9/24/10
Nearly a quarter of a million Mexicans have fled the drug-crime disaster which has enveloped the border city of Ciudad Juarez, and at least 125,000 have rushed across the border to El Paso in a move which has added 16 percent to that city’s population.
The shocking statistic has been revealed in a new report issued by the Ciudad Juarez Citizens Security and Coexistence Observatory, which is a non-government body monitoring the situation in the Mexican town.
The report said that the drug-gang war which has become endemic across all of Mexico has claimed 8,300 lives in Ciudad Juarez over the last three years.
The murders have focused attention on the fact that the Central and South American drug gangs are using it as a major conduit into the United States.
The two main drug gangs fighting for control of the smuggling route have been identified as the Juarez and Sinaloa drug cartels.
According to reports, more than 20,000 houses have been abandoned in Ciudad Juarez as a result of the mass exodus, leaving whole swathes of the city deserted.
In addition, journalists covering the story have been attacked and murdered. As a result, El Paso’s “Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center” has predicted a “new wave of media members seeking asylum in the United States in the wake of the attack on the photographers.”
All of the media reports covering the drug war have ignored the obvious factor in the equation: namely that it is a result of the presence of large numbers of Third World-origin Central and South Americans in the U.S. who have organized themselves into the deadly drug-dealing gangs here.
For example, in Los Angeles, the two largest gangs are officially classified as “Hispanic,” namely the Florencia 13 and the 8th Street Gang.
Both are the result of illegal immigration, with a 1995 California Department of Justice study reporting that at least 60 percent of the 20,000 members of the 18th Street Gang are illegal immigrants.
Nationally, the Mara Salvatrucha 13 gang, which originated in El Salvador, has become perhaps the most serious criminal enterprise to ever threaten America.
The gang first appeared in this country in Los Angeles and then followed the same migratory pattern as Salvadoran immigrants, fanning out from its beachhead ethnic enclaves in California.
It is no coincidence that the drug gang wars which are typical in Mexico and Central and South America are now spreading out into the United States. It is the inevitable consequence of immigration, where immigrants bring their dominant culture with them to replace the already established civilization.
If the U.S. wants to avoid becoming like the Third World, it will have to take steps to prevent Third World populations moving here.
Nothing less than the complete halt and reversing of the current disastrous immigration policies will suffice. This is the message of the American Third Position, and we intend to take it to the voters.
Comment:
I have a way to help stop the spread of these gangs. Make any involvement in drug trafficking, no matter how minor, a death penalty offense. Right now, there is just too much money involved to let a little prison time deter anyone. Start executing even the lowest level pusher, and that will put a crimp in the trade. If the small time pushers are afraid to do any pushing, it will seriously cripple the big boys.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tidal Wave of Mexicans Flee into Texas from Self-Created Crime Disaster
9/24/10
Nearly a quarter of a million Mexicans have fled the drug-crime disaster which has enveloped the border city of Ciudad Juarez, and at least 125,000 have rushed across the border to El Paso in a move which has added 16 percent to that city’s population.
The shocking statistic has been revealed in a new report issued by the Ciudad Juarez Citizens Security and Coexistence Observatory, which is a non-government body monitoring the situation in the Mexican town.
The report said that the drug-gang war which has become endemic across all of Mexico has claimed 8,300 lives in Ciudad Juarez over the last three years.
The murders have focused attention on the fact that the Central and South American drug gangs are using it as a major conduit into the United States.
The two main drug gangs fighting for control of the smuggling route have been identified as the Juarez and Sinaloa drug cartels.
According to reports, more than 20,000 houses have been abandoned in Ciudad Juarez as a result of the mass exodus, leaving whole swathes of the city deserted.
In addition, journalists covering the story have been attacked and murdered. As a result, El Paso’s “Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center” has predicted a “new wave of media members seeking asylum in the United States in the wake of the attack on the photographers.”
All of the media reports covering the drug war have ignored the obvious factor in the equation: namely that it is a result of the presence of large numbers of Third World-origin Central and South Americans in the U.S. who have organized themselves into the deadly drug-dealing gangs here.
For example, in Los Angeles, the two largest gangs are officially classified as “Hispanic,” namely the Florencia 13 and the 8th Street Gang.
Both are the result of illegal immigration, with a 1995 California Department of Justice study reporting that at least 60 percent of the 20,000 members of the 18th Street Gang are illegal immigrants.
Nationally, the Mara Salvatrucha 13 gang, which originated in El Salvador, has become perhaps the most serious criminal enterprise to ever threaten America.
The gang first appeared in this country in Los Angeles and then followed the same migratory pattern as Salvadoran immigrants, fanning out from its beachhead ethnic enclaves in California.
It is no coincidence that the drug gang wars which are typical in Mexico and Central and South America are now spreading out into the United States. It is the inevitable consequence of immigration, where immigrants bring their dominant culture with them to replace the already established civilization.
If the U.S. wants to avoid becoming like the Third World, it will have to take steps to prevent Third World populations moving here.
Nothing less than the complete halt and reversing of the current disastrous immigration policies will suffice. This is the message of the American Third Position, and we intend to take it to the voters.
