"Treason"

At the end of this month, Arizona's anti-immigration law will take effect. SB1070 requires all immigrants to carry proof of citizenship at all times, and gives Arizona law enforcement officers the right to ask for that ID if they reasonably suspect someone they're dealing with of being an illegal immigrant. Those who don't produce their ID on demand can be detained. Arizona has not yet decided what constitutes reasonable suspicion of illegal immigrant status; the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board is tasked with figuring out that key part of the law. This will be quite tricky, as race is not an accepted criterion for suspicion. But the law is aimed specifically at Mexican illegals. Hmm. Complicated.
The passage of the bill was spurred, in part, by the murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz in March. On the day he was shot, Krentz reportedly used a two-way radio to tell his brother he had been seen an "illegal alien" in the area. He did not impart any other information. The attitude of many Arizona citizens seems to be, "We know it was an illegal drug smuggler, we just don't have any evidence of that, or any suspects."

Let me make it clear, for the record, that I have a great deal of sympathy for illegal immigrants from Mexico. If I had a family in one of the poorest parts of that country, I would certainly sneak into a safer, more prosperous country in the hope that my children would have opportunities they could never otherwise have. That's natural. We want the best for our families. So the problem is not with the illegal immigrants themselves. I don't believe, as Jones has stated, that they are "diluting the culture", because the U.S. is a nation of immigrants, anyway. Yes, I know that increased crime rates are being attributed to illegal immigration and/or trans-border drug smuggling - but that's not a situation that needs new laws. It just needs tougher enforcement of existing laws, and/or increased funding for law enforcement in high-crime areas.
The bottom line is, though, that I oppose illegal immigration. As difficult as it is to face, I believe that Mexicans must stay in Mexico until they can enter the U.S. lawfully to live and work. That's just the way it is.

But SB1070 has sparked fears of racial profiling and discrimination, and not without cause. I know that the U.S. doesn't treat even its legal immigrants well. Each new wave of immigrants is put through trial by fire: Racism, discrimination, marginalization, abuse. Hispanic Americans obviously don't relish the idea of being set apart from other citizens.
This is not the first attempt by a state to crack down on illegal immigration with extreme measures. Janet Napolitano, now secretary of Homeland Security, repeatedly vetoed similar legislation when she was governor of Arizona. A far less rigid anti-immigration bill, California's Proposition 187, was shot down in 1994.
An April Rasmussen poll showed that 70% of Arizona voters approved of SB1070.
On the other hand, San Francisco and a few other cities have passed laws protecting illegal immigrants from federal immigration law.

On Tuesday (July 6), the Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix against the state of Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer, seeking a court injunction to prevent the law from taking effect. The suit claims SB1070 interferes with existing federal immigration laws, and is therefore invalid.
Attorney General Eric Holder stated that "diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety."

Jones calls this lawsuit "treason", raising the question: Is it legal and Constitutional for the federal government to oppose (via lawsuit) a state law?

The answer is "yes". The federal government cannot repeal or amend state law, not even by executive order. But there's nothing to stop it from challenging the constitutionality of a state law in federal court, which is exactly what the DoJ is doing now. This is made possible by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which basically states that federal law is the law of the land and can not be superseded or negated by state law. The "preemptive doctrine" derived from this clause permits the federal government to challenge any state law that encroaches upon federal regulation, law, interest, etc. But don't go thinking that this doctrine always works in the federal government's favour; it's actually very difficult, in most such cases, for the federal side to prove it has "occupation of the field". One fascinating example is Silkwood v Kerr-Mcgee (1984). After Karen Silkwood died in 1974, her family filed suit against Kerr-Mcgee. They were awarded $10 million in punitive damages, and Kerr -Mcgee fought the judgment by arguing that the federal government (in the form of the Atomic Energy Commission) was responsible for any "irregularities" at the nuclear facility where Silkwood had worked. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that in this case, federal regulation did not supersede state or local regulation and Kerr-Mcgee would have to pay up (they settled out of court instead, for a fraction of the original judgement). In other words, Kerr-Mcgee was held responsible for lax safety at their Oklahoma plant even though it met federal (AEC) standards. The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law has an informative page on these issues.
You might not like it, but the DoJ lawsuit against Arizona is constitutionally sound and perfectly legal. It will be up to a judge to decide if, as legal precedent indicates, naturalization is in the federal domain. If the Arizona law stands, then we may have a problem. Immigration and naturalization could become a state-regulated affair, with each state setting its own standards of citizenship. You could be a legal resident in Vermont but an illegal in New Jersey.

An equally important question: Is SB1070 unconstitutional? The answer, I believe, is "yes". The 14th Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." I'd say that stopping a citizen and demanding to see proof of citizenship is an abridgment of that person's rights. The argument that "he might be an illegal" is moot, because anyone might be an illegal. Now one of the Anonymi who commented on this post (along with many other supporters of SB1070) has pointed out that a driver's license can suffice as proof of citizenship, since you have to present your papers to acquire one. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with an officer asking someone for proof of U.S. citizenship. Jones states, in his special alert video about "Obama's treason", that SB1070 is just a "mirror" of federal immigration law. This is false. Federal law does not require immigrants to carry proof of citizenship at all times. It does require non-citizens ("permanent residents") to carry their green cards, but no citizen is legally required to carry any form of ID at all times.
You can argue that Arizona is struggling to fill in the gaps in federal legislation, but you cannot validly claim that the Arizona law is similar in any way to federal laws already on the books.

Jones also argues that the 11th Amendment, which forbids the federal government or any state from suing a state on behalf of a foreign entity, renders the DoJ suit unconstitutional. He's apparently referring to his belief that "foreign bankers" are taking over the U.S., and that illegal immigration suits their purposes nicely. He also seems to think the 14th Amendment makes the DoJ lawsuit unconstitutional. This is why Alex Jones is not a lawyer, folks.

Ironically, SB1070 could (and by "could" I mean "probably won't be") used as a gateway to the kind of mandatory universal ID cards that Jones & Co. fear. If immigrants must be required to carry proof of citizenship, why not the rest of us? It's interesting that both Jones and former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano criticized the Real ID Act, which contained anti-immigration provisions. Jones did so because he doesn't like the idea of national ID cards; everyone would be required to have one. However, the bulk of the administration of the Real ID system is under state control.

How is the Great Swine Flu Plot of '09 coming along?

Over the summer, Jones laid out the steps that the elite scumlords will take to strike a death blow to the U.S. Constitution, kill most of us, and institute global government. I call this the Great Swine Flu Plot of '09, because Jones has said H1N1 and H1N1 vaccination is a central plank in the evil plan. Jones also said the initial stages of the plan would be instituted in the autumn. Now that it's December, let's take a look at how many of the steps in the plot have been carried out:

Step 1: In the fall of '09, Swine Flu hysteria will serve as a distraction while the government sneaks in more bank bailouts, carbon taxation, the Clean Water Restoration Act, and the passage of hate crime legislation. Then forced inoculation will be introduced.

Bank bailouts? Check. There have been several of those. But I wouldn't say that H1N1 distracted anyone from them.
The Clean Water Restoration Act? No. Languishing in the Senate.
Carbon taxation? No. Jones insists they will be levied immediately upon U.S. ratification of the Copenhagen treaty, so time will tell.
Hate crime legislation? Half a check. The Matthew Shepard Act was signed into law in October, It's mostly an update of 30-year-old legislation, so it's hardly anything to freak out over. It does not in any way limit hate speech. The Cyberbullying Act, which is more problematic because its wording isn't as tight as the Shepard Act, is languishing in the House.
Forced inoculation? No.

So we have a check and a half for the 4 items in Step 1. That's a 36% success rate. Slightly better than Sylvia Browne's track record, but still dismal.

