On Opposing Reform

This week, in the course of pandering to and appeasing his White House guest - Mexico's President Calderon - President Obama sequentially undermined Arizona's new immigration law and then expressed sympathy for it. It's a misdirected expression of frustration, he said, at America's broken immigration system. He shares that frustration, he assures us, because he wants "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", but the Republicans are blocking him.

Ah. We're opposing "reform". Heard it before. I've heard it on liberal blogs and on Twitter alternately that either Republicans or the Tea Party or both are blocking "reform".

Guilty. Not all reform. But, I resolutely oppose reform of the Democrat variety.

Mostly, what I've learned about "reform" over the last year is this:

1. Democrat leaders (Obama / Pelosi / Reid) - in the year of Hope and Change - will attach the word "reform" to any major legislation they propose.

2. Democrat rank-and-file will immediately and unquestioningly support the "reform". Whether they have read the actual bills (and they have not). Whether they know if it is actually positive reform or not (and it's not).

3. Democrat leaders and rank-and-file will relentlessly accuse anyone opposing the specific bills offered in legislation of being "opposed to reform".

Well, yes. I have opposed the Democrat version of "reform" several times in the last 17 months.

Yes, I opposed Obama / Pelosi / Reid Health Care "Reform". All of the various versions, and the various 2700 page mish-mashes of corruption and big-government creeping socialism. We were lied to by the leadership of the House & Senate at every stage of the debate about the scope, costs, and corruption in the bills. We are still learning that the only true thing that Nancy Pelosi said during the debates was "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it". Now we're finding out what's in it, including ever-expanding costs predicts that are still not close to real cost of the bill.

That doesn’t mean that I think that America’s health care system doesn’t need reform.

Certainly not the Democrat version that will eventually go a long way toward bankrupting our nation.

Yes, I oppose the financial “reform” bill drafted in the Senate by Chris Dodd.

Does the financial industry bear some responsibility for the economic crash and deserve further regulation to prevent it from happening again? Of course.

But, why would you trust Democrats in Congress, who arguably had more to do with the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, to write financial reforms? Why especially would you trust Chris Dodd – Senator from Country Wide Mortgage, who was knee-deep in the subprime mess – to write a “reform” bill. It’s insane.

And yes, I oppose “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (CIR), as envisioned by the Democrat leadership.

We’ve been down the amnesty road before, and it did not solve the problem. Amnesty is ultimately where CIR is headed again, despite the fiction that Congress can craft a credible “pathway to citizenship” without secure borders.

Let’s be clear, Congress. You do not get CIR until you demonstrate convincingly that you can secure the border. That is already their job, and they have been negligent in that role for the decades – leading to the problems that we have now. Secure the border first!

In fact, we can fashion other versions of “Comprehensive” immigration “reform” than the version that the Democrats are selling. Here’s a plan that can be labeled as “reform”:

1. Secure the border! Build a double fence as far as needed on our 2000 mile southern border. Build at least the 700 miles that was promised in the 2006 bill that was signed into law. Until you can live up to the already-signed law, you can’t have new laws.

2. Enforce current federal law on immigration. Deportations. Workplace enforcement. Etc.

3. Pause legal immigration until unemployment – currently at a 17% real rate – is back under 6% (Proposed by Pat Buchanan in an op-ed)

4. End birthright citizenship. Go back to requiring that one parent be a citizen and of age. (proposed by George Will in an op-ed)

That is an immigration "reform" plan.

Would you vote for that? Why not. Do you “oppose reform” or something?

on Kagan's Disqualification for SCOTUS

I have opined on Twitter that, in my opinion, President Obama's nominee for the SCOTUS vacancy - Elena Kagan - is disqualified for the position by virtue of the reports of her banning military recruiters from campus when she served as Dean of the Harvard Law School. My opinion is my own, and is not formed from Newt Gingrich's similar pronouncements yesterday, or from any partisan website.

A reasonable question came from my friend Omer Mozaffar on Twitter, who asked:

"Even if the facts were that simple, which you know they aren't, how does that disqualify her?"

Good question.

