Obama Courts Latino Votes At Arizona’s Expense
July 19, 2010
By Rev. Michael Bresciani
Every time the President speaks, makes another appointment or ramrods a new bill through the Democrat-controlled Congress, he reinforces what millions of Americans now feel; this President does not love America.
With Arizonans cringing in fear even hundreds of miles from the border from the aftermath of brutally murdered ranchers and border police, we might expect any other President to spring into action. We would not expect 1,200 National Guardsmen to come down and sit at desks. Most of us would hope for ten or twelve thousand to come down as John McCain has suggested, armed to the teeth and ready to rumble with anyone who endangered the lives of Americans.
The Obama administration has chosen a different rumble. In the 1960s Charlotte Keyes popularized the saying, “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came.” Who could have guessed that as America slipped into the backward socialism of the nations we endured against throughout the entire cold war, that we would produce a President that would show up at the war; but after all, it turns out; it is the wrong war!
On Tuesday July 6, 2010 the Department of Justice filed suit against Arizona’s S.B. 1070, a law established to curb the influx and subsequent overburdening of that state’s economy by illegal immigrants. The defense of S.B. 1070 will be made on many levels but the most important is that the State of Arizona was forced to enact some measure to counteract the lack enforcement of the existing federal laws. The Arizona law makes good sense to most people but, not to our President.
It is expected that the DOJ will raise the Supremacy Clause in their suit. Put simply, the idea that federal law is supreme or supersedes state law is really not the argument. It is whether the fed is enforcing the existing laws. Arizona hopes the courts will see their dilemma and side with them based on this argument. Even as if by osmosis the twisted Alinsky-ism fostered by this administration seems to be leeching slowly into the nation’s better judgment; it’s anybody’s guess if it has reached all the federal judges as well.
Comparing federal law against state law is almost a game of semantics or who holds trump. With the influx of kidnappings, murders, gang violence, dangerous drugs, weapons of all kinds and human trafficking rising daily across the borders of the Grand Canyon State, it is not a comparison of laws that is called for but rather a hard look at an oath sworn by the President on the day of his inauguration.
Before taking office every President of the United States must take the oath of office as prescribed by article 2, section 1 of the United States Constitution. The oaths says “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
We can only ask; if it is indeed the President’s responsibility to defend the Constitution, is it not understood that he should protect the people for whom the Constitution stands?
Let’s look at another oath sworn by the guardsmen that are being deployed to Arizona to man desks and computers. It should be noted that the oath taken by National Guardsmen has a different wording than the rest of the military. The language includes reference to the particular state to which they are deployed.
The oath says: “I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (state name) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (state name) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.”
This oath requires guardsmen to defend the State of Arizona if that is where they are sent. They must defend it from all enemies foreign or domestic. Since Guardsmen are trained to fight and use weapons just like the rest of the servicemen in this country, isn’t requiring them to man desks and computers a perversion of their sworn purpose? Perhaps when the going gets rough they could chuck their computers at the drug cartel and hide behind their desks as guns are heard crackling on the border.
In better times America held oaths of office in higher regard than political ambition. President Obama, who seems to be on in an unending campaign tour, would let his political ambitions take precedence over any oath known. If as we think, he is opposing S.B. 1070 with an eye to amnesty and full appeasement of the Latino voting bloc for his re-election bid in 2012 then we are once again forced to conclude the worst.
America’s security and tranquility have taken a backseat in this administration’s whirlwind attempt to change America into something it has never been nor wants to be. God help us.
An oath upheld has the effect of procuring confidence in those to whom the oath is sworn. It quells our fears and relaxes all unwarranted trepidation and that it is why we hold the oath in such high regard over political ambition. To wit: “For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.” (Hebrews 6:16)