Frustrated Incorporated
I just want something simple, like the TRUTH!

Despite repeatedly voicing concerns about Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law in recent weeks and threatening to challenge it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he has not yet read the law, which is only 10 pages.


“I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it,”

Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Fox News: May 13, 2010

Sen. John McCain on Monday asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, if she’d had a chance to review Arizona’s controversial immigration law.


“I have not reviewed it in detail,”

Napolitano said during a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

“I certainly know of it, senator.”

She knows of it…  Really??

Who doesn’t, “know of it” ?  Actually reading it… those pesky little details can be such a burden.

Sound familiar??   (added to WTF list…)


“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”


I love these members that get up and say, “Read the bill!” What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read the bill?

Back to the misrepresentation, of the unread bill…


[E]fforts in Arizona which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.  In fact, I’ve instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.

The president is bashing Arizona for simply trying to enforce the law — the federal law, as well as now a new state law.

Has he read the law??

Simple question. Isn’t protecting our legal citizens from an invading army of illegal aliens who are using our services and taking our jobs, a basic notion of fairness?

Why is fairness being denied to American citizens?  What about the basic fairness of state and federal governments to protect the American citizens?

Looks like what’s going on in Arizona is an effort to criminalize enforcing the law.

Related Post: Obama CliffsNotes… updated
Related Post comment:

Comment by Gage:

glad you posted something new for me to read while i’m in web design ;] all very well until the last bullet that confused me:

•Governor Jan Brewer signed an immigration law that launched a national debate.
Obama and his regime govern against the will of the people. CBS Poll: 60 percent of Americans say Arizona’s tough new immigration law is “about right” or “doesn’t go far enough.” Are you listening, Washington?

1. is this dealing with the thing where people who “supposively look like illegal immigrants” must carry a form of identification with them at all times and must present it when requested to do so by a cop?

2. the ppl of Arizona want something more extreme than this?

3. do you agree or disagree with this idea?

thanks ;*,


In this comment I am actually beginning the conversation about the new Law passed in Arizona. Due to my resent absence as a result of technical difficulties, I have a bit of make-up-work to do. In the next few days, I will be posting a more in-depth post dealing specifically with this controversy. (Above Post)

1. Yes this comment addresses the new law requiring identification.

But here, I’d like to clear up a misconception. Your statement “dealing with people who “supposedly look like illegal immigrants”, is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Obama, the media and everybody on the left is misrepresenting the Arizona law. Kris Kobach, a professor and the primary author of the Arizona legislation said…

“This law only kicks in when a police officer already has made a lawful contact with the person such as stopping him for breaking another law…”

Nobody in Arizona can be pulled over because of their race or because of the way they look. The cops can’t engage ’em unless they’ve got reason to on some other grounds, traffic stop, suspicion of robbery or what have you.

They’re just lying about this. They’re playing the race card here.

This is profiling, produce your papers,” they don’t want a substantive analysis of this at all, any part of that, because on the substance they lose.

That’s why the template here is: this racism, this white supremacy, this Nazi-like tactics, why, this is going to launch Democrats to new heights of power in the November elections, and really motivate Obama’s base, really reenergize Democrat voters.

It’s all BS.

When, you or I get pulled over for speeding, or maybe a broken taillight, the officer ask for our “papers” (drivers license, registration, proof of insurance). If we board an Airplane, we are ask for our ‘papers’. When we use a credit card or write a check, once again we are ask for our ‘papers’.

Remember, it was just last summer that the Democrats in Congress made US citizens show their residency papers before they were allowed into the town hall meetings. Remember that?

Not just a resident of the US, you had to be a resident of that congressional district. And they were claiming it was a matter of national security to even allow them into the building.

I’ll even expand on this further in a future post. But, I think, I’ve made my position a bit clearer for our discussion here. (Refer to above information)

2.” the ppl of Arizona want something more extreme than this?”

Actually A Rasmussen Reports poll found that almost two-thirds — 64 percent — of voters in the state favored the measure. The poll I quoted was a national poll. Reflecting the strong national support for this law. I do not believe “extreme” would apply. I believe that the majority of the nation supports enforcing the laws already on the books, of which most dealing with illegal immigration are ignored. And, due to the lack of federal responsibility to enforce these laws, states are left to pick-up the slack.


Rasmussen Reports, May 12 2010:

“A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that just 17% oppose the proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining access to public housing, unemployment benefits, welfare or workers compensation.”

“Seventy percent (70%) of Massachusetts voters favor a proposal recently rejected by the state legislature that would stop illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits.”

“The proposal failed to pass in the Democratically-controlled State House last month by a 75 to 82 vote.”

So once again the Democrats are governing against the will of the people. Nothing new to this administration.

3. Yes, I agree.

I believe, the laws already on the books need to be enforced.

Our society is based on the ‘rule of law.”

If the Federal Government refuses to step up to its constitutional responsibilities, the states then must respond. If the states do not respond, it is the right of citizens to defend themselves. This is the basis of a Republic form of government.

Arizona Governor Brewer Sends Obama Sing-A-Long: Read Immigration Law!

6 Responses

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.

I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.

While I know I’ve had the time to, I just haven’t read the law yet. Because I have not read it, I have to go by what other people, including the media and your blog, tell me in order to form an opinion. I certainly got the wrong impression when I first heard of it in my high school law class (you know how things could be spun), but I’m relieved to know a little more about it now. My only potential concerns are racial profiling, the process of developing reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant, and any steps that must be taken to determine an illegal immigrant. I took this straight from the bill itself:


…and considering the vagueness of these lines, I ask:

-How does reasonable suspicion come to “exist?”
-What “reasonable attempt” may be made to determine the immigration status of a person, besides “verifying with the federal government?”

