Thursday, July 7, 2011

Gun Nuts And The Treason Bar Agree

The Constitution does not apply to their opponents. Yes, when you become a fanatic and obsess on a single issue, you loose perspective, and become a Stalinist thug.

The gun nuts don't like it when people they don't like, such as cops, exercise their rights under the Constitution, such as the right not to be compelled to be a witness against one's self. The gun nuts at Confederate Yankee think that cops should surrender their rights under the 5th Amendment. With brainless hyperbole, they claim any exercise of that right is mutiny. Of course, anyone with a dictionary knows that mutiny is the refusal of a member of the land or naval forces to follow a lawful order or acts to usurp the authority of those exercising lawful authority. It, of course, does not apply to civil authorities. They are just too stupid to know the difference between insubordination and mutiny, but also that the right against self-incrimination is absolute. It applies during any investigation of the actions of any officer, including internal affairs investigations, coroner's inquests or management inquiries. These idiots might want to refer to the Supreme Court decision on the issue Kalkines v. U.S.

The nonsense from the boobs at CY are endless. The Fifth Amendment applies to all persons in the U.S. including police officers and they may not be compelled to testify. In this case the crazed drug addict Eric Scott was shot while drawing a gun on Las Vegas Metro Police Department officers. CY thinks that Scott was innocent of wrong doing just because he was a gun owner, West Point graduate, and Army officer. They don't mention that he was hyped up on drugs at the time he decided to draw down on three cops or that he falsely claimed he was a former Green Beret. This is the same bunch who get their panties in a twist when others falsely claim military service or decorations.

Because Scott had a Concealed Weapons Permit, he became a saint and the officers automatically guilty of cold-blooded murder. To say otherwise was to become an enemy of the 2nd Amendment, as if it applied to drug crazed dangers to the public like Scott.

Just as the gun nuts hate the 5th Amendment when it suits them, the Treason Bar also hates the 1st Amendment and claim it does not apply to government employees off duty.

In a unanimous vote in June 2010, leaders of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agents’ Union accused ICE Director John Morton of “gross mismanagement within the Agency as well as efforts within ICE to create backdoor amnesty through agency policy.” Now, the union is again attacking its leadership.

In a recent press release, available here, the Union refers to new policies that were crafted based on the “desires of foreign nationals illegally in the United States.” The result of these policies, according to Union leader Chris Crane, is that “every person here illegally [can] avoid arrest or detention, as officers we will never know who we can or cannot arrest.” It seems the focus of the agents’ complaint is a memo issued last month by the ICE Director entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.” A link to the memo is available here.

Deport gang members, not grannies.
After reviewing the memo, it is difficult to understand the ICE agents’ concern. Essentially, the memo states the obvious: ICE has limited resources for removing illegal aliens from the U.S. Therefore, ICE should prioritize the removal of criminal aliens and people who endanger our national security. The memo lists positive and negative factors that officers should consider when deciding how to prioritize cases. In other words, the memo basically orders ICE agents to prioritize the removal of gang members over grandmas. How this equates to a “backdoor amnesty” is a mystery.

Another complaint mentioned in the Union press release is the way policies are implemented at ICE:

Agents claim that under Director John Morton the agency always presents written policies for public consumption, but then makes “secret changes” to the policies which ICE refuses to put in writing.

It is unclear how these “secret changes” are implemented in an organization with thousands of employees. The press release continues:

The Union also alleges that ICE Field Office Directors (FODs) have confided in the Union that when the FODs raised questions about the effectiveness of the new policies, ICE Headquarters responded by telling the FODs to turn in their badges and file for retirement.

The press release ends with a plea for help from the public:

I am an outsider and I have no idea about any “secret policies” at ICE. However, I represent many foreigners in the U.S., and I am very well aware of the rates of detention and removal of illegal aliens. In FY 2010 (the only year of the Obama Administration where statistics are available), we removed a record number of illegal aliens from the United States. And it seems we will remove even more illegal aliens in FY 2011. This hardly seems like a “backdoor amnesty.” Given the number of aliens deported from the U.S., the ICE agents’ complaints seems unfounded and–frankly–out of touch with reality.

Nevertheless, the allegations in the Union’s press release are serious and–considering the source–they must be taken seriously. If the claims in the union’s press release are true, it would raise serious concerns about operations at ICE, and Director Morton should probably be removed. On the other hand, if these allegations are exaggerations made for partisan political purposes, it is a clear case of insubordination and those responsible should be fired.

Clearly the two disparate actors agree on one thing, the Constitution does not apply to their opponents. And both will go to any length to destroy their enemies, in this case law enforcement officers. Both groups are essentially Stalinist hacks, who praise and claim obedience to a document, but in practice, revile the very document they claim to be upholding. One group wants drug crazed nuts running around with guns shooting it out with cops and then denying the rights under the 5th Amendment to those same cops, the other wants unlimited immigration to the U.S. by terrorists, criminals and welfare cheats and to fire government employees who have the temerity to exercise their 1st Amendment rights exposing the Obama Regime's just such a policy. Two peas in a pod, or sides to the same coin. Two secret Vyshinskys.

No comments: