Sunday, August 29, 2010

Glenn Beck Regrets Calling Obama 'Racist,'

Glenn Beck Regrets Calling Obama 'Racist,'
Rules Out Run for President.

From AOL
By Bruce Drake,
Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck said after his Saturday rally at the Lincoln Memorial that he regrets once having called President Obama a racist who hated white people, and said "not a chance" when asked about the notion of a Beck-Sarah Palin presidential ticket in 2012.

Beck had made the statement about Obama last year on Fox & Friends during a discussion of Obama's criticism of Cambridge, Mass. police. Obama had said they had acted "stupidly" in arresting Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, an African-American, outside his own home after receiving a call reporting a possible break-in.

"This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture," Beck had said. "I don't know what it is. This guy is, I believe, a racist."

Beck, who had been criticized for holding his event on an anniversary day of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, was asked by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace in an interview conducted after the rally, "After that, do you have any credibility talking about reclaiming the civil rights movement?"

"It shouldn't have been said," Beck answered. "It was poorly said ... I have a big fat mouth sometimes and I say things, and that's just not the way people should behave. And it was not accurate."

Beck said he had "miscast" as racism what he should have attributed instead to Obama's attachment, as expressed in his writings, to "liberation theology."

"He is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology, which is oppressor and victim," said Beck, referring to the movement in the Catholic Church challenging economic, political and social conditions affecting the underprivileged.

Asked if he regretted his remarks, Beck said, "Of course I do."

Beck also brushed aside any talk in the blogosphere and elsewhere that the popular movements conservatives like he and Sarah Palin have launched might produce a Beck-Palin presidential ticket in 2012.
"Not a chance," said Beck. "I don't know what Sarah is doing. I hope to be on vacation. I have no desire to be president of the United States. Zero desire. I don't think that I would be electable."

"There are far too many people that are far smarter than me to be president," he said. "I'd like to find one with some honor and integrity. I haven't seen them yet, but they'll show up."

Monday, August 9, 2010

SB 1070 Still A Winner

By Russell Pearce

Opponents of immigration enforcement are calling the temporary injunction against parts of Arizona's anti-illegal-immigration law a death blow to state enforcement. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund called it a “warning to other states” that want to enact similar legislation.

As the author of the new law, SB 1070, I can honestly say that July 29, when the pared-down law went into effect, was a victory.

Many key provisions are still in effect. Local police have more power to enforce immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are outlawed. Illegal day laborers are likely to be arrested and the employers' trucks that pick them up impounded.

And I am confident the entire law will be upheld.

Already, illegal immigrants are taking notice. Even before the law went into effect, NPR and Reuters reported that undocumented immigrants, including entire families, were moving out of the state. The day after the ruling, CNN reported, “some of the estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants who went to Arizona are leaving the state.”

This is the strategy of SB 1070: attrition through enforcement. Arizona has made it clear through our policies that illegal immigrants are not welcome, and they are self-deporting from the state.

Judging from media portrayals, one would think this law is the only time that a state has taken up immigration legislation. But this is just the latest bill in Arizona’s string of attrition-through-enforcement legislation.

It began in 2004, when 56 percent of Arizona voters — including 47 percent of Latinos — voted for Proposition 200, which barred illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits. In 2006, voters approved four anti-illegal-immigration and pro-English ballot initiatives. The year after, then-Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the Legal Arizona Workers Act, requiring all employers to use E-Verify to ensure that they do not hire illegal immigrants.

The battles over these laws did not draw as much national attention as SB 1070, but Arizona still faced media campaigns, lawsuits and temporary injunctions. All the laws were eventually enacted.

Even the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is to rule on SB 1070 in November, upheld the legal workers act.

Rather than serve as a warning to other states, our immigration law has inspired people across the country, who are fed up with the federal government's inaction, to follow our lead. Lawmakers in 20 states have now introduced similar legislation. Nine state attorneys general signed an amicus brief in support of Arizona.

The more opponents attack our immigration law, the longer it stays in the national spotlight. This looks likely to be a major issue in the midterm elections. It's almost a prerequisite that any gubernatorial candidate in a Republican primary support SB 1070. Even Democratic candidates, like Roy Barnes of Georgia, support the law.

Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans support the Arizona law. The day after the injunction, a Rasmussen poll found that 59 percent of American voters wanted an Arizona-style law in their state, while only 32 percent did not.

Despite critics’ claims that SB 1070 interferes with federal law, it actually mirrors federal law, empowering local law enforcement to assist federal authorities. No one denies this. Instead, the court ruled that the law will “impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established.”

The “priorities” are not to arrest, detain, prosecute or remove illegal immigrants unless they have already committed serious crimes in addition to illegal presence.

These critics would rather wait for another American to become a victim of crime before they enforce our laws. The only thing that conflicts with federal immigration law is the Obama administration's intentional policy not to enforce it.

With the American people and the Constitution on our side, the temporary ruling of an activist judge will not keep Arizona from prevailing in our fight against illegal immigration.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010


( – Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu is hopping mad at the federal government.

Babeu told that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.

“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” Babeu said.

The sheriff was referring to the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the state’s new immigration law.

“So who has partnered with the ACLU?” Babeu said in a telephone interview with “It’s the president and (Attorney General) Eric Holder himself. And that’s simply outrageous.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton placed a temporary injunction on portions of the bill that allowed law enforcement personnel during the course of a criminal investigation who have probable cause to think an individual is in the country illegally to check immigration status. The state of Arizona filed an appeal on Thursday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help,” Babeu said.

Babeu and Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County Ariz., spoke by phone with last week about the May 17 ACLU class-action lawsuit, which charges the law uses racial profiling and named the county attorneys and sheriffs in all 15 Arizona counties as defendants. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on July 6, charging the Arizona law preempted the federal government’s sole right to enforce immigration law.

“If the president would do his job and secure the border; send 3,000 armed soldiers to the Arizona border and stop the illegal immigration and the drug smuggling and the violence, we wouldn’t even be in this position and where we’re forced to take matters into our own hands,” Babeu said.

Dever said the federal government’s failure to secure the border and its current thwarting of Arizona’s effort to control illegal immigration within its borders has implications for the entire country.

“The bigger picture is while what’s going on in Arizona is critically important, what comes out of this and happens here will affect our entire nation in terms of our ability to protect our citizenry from a very serious homeland security threat,” Dever said. “People who are coming across the border in my county aren’t staying there. They’re going everywhere USA and a lot of them are bad, bad people.

”According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), about 250,000 people were detained in Arizona in the last 12 months for being in the country illegally. Babeu said that that number only reflects the number of people detained and that thousands more enter the country illegally each year.

The CBP also reports that 17 percent of those detained already have a criminal record in the United States.

Both Babeu and Dever said they want to remain involved in the legal battle over the law, which many experts predict will end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dever has hired an independent attorney to represent him in the ACLU case and his attorney has already filed a motion of intervention in the DOJ lawsuit so the “(Dever) will have a seat at the table.

”A Web site also has been launched by the non-profit, Iowa-based Legacy Foundation to raise money for the Babeu’s and Dever’s legal defense.

Both men said they believe the outcome of the case has national significance.“For us, this is a public safety matter and a national security threat,” Babeu said.