Mainstream Media Magically Discovers Constitution Now That Minorities Involved

I'm sure everything I'm about to write is politically incorrect. So be it. After all, we have freedom of speech so that citizens don't feel pressured into silence by the mob or the accepted conventional wisdom. I remind you that Galileo was ostracized and imprisoned by the ruling institution of his day, the Roman Catholic Church, for supporting Copernicus' theory that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. I'm making no such groundbreaking claims here. And perhaps that's what is saddest of all. I am merely pointing out the obvious, but pointing out the obvious has increasingly become taboo.

The mainstream media spent over a year covering ObamaCare. There were protests and tea parties and town hall meetings where the debate often got heated. The majority of the population opposed the bill (and still opposes the bill). Citizens expressed outrage over the potential consequences of a law giving the government the power to ration health care, not to mention the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance from private companies or go to jail. During this time not once did I hear any analyst on CNN or NBC or at the New York Times question the constitutionality of the law. Not once did any of these pundits ask if the government was overreaching. Even after ObamaCare passed and governors and attorney generals responded with lawsuits to block the legislation on the grounds of enumerated powers and the tenth amendment, their political motivation was questioned rather than the merits of the law.

Fast forward one month. Arizona passes an immigration bill that practically mimics the federal immigration law, and the next thing you know you can't watch cable news without Colombian Shakira, Canadian Steve Nash, Major League Baseball, and every other yahoo pretending to be a constitutional lawyer. What changed? Well pardon me for noticing, but I believe it's the color of the protesters skin. The majority of tea party demonstrators, as it's been pointed out a thousand times by the mainstream media, tend to be white. The majority of protesters against Arizona's law? Hispanic. As one columnist for Latino USA exaggerated, Arizona's law means it's "open season for hunting brown people." I think that outdoes any rhetoric Sarah Palin has come close to using, but you won't hear a peep about this comment from the elites.

Overnight, the same brain dead TV personalities and politicians who never questioned ObamaCare suddenly had no problem questioning the motives of Arizona, some going so far as to suggest a boycott of the state. Overnight, Nazi comparisons went from outrageous and incendiary right wing rhetoric to totally acceptable grievances from the Left. Overnight, showing your papers (to prove you had health insurance) went from no big deal to a very big deal (if you have to prove your citizenship).

While I support Arizona's new law as a common sense measure aimed at protecting the lives and property of US citizens who live along the border, I also support the rights of the protesters and understand the hesitation some Hispanics might have about how the law is enforced. Fortunately, the lawmakers had this in mind when they crafted the bill, and it goes out of its way to prevent law enforcement from stopping someone based just on their race.

If Leftist groups want to question the constitutionality of this bill, fine. Unlike liberals who passed ObamaCare, I welcome the debate. That's what this country is all about. But enough with the race baiting. I still haven't heard a great legal argument for the court not to uphold the Arizona law. It's an attempt to step in and fill the void left from the federal government's refusal to enforce and protect the border. Meanwhile, the hyperbole against the bill has been way over-the-top. Actually, that might be the biggest understatement I've ever made.

Legal Insurrection, which is one of my favorite blogs and received recognition from none other than Rush Limbaugh last week, has a great piece about the Arizona race card and wonders why the Left is so afraid to just come out in favor of the open-border policy they clearly support. Probably for the same reason they are afraid to acknowledge their continued support of socialism and wealth redistribution. Better to attack the compassion and motives of their opponent than discuss an issue head-on.

We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. Either questions of constitutionality matter for every individual regardless of group identity and skin color, or special interest groups and cultural diversity trump the rule of law. It appears Obama favors the latter given his previous statements about "police acting stupidly" and the appointment of Sonia "Wise Latina Women Make Better Judges" Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. That's a shame.

If we are going to have comprehensive immigration reform on a federal level and grant more temporary work visas, how are we supposed to know who is here legally and who is here illegally without having the right to check papers? Doesn't the point of calling them undocumented workers, as the president prefers, back up the need to check their status? Why even go through the trouble of reform if we aren't going to enforce the law? The state of Arizona seems to be taking a rational, deliberate step in the right direction.

Exit Question: Given the expired visas (and illegal alien status) of some of the 9/11 hijackers, would it have been okay to check their papers or would that have also been a "question of fairness" that "went too far"?