Proud to be in the minority over Arizona's immigration law

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network

When I last wrote about my opposition to Arizona's immigration law on civil liberties grounds I was vilified by some supporters.

One of them, a longtime proponent of a more secure border with Mexico, angrily lashed out at me - accusing me of not fully appreciating the problem of illegal immigration.

"Go down to Arizona and see for yourself before you talk about something you know nothing about," she told me.

Interestingly, a new Rasmussen poll places her in the majority and me in the minority. Fifty-nine percent of Americans support the implementation of an Arizona-style law in their states, Rasmussen says. Well, I'm here to tell you that I'm proud to be among the 32 percent who do not.

What I don't understand is why or how my critic presumes I support illegal immigration because I oppose measures that take away our civil liberties.

I also oppose laws and measures that take away our liberties in the name of counter-terrorism. Will she now then suggest that I am a proponent of terrorism?

This is all part of the either-or, us or them, mentality in our society.

It's like saying the people who oppose police stop and frisk tactics in high crime areas must support crime.

In Saudi Arabia, I am told, you can leave your wallet on a sidewalk and come back the next day to find it untouched. That's because the penalty for stealing is the loss of a hand. It's a punishment that works in stemming crime. But I wouldn't support implementing it in the United States.

What's crazy is that it's mainly people who describe themselves as conservatives who support the Arizona law. Used to be that conservatives were staunch defenders of the Constitution and the guarantees provided Americans therein. Apparently not any longer.

On which side of the law are the New Orleans cops?

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network

With all the charges and convictions involving assaults and murders committed or allegedly committed by police in New Orleans, one might wonder who the real criminals are in the Big Easy.

Earlier this month, six NOLA cops were charged in connection with the shootings of people on the Danziger Bridge after Hurricane Katrina.

Three days ago three more current or former NOLA police officers were charged with covering up the shootings of unarmed civilians on the bridge. Five former New Orleans police officers have plead guilty of similar charges. Three other officers, also charged, have pleaded not guilty.

Cops pointed guns at a Times-Picaynue photographer after Katrina as well, after he stumbled upon two guys lying motionless on the pavement - some 20 cops standing over their bodies.

Now the feds say that two more NOLA police officers have been charged in a three-count indictment in the beating death of a man back in 2005.

This is the same police department that suffered embarrassment and ridicule when so many officers abandoned their posts during Katrina.

As in any other police department, these officers took an oath to serve and protect. Protect. Not kill.

It's obvious that this is an endemic problem. Too many cops feel - or until now have felt - that they can abuse the citizens they are paid to protect - with impunity. There's an obvious culture of cover-up here too. Officers who don't participate in these crimes are expected to - and apparently do - lie about what they know to keep the perpetrators in blue out of hot water.

The recent indictments and guilty charges show that - thankfully - there are those in law enforcement who are working to take away the certainty that these criminal cops will avoid prosecution. But the bigger question is - who is really responsible for making it possible for police officers to feel comfortable stepping outside the law - killing people - and covering it up?

Both sides claim victory in Arizona immigration ruling

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network

Finally a court ruling both sides can live with. At least for the moment.

Seemingly everyone is happy with a federal court ruling striking down portions of the new Arizona immigration law which took effect today.

The law was designed to give local cops the authority to enforce government immigration regulations. In other words - stop and arrest illegal immigrants.

The federal government challenged the new law - arguing that its not within the purview of the states to enforce federal law. As a result, several key components of the law were ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.

The other side will now appeal. Bringing us exactly where we would be if the feds had lost. As Arizona Governor Jan Brewer explains, no matter who won, the other side would have appealed.

The spin over the ruling is quite interesting.

FAIR - the Federation for American Immigration Reform - called U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton's ruling "a step forward." This in spite of the fact that FAIR supported the law.

The ACLU, which opposed it, similarly called Bolton's ruling "an important and critical first step."

This may be the first time in history that FAIR and the ACLU have agreed on anything.

Of course, this is where the agreement ends. The details, naturally, show the differences.

The ACLU says this is just the beginning in the fight against oppressive tactics by police.

