He must. Well, if he is going to be consistent because the Arizona law simply reiterates federal laws already in place for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. That should help cut the city budget woes.
Actually, he is being consistent with the politically correct crowd which is rarely consistent with reality. Such as:
Coleman bans city-funded travel to Arizona
But,
Columbus recently extended its agreement with Phoenix-based Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., which owns and operates the city's 20 red-light cameras. The new contract will double the number of cameras posted at Columbus intersections to issue tickets to red-light-runners.
Rescinding that program "wouldn't make sense to the taxpayers," Williamson said.
"Wouldn't make sense" eh? No, it sure wouldn't make sense to boycott that which benefits Columbus. Those cameras free up officers for Coleman's personal security detail no doubt.
Speaking of security:
Kalamazoo Central seniors aren't the only ones asked the 'Citizen status' question regarding President Barack Obama's visit
I love the snittiness of the editor walking back the original article's point which is that the president needs to know who is going to be around him, if they are safe and, you know, security type things. The editor doesn't even see the irony when they state that the security (identification) check isn't just for students, it is for everyone. Everyone. Everyone has to prove not only who there are, but also prove who they're not.
Which brings us back to the security question in general which brings us back to Arizona and its new law which restates what the federal law says, but doesn't enforce, but the president does enforce on those around him because it benefits him.
So, why is Coleman banning travel to Arizona? Is it because he doesn't like the law or does he need to save enough money to pay for law enforcement tools here in Columbus which when used, forces citizens to produce identification? Oh, and money. Lots of it.
Seems a lot of people need to show identification, but a lot of people are upset with Arizona for doing the same thing. Maybe it because a lot of illegal aliens are of a different skin color, but that would make it racist to say they don't have to show identification, but the rest of the people do. Of course, some cur might suggest that this whole issue is nothing more than an attempt to garner votes by and for a particular political party.
But, that would be racist, no?