Just something to think about. Of course, though, I hope it doesn’t become the problem many of the liberal opponents of this bill predict it to be.

You stated your position elegantly. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

I agree 100%. But, I must clarify, we are a Nation of Laws, not men.

John Locke wrote:

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.For all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law.

Forgive me for being blunt here… but, when someone enters this country illegally, it is a crime. This is not a undefined or a new term.

illegal immigrant n. an alien (non-citizen) who has entered the United States without government permission or stayed beyond the termination date of a visa.

And as you stated,

“the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

The Liberty (security and property) of the citizens of Arizona (CA, TX, etc.) are threatened. The drain illegal immigration has on institutions such as school systems, health care, jobs and the depression of wages, law enforcement and the criminal justice system are just a few examples. The taxpayer funded institutions that are reeling from this huge migration into the United States are the ones that are primarily suppose to be servicing the low income people of this country. In turn, causing low income families to compete for increasingly limited funds, resources and basic survival necessities.

As reported in 2009 by ABC

“Phoenix, Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of America, with more incidents than any other city in the world outside of Mexico City.”

The ABC News investigation came on the heels of reports of gun battles near the U.S.-Mexico border between Mexican soldiers and drug cartel hitmen that killed 21 people.

The Federal Government has ignored the boarder problems for decades. Instead of holding Mexico accountable for its immigration policies they pander and collaborate with a country that uses this country to abdicate their responsibility to their citizens.

Your passionate explanation of why “the majority is not always right”, is quite accurate. But the miracle of the United States form of government is the ability to change the leaders to reflect the will of the citizens every two, four, or six years. The founders believed that if a direction taken by the leaders was in conflict with the Constitution and Natural Law (withholding the right to vote, equal access, etc.) these actions would be corrected by subsequent elections of more virtuous public officials. As history shows, it may take generations but the result is: to further freedom of the citizens by the citizens.

I am a bit confused by your statement:

“…if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!”

The majority of the day, at least in light of this legislation, shows overwhelming support for LEGAL immigration and enforcement of the law.

By ignoring the rights and sovereignty of American citizens, you threaten the very basis upon which this country was formed. Millions of immigrants cherish and value American citizenship, why should that honor be diminished by those who come illegally? We can not be the beacon of hope to the world, if the apathy, of the people, destroys the sovereignty of the nation.

The task that has fallen to us as Americans is to move the conscience of the world, to keep alive the hope and dream of freedom. For if we fail or falter, there’ll be no place for the world’s oppressed to flee to.
— Ronald Reagan

“All Men are created equal”! The founders had it right, when attempting to form a perfect union and they also knew that they were not there yet but knew we one day would get there. Lincoln moved us forward as did JFK and LBJ. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless, of course, they keep adding more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law.

As for the undocumented workers, as Ronald Reagan said “It’s the Economy, Stupid”. When the economy is good we say let’s all celebrate “Cinco de Mayo, my brothers” but when we are in a down “it’s all your fault, you damn immigrant”. This too will pass. The real problem is the narcosis/drug and people smuggler that’s what the focus should be on.

Don’t you find it funny that no one ever voted for Governor Brewer, it’s all about politics, do not be fooled.


Welcome back. It continues to be a great conversation.

“All men are created equal…”

Yet everyone knows that no two human beings are exactly alike in any respect. They are different when they are born. They plainly exhibit different natural skills. They acquire different tastes. They develop along different lines. They vary in physical strength, mental capacity, emotional stability, inherited social status, in their opportunities for self-fulfillment, and in scores of other ways. How can they be equal?

The answer is, they can’t, except in three ways. They can only be TREATED as equal in the sight of God, in the sight of the law, and in the protection of their rights. In these three ways all men are created equal. It is the task of society, as it is with God, to accept people in all their vast array of individual differences, but treat them as equals when it comes to their role as human beings.

The Founders distinguished between equal rights and other areas where equality is impossible. They recognized that society should seek to provide equal opportunity but not expect equal results; provide equal freedom but not expect equal capacity; provide equal rights but not equal possessions; provide equal protection but not equal status; provide equal educational opportunities but not equal grades.

Alexander Hamilton said:

Inequality would exist as long as liberty existed…. It would unavoidably result from the very liberty itself.

Nevertheless, there are some who insist that people do not have equal rights unless they have “equal things.” The Founding Fathers were well acquainted with this proposition and set forth the following principle.

The proper role of Government is to protect equal rights. Not Provide equal things.

–The 5000 Year Leap, A miracle that changed the world

As for your statement:

“It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged…”

I don’t mean this next question to be condescending, so please don’t take it that way. Have you taken the time to read the law?

Resent comments from public officials concerning this law, as noted in the above post, have shown them to be ignorant of the law itself. If the people spearheading this effort to discredit the law haven’t read it, how is it possible to debate anything? Yet, the accusations fly viciously. Bigot, racist, anti-immigration, anti-Mexican, anti-human rights, etc…

Please, be more specific so that I can address your concerns. What in the law is unconstitutional? What sections do you find objectionable?

As I pray, Attorney General Eric Holder has learned, it is unrealistic to attempt to debate the merits without stating the actual substance of the law.

Hello You certainly deserve a round of applause for your post and more specifically, your blog in general. Very high quality material. 😛

Leave a Reply