"I can tell you from first-hand experience that the reactionary forces that have been pushing this law will stop at nothing to see it enacted," said Vivek Malhotra, ACLU advocacy and policy counsel.

“The sad reality of Judge Bolton’s ruling is that law-abiding Arizonans will have to continue to endure the effects of the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce U.S. immigration laws,” FAIR President Dan Stein said. “Arizonans will continue to face billions of dollars in costs, overburdened schools and hospitals, and violent crime that is associated with the federal government’s non-enforcement policy."

Fair enough FAIR - but here's my question. Why, in Arizona's desire to get the federal government to enforce its own laws, must it violate civil liberties in the process? Are there not other ways of approaching this problem besides saddling local and state cops with the unenviable burden of trying to determine who is here illegally - then question them and demand their papers?

Surely the intent of the Arizona legislature was not to put law abiding U.S. citizens of Latino heritage in the position of having to carry proof of citizenship? Of being questioned just because of the color of their skin or their accent?

Why are these two desires - one for a secure border - the other for the maintenance of civil liberties - so mutually exclusive? Can't we have both?

I'll answer that last question myself. We must have both. Arizona lawmakers should go back to the drawing table and rewrite the law with this in mind.

How the American people may help pay for the BP clean-up after all

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network

We've heard President Obama say it over and over again. BP is responsible by law to pay completely for the clean-up of the oil spill as well as the compensation for those who have lost money because of it. But there is, as there seemingly always is, a loophole.

That loophole is in the form of tax credits. To the tune of nearly $10 billion. Tax credits that the Wall Street Journal reports BP is expected to claim.

Which means that you and me, the taxpayers of the United States, would be stuck with $9.9 billion in costs to pay for the clean-up.

Presumably, the president was aware of this little loophole when he said the taxpayers would be off the hook. But, as is often the case in Washington, he was a bit loose with the financial facts, wasn't he?

That's not all.

No one knows the final cost of clean-up and compensation. A lawyer representing many people who he believes deserve compensation told the BBC the money BP has set aside is insufficient to pay those people and businesses that are financially screwed by the spill.

Meanwhile, BP's incoming CEO Bob Dudley was on CNN Wednesday morning saying that his company is not reckless.

You can be the judge of that. And of whether BP deserves a $9.9 billion tax break for being - as Dudley suggests - so responsible.

--

Photo: U.S. Army

How will Arizona cops know who to arrest on Thursday?

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network

Arizona's new immigration law takes effect Thursday, but a group of activists who oppose it are going to make it darn hard for the cops to do their new job.

In fact, they are hoping they'll be arrested - so that they can successfully challenged the constitutionality of the law in court.

The activists are all Latinos living in the United States legally. Many of them, in fact, are U.S. citizens.

As it stands now (although this may change in the name of Homeland Security) there is no requirement in the United States that one has to carry one's papers when in public. That's the kind of thing we've always associated with totalitarian regimes. Like the Nazis.

But Arizona is making an exception - saying that anyone who is an immigrant had better have proof of citizenship or other legal right to be in the nation. Or they'll face arrest.

So what these folks are going to do is hang out on street corners - trying to draw attention to themselves as possibly being here illegally. When the cops ask them for ID, they will refuse.

Now, remember, the law requires immigrants to show proof they are here legally. What if the person they are stopping is not only a U.S. citizen - but one born here in the United States?

The hope is that they will be arrested - even though they've broken no laws. Giving them the opportunity to challenge - and hopefully overturn - the law.

We have a problem in the United States - and it's not just the influx of illegal immigrants or the threat of terrorism - both of which are valid concerns. It's the way we are so willing to discard our personal freedoms in our zeal to combat these issues.

Too many are so focused on their concerns about illegal immigrants and the threat of terrorism (issues that sometimes overlap) that they forget that the Founders gave us certain rights - rights that we the people permit to erode if we don't stand up and fight for them.

Some will argue that what these activists plan on Thursday impedes Arizona's efforts to combat illegal immigration. I say what they plan will protect my rights - and yours - as a U.S. citizen.

Which issue is more important to you?

Candidate questions Islam as a religion

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network

It's the kind of thing that's usually discussed privately. But now, Tennessees Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey - who is running for governor - is asking it publicly.





Ramsey, at a recent community forum, was asked about a planned mosque in Rutherford County, Tennessee.

"I'm all about freedom of religion," Ramsey answered.

"But you cross the line when they start trying to bring Sharia law in the United States."

Ramsey believes that Muslims follow Sharia law and don't believe the Constitution of the United State applies to them.

"You can even argue," he said, "whether Muslim is actually a religion or if it is a nationality way of life or a cult ... we do protect our religions but at the same time this is something that we are going to have to face."

In other words, if Islam isn't really a religion, is it protected by the Constitution?

There are others who take it even further. Radio talk show host Michael Savage refers to Islam as Islamo-fascism. Words designed to raise angst among many - especially America's Jewish population.

"Would you want a Nazi headquarters opened in your neighborhood?" asked a friend who subscribes to this theory.

"Islam is no different than Nazism, except that it's disguised as a religion."

So if you don't recognize Islam as a religion - if you substitute the word "cult" as did Ramsey - then it's OK to oppose it. After all, this nation was founded by those who sought freedom of religion. But if Islam is not a religion - well then, heck, it's OK to attack it.

It and its followers.

This, of course, is the same kind of tactic used against Jews, blacks and other minorities. If a Jew or a black is a son of a monkey, then he is less than human, and deserves our scorn. Or worse.

More than a few people I know are fearful that every mosque is a center of terrorism. A concern raised by those who successfully derailed the agreed upon sale of a vacant convent at St. Margaret Mary Roman Catholic Church on Staten Island to a Muslim organization that wanted to use it for a mosque.

The Council on American Islamic Relations is concerned as well.

"We see a disturbing trend in our nation in which it is suggested that American Muslims should have fewer or more restricted constitutional rights than citizens of other faiths," said CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. "We urge Lt. Gov. Ramsey to meet with representatives of the Tennessee Muslim community who can offer him balanced and accurate information about Islam."

Yes, it is undeniable that there are Muslim terrorists who use their religion as validation for their actions. But that doesn't mean that every mosque is a hotbed of terrorism. Or that Islam is not a religion. Or that Muslims don't deserve the same constitutional protections afforded the rest of us.

New York's mosque opposition extends beyond Ground Zero

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network

NEW YORK - The celebrated case of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a story that's resonating with opponents and proponents around the world.

Purportedly, it's not an issue of Islam or mosques. It's because of its location - two blocks from the World Trade Center site. Insensitive, the opponents say - because those who attacked on September 11, 2001 did so in the name of Islam.

OK, maybe so. But then how does one explain the outrage that resulted in the canceling of the establishment of another mosque - this one on Staten Island?

This mosque was to be established in an abandoned Roman Catholic church convent. But the church, St. Margaret Mary, canceled its sale to the Muslim American Society, on the grounds that it could be used as a center for terrorism.

This church is nowhere near Ground Zero. So you can't say it has anything to do with sensitivities toward those who died on 9/11.

One might think that the Roman Catholic church would stand up against religious intolerance. After all, the Vatican has embraced ecumenical dialog and understanding. And its representative in New York, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, is a member of St. Margaret Mary.

But we don't hear Dolan using his pulpit to say this fear of all things Islam as terrorism is misplaced. Of course, we didn't see the Vatican do much to stand up to the Nazis when they started in on the Jews either, did we?

America must come to grips with the fact that Muslims are becoming an increasingly significant part of our society. Wishing - or perhaps in this case praying - Islam away isn't going to work. Like it or not, Muslims are here to stay.

While there is a serious problem of radicalized Muslims who use terroristic tactics against the West and toward fellow Muslims who belong to different sects elsewhere, it is a quantum, inaccurate, and dangerous leap to the conclusion that all mosques are centers of terrorism. If that were the case, would we not see dozens of terrorist attacks a day in our nation's cities?

Look at the Detroit area - home to scores of mosques. A search for mosques in Dearborn, Michigan on Yahoo Local comes up with 10. I'm pretty familiar with Dearborn and I'm sure this number grossly underestimates the number of mosques in this community. Dearborn - once best known as the home to Ford Motor Company's headquarters - is now more identified with its burgeoning Islamic population.

We've not seen a huge influx of Islamic terrorism in Dearobrn. Why, then, would Staten Islanders then presuppose that a mosque in their neighborhood will result in terrorism?

Besides, do they really believe that the number of Muslims in Staten Island will now suddenly decline? Or that the Muslim American Society won't find another location on Staten Island to serve the growing Muslim population there?

And if there are Muslim terrorist on Staten Island, do they really believe that they can't meet someplace else to plan an attack? Like someone's house?

Or would they now deny homes to Muslims on Staten Island as well?

If the good people of St. Margaret Mary Church really want to do something productive, perhaps they could start by publicly addressing the hate crimes that are taking place on a regular basis on Staten Island. Hate crimes targeting Hispanics and gays. Not one of the suspects of these attacks, by the way, are described as identifiably Muslim.

Then they should take a look in the holy water at the entrance to the sanctuary and address the hate they see reflected there. Before they enter to pray to a God who said, "Love thy neighbor as yourself.

Denying illegal immigrants an education

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that school districts may not turn children away just because they are not in the country legally. But despite this, one in five districts in New York state are refusing to educate foreign nationals who don't have U.S. visas.

Not only is this illegal, it's racist, inhumane and contrary to good public policy.

We already know that millions and millions of illegal immigrants are here to stay. They've weaved themselves into the fabric of society. There's no imminent massive round up to find them all and send them back. They are, with rare exception, here to stay.

So to take children, many of whom are struggling with English to begin with, and to deny them an education, only creates a deep underclass of future teenagers and adults who will be total disenfranchised and who will lack the basic skills to be productive members of society.

That kind of denial of opportunity only leads - inevitably - to an increase in crime.

I'm not saying that all of these illegal immigrants are destined to become criminals. I'm just suggesting that denying anyone an education greatly increases the possibility that they will.

So what are we creating for our future? Another problem for our children and our grandchildren's generations to deal with.

Really, it should matter not to school districts, even from a fiscal standpoint, whether the children they educate are in the country legally or not. Schools are funded by property taxes. If their parents are paying rent, then a portion of that rent is paid by the landlord to the schools in the form of property taxes.

They contribute the same amount of money whether they have visas or not.

This denial of education to children sends an horrific message - not just to the immigrant communities - but to the rest of us as well. If the education of the child down the block is not valued, then what does that say about the value of the education of my children?

At any rate, we shouldn't even be debating this issue in 2010. The Supreme Court ruled that school districts must educate undocumented children more than 30 years ago. They should be forced to follow the law.

After all, to borrow a phrase from the anti-illegal immigration movement, what part of the word illegal don't they understand?

Palin GOP's top dog

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network

I was on the train yesterday and I got into a conversation with a fascinating woman who is an electrical engineer and college physics professor about politics.

She told me that she favored John McCain for president but that after he named Sarah Palin as his running mate she decide to vote for Barack Obama.

"Sarah Palin," she told me, "isn't qualified to be vice president of the United States. She's clearly not qualified to be president."

"Well," I answered, "she's running."

"Yes," my new acquaintance responded, "and I'm afraid people might vote her into office."

Little did we know that as we were having this talk, the Gallup organization was preparing to release the results of a poll which concludes that Palin has a 76 percent favorable rating among Republicans.

That's higher than Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal.

Of course, a lot can happen between now and the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. But it's interesting that the woman who many - including my traveling companion - believe was the cause of McCain's defeat could be the next GOP candidate for president.

Was release of Lockerbie bomber exchange for 'blood money' for BP?

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network

The damage BP is causing may not just be to the Gulf of Mexico. It could be to the hearts of relatives of those who died in the bombing of TWA Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. A bombing ordered by the Libyan government.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted in the bombing. But he was released from custody and returned to Libya after a doctor said he only had three months to live.

Well, he has long outlived that prognosis - now it's been reported that maybe the diagnosis was wrong - and that he may live a long life. The doctor - a cancer specialist - who said al-Megrahi would soon die from prostate cancer now acknowledges that he lied to help the Libyans.

Which has gotten a lot of people to thinking: why were the Scottish authorities so quick to release him?

The answer may lie - literally - in another BP underwater oil drilling operation. Not in the Gulf of Mexico. But in Libyan waters.

A deal that analysts say could net BP billions of dollars.

A deal that was struck just after the prisoner transfer agreement was reached.

Now a group of Democratic lawmakers is demanding that the British government investigate. Was this decision to release al-Megrahi coincidental? Or a result of the oil deal?

They are also demanding a congressional investigation.

"It is shocking to even contemplate that BP is profiting from the release of a terrorist with the blood of 189 Americans on his hands," wrote U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). In total, 207 people died on the plane and on the ground.

Lautenberg, and others, including relatives of those who died in the attack, have reason to be suspicious. And they are right to call for an investigation.

If it turns out there suspicions are true - then the release of al-Megrahi would turn out to be far more damaging to BP's reputation than the Gulf gusher. Evidence suggests that BP and its partners failed to follow proper safety procedures leading to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. But no one is suggesting that the oil giant wanted it to happen. No such claim can be made if its shown that there was culpability in a decision to release a mass murdering terrorist for financial gain.

And if the suspicions prove valid - the broader question of how serious we are in this so-called war against terrorism. Do we really want to put an end to terror? Maybe so. But maybe there are exceptions. Exceptions when billions of dollars are at stake.

--

Photo: Air Accidents Investigation Branch published as fair use under U.S. copyright law

France lower chamber passes Islamic veil ban

 
Full Islamic veils like these women are wearing in Morocco could be 
banned in France

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network Correspondent

In Iran, a woman who does not adhere to a dress code prescribed by the Islamic government could face imprisonment. Soon, a woman in France could face a fine for not adhering to a dress code imposed there.

Ironic, isn't it?

The France Parliament Tuesday passed a measure that would forbid the wearing of full Islamic veils in public. Supposedly it will free women of control by dress. But in freeing them, it imposes restrictions of its own.

France's Senate will vote on the measure in September. It will likely pass there as well (75 percent of the people in France - among them President Nicolas Sarkozy support it). Then it will become the law of the land.

But it strikes me that, once again, women are being treated as less than complete humans.

In nations like Iran, they aren't allowed to choose to show their hair. In France, they won't be permitted to cover up, if they so choose.

How can one be liberated from constraints by being - well - constrained?

By the way, under the French law, if a woman's husband permits her - or requires her - to be covered in public - he can face jail time.

France's justice minister frames it a bit differently - calling it a victory for those who value freedom and against the humiliation of women. Something, which he says, is "against those who push for inequality and injustice."

But is this true equality and justice? Or is France just as guilty as is Iran, in its control of women?

--

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seewah/335239542/

Economic confidence sinks

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network

Each new bit of economic news makes job seekers, those who have jobs and Wall Street nervous. Now it seems that, even as the job picture holds steady, there is uncertainty about the economy.

Perhaps some of this can be attributed to the various prognostications of economists. Some of whom say there will be a continued but stunted recovery from the recession. Others who say the economy is getting ready for another fall - this one bigger than the last.

If that happens, it's likely that Washington won't be in a position to bail out Wall Street, Main Street or Elm Street - and we'll just have to ride it out - suffering the consequences.

News Wednesday that Microsoft was laying off employees - though not that many - took me by surprise. Microsoft has deep pockets and should be able to ride out economic downturns nicely. But - as with all businesses - the bottom line is the bottom line. Perhaps the software giant just wants to keep its margins up - at the expense of employees who are getting pink slips.

The market, however, didn't even blink at the news, ending up on Tuesday. But now, the Gallup poll is saying that there's a lot of uncertainty still about the economy.

Gallup's Economic Confidence Index fell to -34, That's the lowest weekly average since last July.

But Gallup has also been tracking jobs - and says that job creation remains "relatively positive."

Which means that the reality of the economy may not be the issue. Perceptions - when it comes to economics - sometimes overshadows facts.

A cable TV news pundit asked the other day if we can think ourselves into a depression. Perhaps, based on this latest snapshot, the answer is "yes."