Step 2: Forced inoculation will result in riots all over the U.S., because people are too smart to take the shots voluntarily. The vaccine will not protect against Swine Flu; in fact, it was probably an experimental vaccine that was used to start the outbreaks in the first place.

Still no forced inoculation yet, even though October poll results indicated 60% of adult Americans were not planning to be inoculated.

Step 3: The rioting will give "Obama's thugs" (NORTHCOM and civilian service orgs like Americorps) the perfect excuse to institute and maintain nationwide martial law. Everything will be federalized.

No martial law. If the bailouts count as "federalization" (and Jones, Glenn Beck et. al. would argue that they do), then that would be the only major example thus far.

Step 4: Under the direction of Obama's science czar, John Holdren, sterilizing agents will be placed in municipal water supplies.

No, but Jones now insists that 150 chemicals found in municipal water supplies are "known to sterilize mammals" and were placed there deliberately. (today's broadcast)

Step 5: Dissidents will be rounded up and placed in FEMA concentration camps. The Constitution will cease to exist, and the U.S. will basically become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the UN.

No.

Step 6: The real mass murder begins. 80-99% of the world's population will be eliminated via tainted vaccines, execution, forced abortions, and involuntary sterilization.

No. Again, time will tell. Considering Jones' batting average so far, I'm not holding my breath. I still haven't seen any sign of Obama's "Muslim/Black Identity/Nation of Islam terrorism and persecution of whites", which Jones predicted during his November '08 interview of Ron Paul.

Jones and Ted Pike on the New Hate Crime Legislation

The Matthew Shepard Act (S.909) is essentially an updated version of the hate crime law that was passed four decades ago, which allows for federal prosecution of crimes committed on the basis of victims' race, religion, or ethnicity while the victim(s) is engaged in a federally-protected activity such as voting or attending a public school.

The act simply adds gender, sexual orientation, and disability to the list, and removes the stipulation that the victim(s) must be engaged in federally-protected activity when the crime occurs. It also provides an opening for federal investigators to get involved in hate-crime investigations that state and local law enforcement can't handle or won't pursue. This makes sense, as federal hate-crime legislation applies only to federal crimes.

Opposition to hate-crime legislation focuses primarily on the definition of "hate". Critics point out that:
- all crimes are hate-based; therefore, laws specifically aimed at hate crime are unnecessary
- the legislation provides special status and protection for minority groups while ignoring hate crimes against majority groups
- the legislation may criminalize free speech. For example, members of religious groups have been charged with hate crimes for publicly criticizing homosexuality.
- the laws can be exploited by individuals or groups who wish to silence ideological opponents
- it is difficult or impossible to determine a perp's motive. For instance, an assault that seems to be racially motivated may actually be a random attack.
- the laws criminalize stupidity and ignorance. Example: Holocaust deniers may not be engaging in hate speech; they may just be poorly educated.
- a perp's motive is immaterial to the nature of the crime and how it should be prosecuted

I believe there is some validity to all of these arguments, except for the last two.
Intent is a crucial component of the legal system. Determining what a perp intended to do at the time a crime occurred is a major factor in the filing of charges, prosecution, and sentencing. It can spell the difference between a life sentence and a death sentence.
Stupidity should never be a prosecutable offense, but it should be up to the legal system to decide if a particular case involves hate or ignorance.

Let's look at Jones' and Ted Pike's reasons for opposing the new hate-crime legislation:

It will criminalize free speech. There is some validity to this, as mentioned above, but the notion that the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act will criminalize all free speech is absurd. And the Matthew Shepard Act specifies that hate speech can be used as evidence of hate crime only if it directly relates to the crime. Hate speech is still fully protected by the First Amendment. In other words, you're not going to be charged with a hate crime because you said "I hate gays". However, if you said "I hate gays" while beating a gay man with a baseball bat, your comment can be used as evidence at your trial.
Groups that have previously rejected proposed hate-crime legislation on the grounds that it threatened free speech, like the ACLU, have embraced the Shepard Act because it is the first such act that protects free speech.

