Saturday, June 19, 2010

OK, we get that the Columbian is a fringe left rag...

.
And a proven cancer on our community... but this is over the top, even for the pig that wrote this:

Jeers: To Woodland City Councilman Benjamin Fredericks, who this month urged the council to pass a resolution supporting Arizona’s short-sighted law requiring local police to try to determine people’s immigration status. Fredericks offered no evidence as to how illegal immigrants pose a threat to Woodland, nor any plan for how the city’s small police force would enforce such a law if the state Legislature were to enact one. Woodland City Council members Al Swindell, Marilee McCall and John J. Burke disagreed, rightly pointing out that such a resolution just breeds hate and discontent, and puts the city in an awkward position of enforcing federal laws.
Unexplained is the obvious: How any resolution supporting a law passed in another state would "put the city in an awkward position of enforcing federal laws."

The hemorrhoid on the science of journalism has done a lot of damage to our community, from attacking individuals who stand up to their tyranny to lying polls.

But to suggest that any city council in this area doing a resolution in support of a state law in some other state would then, somehow, magically have to begin enforcing the law they're supporting of SOME OTHER STATE may just be the most moronic, asinine and infantile crap this rag has ever printed.

That their fellow leftists lied or were stunningly ignorant about the impacts of such a resolution sent the message that Woodland is now a sanctuary city, where violating the law is, in fact, a sought after outcome... but an outcome wanted by this crap pile's fellow leftists across the country.

Being in the unfortunate position of having read the resolution in question, there is absolutely NOTHING in that legislation that would have put the city in the awkward position of ANYTHING concerning enforcement. The moron who wrote this garbage doesn't explain how they would have to enforce federal law; they just drink the kool aid and stupidly babble that Woodland would, in fact, have to enforce federal law.

And God forbid, even if it were true, that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, would actually enforce the law.

Those claiming that the resolution would be "divisive" are absolutely right. It would divide those of us who support the laws of this country, which obviously doesn't include the toilet paper, from those who would not only allow, but encourage, the criminal violation of this country's immigration laws.

So yeah, there's "jeers" all right... for the insipid moron who babbled this paragraph in the bankrupt paper... which, with any luck at all, will one day be out of business, replaced with the Reflector... a paper who doesn't always get it right, but who does get it much more right then the used condom of news in Vancouver.
.

1 comment:

Lew said...

I believe we saw a taste of public reaction in Seattle this week when laws are permitted to be grossly ignored.

Remember the Seattle cop who stopped the young girl for jaywalking, in an high pedestrian accident area? For some reason, it became confrontational and when being placed under arrest, another girl jumped into the middle of it and got punched by the cop?

I was even surprised that left-leaning Seattle sided with the cop largely, but he was right to defend himself.

Fortunately, the girl who was punched opened her eyes and met with the cop and issued an apology, which he accepted.

But, the breeding of hate and contempt was not for enforcing a law, but minorities who feel laws don't apply to them, even though it was for their safety.

With the attitude of laws shouldn't be followed or enforced, who can say what laws will be violated next?