warrent if you're within 100 miles of a border.
But Arizona can't pass a law mirroring Federal statute that would require you to show your ID after being arrested for an actual crime. But Arizona can be beaten up in reports to the UN, because we have to answer to the likes of China, Lybia, and Russia on Human Rights.
Edit: More on this subject by Roberta X Specifically on getting used to it: frog, water, stove.
Identifying criminals to see if they're on record for other crimes: Bad!
Hassling train passengers for their ID because they're on a train: Good!
Fanny that Rhode Island which has the same law as Arizona and gets a pass.
And as for "sanctuary cities" that have passed laws declaring their stance to ignore federal law? Well that's okay, those places don't have to worry about the DOJ
The speaker of the house can want to investigate people for unapproved speech and Secretary Sebelius wants reeducation for Obamacare opponents.
But Congress is making it so the CIA has to "stay away from anything that is unpleasant, politically incorrect, or potentially embarrassing." and they want to avoid anything messy in Afghanistan, like going after the drug lords that fund the Taliban and others.
This is related to a piece by Richard Fernandez.
He points out that such things are not examples of hypocrisy or double
standards. Instead they are merely the result of a simple operating postulate.
But the problem isn’t the height of the bar. There is no function that will tell you, for any given height of bar, whether it is appropriate or inappropriate. The key to understanding this conundrum is that modern public policy logic doesn’t return a Boolean. It returns an item in a list. In considering whether it is appropriate to talk about God on the steps of the Lincoln memorial, or inquiring into the connections of the Koch Brothers or Imam Rauf nothing is ‘true’ or
‘false’. It all depends on the elements of the list.
Glenn Beck or Martin Luther King returns Martin Luther King.
Imam Rauf or Koch Brothers returns Imam Rauf.
Some things are never OK if you’re Glenn Beck. Some things are always OK if you’re the Imam Rauf. It’s just like certain programming languages, which have rules like: x or y if x is false, then y, else x. In this case ‘conservative’=false. Also, anyone who the Left doesn’t like =’conservative’. From this all else follows. This is
especially important when it comes to identifying evil or potentially
Some things are always okay if you are a Democrat, some things are never okay if you are a Republican. Some things are always okay if you're one of the smart-set, some things are never okay if you're a bitter clinger.
In short: know your, place serf.
More on this by Ed Driscoll
As Kathy Shaidle likes to say, the credo of what passes for 21st
century “liberalism” boils down to, “It’s Different When We Do It”;
James Taranto sees it as a case of, “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose:”
Replace liberalism with "big government" or statist and that's how you get a police state where people can be hassled for their papers, xrayed via mobile "scanning vans" , and have gps trackers put on their cars , all without warrants or an arrest for the commission of a crime. And all that will be considered normal and patriotic.
But! But if you suggest to the same folk that maybe the government should enforce it's own laws like for immigration, fighting people what want to blow up buildings, or for balanced budgets (which many states are supposed to maintain by law) then you're a racist.
Mark Steyn said it best: Tyranny is always whimsical.
If you follow a "Big Man" in the hope that at least the trains will run on time, prepare to be disappointed.