Visit Counter

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Arizona Appeal of Immigration Ruling Set For November

SB1070 is effectively dead in the water. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is based in San Francisco; the most liberal city in America! If they get a favorable ruling from them, someone's going to to have to pick me up off the floor. 

So it's on it's way to the "Supremes".

Speaking of the Supremes: This was a recent headline on how they voted regarding Americans helping Terrorists.

High Court: Americans Can't Help Terrorists

Over the objections of three justices, the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law prohibiting American citizens from providing "material support or resources" to foreign terror groups. The 6-3 majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts is a victory for the government's efforts to fight terrorist organizations.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 

Stephen Breyer 

and our new resident Hispanic Sonia Soto-may--oo-rrrr (rolling the r's for a Spanish inflection) objected to a federal law prohibiting American citizens from providing "material support or resources" to foreign terror groups. 

Come on.... what's wrong with Americans helping Terrorists?

And these people are appointed for life!!!

If these three voted to allow Americans to help terrorists how do you think they're going to vote on SB1070?

Lets hope and pray common sense prevails. Although it might be years away I'm looking for a 5-4 decision in favor of SB1070. The rest of the states will follow suit.

Obama won the battle but not the war. This latest fiasco will most assuredly nullify any hopes he had for re-elelection. 

I love a picture of dumb asses sealing their own fate see protesting in the streets of AZ.... (A lot of them bussed in from California from the SEIU). Service Employees International Union is on the scene. Why? One reason is they are another arm of the Obama Administration. Why else would a union from CA care about the immigration policies of AZ? Since when is it the business of any union, let alone the SEIU, to get involved in immigration matters? So if you were a member of this union with half a brain you would have to ask yourself this:

 Their using my union dues to pay to bus people in to support illegals, the very same illegals, who one day may take my job. 

But go ahead and protest all you want.

A couple of additional morons thrown in for good measure

 The ultimate decision lies in the hands of the silent majority. They hold no signs... but speak loudly with their vote! 

Arizona Appeal of Immigration Ruling Set For November

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court says it will hold a hearing in November on Arizona's challenge to a ruling that put the most controversial parts of the state's immigration law on hold.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a two-page order Friday denying Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's request for an earlier hearing date.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton issued a ruling Wednesday putting much of the law on hold. Brewer had asked for an expedited appeals process, with a hearing scheduled for the week of Sept. 13.

State lawyers had argued that the appeal involves an issue of "significant importance" -- the state's right to implement a law to address "irreparable harm Arizona is suffering as a result of unchecked unlawful immigration."

Hey, while you're there stop in and see Andy Stern and fill out an application to the SEIU.
Oh...I forgot he resigned.

  That's ok,  just remember they love you! 


Friday, July 30, 2010

I've been saying this for years

Read my post 6-19-2007

The children born in the United States to illegal alien mothers are often referred to as "anchor babies." Under current practice, these children are U.S. citizens at birth, simply because they were born on U.S. soil. They are called anchor babies because, as U.S. citizens, they become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. "anchor" for an extended immigrant family.

Think about it. Under the current law if Bin Laden came here with one of his many wives and had a child the kid is a US citizen. Then when he turns 21 he could become a sponsor for the legal immigration of Muslim Terrorist's. 

Lawmakers Consider Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants

The federal court decision blocking key provisions of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect could light a fire under lawmakers considering an alternative -- and some say radical -- approach to reining in illegal immigration.

Lawmakers since last year have been kicking around a proposal to bar U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens. Such a move, which has been ridiculed by legal scholars, would be a drastic reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

But those supporting the move say it removes a key incentive luring illegal immigrants over the border. And with Arizona lawmakers now prohibited from requiring police to check immigration status, the option might be back on the table.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News after the Arizona ruling came down that "birthright citizenship" needs to be changed.

"I'm a practical guy, but when you go forward I don't want 20 million more (illegal immigrants) 20 years from now," he said. "Let's have a system that doesn't reward people for cheating."

Though other lawmakers have called for a change in U.S. or state law, Graham said he might introduce a constitutional amendment.

"We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen," he said Wednesday. "They come here to drop a child -- it's called 'drop and leave.' ... That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."

The amendment process is drawn out, and success is almost always unlikely -- it would take a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states. That's 38 states.

Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer and former federal prosecutor, called the push "pie in the sky" no matter how lawmakers go about it. He said any law altering the 14th amendment would never survive a court challenge and questioned the intent.

"It's spiteful," he said. "These are U.S. citizens. ... They're babies that by the grace of God were born in one country instead of another."
(In other words two wrongs make a right.)

He said immigrants are not by and large crossing illegally into the United States just to have children. For starters, he said the parents would have to wait 21 years before their children could sponsor them for legal residency.

Wildes, former mayor of Englewood, N.J., said changing the citizenship ground rules would fundamentally alter the foundation of the United States. It is a rarity for a country to offer citizenship to anyone just because they're born on that country's soil -- but that principle has shaped the U.S. population.

"America has always been a beacon to the immigrants," Wildes said. "As a result of that, we have made ourselves the greatest superpower in the world."

Children of immigrants include droves of accomplished Americans, including former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, born in Kentucky to Jewish immigrants from Europe; actor/dancer/singer Fred Astaire, born to an American mother and Austrian father; singer Christina Aguilera, whose father was born in Ecuador; and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, born to Italian immigrants -- not to mention President Obama, whose father is from Kenya.

Those looking to fiddle with the 14th Amendment, though, aren't looking to go after children of legal immigrants.

A bill introduced in April 2009 by former Georgia Rep. Nathan Deal called for the law to be changed so that "birthright citizenship" as prescribed in the 14th Amendment only applies if one of the child's parents is a U.S. citizen or national, or a legal immigrant.

That bill has languished in the House since last year, though it currently lists 92 co-sponsors.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce told Fox News last month that he was working with some of the co-sponsors, as he considered a similar bill at the state level in Arizona. Pearce was behind the Arizona law that was partially struck down by the court Wednesday.

Pearce contends that the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, was intended to protect African Americans.

"Illegal wasn't illegal then," he said. "If you think about it, it's illegal to enter the United States, illegal to remain here, but you get the greatest inducement you could possibly have -- the citizenship of your child. ... It was never intended to do that."

A spokesman for Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the co-sponsors, said he wouldn't be surprised if the bill started to kick back up "in the wake of Arizona."

Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Graham, said the senator is currently "discussing the issue" but would not say what route he would take.

"It is something he is very interested in pursuing further," Bishop said.


Thursday, July 29, 2010

Rangel Reportedly Strikes Deal With Ethics Panel

Rep. Charles Rangel reportedly has struck a deal with the congressional panel investigating alleged ethics violations as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stood by her pledge to "drain the swamp" in the House and said she would let Rangel's chips "fall where they may."

The CBS affiliate in New York reported the deal was in the works -- though any arrangement would have to be approved by the subcommittee hearing the case, the full ethics committee and potentially the full House of Representatives. 

If there is an arrangement, it could be discussed at the ethics hearing set for Thursday afternoon. 

Pelosi acknowledged "individual cases" of ethical lapses as Rangel prepared to face the panel over a string of tax violation allegations that have embroiled not only him but the entire House Democratic delegation.

The scene behind the scene
Pelosi said the hearing and investigation are a "top priority" and that she has no idea what the committee will recommend. She made no mention of a deal. 

"This ethics process will play out and we'll go from there," she said. 

But House Minority Leader John Boehner said "the speaker owes the American people some answers to their questions."

"The fact is, the swamp has not been drained," Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "This is a sad moment for the House. Not for Charlie Rangel. It's about Speaker Pelosi and her most glaring promise to drain the swamp."

Amid the hubbub, Rangel admitted Thursday morning that he was having a bad day, or a series of them, a confession very unlike Rangel's usual behavior to shrug off complaints about him. 

"Years ago, I survived a Chinese attack in North Korea and as a result I wrote a book that having survived that, that I hadn't had a bad day. Today, I have to reassess that statement, thank you," he said.

Rangel's "bad day" comment was a reference to him being wounded by shrapnel on the battlefield in Korea in 1950. That experience was the inspiration for his 2007 autobiography, "And I Haven't Had a Bad Day Since."

The special subcommittee was poised to proceed Thursday with an open hearing detailing the charges spelled out by a lower-level ethics panel. Such a forum is rare. The House has only conducted two similar open hearings in the past 13 years -- one for former Rep. Jim Traficant and one for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. 

Eight House lawmakers had been tasked with determining the former Ways and Means chairman's guilt or innocence relating to a series of possible tax violations. A number of Democrats considering calls for the Democrat to resign will get their first look at the allegations.

Rangel and his counsel are not required to speak at the hearing and so far have not asked to make a statement. Though the allegations will be detailed this afternoon, an outcome was not expected Thursday. If a deal is not approved, a trial-like forum probably would not begin until September -- dangerously close to Election Day for Democrats. 

In the end, the House only recognizes three forms of discipline -- reprimand, censure and expulsion, though the House occasionally sanctions members with letters of admonishment. 

"I think everyone is looking forward to getting all the facts out in the open and people will have to react once we know what we're dealing with," said Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. 

Rangel is tied for fourth in House seniority. He's still vigorous at 80 years old. He had substantial influence as chairman of the ways and means panel, which handles taxes, trade, portions of health care, Medicare and Social Security. Rangel stepped down from that post in March after the ethics committee criticized him in a separate case, saying he should have known that corporate money paid for two trips to Caribbean conferences. 

After a two-year investigation, researchers have narrowed the allegations to Rangel's misuse of his office for fundraising, failure to disclose income, belated payment of taxes and possible help with a tax shelter for a company whose chief executive was a major donor. 

The 42-member Congressional Black Caucus has warned Democrats against a rush to judgment, and any lawmaker with a significant African-American constituency must consider whether it's worth asking Rangel to quit. 

Sounds like the same brain thrust that acquitted OJ!

However, some Democratic House members in close races may think it's more important to distance themselves from Rangel. They don't want to have to answer negative Republican ads about Speaker Nancy Pelosi's promise to wipe Congress clean of ethical misdeeds. 

Two Democrats didn't wait to hear the charges. 

Rep. Betty Sutton of Ohio, a second-term lawmaker who received 65 percent of the vote two years ago, said Rangel needs to resign to preserve the public's trust in Congress. 

Rep. Walt Minnick of Idaho, a freshman who got 51 percent of the vote last time, called for resignation if the charges are proven.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Have we gone insane?

You're gonna build what on ground zero!

If you never watched any videos I posted... you would be a fool if you didn't watch this one.

Bloomberg who is Jewish, is a complete ass----! What does he hope to gain from this. Muslims hate him even more then us "regular infidels". He says we are being insensitive. 

We're insensitive? Is he insane? 
A Muslim will kill you because of a cartoon or a teddy bear they didn't like! 

This truly nauseates me. I used to think New Yorkers were tough. I can't believe they are going to stand by and allow this to happen! If someone said they wanted to build a mosque on 9-12-01 they would have been shot.

How quickly we forget. 

PS: Maybe we should have put a 100 foot statue of the Emperor of Japan at Pearl Harbor.

We didn't. Why?

Back then we had fu----- brains!


Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Rangel Scrambling to Make Deal on Ethics Charges

You don't try to cut a deal when your innocent

see my post 7-23

WASHINGTON -- Embattled Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel was meeting with the head of the House ethics committee and other top Democrats amid rumors he may try to work out a deal rather than face a full vetting of the charges he is now facing.

A settlement would mean Rangel must admit he committed some ethical misconduct.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday that "everyone would like for the Rangle issue to go away" and that the ethics process with Rangel is not a pleasant one.

Ethics committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren has been preparing to launch a rare, public ethics inquiry on Thursday into alleged misdeeds by the New York Democrat.
Lofgren will chair an "adjudicatory subcommittee" that will present its case against Rangel. An investigative panel reported last week that it had found ethics violations by Rangel.

For nearly two years, the ethics committee has probed Rangel on a host of issues, ranging from tax evasion to improper use of Congressional stationery to raise money for a school of public affairs in the Congressman's name at City College of New York.
Rangel met with Lofgren on Monday night and sought closed-door counsel from Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a special assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"I think he's in the process of trying to determine the best course forward," said Van Hollen. "I was presenting him with my observations."

A settlement would spare him an embarrassing ethics trial and would be a relief for other Democrats, who fear that an dragged-out ethics proceeding during the fall election campaign would hurt their ability to maintain their House majority.

At least two Democrats are trying to distance themselves from Rangel as the process plays out.

"Now that the investigation is complete and provided the facts are as alleged, I think it's clear that he should resign from Congress," said Rep. Walt Minnick, D-Idaho

"I didn't know him when I accepted money from him," added Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa., who has returned campaign donations. Dahlkemper said it's a "common practice" for party leaders to "give money to people who they think will be successful. So politically it could become an issues, but I decided to take care of it before it did."

Fox News' Chad Pergram and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.


Monday, July 26, 2010

The hot potato gets hotter... even when it's tossed around

The Saga of Shirley Sherrod

First of all if you listen to the whole video the white farmer according to her acted like he was “superior” to her. The gist of what I got out of the video was she was kind of bragging to the NAACP audience how she screwed a white guy. At the time I didn’t know this took place over 20 years ago and she had become friends with the white farmer.

 But there is a lot more to this story then meets the eye.

It came from the top

 Because the White House is terrified of this guy. 

Sherrod may be the only official ever dismissed because of the fear that Fox host Glenn Beck might go after her. Sherrod says Deputy Undersecretary Cheryl Cook called her Monday to say “do it, because you’re going to be on ‘Glenn Beck’ tonight.” Again she stated… The White House… called her 3 times while she was driving her car. The third time…”pull over and resign!”

Naturally…The White House… made Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack fire her so these two could take the fall.

O’Reilly apologized to her for running the story and Beck never ran any story except to support her.



                                             Then she said this:

In an interview with Media Matters, she stated FOX network would... “love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”

NAACP said they were snookered by FOX. 

They must depend on FOX to do the investigative work for them because there to freaking lazy to do it themselves!

They chastise her… then blame FOX! Typical of them don’t you think? She had already resigned before FOX ran the damn story!

“If a house is burned to the ground, you can whine about the firefighters or criticize the building material — but first you blame the guy who started the fire, right?”

He starts out ok but totally misses the real point.

So you have ask yourself this:

1. Who shot the video and sent it to Breitbart?

2. How many white people attend a NAACP meeting?


Sunday, July 25, 2010

The other side of Redneckism

redneck dishwasher

(from Jean Sweet)

We have enjoyed the redneck jokes (like the one above) for years. It's time to take a reflective look at the core beliefs of a culture that values home, family, country and God. If I had to stand before a dozen terrorists who threaten my life, I'd choose a half dozen or so rednecks to back me up. Tire irons, squirrel guns and grit -- that's what rednecks are made of. I hope I am one of those. If you feel the same, pass this on to your redneck friends.

You might be a redneck if: 

It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God..'

You might be a redneck if: 

You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.

You might be a redneck if: 

You still say ' Christmas' instead of 'Winter Festival'

You might be a redneck if:

You bow your head when someone prays.

You might be a redneck if: 

You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.

You might be a redneck if: 

You treat our armed forces veterans with great respect, and always have.

You might be a redneck if: 

You've never burned an American flag, nor intend to.

You might be a redneck if: 

You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.

You might be a redneck if: 

You respect your elders and raised your kids to do the same.

You might be a redneck if: 

You'd give your last dollar to a friend.

The best for last:

You might be a redneck if: 

You drive this truck.


Saturday, July 24, 2010

Remember two America's...Now we have two Vietnam's

Went to Yale
And is on the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs

If you think this is asinine? Get a load of this: Mind Blowing!

Kind of scary people like this are running the country.


Friday, July 23, 2010

Rangel Charged With Ethics Violations


The litany of crimes is longer then your arm.
click here for the entire list:

The Hemingway Report: Difference Between Charlie Rangel and Al Capone

                                                                                 Wait a minute... 
                                                                        someone's reaching for the 
                                                                             race card

Rangel Charged With Ethics Violations

WASHINGTON -- A House investigative panel on Thursday announced multiple ethics charges against Rep. Charles Rangel, the powerful New York Democrat who has been fending off accusations related to his business dealings and fund-raising, among other issues.

The case will go to trial before a separate ethics committee, and Rangel said Thursday he looks forward to the opportunity to explain himself to his constituents after two years of allegations.

Rangel was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee until he stepped down in March following criticism from the House ethics committee in a separate case.

The announcement Thursday did not specify which alleged violations would be considered during this trial. Sources familiar with the allegations, who were not authorized to discuss them publicly, told the Associated Press the charges against the 40-year Democrat were related to:

--Rangel's use of official stationery to raise money for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.

--His use of four rent-subsidized apartment units in New York City. The city's rent stabilization program is supposed to apply to one's primary residence. One had been used as a campaign office, raising a separate question of whether the rent break was an improper gift.

--Rangel's failure to report income as required on his annual financial disclosure forms. The committee had investigated his failure to report income from the lawmaker's rental unit at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic. Rangel also belatedly disclosed hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment assets.

The timing of the announcement ensures that a public airing of Rangel's ethical woes will stretch into the fall campaign, and Republicans are certain to make it an issue as they try to capture majority control of the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had once promised to "drain the swamp" of ethical misdeeds by lawmakers in arguing that Democrats should be in charge.

Responding to the charges, Rangel said in a statement, "I was notified today, two years after I requested an investigation, that the Ethics Committee will refer the allegations reviewed by an investigations subcommittee to a subcommittee that will review the facts. I am pleased that, at long last, sunshine will pierce the cloud of serious allegations that have been raised against me in the media."

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said, "The action today would indicate that the independent, bipartisan ethics committee process is moving forward."