Comment:
I have a way to help stop the spread of these gangs. Make any involvement in drug trafficking, no matter how minor, a death penalty offense. Right now, there is just too much money involved to let a little prison time deter anyone. Start executing even the lowest level pusher, and that will put a crimp in the trade. If the small time pushers are afraid to do any pushing, it will seriously cripple the big boys.
Nearly a quarter of a million Mexicans have fled the drug-crime disaster which has enveloped the border city of Ciudad Juarez, and at least 125,000 have rushed across the border to El Paso in a move which has added 16 percent to that city’s population.
The shocking statistic has been revealed in a new report issued by the Ciudad Juarez Citizens Security and Coexistence Observatory, which is a non-government body monitoring the situation in the Mexican town.
The report said that the drug-gang war which has become endemic across all of Mexico has claimed 8,300 lives in Ciudad Juarez over the last three years.
The murders have focused attention on the fact that the Central and South American drug gangs are using it as a major conduit into the United States.
The two main drug gangs fighting for control of the smuggling route have been identified as the Juarez and Sinaloa drug cartels.
According to reports, more than 20,000 houses have been abandoned in Ciudad Juarez as a result of the mass exodus, leaving whole swathes of the city deserted.
In addition, journalists covering the story have been attacked and murdered. As a result, El Paso’s “Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center” has predicted a “new wave of media members seeking asylum in the United States in the wake of the attack on the photographers.”
All of the media reports covering the drug war have ignored the obvious factor in the equation: namely that it is a result of the presence of large numbers of Third World-origin Central and South Americans in the U.S. who have organized themselves into the deadly drug-dealing gangs here.
For example, in Los Angeles, the two largest gangs are officially classified as “Hispanic,” namely the Florencia 13 and the 8th Street Gang.
Both are the result of illegal immigration, with a 1995 California Department of Justice study reporting that at least 60 percent of the 20,000 members of the 18th Street Gang are illegal immigrants.
Nationally, the Mara Salvatrucha 13 gang, which originated in El Salvador, has become perhaps the most serious criminal enterprise to ever threaten America.
The gang first appeared in this country in Los Angeles and then followed the same migratory pattern as Salvadoran immigrants, fanning out from its beachhead ethnic enclaves in California.
It is no coincidence that the drug gang wars which are typical in Mexico and Central and South America are now spreading out into the United States. It is the inevitable consequence of immigration, where immigrants bring their dominant culture with them to replace the already established civilization.
If the U.S. wants to avoid becoming like the Third World, it will have to take steps to prevent Third World populations moving here.
Nothing less than the complete halt and reversing of the current disastrous immigration policies will suffice. This is the message of the American Third Position, and we intend to take it to the voters.
Comment:
I have a way to help stop the spread of these gangs. Make any involvement in drug trafficking, no matter how minor, a death penalty offense. Right now, there is just too much money involved to let a little prison time deter anyone. Start executing even the lowest level pusher, and that will put a crimp in the trade. If the small time pushers are afraid to do any pushing, it will seriously cripple the big boys.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Unemployment rises in 27 states last month
AP
9/21/10
WASHINGTON – More than half of U.S. states saw their unemployment rates rise in August, the largest number in six months, as hiring weakened across the country.
The jobless rate increased in 27 states last month, the Labor Department said Tuesday. It fell in 13 and was unchanged in 10 states and Washington, D.C. That's worse than the previous month, when the rate increased in only 14 states and fell in 18. It's also the most states to see an increase since February.
The report also shows that some regions of the country are recovering faster than others.
Western states, struggling with a beleaguered housing sector, are losing jobs and reporting higher unemployment rates. Northeastern states, meanwhile, are posting job gains in areas such as finance and hotels and restaurants.
California, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado shed jobs in August and their unemployment rates rose. At the same time, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and New Jersey added jobs and reported lower unemployment rates.
California has shed jobs for the past four months, while Massachusetts has gained jobs for seven months in a row.
The report comes a day after a nonprofit group of economists declared that the recession ended in June 2009, making it the longest and deepest since World War II. Still, even after 15 months of recovery, the nation's unemployment rate is a painfully high 9.6 percent.
That rate disguises some sharp differences. The Northeast region's unemployment rate was unchanged in August, at 8.8 percent, the same as it was a year ago. The Western region, meanwhile, has seen its jobless rate rise to 10.8 percent from 10.5 percent a year earlier.
For Western states, "nothing really gets better until the housing market stabilizes," said Steve Cochrane, an economist at Moody's Analytics.
A depressed housing sector costs jobs for construction workers, realtors and other workers directly tied to the sector.
But it also has broader ramifications. Homeowners who are "under water" — or owe more on their homes than they are worth — are less likely to spend money renovating them, fixing them, or buying new furniture for them, Cochrane noted.
Neary 70 percent of homeowners are under water in Nevada, as of the end of June, according to real estate data provider CoreLogic.
In Arizona, half of the home mortgages were under water and in California it was 33 percent.
The housing market is struggling and years away from fully recovering from the downturn. Foreclosures spiked in August and are particularly high in several Western states.
Nevada posted the highest foreclosure rate last month, with one in every 84 households receiving a foreclosure notice. That's 4.5 times the national average.
Nevada's unemployment rate rose to 14.4 percent, a record high for the state. Nevada has the nation's highest jobless rate. It overtook Michigan in May.
Florida, Arizona, California and Idaho rounded out the top five states for foreclosures.
Meanwhile, Northeastern states like Massachusetts are benefiting from job gains in finance and leisure and hospitality. Massachusetts has posted job gains for seven straight months.
Nationwide, North Dakota posted the lowest jobless rate at 3.7 percent, followed by South Dakota at 4.5 percent and Nebraska at 4.6 percent.
Overall, the economy lost a net total of 54,000 positions last month and the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent. Private employers added a net total of only 67,000 jobs.
Comment:
In about 8 weeks, they'll announce unemployment has dropped significantly. DON'T BUY IT FOR A SECOND! Unemployment will drop, but only because of seasonal Christmas jobs like in department stores. As soon as the holidays are over, it will go right back down again, so don't be fooled by government lies.
9/21/10
WASHINGTON – More than half of U.S. states saw their unemployment rates rise in August, the largest number in six months, as hiring weakened across the country.
The jobless rate increased in 27 states last month, the Labor Department said Tuesday. It fell in 13 and was unchanged in 10 states and Washington, D.C. That's worse than the previous month, when the rate increased in only 14 states and fell in 18. It's also the most states to see an increase since February.
The report also shows that some regions of the country are recovering faster than others.
Western states, struggling with a beleaguered housing sector, are losing jobs and reporting higher unemployment rates. Northeastern states, meanwhile, are posting job gains in areas such as finance and hotels and restaurants.
California, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado shed jobs in August and their unemployment rates rose. At the same time, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and New Jersey added jobs and reported lower unemployment rates.
California has shed jobs for the past four months, while Massachusetts has gained jobs for seven months in a row.
The report comes a day after a nonprofit group of economists declared that the recession ended in June 2009, making it the longest and deepest since World War II. Still, even after 15 months of recovery, the nation's unemployment rate is a painfully high 9.6 percent.
That rate disguises some sharp differences. The Northeast region's unemployment rate was unchanged in August, at 8.8 percent, the same as it was a year ago. The Western region, meanwhile, has seen its jobless rate rise to 10.8 percent from 10.5 percent a year earlier.
For Western states, "nothing really gets better until the housing market stabilizes," said Steve Cochrane, an economist at Moody's Analytics.
A depressed housing sector costs jobs for construction workers, realtors and other workers directly tied to the sector.
But it also has broader ramifications. Homeowners who are "under water" — or owe more on their homes than they are worth — are less likely to spend money renovating them, fixing them, or buying new furniture for them, Cochrane noted.
Neary 70 percent of homeowners are under water in Nevada, as of the end of June, according to real estate data provider CoreLogic.
In Arizona, half of the home mortgages were under water and in California it was 33 percent.
The housing market is struggling and years away from fully recovering from the downturn. Foreclosures spiked in August and are particularly high in several Western states.
Nevada posted the highest foreclosure rate last month, with one in every 84 households receiving a foreclosure notice. That's 4.5 times the national average.
Nevada's unemployment rate rose to 14.4 percent, a record high for the state. Nevada has the nation's highest jobless rate. It overtook Michigan in May.
Florida, Arizona, California and Idaho rounded out the top five states for foreclosures.
Meanwhile, Northeastern states like Massachusetts are benefiting from job gains in finance and leisure and hospitality. Massachusetts has posted job gains for seven straight months.
Nationwide, North Dakota posted the lowest jobless rate at 3.7 percent, followed by South Dakota at 4.5 percent and Nebraska at 4.6 percent.
Overall, the economy lost a net total of 54,000 positions last month and the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent. Private employers added a net total of only 67,000 jobs.
Comment:
In about 8 weeks, they'll announce unemployment has dropped significantly. DON'T BUY IT FOR A SECOND! Unemployment will drop, but only because of seasonal Christmas jobs like in department stores. As soon as the holidays are over, it will go right back down again, so don't be fooled by government lies.
Unemployment rises in 27 states last month
AP
9/21/10
WASHINGTON – More than half of U.S. states saw their unemployment rates rise in August, the largest number in six months, as hiring weakened across the country.
The jobless rate increased in 27 states last month, the Labor Department said Tuesday. It fell in 13 and was unchanged in 10 states and Washington, D.C. That's worse than the previous month, when the rate increased in only 14 states and fell in 18. It's also the most states to see an increase since February.
The report also shows that some regions of the country are recovering faster than others.
Western states, struggling with a beleaguered housing sector, are losing jobs and reporting higher unemployment rates. Northeastern states, meanwhile, are posting job gains in areas such as finance and hotels and restaurants.
California, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado shed jobs in August and their unemployment rates rose. At the same time, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and New Jersey added jobs and reported lower unemployment rates.
California has shed jobs for the past four months, while Massachusetts has gained jobs for seven months in a row.
The report comes a day after a nonprofit group of economists declared that the recession ended in June 2009, making it the longest and deepest since World War II. Still, even after 15 months of recovery, the nation's unemployment rate is a painfully high 9.6 percent.
That rate disguises some sharp differences. The Northeast region's unemployment rate was unchanged in August, at 8.8 percent, the same as it was a year ago. The Western region, meanwhile, has seen its jobless rate rise to 10.8 percent from 10.5 percent a year earlier.
