedial tutoring of his Cabinet:
Y'know, upon even further reflection, I think the reason why none of these imbeciles have read SB 1070 isn't that they'd then have to "take responsibility" for their relentlessly vicious demagoguery of it - it's that they don't need the actual facts. It doesn't matter what the law actually says; all that matters is the Party Line propaganda Narrative of it.
Know what it reminds me of? Every personal smear campaign the Dems have ever launched against a prominent Republican officeholder. Remember the fusillade of "ethics complaints" against Newt Gingrich in 1995? They just kept it up, one complaint after another, throwing all that BS against the wall, until finally some penny ante detail managed to stick. It didn't matter that everything else was flagrantly mendacious; that it was a the worst imaginable partisan abuse of the ethics process; all that mattered was that the Donks were determined to bankrupt Mr. Newt into copping a plea on something, ANYTHING, and then they'd hang faux guilt for all their smears on that one hook. Gingrich foolishly gave them what they wanted, and his speakership, and the '94 Republican Revolution along with it, was neutered.
That's what Dems want vis-a-vie Arizona. They want to so flood the ether and the airwaves with their BS "racism/fascism" narrative that the truth of SB 1070 will get swept away in the mendatious deluge.
Thing is, it isn't working out so well for them this time. Every time an Obamunist pops off about this topic, they escalate the clusterbleep, make the Arizona law more popular, and sink themselves deeper into a public relations abyss of their own making. Now the - third? fourth? - bottle of Obamunist Arizona Immigration Law Ignorance Narrative on the wall is trying a walkback under the cover of lame spin.
The offending comment:
QUESTION: Was there any areas in which China sort of turned the tables and raised its own complaints or concerns about U.S. practices around the globe or at home? Can you give some examples there -
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Sure. You know, I think – again, this goes back to Ambassador Huntsman’s comment. Part of a mature relationship is that you have an open discussion where you not only raise the other guy’s problems, but you raise your own, and you have a discussion about it. We did plenty of that. We had experts from the U.S. side, for example, yesterday, talking about treatment of Muslim Americans in an immigration context. We had a discussion of racial discrimination. We had a back-and-forth about how each of our societies are dealing with those sorts of questions. …
QUESTION: Did the recently passed Arizona immigration law come up? And, if so, did they bring it up or did you bring it up?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.
Seems to me the context here was Obamunist diplomats eagerly trying to persuade their ChiComm hosts of their lefty virtue by volunteering their own scummy anti-American propaganda about how awful U.S. human rights conditions are by citing...Arizona. Note also the crack about "treatment of Muslim Americans," an unsubtle reference to the left's cherished "anti-Muslim backlash" post-9/11 narrative that never actually materialized.
So if Posner's comments were taken OUT of context, in what context were they offered? A Churchillian defense of Western values and the superiority of American democracy over communist despotism?
Frankly I don't think he knows himself:
[T]hose comments were taken out of context and the discussion of the law was meant to show the differences between how a free society handles human rights issues and the restrictive practices enforced in China, Posner tells The Cable in an exclusive interview.
“The broader context in which this was raised was to discuss the political openness of this society and the value of an open debate,” Posner said. “We never did get into the merits of the Arizona law. It was not in any way a comparison between that law and any specific law or practice in China.”…
“I should have been clearer, what I was saying is that there is broader issue in [American] society about discrimination and we need constantly and always to be addressing that issue,” he said…
“The only thing that was said [about Arizona's law] was that the debate is about a law that some critics would say has the unintended consequence to discriminate against legal or illegal residents. We did not comment on the particulars of whether that’s true or not,” Posner explained.
So is "we didn't get into the merits of the Arizona law" a freudian slip that they haven't read the damn thing because they were too eager to peddle the Obamunist Party Line Narrative of it instead? After all, it's rather difficult to comment on the particulars of SB 1070 if you don't actually know what they are.
Or, in a word, bullshit.
As to the Obamunists' valuing "open debate," Eeyore makes an outstanding point:
You couldn’t have picked a worse example than Arizona’s law to show how free societies handle politically charged issues. The “debate” has been an unqualified travesty since day one. From high-ranking idiots in our own government dumping on the law without having read it to leftists screeching about Nazism so loudly and often as to draw the ire of Jewish organizations, it’s an almost singular example of how wretched and demagogic our political culture has become. What exactly was the lesson State hoped to impart to the Chinese in bringing it up? “It’s better to call your opponents Nazis than to actually behave like Nazis”?
Actually, I can think of a worse example: ObamaCare. Do I really need to elaborate?
And wouldn't you know that just when it looked like these people couldn't poop themselves any worse, this turd would float to the top of the tank?:
In the legal battle over Arizona’s new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona.
The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have “inherent power” to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law. …
The author of the Arizona law — which has drawn strong opposition from top Obama administration officials — has cited the authority granted in the 2002 memo as a basis for the legislation. The Obama administration has not withdrawn the memo, and some backers of the Arizona law said Monday that because it remains in place, a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona would be awkward at best.
“The Justice Department’s official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law,” said Robert Driscoll, a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration who represents an Arizona sheriff known for aggressive immigration enforcement. “How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?”
So not only has this administration not read what's in the state statutes that they don't like, they haven't even read their own policies. But is this really surprising? How many times during the ObamaCare war did we see congressional Donks proudly admit that they didn't need to read legislation before they voted on it? After all, what homework is needed to fingerpoint and demagogue and powergrab? Rulers are above such things, dontcha know.
And when I use the term "rulers," I ain't talking about twelve inches:
One reason the memo remains in place is because it’s just common sense. The federal government works with state and local authorities to enforce federal law in other areas, especially on drugs, for example. The same applies to immigration violations when police already have detained a person for probable cause on another potential crime, as the law (now) stipulates. Unless we’re prepared to fund a massive federal police agency with officers in every town in America, the federal government needs to have state and local authorities helping to enforce federal laws — even the laws that the Obama administration doesn’t want to enforce. Especially those laws. [emphasis added]
Finally, the method to all this seeming madness. Except, of course, that the Obamastapo's job wouldn't be to keep illegal aliens out; it'd be to keep captive Americans in.
But enough riding on the crazy train. Let's let Gary Pierce of the Arizona Corporation Commission bring this post to a fist-pumping close:
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Commissioner Gary Pierce
My God, I hope they do it. This leftwingnutter filth is already figuratively in the dark, as well as representing the forces of darkness. By all means, let's make it literal - and official.
You know the old saying: Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
How's that for valued debate, Posner?
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Confusion Of Insanity.
TrackBack URL for this entry: