Home > Uncategorized > Picket goes all Superfly Snuka on our favorite L.A. Councilman by using facts

Picket goes all Superfly Snuka on our favorite L.A. Councilman by using facts

May 17, 2010

LA City Councilman blasts AZ law for provisions in CA penal code

So this is what actual journalism is…interviewee makes assertion, journalist questions interviewee on assertion, interviewee spontaneously bursts into flames of ignorance.  Last week, we here at W.N.N. went out on a very short and robust limb when we reflected upon L.A. councilman Ed Reyes’ very well-reasoned, and in no way over-the-top response to the Arizona immigration law. Well, Washington Times reporter Kerry Picket interviewed Mr. Reyes after his outburst, and did an admirable job of further establishing the following: that Ed Reyes is a pandering moron (who didn’t read the bill).

As Picket astutely points out, the Arizona law simply piggy-backs SB 1070, a federal immigration law that has been in existence for 70 years.  The exchange:

PICKET: Why is [the Arizona]law considered any different than what has been around for the last seventy years…because it’s being enforced?

REYES: Why does a state have to call that out? Why can’t it just follow the federal law like you said for the past seventy years?

Reyes’ “call out” sounds suspiciously similar to my thoughts on the real purpose of the law — a shout out to Washington.  Hey, maybe Reyes reads this blog.  (Ed, feel free to leave a comment…and tell your friends).

It’s after interviewing Reyes, and doing some additional research, that Picket truly shines however.  It seems that the Arizona law is pretty stinkin’ similar to California Penal Code 834b. In fact, the only difference between the California Penal Code  and the Arizona law is that the penal code speaks to those already under arrest (presumably for a different crime), while the Arizona law specifically requires an officer to approach a person they reasonably suspect to be here illegally, and to arrest them if their suspicion prove correct.  Before anyone begins to holler, “but it’s different!” isn’t this just a distinction without a difference?  Generally speaking, aren’t police officers required to act on suspicions of illegal activity?  Doesn’t being here illegally constitute an illegal activity?

Pursuant to his playbook, Reyes then reverts back to the “racial profiling” meme, which the Arizona law specifically prohibits.  I don’t mean to pick on Councilman Reyes, but he’s a great example of the people who criticize the Arizona law, even though they don’t have the foggiest idea of what’s in it, or in other well-established laws.  The Arizona law simply requires enforcement of federal law, nothing more, nothing less.  But leave it to liberals to take common sense and turn it into racism.

I'll bend you into a pretzel

%d bloggers like this: