The "race card" and "death panels," the AZ-immigration so-called law and healthcare-reform analogy doesn't work

Well, my Facebook comment (that I turned into a blog post "Jack Cafferty knows Jack about Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and the Fourth Amendment") garnered the following:

Chris Wright: I have never in my everlasting life been SO SICK of the race card being brought up in EVERY SINGLE FREAKING DISCUSSION. Say what some will about conservatives but they never use it.

http://indyposted.com/20426/arizona-immigration-law-revised/

Now I would love to know what is wrong with putting a stronger border patrol on? Why don't we just let everybody come in and bring their drugs in with them! Why is the concept of illegality foreign to some of you? Do you want this country to be LAWLESS entirely? The federal government does absolutely nothing to address the states that have the worst problem. California is number 1. Arizona is number 2 and Texas is number 3. I believe my state is number 9.

Now I want somebody to put the word illegal in their vocabulary and tell me WHY IT IS RIGHT under the LAW OF THE UNITED STATES for illegal immigration to be alright. I am so sick to death of what this turns in to. It always turns in to "GOP hates mexicans". "conservatives hate mexicans". Maybe I should start screaming about death panels since that's what liberals say they yell about yet AT THE Same TIME I am hearing the same thing from the far left just in different wordings.

So tired of the fear mongering I hear and the RACE BATING. This will never go away when we have the race baters of Sharpton around to milk it for what it's worth.

Chris,

You danced all around the points.

What's the "race card" here? Who's using it and how? I've only seen substantiated facts. You've also said that "conservatives" never use the "race card." If by that you mean to say that there wasn't any racism on the part of those who profess conservatism against Barack Obama as a candidate, you are ignorant or in denial or have forgotten. There was clear racism during the campaign. People shouted anti-Black slurs at rallies. It was caught on audio. It wasn't disputed by those in attendance. Some people apologized for the stupidity of their fellow "conservatives." John McCain had openly to address it, it was becoming so blatant.

As for your ideas about a stronger border, no one is arguing against that here. What I believe I can rightly say on behalf of the others also is that we are more interested in pursuing the solutions to the problems by way of directly addressing the root causes rather than applying more costly Band-Aids under which infections will only fester and get worse.

Did you not read the linked article citing all the errors made by "conservatism"?

http://www.facebook.com/TomUsher?v=wall&story_fbid=119421958076125 and here (highly recommended), for those of you who aren't Facebook users, "Reagan's Refugees: Why Undocumented Migrants Have a Right to Work Here," by David A. Sylvester. Tikkun Daily Blog. April 30th, 2010.

It was Reagan's policies and practices for one that screwed things up royally down in Central America. Do you really not know what's gone on? It started long before Reagan. He simply continued the anti-Christ, elitist plan.

Illegality is not foreign to us at all. We know where the illegality, the crimes against humanity, began that led directly to the present crisis.

That the federal government hasn't done right things is no reason to excuse Arizona for compounding errors. The AZ law is unconstitutional on its face. I just saw a joke. "Oh no, here come the police. Look as White as you can." There's truth to that in Arizona when it comes time for the police to decide where to cruise, how to dress when in undercover mode, to whom to motion, as if just walking over to a White stranger motioning was ever a crime or meeting the constitutional standard of probable cause or the reasonable-person test. Where are your brains on this issue, Chris?

"Death panels" on one hand and being racially or ethnically profiled on the other hand are not comparable here. "Death panels" was a Frank Luntz type buzzword creation where the actual language of the bill specifically discussed counseling and not a panel that will decide if and when to pull the plug, so to speak.

Clearly, families make decisions all the time on when to stop "life support." Many old folks have "living wills" where they've signed over the decision to a loved one. I'm all for that. My mom has one now. I was once that decision-maker, but because she now lives a few minutes from my older sister, I suggested to my mom that she change that over to my sister, which she did. Do you not have a similar arrangement concerning your grandmother? There is nothing wrong with the federal government helping people with becoming aware of the various legal options out there. In fact, it's a good thing that people have things arranged well in advance if possible.

This AZ law though contains the clear language designed to shield "peace officers" from actions against the system in the event that clear profiling unfolds, which if this law is left unchanged and in force, will definitely happen very, very often such that Mexicans and others will become extremely fed up. Is that part of the strategy of those who don't like Mexicans, as in "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" type thinking? After all Chris, we who are "in the know" (and you know too) that in the military, for instance, there are sayings spread about such as "kill them all, and let God sort them out." Is that not racism without the employment of the "race card" on my part? Clearly it is.

No one here is saying that all Republicans hate Mexicans or that all "conservatives" hate Mexicans. We are though saying that way too many Republicans and "conservatives" do hate Mexicans. We are also saying that way too many Republicans and "conservatives" hide behind those of their ranks who don't hate Mexicans.

You need to work on sorting the truth from the spin, Chris. I'm not Frank Luntz who makes his living designing euphemisms and their reverse.

Al Sharpton is old enough to remember the Blacks being fire-hosed down the streets just for being Black. He remembers, "Get to the back of the bus, nigger." He also knows that much of that next generation, and even the next after that one, has been raised by those who manned those fire hoses and owned and drove those buses. Cut him a little slack.

Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated for being Black and standing against war and injustices. He didn't walk on water, but he was a far cry from Ronald Reagan, who picked a town with a recent hyper-racist legacy from which to announce his run against Carter. It's not that long ago. When you hit your 30's and 40's and so on, you'll see how time flies and things don't change as much as they might appear to during your first couple of decades.

Now, please focus upon the root causes. NAFTA, neoliberalism (including New Labour), the Washington Consensus, neoconservatism, the racist-brand of Zionism (Likud), etc., show the evil branches of the evil root that needs to be dug up so that it will no longer encumber the ground. Those things don't bring forth the righteous fruit, Chris. Think as a Christian and not as a secular moderate/centrist. You can't be a Christian without taking Christian stands (stances). Christianity is full time. You don't stop just because someone calls something "politics." Christianity is about how we are ordered, organized, how we prioritize, etc., throughout every facet of our being. That's what politics is about too. There's no separation of the two in the Kingdom, and you as a Christian are to pray that, that comes to the Earth.

Now, Chris linked to a post that says, "You have to have a real legitimate reason based on some violation or some suspicious activity based on some legitimate reason. It cannot be just on how you look." However, the law is clearly designed to circumvent appeals based upon the lack of what is truly a legitimate reason. Otherwise, that law would not have had to move the line concerning probable cause and reasonable suspicion to beyond what was always considered reasonable to non-racists on the matter.

The law is designed to shield officers who do not employ truly reasonable, always non-racist, means or standards. Read the actual law.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.