It will create a "supergroup of supercitizens, and titles them nobility" (Jones). Okay, that's almost too weird to even discuss on a rational level.
Like civil rights legislation, hate crime laws are designed to protect the rights of historically persecuted minorities. If you want to argue that minorities don't need extra protection from persecution or discrimination because existing laws are sufficient, fine. But don't try to argue that minorities are suddenly going to be elevated to privileged status by some amendments to existing laws. Even in Canada, where hate speech laws are in effect, minorities do not enjoy special social status.

You can be arrested and charged for hurting someone's feelings, because the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act specifies that "causing significant emotional distress" via electronic means can result in prosecution. This seems like ridiculously loose wording, but there are actually well-defined legal perimeters for what constitutes emotional distress. In fact, emotional distress (commonly known as "pain and suffering") is a key component of personal injury law, anti-stalking legislation, and the law against cruel and unusual punishment, among other things. So if you're going to oppose anti-bullying legislation on those grounds, you should oppose all these other laws as well.
Some countries, like Canada, have hate propaganda laws that forbid the denigration of minorities. The U.S. does not. Hate speech is fully protected in the U.S. The Matthew Shepard Act applies only to existing hate crime legislation; it does not create a new hate propaganda law.

That said, I actually agree with Jones et.al. that other parts of the Cyberbullying Act are too loosely worded. In fact, I think the entire act needs to be scrapped or redrafted.

It doesn't protect straight white people from hate crimes. Sorry, guys, but you're not a minority. Get your own damn bill.

The legislation is identical to policies of the Soviet Union. Pike claims that Lenin's recorded speech against anti-Semitism contained a warning that any Soviet citizen who referred to a Bolshevik as Jewish would be put to death. Untrue. This was written by Stalin in 1931, and even Stalin didn't slice hairs so thinly - he wrote that "active anti-Semites" were liable to the death penalty. Lenin simply told Russians they should be ashamed of themselves for anti-Semitism, pogroms, and other atrocities against the Jewish people. There was no death penalty for anti-Semitism under Lenin. And Stalin's own anti-Semitic hate crimes belie the notion that ethnic and religious minorities had any true protection in Soviet Russia.

If your speech incites or influences the commission of a hate crime, you can be prosecuted. Again, hate speech is fully protected by the First Amendment. This stipulation in the original 1969 hate crime law applies only to speech that incites or provokes federal crimes against specified minorities. You can say, "Immigrants shouldn't be allowed to vote", but if you say "You must physically prevent immigrants from voting" and your audience does just that, you can be liable. If you want to avoid being prosecuted under this section of the law, simply avoid telling other people to commit hate crimes.

You can be arrested for saying that 5, 999, 999 Jews died in the Holocaust or using a racial slur. Okay, for the last freaking time, hate speech (including Holocaust denial and racist speech) is protected in the U.S.
The Cyberbullying Act may make it harder for racist broadcasters to sound off on the radio or television, but they're already subject to FCC regulations (not to mention company policies) that limit that sort of thing.

The Matthew Shepard Act violates states' rights by allowing federal investigators to intervene in hate crime cases. As mentioned, these are already federal crimes. Permitting federal agents to investigate federal crimes makes sense, doesn't it? I don't see anyone complaining when the feds step into kidnapping, drug trafficking, or terrorism cases.
The act also increases funding to state and local jurisdictions for the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes, but neither Pike nor Jones mentioned this.

The bottom line: If the Shepard Act is defeated, federal hate crime legislation will still be in place. It just won't protect as many minorities. If the act passes, you can still be a bigot to your heart's content - you just won't get away with any bigoted crimes you commit.

Jones Calls in a Hate Speech Expert

The following is a prime example of how my idea of an expert and Jones' idea of an expert couldn't possibly be any different.

If discussing a medical issue like vaccination or Swine Flu, I would talk to licensed health professionals who have dealt extensively with that issue and are able to offer concrete information about it to the public.