For Western states, "nothing really gets better until the housing market stabilizes," said Steve Cochrane, an economist at Moody's Analytics.
A depressed housing sector costs jobs for construction workers, realtors and other workers directly tied to the sector.
But it also has broader ramifications. Homeowners who are "under water" — or owe more on their homes than they are worth — are less likely to spend money renovating them, fixing them, or buying new furniture for them, Cochrane noted.
Neary 70 percent of homeowners are under water in Nevada, as of the end of June, according to real estate data provider CoreLogic.
In Arizona, half of the home mortgages were under water and in California it was 33 percent.
The housing market is struggling and years away from fully recovering from the downturn. Foreclosures spiked in August and are particularly high in several Western states.
Nevada posted the highest foreclosure rate last month, with one in every 84 households receiving a foreclosure notice. That's 4.5 times the national average.
Nevada's unemployment rate rose to 14.4 percent, a record high for the state. Nevada has the nation's highest jobless rate. It overtook Michigan in May.
Florida, Arizona, California and Idaho rounded out the top five states for foreclosures.
Meanwhile, Northeastern states like Massachusetts are benefiting from job gains in finance and leisure and hospitality. Massachusetts has posted job gains for seven straight months.
Nationwide, North Dakota posted the lowest jobless rate at 3.7 percent, followed by South Dakota at 4.5 percent and Nebraska at 4.6 percent.
Overall, the economy lost a net total of 54,000 positions last month and the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent. Private employers added a net total of only 67,000 jobs.
Comment:
In about 8 weeks, they'll announce unemployment has dropped significantly. DON'T BUY IT FOR A SECOND! Unemployment will drop, but only because of seasonal Christmas jobs like in department stores. As soon as the holidays are over, it will go right back down again, so don't be fooled by government lies.
9/21/10
WASHINGTON – More than half of U.S. states saw their unemployment rates rise in August, the largest number in six months, as hiring weakened across the country.
The jobless rate increased in 27 states last month, the Labor Department said Tuesday. It fell in 13 and was unchanged in 10 states and Washington, D.C. That's worse than the previous month, when the rate increased in only 14 states and fell in 18. It's also the most states to see an increase since February.
The report also shows that some regions of the country are recovering faster than others.
Western states, struggling with a beleaguered housing sector, are losing jobs and reporting higher unemployment rates. Northeastern states, meanwhile, are posting job gains in areas such as finance and hotels and restaurants.
California, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado shed jobs in August and their unemployment rates rose. At the same time, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and New Jersey added jobs and reported lower unemployment rates.
California has shed jobs for the past four months, while Massachusetts has gained jobs for seven months in a row.
The report comes a day after a nonprofit group of economists declared that the recession ended in June 2009, making it the longest and deepest since World War II. Still, even after 15 months of recovery, the nation's unemployment rate is a painfully high 9.6 percent.
That rate disguises some sharp differences. The Northeast region's unemployment rate was unchanged in August, at 8.8 percent, the same as it was a year ago. The Western region, meanwhile, has seen its jobless rate rise to 10.8 percent from 10.5 percent a year earlier.
For Western states, "nothing really gets better until the housing market stabilizes," said Steve Cochrane, an economist at Moody's Analytics.
A depressed housing sector costs jobs for construction workers, realtors and other workers directly tied to the sector.
But it also has broader ramifications. Homeowners who are "under water" — or owe more on their homes than they are worth — are less likely to spend money renovating them, fixing them, or buying new furniture for them, Cochrane noted.
Neary 70 percent of homeowners are under water in Nevada, as of the end of June, according to real estate data provider CoreLogic.
In Arizona, half of the home mortgages were under water and in California it was 33 percent.
The housing market is struggling and years away from fully recovering from the downturn. Foreclosures spiked in August and are particularly high in several Western states.
Nevada posted the highest foreclosure rate last month, with one in every 84 households receiving a foreclosure notice. That's 4.5 times the national average.
Nevada's unemployment rate rose to 14.4 percent, a record high for the state. Nevada has the nation's highest jobless rate. It overtook Michigan in May.
Florida, Arizona, California and Idaho rounded out the top five states for foreclosures.
Meanwhile, Northeastern states like Massachusetts are benefiting from job gains in finance and leisure and hospitality. Massachusetts has posted job gains for seven straight months.
Nationwide, North Dakota posted the lowest jobless rate at 3.7 percent, followed by South Dakota at 4.5 percent and Nebraska at 4.6 percent.
Overall, the economy lost a net total of 54,000 positions last month and the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent. Private employers added a net total of only 67,000 jobs.
Comment:
In about 8 weeks, they'll announce unemployment has dropped significantly. DON'T BUY IT FOR A SECOND! Unemployment will drop, but only because of seasonal Christmas jobs like in department stores. As soon as the holidays are over, it will go right back down again, so don't be fooled by government lies.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court may be in the cards
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Cons...-be-inevitable
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.
Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.
The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.
As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'
Apparently, the Court has had enough.
The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.
Such a thing would be long overdue.
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.
In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii . And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.
A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.
This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Comment:
You never know. Obongo is making a major mistake in alienating the Supreme Court. If they take him on, even if it's just to piss him off, it will still serve our purpose. Come on justices! Lock and load!
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Cons...-be-inevitable
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.
Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.
The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.
As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'
Apparently, the Court has had enough.
The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.
Such a thing would be long overdue.
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.
In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii . And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.
A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.
This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Comment:
You never know. Obongo is making a major mistake in alienating the Supreme Court. If they take him on, even if it's just to piss him off, it will still serve our purpose. Come on justices! Lock and load!
Smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court may be in the cards
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Cons...-be-inevitable
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.
Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.
The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.
As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'
Apparently, the Court has had enough.
The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.
Such a thing would be long overdue.
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.
In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii . And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.
A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.
This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Comment:
You never know. Obongo is making a major mistake in alienating the Supreme Court. If they take him on, even if it's just to piss him off, it will still serve our purpose. Come on justices! Lock and load!
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Cons...-be-inevitable
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.
Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.
The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.
As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'
Apparently, the Court has had enough.
The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.
Such a thing would be long overdue.
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.
In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii . And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.
A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.
This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Comment:
You never know. Obongo is making a major mistake in alienating the Supreme Court. If they take him on, even if it's just to piss him off, it will still serve our purpose. Come on justices! Lock and load!
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Mexico to build wall along Mexico/Guatemala border!
EXAMINER.COM
9/19/10
The Inter-Press Sevice (IPS) is reporting that the head administrator of the Mexican Superintendency of Tax Administration, Raul Diaz, has confirmed that his government is building a wall in the state of Chiapas, along the Mexican/Guatemalan border.
The official reason is to stop contraband from coming into Mexico, but as Diaz admitted: “It could also prevent the free passage of illegal immigrants.”
According to Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights, 500,000 people from Central America cross into Mexico illegally every year.
Just as Mexican authorities have opposed the construction of a fence by the U.S., along our border with their country, Mexico is now receiving a great deal of criticism from the Guatemalan government.
The executive coordinator of the National Bureau for Migration in Guatemala, Marila de Prince, told a local newspaper: “It is not a correct measure being taken by the Mexican government.”
Erick Maldonado, executive secretary of Guatemala's National Council on Migrants said: “We are watching the Mexican government's initiative with concern because the migrants are in a situation of highest vulnerability, as demonstrated by the massacre in Tamaulipas, where five Guatemalans died.”
Maldonado said the wall “is going to make the migrants' situation worse, because to meet their needs they are always going to find blind points where there are no migration or security controls, which implies greater risks."
Vice-President of Guatemala, Rafael Espada, said: “The walls are not the solution to the problems.”
The Catholic Church has been highly critical of U.S. treatment of illegal aliens, and one priest in Central America used the news of the Mexican wall to take another shot at the American people.
Father Francisco Pellizari, of the Casa del Migrante told IPS: “The dramatic increase in the cost of 'polleros' (human traffickers) and the corruption of the authorities is the result of the walls the United States plans to build and has built along the border. We can transpose the Guatemala case to this situation and the results will be the same.”
Peliizari said border walls “are supposedly intended to halt migration, but that hasn't happened. Instead they have triggered an economic hemorrhage and a shift in the migratory flow to inhospitable routes that lead to thousands of deaths.”
Of course, the U.S. press has completely ignored the story…They excoriate Americans for their desire to simply defend their own borders, but give Mexico a pass for building a wall to keep out illegal aliens.
Comment:
Let's be fair here. All the border jumpers aren't Mexican. Most, but not all. Some are from further south. This wall will make it harder for them to get to the U.S. Also, when the Spics complain that we are out of line for building a wall around our border, we can throw their wall in their faces.
9/19/10
The Inter-Press Sevice (IPS) is reporting that the head administrator of the Mexican Superintendency of Tax Administration, Raul Diaz, has confirmed that his government is building a wall in the state of Chiapas, along the Mexican/Guatemalan border.
The official reason is to stop contraband from coming into Mexico, but as Diaz admitted: “It could also prevent the free passage of illegal immigrants.”
According to Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights, 500,000 people from Central America cross into Mexico illegally every year.
Just as Mexican authorities have opposed the construction of a fence by the U.S., along our border with their country, Mexico is now receiving a great deal of criticism from the Guatemalan government.
The executive coordinator of the National Bureau for Migration in Guatemala, Marila de Prince, told a local newspaper: “It is not a correct measure being taken by the Mexican government.”
Erick Maldonado, executive secretary of Guatemala's National Council on Migrants said: “We are watching the Mexican government's initiative with concern because the migrants are in a situation of highest vulnerability, as demonstrated by the massacre in Tamaulipas, where five Guatemalans died.”
Maldonado said the wall “is going to make the migrants' situation worse, because to meet their needs they are always going to find blind points where there are no migration or security controls, which implies greater risks."
Vice-President of Guatemala, Rafael Espada, said: “The walls are not the solution to the problems.”
The Catholic Church has been highly critical of U.S. treatment of illegal aliens, and one priest in Central America used the news of the Mexican wall to take another shot at the American people.
Father Francisco Pellizari, of the Casa del Migrante told IPS: “The dramatic increase in the cost of 'polleros' (human traffickers) and the corruption of the authorities is the result of the walls the United States plans to build and has built along the border. We can transpose the Guatemala case to this situation and the results will be the same.”
