BP Oil Spill: Kindra Arnesen Venice LA Needs to Evacuate

SB1070 For Dummies & Hayward Hung By The Toes

This YouTube video from 4409 "Wake Up America" Productions is what people really need to understand about 'that law' that everyone is talking about when not picturing BP exec Tony Hayward in some contraption from one of the Saw movies.

==================================================

"Please don't kill me, America! I promise another ad campaign and more toxic dispersant!"

==================================================

This is not about immigration. This is about encroaching on civil liberties first with racial profiling and then moving forward from there to effect all groups.

At least five lawsuits have been filed thus far to fight against the Arizona law coming on behalf of the ACLU and others.

AZCentral.com:

A group of 14 civil and immigrant-rights organizations and 10 individuals on Monday filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new immigration law. It is the fifth legal challenge of the law, which goes into effect July 29 and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

All the lawsuits seek to prevent the law from going into effect. However, this latest case names Arizona's county officials as defendants, while previous suits were filed against state officials.

Participants in this case include the American Civil Liberties Union, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Immigration Law Center, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Day Laborer Organizing Network and Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

Since I put "for dummies" in my headline I'll move forward slowly about the why on this show-me-your-papers law signed by Jan Brewer is unconstitutional. Instead slamming a bunch of legalese at you it's much better to simply look closely at the Section B paragraph of AZ SB 1070:

"For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official ..."

This just means anything at all that might be contact with the police. If they flag you down on the street when you are walking, that is a "lawful stop." It has very little to do with vehicles and everything to do with the security of your person from harassment from the police. Even when a police officer who has mistaken your identity, let's say, it is still a committing a "lawful stop" to detain you and discover your true identity. In short, this opening clause of the law is both sweeping and overreaching in terms of the authority it grants. In this language alone that law has isolated undocumented workers from seeking police services should they be attacked or threatened in their safety for even requesting police services: a 911 call is nothing more an invitation to legal harassment and then deportation.

"... where reasonable suspicion exists that a person is alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made ... to determine immigration status of the person"

Many advocates for this draconian law claim it mirrors the existing federal immigration law, but this is completely false. No standing U.S. law fails to define what exactly "reasonable suspicion" is to be recognized as in regards to infraction in question. You may have heard the phrase: "What does an illegal look like?" This is what these people are referring to. There is no standard set within any part of this law as to what exactly is the definition of "reasonable suspicion" of being here under undocumented ("alien") status. This failure to define what the terms of "reasonable suspicion" entail creates a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" which requires "probable cause" be clearly established prior to such "reasonable attempt"s of the Arizona law to toss you in a cell or search your person in any manner. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment also protects any person, be they citizen or not, from incriminating themselves so this very act of having state authorities asking a person to identify their status with the federal immigration bureau is a "reasonable attempt" to force the affected party to admit to a minor misdemeanor. Which still ultimately amounts to a form of self incrimination. Another way to understand this is know that if a undocumented worker knew their rights at the time of a "lawful stop" taking place they would be within their rights to claim the Fifth Amendment protections while being asked by a state official their federal immigration status.

"... may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of the subsection ..."

This clause was added after the initial drafting of the law and fails to clarify just exactly how an officer is to determine immigration status without the use of "race, color and national origin" as the primary factor is raising the question. Had the misguided authors of this law inserted their media commentary that "clothing" was a factor to be decided upon it would have held more weight than this rather self defeating clause. As I stated above, without the method of attaining "reasonable suspicion" of being here under undocumented status outlined in the this law it remains the only standard in which to enforce such a law would be racial profiling. This clause turned a simply unconstitutional law into a literally unenforceable law.

The greatest layer of the unconstitutionality of AZ SB 1070 is the very top layer:

It is not the business of state authority to tread upon the direct charge of federal agencies. Even when they have a false charge of "inaction" on behalf of the federal government, the state laws never supersede federal authority on existing issues. Before any of the other elements of unconstitutionality would be considered this first brazen disregard for the Constitution will get this anti-civil liberties and pro-racial profiling law thrown out of court.

My point from the beginning is it is disgusting and un-American of all involved with this law to even have to drag this veiled racism mixed with an unconstitutional power-grab into our courts in the first place. Striking down this law effectively and immediately is the only course of action that will save both money and freedom in one swift movement.

==================================================

Colbert knows what to do with those Tony Hayward types...

What I myself find especially funny lately is this strange group of people out there, I guess we'll call them the "Blame No One Party" because that seems to be their game here. They are trying to convince us that blaming someone for the catastrophe that they oversaw and helped create is some act of mad lunacy. That we all should be looking forward. To what exactly I'm not too clear. The next environmental disaster that Big Oil will bless us with? I'll be over here with my burning Tony Hayward effigy and "Boycott BP" signs, thank you very much.

Don't forget this is the "worst oil spill in U.S. history" and has turned the Gulf of Mexico "into a dead zone."

I'm for cutting all our government contracts with BP, and cutting their jet fuel arrangement with the Pentagon as well. A company like BP has no place working under federal auspices of any sort. They have effectively destroyed America. Were this deliberate and not rampant greed and arrogance it could easily be classified as some form of terrorist or economic attack on all of America.

It seems when extremists blow people up: it's a crime and everybody is mobilized to catch the criminals. But when careless suits at BP blow people up: it's something to be ignored and just accepted as part of modern life.


UPDATE:

IPC has backed up my statements regarding SB1070 in their Q&A Guide.

Examiner: BP Buys Google, Yahoo Search Words

Examiner.com and Maryann Tobin are reporting that BP is trying to keep search engines from displaying the facts on the environmental disaster taking place in the Gulf of Mexico:

BP buys Google, Yahoo search words to keep people away from real news on Gulf oil spill disaster

In their most tenacious effort to control the ‘spin’ on the worst oil spill disaster in the history, BP has purchased top internet search engine words so they can re-direct people away from real news on the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.

BP spokesman Toby Odone confirmed to ABC News that the oil giant had in fact bought internet search terms. So now when someone searches the words ‘oil spill’, on the internet, the top link will re-direct them to BP’s official company website.

This would not be the first time that BP has tried to control information to protect the company’s public image.

Shortly after the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20, 2010, BP executives quickly underestimated the size of the disastrous oil spill. Some suggest they did it to avoid costly EPA per-gallon spill fines. The less oil spilled, the lower the fines.

A month into the spill, the public learned through independent science, that the spill was in fact a million gallon a day gusher. BP got caught in their own lie when the used a syphon pipe in one of the broken riser pipes and proudly proclaimed that they were capturing 5,000 barrels of oil a day.

With the oil obviously still gushing, they had to up their spill rate to explain the reported discrepancy in their earlier estimates.

As the dead bodies of birds, turtles and dolphins began showing up on land, BP used a private security company as their ‘oil spill police’ to try to keep photographers and reporters away from the true death toll from their spill.

Tides of black goo lapping a shore lined in corpses did not portray the company image Tony Hayward and his oil rich executives wanted.