Friday, April 30, 2010

Fair To Whom, Mr. President?

It’s becoming abundantly clear, and incredibly sad, that the sympathies and concerns of the President of the United States far too often lie with our enemies.

Witness his incredible statements regarding the self-defense measures recently passed by the duly-elected legislature of the state of Arizona. The day after the measure was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer (who would have deserved impeachment had she not signed it) the President said that the law “threatens to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”

It seems to me odd that the man sworn to protect and defend our nation has such an magnanimous sense of fairness when it comes to criminals and enemies, but seems little concerned with the plight of the good citizens of Arizona.

In making this statement, he slanders, seemingly without concern or even an awareness that he is doing so, the peace officers of an entire state. In a clearly-worded sixteen page bill, which is much more restrictive in its structure than the law which guides federal agents in the same circumstances, the officers are instructed that they may not stop anyone without clear probable cause, and then must have reason to believe that the person is undocumented before even asking for proof of citizenship.

It is a cumbersome two-step burden, neither of which federal agents would be forced to bear - should they actually be sent to the border in sufficient numbers to get the job done.

Apparently, to our President, peace officers are not to be trusted with these basic instructions, and so, employing a twisted and misguided logic, he stands in defense of the lawbreaker and smears the defenders of peaceful citizens.

The new law expressly states that race or ethnicity cannot be the sole reason for stopping a person and questioning the legality of his presence here, yet the President demagogues the law as racial profiling, and ponders a court challenge. Any sane American must wonder exactly whose side he is on.

Mr. President, the federal government was not instituted to rule over the populace, it was instituted to govern by the consent of the governed. Its primary purpose is to protect its citizenry, not to uphold the mythical “rights” of foreign nationals who sneak onto our soil, knowing that the instant they do they are here in violation of federal law.

When the principle raison d’etre for the federal government is security, and a fundamental requirement of security is the defense of our borders, federal agents need no warrant or probable cause to stop and search, or demand documentation from, anyone entering the country. Yet the Arizona law insists upon it, making it less prone to abuse than the federal law.

But never let it be said that common sense plays a role in this administration.

Tell me, sir, what the good people of the state of Arizona are to think when their neighbors are murdered or kidnapped by what are essentially foreign invaders, while their federal government cannot take time out from systematically encroaching on their individual liberties to perform the most basic function of a government?

The President does this time and time again – and now we have come to expect it from him. His sense of fairness seems to have been seriously warped by his leftist upbringing and influences, as he continues to heap indignity upon indignity on the citizens of his own nation during this most divisive Presidential term in the history of our United States.

I am struck by the number of Americans that now look upon Barack Obama as a PINO: President In Name Only. For many of us, his brief time in office has been an almost unbearable litany of apologies and appeasement coupled with harangues against decent American citizens who dare to speak out against him or his radical Congress.

The President has called the Arizona law “misguided” and “irresponsible.” One can only wonder when he will deliver the lecture on responsibility to those who purchased homes they couldn’t afford with mortgages they were unable to pay. But that’s for a different discussion.

It sickens me to suspect that the President of the United States does not have the best interest of the citizens he has sworn to defend at heart - but what else are we to think?

Do you want to know what sickens me even more? Thinking of the men who, to protect our sovereignty, gave their last full measure of devotion at Bunker Hill, Yorktown and on filthy prison ships anchored in the East River; at Gettysburg and Sharpsburg and in Andersonville prison; on the decks of the Maine and on San Juan Hill; in the Ardennes Forest and at Verdun; on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, in Bastogne, in Sicily, on Okinawa, in Leyte Gulf; in Inchon and Seoul, at Ia Drang, the Mekong Delta and in pestilent, stinking pits in Hanoi; on dusty roadsides in Iraq and on bleak mountains in Afghanistan and in countless other slices of hell around the globe.

Dead because they believed in this nation and its Constitution; dead so that they would endure. They believed, and we believe, in the goodness of America and the greatness of America, and before this is over we will have set things right again or we will go to our graves trying.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Letter to the SI Advance

April 4, 2010

Ladies and Gentlemen;

When I turned to your Sunday Perspective page and read the hit piece on the Tea Party movement, I could only sit in stunned silence.

Whatever possessed those of you who make these decisions to run such a horrible, demeaning and FALSE story? Your concern for responsible journalism has been shown, in one simple stroke, to be non-existent - and I am a person that has defended your newspaper time and time again.

Many of you know many of us in the Staten Island Tea Party - does this race-baiting drivel reflect your opinion of us? You have covered our events; you have seen the folks who participate: they are your relatives, neighbors and friends. They are the constituents of our elected officials. We are invited to the offices of our Congressman and Councilmembers to discuss policy and politics. We have been invited to YOUR offices to discuss political matters. We are invited to political clubs from all over the island to discuss the meaning of the Tea Party movement in America. We are well-received wherever we go, and discuss issues of the day in a reasonable and knowledgeable fashion.

Do we look and sound like racists to you?

Colbert King's observations are grounded in NO reality - the essay is a poorly-reasoned mess of race-baiting and inaccuracies. The author makes fantastic connections between us and Southern racists from fifty years ago, and yet your screaming headline purports it to be the real, eye-opening truth.

He states as fact that "some shouted racial and homophobic epithets at members of Congress," yet not one single shred of evidence exists to support these charges. Then, further on, he writes that because many have pointed out that the charges were patently untrue and probably hurled for political reasons, the Tea Party movement is suddenly akin to the 60's Klansman who accused the "nigras" of bombing themselves to attract attention.

Apparently, Colbert King believes that we should listen to these outright lies and smears and just sit down and shut up? So Colbert King believes that speaking up to defend ourselves, to point out that these accusations are false, somehow proves that we are no better than the Ku Klux Klan?

What could have possessed you to print this calumny? You have smeared thousands of your own readers. You have fed into this nonsense that we are racist, homophobic extremists (millions of us!), and what most upsets me is that you all know better - at least, those of you that were journalistically responsible enough to get to know us.

My disappointment knows no bounds. At every turn since the inception of the Staten Island Tea Party one year ago, my response to verbal attacks on your newspaper and your reporters is to say that, with few and minor exceptions, you have been fair and balanced with us. And now this travesty - a smear on good and patriotic Staten Islanders whose sole crime is that they believe in individual liberties for all, and that those liberties are being threatened by a bloated federal bureaucracy. Somehow, this equates to racism.

Yes, the piece was in the Perspective section, and yes, it is the opinion of the author; but try as I might I cannot find a disclaimer on the part of the Staten Island Advance. To a man, you should be ashamed of yourselves for printing this dangerous and false libel.

Frank Santarpia
The Staten Island Tea Party