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.

I ain't making this stuff up.

(top right)  I'll bet the house on how she's votes on SB1070.

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

Yes...you 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! 

Arizona Appeal of Immigration Ruling Set For November

I've been saying this for years

Read my post 6-19-2007

http://hemingwayreport.blogspot.com/2007/06/10-point-immigration-bill.html

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.

I've been saying this for years

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.

Rangel Reportedly Strikes Deal With Ethics Panel

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!

Have we gone insane?

Rangel Scrambling to Make Deal on Ethics Charges

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

see my post 7-23

http://hemingwayreport.blogspot.com/2010/07/rangel-charged-with-ethics-violations.html

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.

Rangel Scrambling to Make Deal on Ethics Charges