Jones talks to doctors who have been stripped of their licenses, people who have no formal medical training at all, and doctors who attribute the spread of disease to Lucifer.

If discussing the Cyberbullying Act and hate speech legislation, I would talk to an ACLU rep, a human rights advocate specializing in free speech, or maybe an attorney.

Jones talks to Ted Pike.

The Reverend Pike is the head of the National Prayer Network, a Christian organization that provides two things: God's word, and reasons why a lot of Jews suck.
Like virtually all anti-Semites, Rev. Pike indignantly and vociferously insists that he is not anti-Semitic. He simply devotes most of his time to pointing out how mean, greedy, and amoral a lot of Jewish people are. He also likes to point out that they killed Jesus, and how anyone who says otherwise is just covering up the truthiness and persecuting nice people like Mel Gibson.

Rev. Pike's National Prayer Network website is bursting with information about the "threat of evil Jewish leadership" posed by hate speech laws, as well as charming cartoons about black men crucifying straight white men.
Many of his articles decry the persecution of the "well-researched movement" made up of "Holocaust reductionists" like Fredrik Toben.

Oh, and the word of God? That part of the website is still under construction. You'll have to go elsewhere for that. Maybe, I dunno, the Bible?

I'd provide a link to the NPN site to make life easier for you, but then I would have to bathe in kerosene to strip away the yuck.

The National Prayer Network was founded by Pike's father, Claude, in the late '70s to campaign for a national day of prayer. Today, Rev. Pike is on the staff of the American Free Press. In 2006 he co-authored an article on the Jewish threat, the other authors being National Vanguard staffers (NV was dissolved a year later, when its founder was convicted of child porn offenses). His books and videos are very popular with other neo-Nazi/white supremacist organizations, as well.
In other words, Rev. Pike is very much a part of the anti-Semitic culture in America, whether he's actually anti-Semitic or not. The national day of prayer fell by the wayside a long time ago - a single page of the NPN website is currently devoted to it.
Truthtellers groups are organized along the lines of Campus Crusade, but rather than being devoted to Christian college life, their mandate is to "fight" pro-gay professors and staff. Rev. Pike bragged about the success of this program in his 2002 book Shaking Campus Liberalism: How Christian Students Defied the Pro-Gay Faculty...and Won!.

This is the kind of demented little assmonkey Jones turns to when he wants to educate the public about the perils of hate-speech legislation. Are you still going to tell me that Alex Jones is a "Zionist shill"?

Obama's Youth Brigades

As you may know, Jones had another one of his signature tantrum/breakdowns during Tuesday's broadcast (available on YouTube; the breakdown begins in the last 2 minutes or so of Part II). He had the presence of mind to know that he was freaking out, because he screamed at the people who will be making fun of him for freaking out. I'm not making fun of his fury. Frankly, I'm growing bored with his tantrums; every rant is like being on a plane with a teething baby for hours.

Jones was/is enraged by H.R. 1388, the GIVE Act, as are most rightist commentators. See, for example, Michelle Malkin's take. I'm no fan of Malkin, but I have to admit she's reached a few relatively sensible conclusions about the act. Alex Jones could benefit by paying attention to her this time, instead of screaming at her like a deranged street preacher.

Jones has been raging against "Obama's Youth Brigades" and "Obama's Hitler Youth" since before the election, knowing that Obama planned all along to juice up AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, and other service orgs.

I don't particularly like some aspects of the GIVE Act (see notes at the end of this post), but as usual Jones takes a molehill and turns it into the freaking Matterhorn. He claims the whole thing is patterned after the East German Stasi, calling it the "slavery act" and the "worst, most virulent strain of tyranny" the U.S. has ever witnessed. He actually urged listeners who were in their cars to stop other motorists and tell them to tune in to the show.

I'm not going to dissect the entire GIVE Act. You can do that for yourself by reading it here. For now, I'm just going to cover two of the major misconceptions about the act that are being trumpeted by Jones, World Net Daily, Michael Savage, Lew Rockwell, Red White & Green, and many others:

• GIVE would institute mandatory volunteerism. I found nothing in the act that would have required anyone to volunteer. It basically increases funding and other resources for service orgs, and creates incentives for volunteerism (particularly among minorities, at-risk youth, students, seniors, and veterans). But in H.R. 1388 there was a provision that suggested examining "whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation..." Frankly, I don't see any way this could be workable. But it's a totally moot point: When the Senate passed the act, the mandatory service provision was removed. Jones didn't know this when he began his tantrum.
• GIVE would outlaw protests. No. And the people who are disseminating this bit of misinfo never seem to reference the relevant part of the act correctly. They've called it "Article 12", "Ammendment 40", and several other things, but it's actually Section 1304: "Prohibited Activities and Ineligible Organizations", an ammended version of Section 125. Though the wording is a little muddy, it's clear (to me, at least) that this section deals with activities that you would not be allowed to engage in while actively representing a service org, if that org is to remain eligible for funding. It DOES NOT make the activities illegal, and it DOES NOT prohibit anyone from engaging in them during their own free time, when they're not "on the job". You will NOT be barred from attending church for the duration of your time as a volunteer, as some people have claimed; that's ludicrous. Of course you can attend church. But can you try to pass off church activity as volunteerism in order to obtain government funding? No, you cannot. Can you organize a pride parade and pretend it's charity work so you can reap the benefits? No, you cannot. That's about all that Sections 125/1304 are trying to say.

Ich bin ein paranoid.

Believe it or not, the strangest part of Tuesday's broadcast had nothing to do with GIVE. It came when Jones got pissed off with his father for refusing to go on air and corroborate his theory that Obama is the AntiChrist. Seriously. "Yeah, fine, whatever," he snapped when his producer said the senior Jones declined to go on air.

The elder Jones, an orthopedic surgeon, recently pointed out to Jones that Obama gave his Berlin speech from the Pergamon [Altar] steps , and showed him a passage in the Book of Revelations that prophesies the AntiChrist will give his speeches from the Pergamon steps. It's all explained in the Wikipedia entry.

Other weirdness from recent broadcasts:

- March 20th

• Jones broke the MIAC report story. Rush Limbaugh et. al. got it from him and didn't give him credit.
• Jones has said numerous times that he's the leader of the 9/11 Truth movement, a statement many Truthers find false and offensive. But on his March 20th broadcast, he excoriated listeners for refusing to believe he founded the Truth movement. Wow.
• The Pope works for the Rothschilds and Rockefellers.

- March 24th

• Gardens are being outlawed.
• Cold Spring Harbor scientists have admitted to drawing blood from all babies at birth and using it to develop race-specific bioweapons. I already know that Jones' idea of "admitted" and mine can differ dramatically.
• "You're looking at the next Adolf Hitler [Obama]."
• "They're building death camps."
• "This [the GIVE Act] doesn't have to happen. If people got off their big, fat asses..." (Pot, meet kettle.)
• "AAAAAAAAAGGGHHHHHH!"
• Announces the release of another Obama film on July 4th. Keep in mind that he didn't make any full-length documentaries about Bush. Urges people to buy the high-quality version of The Obama Deception. Talks about it length later in the broadcast, ticking off the number of views it has had on various video sharing sites, and again almost begs people to buy it.
• They're trying to ban documentaries that are critical of the current administration. As usual, the real story is far more complex.

Now that we've covered the Hitler/AntiChrist/Stasi bulls**, let's look at some real reasons why GIVE might not be a good idea:


1. Can the States really afford this right now? Didn't Obama say he wants to see the deficit decrease?

2. Who gets to decide which service orgs are ineligible?

Can't think of anything else at the moment. I heartily support volunteerism, and I hope that increased opportunities for service offered by GIVE will help create stronger social networks, healthier communities, and more civic-minded citizens.