Peliizari said border walls “are supposedly intended to halt migration, but that hasn't happened. Instead they have triggered an economic hemorrhage and a shift in the migratory flow to inhospitable routes that lead to thousands of deaths.”
Of course, the U.S. press has completely ignored the story…They excoriate Americans for their desire to simply defend their own borders, but give Mexico a pass for building a wall to keep out illegal aliens.
Comment:
Let's be fair here. All the border jumpers aren't Mexican. Most, but not all. Some are from further south. This wall will make it harder for them to get to the U.S. Also, when the Spics complain that we are out of line for building a wall around our border, we can throw their wall in their faces.
Mexico to build wall along Mexico/Guatemala border!
EXAMINER.COM
9/19/10
The Inter-Press Sevice (IPS) is reporting that the head administrator of the Mexican Superintendency of Tax Administration, Raul Diaz, has confirmed that his government is building a wall in the state of Chiapas, along the Mexican/Guatemalan border.
The official reason is to stop contraband from coming into Mexico, but as Diaz admitted: “It could also prevent the free passage of illegal immigrants.”
According to Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights, 500,000 people from Central America cross into Mexico illegally every year.
Just as Mexican authorities have opposed the construction of a fence by the U.S., along our border with their country, Mexico is now receiving a great deal of criticism from the Guatemalan government.
The executive coordinator of the National Bureau for Migration in Guatemala, Marila de Prince, told a local newspaper: “It is not a correct measure being taken by the Mexican government.”
Erick Maldonado, executive secretary of Guatemala's National Council on Migrants said: “We are watching the Mexican government's initiative with concern because the migrants are in a situation of highest vulnerability, as demonstrated by the massacre in Tamaulipas, where five Guatemalans died.”
Maldonado said the wall “is going to make the migrants' situation worse, because to meet their needs they are always going to find blind points where there are no migration or security controls, which implies greater risks."
Vice-President of Guatemala, Rafael Espada, said: “The walls are not the solution to the problems.”
The Catholic Church has been highly critical of U.S. treatment of illegal aliens, and one priest in Central America used the news of the Mexican wall to take another shot at the American people.
Father Francisco Pellizari, of the Casa del Migrante told IPS: “The dramatic increase in the cost of 'polleros' (human traffickers) and the corruption of the authorities is the result of the walls the United States plans to build and has built along the border. We can transpose the Guatemala case to this situation and the results will be the same.”
Peliizari said border walls “are supposedly intended to halt migration, but that hasn't happened. Instead they have triggered an economic hemorrhage and a shift in the migratory flow to inhospitable routes that lead to thousands of deaths.”
Of course, the U.S. press has completely ignored the story…They excoriate Americans for their desire to simply defend their own borders, but give Mexico a pass for building a wall to keep out illegal aliens.
Comment:
Let's be fair here. All the border jumpers aren't Mexican. Most, but not all. Some are from further south. This wall will make it harder for them to get to the U.S. Also, when the Spics complain that we are out of line for building a wall around our border, we can throw their wall in their faces.
9/19/10
The Inter-Press Sevice (IPS) is reporting that the head administrator of the Mexican Superintendency of Tax Administration, Raul Diaz, has confirmed that his government is building a wall in the state of Chiapas, along the Mexican/Guatemalan border.
The official reason is to stop contraband from coming into Mexico, but as Diaz admitted: “It could also prevent the free passage of illegal immigrants.”
According to Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights, 500,000 people from Central America cross into Mexico illegally every year.
Just as Mexican authorities have opposed the construction of a fence by the U.S., along our border with their country, Mexico is now receiving a great deal of criticism from the Guatemalan government.
The executive coordinator of the National Bureau for Migration in Guatemala, Marila de Prince, told a local newspaper: “It is not a correct measure being taken by the Mexican government.”
Erick Maldonado, executive secretary of Guatemala's National Council on Migrants said: “We are watching the Mexican government's initiative with concern because the migrants are in a situation of highest vulnerability, as demonstrated by the massacre in Tamaulipas, where five Guatemalans died.”
Maldonado said the wall “is going to make the migrants' situation worse, because to meet their needs they are always going to find blind points where there are no migration or security controls, which implies greater risks."
Vice-President of Guatemala, Rafael Espada, said: “The walls are not the solution to the problems.”
The Catholic Church has been highly critical of U.S. treatment of illegal aliens, and one priest in Central America used the news of the Mexican wall to take another shot at the American people.
Father Francisco Pellizari, of the Casa del Migrante told IPS: “The dramatic increase in the cost of 'polleros' (human traffickers) and the corruption of the authorities is the result of the walls the United States plans to build and has built along the border. We can transpose the Guatemala case to this situation and the results will be the same.”
Peliizari said border walls “are supposedly intended to halt migration, but that hasn't happened. Instead they have triggered an economic hemorrhage and a shift in the migratory flow to inhospitable routes that lead to thousands of deaths.”
Of course, the U.S. press has completely ignored the story…They excoriate Americans for their desire to simply defend their own borders, but give Mexico a pass for building a wall to keep out illegal aliens.
Comment:
Let's be fair here. All the border jumpers aren't Mexican. Most, but not all. Some are from further south. This wall will make it harder for them to get to the U.S. Also, when the Spics complain that we are out of line for building a wall around our border, we can throw their wall in their faces.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Proof: New Records Show DOJ Lied About New Black Panther Dismissal
PAJAMAS MEDIA
9/20/10
FOIA request reveals contradictions in statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public. Some of these statements were made under oath.
