A borderline case against the immigration law in Arizona - CSMonitor.com

A borderline case against the immigration law in Arizona - CSMonitor.com

TeamObama's court fight against Arizona's immigration status validity check law is obviously grounded in politics, not a legitimate and essential requirement to enforce existing federal laws. Stronger border security is favored by a vast majority of Americans and in recent polls nearly 70% support the Arizona law. Border security has been sadly neglected by TeamObama and catering to Hispanic voters is the obvious reason for the legal battle.

"...Arizona was also careful to anchor its statute in federal law, aiming to complement Washington’s efforts rather than work against them. No new requirements, for example, are imposed on aliens. (The Justice Department decided not to make a federal case out of concerns about possible racial profiling by Arizona police.)

The law, SB 1070, also does not preempt the federal role of defining the admission, authorization, or deportation of aliens. In fact, it builds on Supreme Court rulings that have long recognized the rights of states to discourage illegal immigration.

Rather than see the Arizona law as an obstacle to better enforcement, Obama must start to work better with the states as partners. As the often-quoted federal judge Learned Hand once wrote, “it would be unreasonable to suppose that [the federal government’s] purpose was to deny itself any help that the states may allow.”

Op-Ed Contributor - The Spies Who Got Left in the Cold - NYTimes.com

I missed this when first published on January 9, 2010. This piece by Robert Grenier, a former CIA Clandestine Service Officer for 27 years, is ‘must read’ all the way through to the end. It is well written and speaks volumes about what we owe to our intelligence specialists in the field for the work that they do on our behalf.

So many of our ‘professional politicians’ and their cohorts on staff and in the media are quick to castigate the intelligence community, as though their task was simple and risk-free. These self-serving politicians and camp followers are unworthy of our respect. Those in the intelligence community who most deserve our gratitude seldom receive it.

Please read Mr. Grenier’s musings and be thankful for his service and his willingness to speak out.

Op-Ed Contributor - The Spies Who Got Left in the Cold - NYTimes.com

New FISA Bill

Why has the liberal opposition gone almost silent on the new FISA bill? Does no vocal opposition mean they have changed their views on the seriousness of the terrorist threat facing this country or is the silence merely a political ploy to not be seen as soft on terrorists? Or does the proposal contain some requirements and procedures that would render it toothless against terrorists?

Let's hear from Leahy, Sanders and Welch if they support it or oppose it and why!

Senator Leahy's statement is here. He opposes the new bill.

Senator Sanders has this to say:

Wiretap Law “I happen to believe that with strong law enforcement, with a strong and effective judiciary, with a Congress working diligently, we can be vigorous and successful in protecting the American people against terrorism and we can do it in a way that does not undermine the constitutional rights which people have fought for hundreds of years to protect--the Constitution, which today remains one of the greatest documents ever written in the history of humanity,” Sanders told colleague during debate on House-passed bill that also would gave telephone companies immunity from about 40 pending lawsuits over their role in a Bush administration surveillance program instituted after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “If we grant them retroactive immunity, what it really says to future presidents is, ‘I am the law because I'm the president and I will tell you what you can do and because I tell you what to do or ask you what to do that is, by definition, legal.’ “That is a very bad precedent,” Sanders continued.

I surmise he opposes the new law.

Representative Welch also opposes the new FISA law. His statement is here.

They all sound the same horn of 'accountability.' This reads to me as not much more than an anti-Bush political statement. None of them provide any insight into what the new law would actually do to change what they oppose. Instead they all want to see the telecom companies dragged into court and pay $millions, if not $billions, all because the companies did what the President asked them to do.

It's clear they are most interested in Bush-bashing while wrapping themselves in the mantle of protecting freedoms. My freedoms have not been infringed. I prefer to see our terrorist enemies and their collaborators stopped. Surveillance is a tool to do that. Why should I be afraid if I'm not a terrorist or a sympathizer?

Court Says Guantanamo Detainees Have Right to Challenge Detention - washingtonpost.com

The Supreme Court erred. Of course, true to form, the New York Times applauds the decision from their ivory tower. But Justice Scalia in opposing this bad decision has it right:

"America is at war with radical Islamists," Scalia wrote, adding that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

When will our country wake up to the fact that these terrorists are first and foremost sworn enemies of the United States who wish to see us and our way or life defeated. They are not people with civil rights like you and I under our Constitution. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

I hope this bad decision will not encourage our military to 'take no prisoners.'

Court Says Guantanamo Detainees Have Right to Challenge Detention - washingtonpost.com

Homeland Security proposes delayed Real ID rollout | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

The debate will continue to rage, but the fundamental need for security and identification of people who live in the United States has not changed. The ACLU and privacy advocates will always oppose any ID program. So will the immigration (legal or otherwise) advocates. This effort wisely, recommended by the 9/11 Commission, should be implemented as soon as feasible. I find no compelling argument from the opponents.

I think the time has come for a national ID card. I see no harm in the information that it's proposed to contain. Identification of persons, with that ID having been verified by an authorized agency of government, is a valid need in any modern society, particularly one that is under attack and in a war with Radical Islamic terrorists who have shown themselves willing and able to kill thousands of us.

"Arguably the biggest change in the final rule is the timeline. States will generally have a larger chunk of time, broken into "milestones," to become compliant with the new standards. Earlier in the planning process, Homeland Security had envisioned requiring the IDs to be in place starting on May 11, 2008--and no later than 2013--unless states had applied for an extension.

The final rule dictates that by the end of 2009, states will have to complete certain checks on all residents who apply for driver's licenses, such as verifying against Homeland Security databases that the cardholders have legal immigration status and ensuring that the Social Security number provided matches with Social Security Administration records. States will also have to conduct background checks on motor vehicles employees "to ensure licenses are not issued by corrupt insiders."

By May 11, 2011, states are expected to have methods in place to verify that the identity documents provided by driver's license applicants, such as birth certificates, are valid. They'll also be expected to start issuing Real ID-compliant licenses by then, if not sooner.

By Dec. 1, 2014, all Americans under the age of 50 will be expected to present Real ID-compliant licenses when boarding airplanes and entering federal buildings. Exactly three years later, all Americans, regardless of age, will have to meet those requirements."

Homeland Security proposes delayed Real ID rollout Tech news blog - CNET News.com

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Major Executive Speeches

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Major Executive Speeches

A speech delivered by the director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, about cyber terrorism and espionage that's worth reading. This is a tough battle given the plethora of bright people on the enemies' side and the vast sandbox available to play in.

As One Bubble Collapses, Is Another Taking Shape?

Editorial Observer

As One Bubble Collapses, Is Another Taking Shape?

By TERESA TRITCH

Published: September 9, 2007

"The Treasury secretary needs to safeguard against a flow of foreign government capital that, poorly regulated, could impair our national security."

I don't know who Teresa Tritch is, could be a nom de plume for all I know, but the message sent should be heeded. I believe America faces great risk if the flow of foreign capital into the U.S. purchasing hard assets is not dealt with (regulated, managed, overseen...use whatever verb form you want).