Friday, May 28, 2010


Only in the alternate universe of leftist thought could a law that basically requires state and local officials to enforce existing federal immigration law be compared to Nazism. That’s the “big lie” being drummed into the public mind in unintended tribute to that master of Nazi propaganda—Joseph Goebbels.

It’s no surprise that the supreme political panderer, Jesse Jackson, distorts the recently signed Arizona law by asserting that people can be interrogated simply for looking Mexican. It’s a bit more surprising that city councils in San Diego and Los Angeles (and places north) have joined in denouncing the Grand Canyon state—some going so far as to support a boycott of Arizona.

Speculative horror stories about the new law (like President Obama’s ice cream store fantasy) may have contributed to the (now-reversed) decision to cancel the December trip of Temecula’s Great Oak High School marching band to a Fiesta Bowl competition.

Even Miss USA pageant officials have gotten into the act—this year substituting a bogus rendering of Arizona’s law for the politically charged “gay marriage” query placed before Vista’s Carrie Prejean last year. Like Prejean, Miss Oklahoma’s un-PC response no doubt cemented her runner-up status.

Despite the river of lies disseminated by Jackson and the mainstream media, the general public still has the good sense to see that Arizona’s law represents little more than the state taking federal immigration laws more seriously than the federal government.

In a recent Pew poll Americans overwhelmingly support (by a 59 to 32 per cent margin) the Arizona law. Favorable numbers in a Rasmussen poll go even higher (69 per cent) when specific elements of the law are discussed—like police officers being required to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic (or other) violation if they suspect the person might be illegal.

Still, the political class continues to be up in arms against a law that also bans sanctuary cities and thus demands that the nation’s border and American citizenship be taken seriously. Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t even bother to read the short Arizona law to express his disapproval to a Congressional Committee.

The bill is readily available for reading on the Internet—along with Governor Brewer’s Executive Order that explicitly prohibits racial profiling. But inconvenient truths are of little interest to leftists who prosper politically by keeping the border porous and cramming as many illegals as possible into American voting booths.

That Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of the U.S. thanks to this cynical policy is, to such politicians, a small price to pay for their own “success.”


Recently a reader of this newspaper [the North County Times] sent me a detailed message that argued for a simple but important proposition: Apply the same conflict of interest laws and standards to elected officials that are repeatedly hammered into civil service employees.

One might think the same standard already applies to both groups. But judging by the ethics panel report that examined the sweetheart deals given to Senators Kent Conrad and Christopher Dodd, the “appearance of impropriety” civil service benchmark is apparently irrelevant when it comes to very tangible loans that go far beyond appearances.

According to the Senate ethics committee report these two Senators "were often offered quicker, more efficient loan processing and some discounts" by California’s Countrywide Financial. Yet those circumstances were not found to breach the Senate’s ethics rules.

Then there was the string of financial improprieties connected with Rep. Charles Rangel that finally became so long the powerful New York Congressman was forced to step down from chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee. Rangel tried to fob off violations on his staff, arguing that he couldn’t be held responsible for illegal benefits to himself if his staff didn’t let him know about them.

Try using that excuse on the IRS, and see how far it gets you.

My letter writer noted that “reaffirming traditional conflict of interest definitions…would do much to improve government at all levels.” While I certainly agree that application of these strict standards to elected officials would be beneficial, the use of government itself for the benefit of specific interest groups (like public employee unions) is now a much greater problem facing the state of California and its municipalities—a problem that isn’t addressed by focusing attention on conflict of interest standards as applied to individuals.

The graft of the aforementioned senators is chicken feed compared to the 500 billion dollars in unfunded liabilities within California’s public employee pension systems. These compensation structures for state employees who collectively possess huge political clout constitute a 24/7 conflict of interest problem.

This self-serving system, by the way, was made possible by former Governor Jerry Brown’s 1978 signature on the “Dill Act,” a law that allowed state employees to unionize.

The fact that Brown is again a contender for governor suggests that the Tea Party message against ever-expanding government hasn’t penetrated the psyches of most California voters—much less the media-shaped mind of politicians like New York City Mayor Bloomberg who reflexively link opposition to big government with homicidal terrorism.

In truth, the greatest conflict of interest of our time is the use of government for the enrichment of groups that are increasingly part of the government itself.