Our task in evaluating Kagan for the SCOTUS vacancy is the task of evaluating her judgement. That is what she will be called to do - make judgements. Given that she has never been a judge and does not have a body of judicial decisions for us to evaluate, we have to look at how she has made judgements and decisions in her professional life to date as predictors of how she will make judgements on the court. In this particular, in her decisions on allowing or not allowing military recruiters equal access to her campus, her decision was so significantly shocking as to be disqualifying.

It is, as Omer suggests, not a simple question. And there are defenders of Kagan on this issue. One clear and seemingly mitigating defense was offered by her predecessor as Dean of the Harvard Law School - Robert C. Clark - in the Wall St Journal article here. You should read the article. I have, twice.

Clark offers three essential defenses of Kagan's actions:

1. She inherited the policies on access for military recruiters to Harvard's Office of Career Services (OCS) from Clark himself.

2. Kagan was acting in the interest of the campus non-discrimination policy when prohibiting recruiters from using OCS. The military couldn't sign a no-discrimination policy because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", so Harvard treated them as discriminators.

3. The practical effect was not severe because the recruiters came on campus at the invitation of student groups.

Before I discuss why those three arguments are flawed, a review of the timeline set out in Clark's article is useful.

1979 - Harvard adopts the non-discrimination requirement for recruiters on campus using OCS

1994 - President Clinton and Congress sign "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Military cannot sign non-discrimination policy. Harvard at some point denies them access to OCS.

1996 - Congress passes Solomon Act, prohibiting colleges that accept federal aid from banning recruiters

Harvard is now in violation of the Solomon Act

2002 - Air Force makes the case that Harvard is deny it's recruiters "equal access" to their students.

Harvard, facing the loss of 15% of revenue, decides that it's principles on non-discrimination are fungible and grants an exemption to their policy for military recruiters - along with annual statements to their students that Harvard opposes the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Access to the OCS is restored.

2003 - Elena Kagan becomes Dean of the Harvard Law School and keeps this policy.

2004 - an Appeals Court rules the Solomon Act invalid.

Ms. Kagan makes a decion at this point to return the Law School to the previous policy, and again prohibits access to military recruiters to the OCS.

One semester later, the Supreme Court overturns the Appeals Court. Plus, the Government threatens again to cut off federal funding to Harvard.

Their funding threatened, once again Ms. Kagan relents and allows access to the OCS and resumes writing her bad boy advisories to students about the military's discriminatory policies.

That is the timeline and the facts, as laid out by Ms. Kagan's defender Mr. Clark.

Now, back to the three defenses and why they are faulty.

1. She inherited the Policy:

Not good enough. She will not get to make that stance as a Justice on the Supreme Court. She will have to make her own decisions. In fact, she did make her own decision in 2004 with her decision to revert to the previous policy and again ban recruiters from equal access to the OCS.

2. Her positions were based on the Universities non-discrimination policies:

Her decision, when she had the chair of Dean, was to ban recruiters from equal access to the OCS based on politically correct OPTIONAL policies on discrimination. I say optional because when faced with a choice of losing 15% of their funding Harvard's scruples on discrimination came 2nd place. Money came first. When Dean Kagan thought she had the cover of the Appeals Court ruling to shield her from the loss of funding, she chose to end the exemption. She didn't have to.

Dean Kagan had the option of continuing the exemption for military recruiters to use the OCS. In the context of 2004, she should have. America was (and is) at war in two theaters. Military lawyers were in the thick of critical decisions on detaining and trying detainees related to those wars. Does our need for our Department of Defense to have equal access to the best and brightest law school graduates in war time trump an optional policy on non-discrimination? Especially when the military was just following the policies established by President Clinton and Congress. You bet it does.

Yet, in her one moment of owning the decision, Ms. Kagan decided on a policy of denying equal access to our military's recruiters. Shameful.

3. The practical effect of this ban, this denial of equal access, was negligible.

Nonsense. The military did not feel that it was negligible. That's why they pushed hard for restoration of equal access in recruiting Harvard's law students. Goldmann-Sachs had full access, but the U.S. Military did not.

Nor did the Supreme Court, when it reversed the Appeals Court on the Solomon Act.