Rangel led the tax-writing Ways and Means panel until he stepped aside last March after the ethics committee criticized him in a separate case -- finding that he should have known corporate money was paying for his trips to two Caribbean conferences.

Officials said that in the current case, the committee and Rangel's attorney tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a settlement. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions. A settlement would have required Rangel to agree that he violated ethics rules.

Rangel had hoped to regain his chairmanship, but the allegations make that virtually impossible this year.

He announced a bid for a 21st term recently, days before his 80th birthday. One of his Sept. 14 primary opponents is Adam Clayton Powell IV, son of the former congressman whom Rangel defeated in 1970.
From the frying pan to the fire!

While the case will generate unfavorable headlines for Rangel, it may have little effect in his congressional district, New York's famed Harlem, where the congressman has been a political leader for decades and is known by older constituents as a Korean War hero.

In other words... he could kill someone and still get elected.

The suit's almost the right color

He's another reason for term limits!

The Associated Press contributed to this report


His favorite drink is an Almond Schnapps

It's been reported in SC Lindsey Grahamnesty "is a little light in the loafers." I guess when your favorite drink is a Almond Schnapps it doesn't exactly bolster his image. I would like to suggest he is also a little light in the head. My suggestion....start looking for another line of work. Your gonna need it come November.

By the way, why do they even bother with confirmation hearings? They state their positions at the hearings then do whatever they want (for life) after their appointed.

With one GOP vote, Kagan wins Senate panel’s backing

WASHINGTON — Splitting largely along party lines, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted yesterday to recommend former Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan for the US Supreme Court.

Kagan’s nomination now heads to a vote by the full Senate, which is expected to confirm her in the next several weeks, before its traditional August summer recess.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, joined the committee’s 12 Democrats in the 13-6 vote in favor of the nomination. Graham, the only Republican on the committee last year who supported the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said senators should honor the results of presidential elections and not turn confirmation hearings into political tests. Graham said that he disagreed with Kagan on many political issues but that she handled herself well in two days of testimony before the committee, showing knowledge of the law, confidence, and good humor.

“It was not a hard decision,’’ Graham said of his vote to support her.

“She will serve this nation honorably,’’ he said, “and [she] would not have been someone I would have chosen, but the person who did choose, President Obama, I think chose wisely.’’

In May, Obama nominated Kagan, the US solicitor general, to fill the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Kagan, 50, testified before the committee for about 17 hours last month.

The committee debate yesterday over Kagan’s fitness for the court largely mirrored the public debate over the nomination since the president chose her. Most of the committee’s Republicans portrayed Kagan as an inexperienced liberal partisan who did not make a persuasive case in her testimony that she could separate her political views from a judge’s responsibility to be impartial.

The committee’s ranking Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, attacked Kagan for “a lack of robust legal experience,’’ noting that Kagan, who has never been a judge, worked as a lawyer and policy adviser in the Clinton administration.

“Much of what she’s done has been defined by her experience in politics,’’ said Sessions.

Sessions also cited Kagan’s decision at Harvard to restrict military recruiters on campus because the ban on openly gay soldiers violated the school’s policy on nondiscrimination. Kagan has maintained that the military had adequate access to students through a campus veterans group. “It was not good enough,’’ said Sessions, “and it was not right.’’

Graham, a lawyer in the Air Force Reserve, did not share those concerns. “If I believed she had animosity in her heart about those who wear the uniform, I would easily vote no,’’ he said. “I don’t believe that.’’

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania joined his Democratic colleagues in backing Kagan, even though he had voted against her nomination to be solicitor general last year. At that time, he was a Republican. Yesterday, he supported Kagan’s nomination, though he said he had “grave concerns’’ about “her failure to answer questions which I think ought to have been answered.’’

Other Democrats on the committee praised Kagan’s varied experience and broad knowledge of the law.

Kagan is expected to receive more GOP support in the full Senate, although no Republican other than Graham has publicly backed her so far.

Democrats attributed that to political considerations.

“Sadly, it appears election year politics may deprive her of the vote total that her nomination deserves,’’ said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

Politically active conservative groups are pressuring GOP senators to oppose her nomination. The National Rifle Association is urging a no vote or a filibuster to block Kagan outright, saying she is hostile to the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and has warned that it will downgrade supporters in candidate ratings circulated to millions of gun-owning voters.

The Susan B. Anthony List, a group opposed to abortion rights, wrote to senators Monday urging opposition based on Kagan’s actions as a Clinton administration official to resist a broad ban on a procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion.

If confirmed, Kagan would be the fourth woman to serve on the court and her swearing-in would mark the first time that three women have served together on the nine-member Supreme Court.