Move over Charlie...Here comes Maxine

Hey Nancy...you better take a course on  "swamp drainage"

And it just keeps on Comin'

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters faces ethics charges

A House panel is preparing to accuse Rep. Maxine Waters of at least one ethics violation in her efforts to help a bank with ties to her husband, and the longtime Los Angeles Democrat plans to fight the charges in a House trial, according to a source familiar with the case.

The allegations were presented Friday to Waters, the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is confidential.

Waters, an outspoken legislator who has held elective office in Sacramento or Washington for more than three decades, could not be reached Friday night.


The findings on the investigation into Waters by the Office of Congressional Ethics are expected to be made public on Monday.

That office, an independent watchdog created by Congress, referred the matter to the House Ethics Committee. The committee turned the matter over to a panel of two Democratic and two Republican lawmakers who have been conducting their own probe for months.

The allegations come as Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) faces a House trial on 13 ethics allegations, adding to the political troubles of Democrats confronted with a tough battle to hold onto their House majority in the November midterm election. Rangel, 80, and Waters, 71, are both high-profile, longtime members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

This is the dilemma.


They know there're going to get re-elected no matter what they do!

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. 

So unless they are expelled they are a lock to get re-elected. Watch and see. They get a slap on the wrist...or out comes the race card.

This guy was re-elected facing bribery charges against him. 

William Jefferson

He received a 13 year prison sentence. After being re-elected!!!

One of Los Angeles' most enduring black politicians, Waters came under scrutiny last year after Massachusetts-based OneUnited Bank, one of the nation's largest minority-owned institutions, received $12 million in bailout funds.

The funding came three months after Waters, a senior member of the committee that oversees banking, helped arrange a meeting between officials of the bank, other minority-owned financial institutions and Treasury Department representatives.

Waters' husband, Sidney Williams, had owned stock in the bank and served on its board.

Waters has previously said that she fully disclosed her husband's ties to the bank.

She has said her efforts were consistent with her longtime work to promote opportunity for minority-owned businesses and lending in underserved communities, such as her South Central Los Angeles district.

As in Rangel's case, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers will be formed to hear Waters' case, probably in the fall, unless she and the committee reach a settlement.

Lawmakers in the past have accepted a reprimand to settle cases. Punishment can be as severe as censure and even expulsion from the House.

Move over Charlie...Here comes Maxine

Panel Vote Could Clear Way for Ground Zero Mosque

I just can' believe New Yorkers are going to sit still for this!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/03/panel-vote-clear-way-ground-zero-mosque/

NEW YORK -- A contentious plan for a mosque near the World Trade Center site will get a boost if New York City's landmarks panel votes Tuesday to allow the demolition of the building that the mosque would replace.

The mosque would be part of an Islamic community center to be operated by a group called the Cordoba Initiative, which says the center will be a space for moderate Muslim voices.

But opponents say building a mosque near ground zero would be an insult to the memory of those who died at the hands of Muslim extremists on Sept. 11, 2001.

Foes of the mosque are expected to attend Tuesday's meeting of the city Landmarks Preservation Commission, which is voting on whether to grant landmark status to the 152-year-old building that would be torn down to make way for the Islamic center.

The commission's job is to determine whether the building is architecturally important enough to preserve, not to consider the merits of the proposed mosque.

Oz Sultan, the program coordinator for the proposed Islamic center, said last week that the building has been changed too much over the years to qualify as a landmark.

"I think a lot of the negativity we're getting is coming from people who are politically grandstanding," Sultan said. "We're completely open and transparent."

Rick Bell, the executive director of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said the building does not deserve landmark status.

"The nature of the current building isn't worth preserving," Bell said.

If the commission agrees, demolition and construction of the mosque can proceed.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports the mosque's construction. But the project has drawn opposition from former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, among others.

A leading Jewish oranization come out against the mosque last week. The Anti-Defamation League said "some legitimate questions have been raised" about the Cordoba Initiative's funding and possible ties with "groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values."

Panel Vote Could Clear Way for Ground Zero Mosque

Obama warns U.S. not to "demagogue" immigration

Joe found an apology was in order for calling the president a liar.

I feel no such compulsion.


The Obama Administration is using our tax dollars, to sue, so illegals can invade AZ  freely without fear of reprisal. 

WASHINGTON | Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:36pm EDT 

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama warned U.S. leaders not to use the divisive issue of illegal immigration as a way to gain power and name recognition in an interview with CBS television released on Saturday.

Fresh from a court victory that blocked provisions of a tough Arizona immigration law that Obama opposed, the president warned politicians not to "demagogue" the topic and said his administration wanted to work with Arizona on the issue.

Earlier this week a judge blocked key parts of the border state's tough new immigration law hours before it was to take effect, handing a victory to Obama's administration, which is trying to take control of the issue.

One blocked provision would have required police officers to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested if an officer believed the individual was not in the country legally.

The state is appealing the court's ruling.

"We want to work with Arizona. I understand the frustration of people in Arizona. But what we can't do is demagogue the issue," Obama said in an interview with CBS, according to excerpts released by the network.

OK America... you're not on "The View"... Wake up.. and stop falling for this smily face bullshit of his! 

"And what we can't do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states, or cities or localities, where anybody who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, 'I'm going to be anti-immigrant and I'm going try to see if I can solve the problem ourself.' This is a national problem," Obama said.


↑

"A national problem"...caused by the Federal Government!

The above is a classic case on how to spin something to advance your own agenda. Evidently a "patchwork" of sanctuary cities is perfectly all right. He uses the words  "anti-immigrant" to paint Republicans with the broad brush of racism. Certain fools among us will fall for this liars crap. We're talking about  " illegals"   not immigrants.

Remember he said this... knowing full well he was lying.

↓

 “You can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”

Yeahhh....if you rob a bank along the way to pay for the ice cream!

Vermin aka illegals standing on the American flag protesting. And they want amnesty!!! 
Someone get me a baseball bat.

Immigration is a flashpoint between Republicans and Democrats ahead of November elections, which could change the balance of power in the U.S. Congress. Attempts to overhaul the U.S. immigration system have failed previously, most recently in 2007 when Republicans torpedoed reforms pushed by George W. Bush, then the Republican president.

Look, Obama doesn't care anymore about the well being of illegals then I do; with one big exception! Through his eyes their undocumented Democrats.  The simple truth is, this is purely political. If immigration reform  "amnesty"  is granted who do you think 12,000,000 new "Americans" are going to vote for? 


Sound far-fetched?


This is what Reid said in June 2007:


Read it.


http://hemingwayreport.blogspot.com/2007/06/harry-benedict-arnold-reid.html


"This week we are going to complete this legislation and we will hopefully complete the final passage that will strengthen our border security and bring 12 million Undocumented Americans out of the shadows."




And so it goes.




To his credit he didn't lie when he said this.

If Republicans are unsuccessful taking over both houses, or at least big gains in November, by 2012 this country will be totally unrecognizable.

Obama warns U.S. not to "demagogue" immigration

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