Elena Kagan had her moment of making a decision. A judgement. It came in 2004, when she made the decision to revert to a policy of denying equal access to the OCS to military recruiters.

Kagan's decision was opposite in intent to the Supreme Court's intention in restoring the Solomon Act. Yet, Obama now wants to put her on that same court. It's a mistake.

We have little record to judge Elena Kagan's judgement. Here is one example, and she got it badly wrong - as did her defender Mr. Clark. She got it so wrong in wartime as for it to be a disqualifying decision, IMHO.

Vote no on Elena Kagan's confirmation.

(Photo by Randy Masters copyright 2007)

on Racial Sensitivity at our Borders & the AZ laws

It's heating up!

The issue of the 5 kids who wore American flat t-shirts to a California public schools on Cinco de Mayo is more than a one day news story. It has become emblematic of the general tensions on the border - played out in the tensions in the public schools.

The battle is engaged on Twitter and in the blogosphere, with Roger Ebert leading the team critical of the kids wearing the American Flag shirts. Click here for Roger's blog post, and engage...civily please.

I'll leave my comments on the topic over there.

You can find my Twitter posts at www.twitter.com/rmasters78

THE ONE Continues Slander of Fellow Citizens

"Obama Kills at White House Dinner" was the headline I saw this morning. Making jokes at the expense of his fellow citizens in Arizona:

"We know what happens in Arizona when you don't have an ID...Adios Amigos."

Funny. A knee-slapper. Yucking it up - not like he had to be at an oil spill or anything.

Nice, to have the President of the United States undermining federal immigration law - which the Arizona law mimics for laughs.

Meanwhile:

- immigration "rights" forces march in lockstep with communists on May 1st: May Day / Che Day. Both having the same agenda of undermining American law.

- our border remains negligently unsecure under the Obama administration, as with his predecessors, allowing an illegal invasion to continue to endanger American citizens.

- the American political Left yawns at Arizona's crisis and agonizes only about racial profiling.

- racial groups like La Raza and MeCHa push for "chicano studies" programs in schools in the West that promote Reconquista and Aztlan - the future chicano state reclaimed in America's West after the collapse of Washington. And we tolerate that?

There will be a backlash against the Left's backlash on the AZ law. It's on.

American Left Outraged over Wrong Things

The American political left is outraged - outraged I tell you! - regarding the newly signed Arizona immigration law. But, as usual, they are outraged over the wrong things.

The good people of Arizona, in a reasonable attempt to protect themselves against an ongoing criminal invasion of their state that sees 650,000 (probably more) people trespassing there and border chaos and violence that endangers every one of them, acted where a negligent federal government has not.

Does the American political left have empathy for the very REAL crisis that their fellow citizens find themselves in? No. Not at all. Instead, they vilify them - with unwarranted charges of "racist!" and "Nazi" and agonize only on the POTENTIAL for racial profiling. A potential, I should add, mitigated by the good-faith efforts of the Arizona legislators to craft wording in their law that prohibits racial profiling.

I have three questions for my friends on the political left - many of whom I hung out with at EbertFest 2010 last week:

1. Are you paying attention to, reading about, the crisis in Arizona? I'm talking about the border violence that has spilled over to Arizona and made it essentially a war zone that endangers them, and simultaneously crushes them with the cost?

If so, why aren't you outraged at the murders, kidnappings, drug crime, and identity theft that plagues Arizona?

2. Have you no empathy for your fellow citizens and their crisis? If not, may I respectfully say that your empathy is misplaced with the lawless.

3. What is your solution to Arizona's crisis? Open Borders? Amnesty for those who have illegally crossed our borders? Ignoring our immigration laws? Vilification of good people and fellow citizens? What is your solution?

Apparently, watching today's May Day rallies, the American Left's solution is to join forces with the Communist Party and the Reconquista movement on May Day / Che Day to continue to destabilize American sovereignty and democracy. See Michelle Malkin's coverage of today's rallies here. Does anyone on the American political left see a problem with this?

The accusations of racism and Nazi are outrageous, over the top, and must stop.

I stand with the good people of Arizona in confronting their existential crisis.