Judicial Watch made an explosive announcement today about the Justice Department’s stonewalling in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case dismissal. Forced to bring a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit after DOJ rebuffed its public records request (so much for transparency), Judicial Watch obtained a privilege log from the DOJ last week.
It shows — in a rather dramatic way — that the DOJ has been untruthful about who was involved in the dismissal of the case.
In July, I complied with a subpoena and provided testimony to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. I did so in part because inaccurate statements had been made about the case by DOJ officials. Some of these statements falsely claimed that ethical rules mandated the dismissal of the charges against the New Black Panthers. This was nonsense.
But the real whopper? DOJ’s claim — repeated over and over again — that career civil servants were wholly responsible for the spiking of the case.
Today we learn, from the Department’s own records, that this claim is demonstrably false.
The privilege log produced in the FOIA litigation contains stunning entries. They show regular discussions and deliberations between the highest political officials inside the DOJ, including the deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general, about what to do with the case. This contradicts numerous statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public.
Some of these statements were under oath.
For example: on May 10, 2009, the third highest-ranking official inside the DOJ — Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli — emailed Sam Hirsch, one of his deputies:
Where are we on the Black Panther case?
The description of the email contains a bombshell:
asking for update on the NBPP litigation between officials in the [Associate’s office] and noting the [deputy attorney general’s] current thoughts on the case.
The deputy attorney general is the second highest-ranking official in the Department. The use of the term “current thoughts” infers that there were prior thoughts and ongoing discussions with the second highest-ranking political official at DOJ about how to handle the case.
Further, the logs show dozens of communications between senior DOJ political officials in the two weeks prior to the dismissal of the case.
Congress and the public have been told — for over a year — that the dismissal of the New Black Panther case resulted from nothing more than a dispute between lowly career civil servants. Lapdog reporters have repeated this lie, if they even covered the case at all. The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch expose the ruse.
Rarely in our nation’s history have officials in the Department of Justice engaged in a dishonest misinformation campaign to Congress, the public, and other fact-finding tribunals. Thankfully, these few episodes have been confined to the darkest and most corrupt eras of the republic.
Sam Hirsch is a former Democratic Party operative, and one of the most partisan election law attorneys in the entire nation. He worked for the Democratic Party in numerous redistricting fights, trying to squeeze every last drop of partisan advantage from plans in places like Texas. He has led efforts to impose racial divisions on Hawaii by creating native classifications and powers — and he is proud of it. He was heavily involved in the Obama presidential campaign.
As deputy associate attorney general — a senior Obama political appointee — Hirsch emerges in the privilege logs as the fulcrum around which the New Black Panther case was dismissed. Throughout April and May 2009, Civil Rights Division political appointee Steve Rosenbaum engaged in extensive legal analysis with Hirsch. In turn, Hirsch had extensive communications with Associate Attorney General Perrelli about the case. The emails are sometimes described as “deliberations” between the senior political appointees. These are deliberations which the DOJ inferred never existed. Nothing more than a dispute between civil servants, they repeated without equivocation.
The privilege logs show at least thirteen communications between Hirsch and Perelli in the two weeks before the dismissal on May 15.
On April 30 alone, Hirsch and Rosenbaum communicated at least eight separate times about the case. This occurred the day before the Voting Section decided not to seek a final injunction, and instead asked the court for a two-week delay. Someone, somewhere, didn’t want the easily obtained victory by default. Perhaps it was now-resigned Deputy Attorney General David Ogden. After all, he had some “current thinking” he was eager to share. Perhaps it was someone else.
On May 8, the same day that the logs show the Voting Section provided its analysis supporting a full remedy against all four defendants, Rosenbaum immediately forwarded the Voting Section’s work to the associate attorney general’s office. It’s clear from the logs who was calling the shots — and it wasn’t the career civil servants. Rosenbaum looks like an errand boy, nothing more.
The logs also show extensive communications between Rosenbaum and multiple lawyers inside the Civil Rights Division’s Appellate Section. Apparently Rosenbaum was looking for a second opinion to back up political hostility to the case. He never got it.
According to the logs, the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section was also recruited to help kill the case. On May 12, Rosenbaum wrote an email to political appointee Hirsh, which the privilege log describes as follows:
[Rosenbaum] provides [Associate AG] in charge of CRT with requested follow-up information and confirmation that additional actions would be conducted by Criminal Section Chief per his request.
The logs reveal a full court press to find someone, anyone, willing to provide a death blow to the case with the imprimatur of the civil service.
They never got it.
Political officials Rosenbaum and Hirsch communicate an additional twenty-two times in the days before the case is finally dismissed on May 15. Hirsch even had to review the scaled-down final order which prevents King Samir Shabazz from brandishing a weapon until 2012, and only in Philadelphia.
Reading the logs, one is struck by the level of intimate involvement by the highest-ranking political officials at the DOJ. Frankly, the level of political coordination saddened me, especially given the countless statements to Congress and the public characterizing the decision as having been made only by civil servants.
For example, DOJ press spokesperson Tracy Schmaler has crowed about the Panther dismissal being made solely by career civil service attorneys, and the resulting controversy being nothing more than a “disagreement among career attorneys.” False. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez repeated the same mantra to the Civil Rights Commission. Again, not true.
When Justice Department officials deliberately misrepresent facts to the public and to Congress, there must be consequences.
Schmaler is the same press spokesperson who accused me of deliberately misrepresenting facts to advance an agenda. My testimony was under oath. I gave up a great job at the Department so I could truthfully comply with a subpoena. My only agenda is the truth.
Schmaler, or another Justice official, told Fox News that I had been reassigned to other duties and was therefore a disgruntled employee. This was laughably false. I hadn’t been reassigned anywhere — instead, I had been promoted two weeks before I resigned, and had the same duties with a GS-15-9 pay grade. When I heard this lie, I was astounded that someone at DOJ would not only breach personnel privacy policies, but engage in gutter tactics so completely divorced from the truth.
General Holder should ensure that the first obligation of his press shop is to tell the truth, then spin afterwards. And reporters dealing with Tracy Schmaler should be cautious.
The logs show political officials Hirsch and Rosenbaum, and a press spokesperson, swinging into action as soon as the press reported the dismissal on May 28, 2009. “Response to Malkin” shows up on May 28 — they were coordinating a response to Michelle Malkin’s exclusive breaking the story of the outrageous dismissal. These communications are characterized by the log as “pre-decisional,” and therefore protected. Of course, the decision to dismiss the case had already been made. I can’t wait to see what the court does with that in the FOIA litigation. (Though I suppose the decisions about how to cover up the truth of the dismissal were in the formative, pre-decisional process.)
If Congress ultimately suspects that they were lied to, they might scrutinize an undated entry: Karen Stevens is listed as an author of “talking points for the Attorney General regarding the DOJ’s handling of the NBPP litigation and the decision to drop charges.” She should get a subpoena from Congress next year also.
Similar entries evidencing the creation of an ultimately dishonest spin are throughout the log.
I would not be surprised if the log omitted documents. Inspector General Glenn Fine’s investigation of the Voting Section should include an inquiry into whether the Department is fully responsive to various requests from Congress, the press, and the Civil Rights Commission.
The log provided by DOJ to Judicial Watch contains numerous unidentified documents. The listing provides no information whatsoever about these documents, as the identity of both the authors and recipients are omitted. Congress might also demand to know what all the untitled, undated entries are in the log.
Today was a very bad day for the Justice Department, but a worse day for our country. The privilege logs show what most Americans suspected all along: that the Department was lying, and the corrupt dismissal of the New Black Panther Case was made high up the political chain of command.
Let’s see if the Department’s defenders in the press and on the Civil Rights Commission keep repeating the lies.
Comment:
Maybe the department should be renamed to the Department Of Injustice. The DOI. Say it as a word (DOY), and it has a fittingly Jewish ring to it.
9/20/10
FOIA request reveals contradictions in statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public. Some of these statements were made under oath.
Judicial Watch made an explosive announcement today about the Justice Department’s stonewalling in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case dismissal. Forced to bring a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit after DOJ rebuffed its public records request (so much for transparency), Judicial Watch obtained a privilege log from the DOJ last week.
It shows — in a rather dramatic way — that the DOJ has been untruthful about who was involved in the dismissal of the case.
In July, I complied with a subpoena and provided testimony to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. I did so in part because inaccurate statements had been made about the case by DOJ officials. Some of these statements falsely claimed that ethical rules mandated the dismissal of the charges against the New Black Panthers. This was nonsense.
But the real whopper? DOJ’s claim — repeated over and over again — that career civil servants were wholly responsible for the spiking of the case.
Today we learn, from the Department’s own records, that this claim is demonstrably false.
The privilege log produced in the FOIA litigation contains stunning entries. They show regular discussions and deliberations between the highest political officials inside the DOJ, including the deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general, about what to do with the case. This contradicts numerous statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public.
Some of these statements were under oath.
For example: on May 10, 2009, the third highest-ranking official inside the DOJ — Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli — emailed Sam Hirsch, one of his deputies:
Where are we on the Black Panther case?
The description of the email contains a bombshell:
asking for update on the NBPP litigation between officials in the [Associate’s office] and noting the [deputy attorney general’s] current thoughts on the case.
The deputy attorney general is the second highest-ranking official in the Department. The use of the term “current thoughts” infers that there were prior thoughts and ongoing discussions with the second highest-ranking political official at DOJ about how to handle the case.
Further, the logs show dozens of communications between senior DOJ political officials in the two weeks prior to the dismissal of the case.
Congress and the public have been told — for over a year — that the dismissal of the New Black Panther case resulted from nothing more than a dispute between lowly career civil servants. Lapdog reporters have repeated this lie, if they even covered the case at all. The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch expose the ruse.
Rarely in our nation’s history have officials in the Department of Justice engaged in a dishonest misinformation campaign to Congress, the public, and other fact-finding tribunals. Thankfully, these few episodes have been confined to the darkest and most corrupt eras of the republic.
Sam Hirsch is a former Democratic Party operative, and one of the most partisan election law attorneys in the entire nation. He worked for the Democratic Party in numerous redistricting fights, trying to squeeze every last drop of partisan advantage from plans in places like Texas. He has led efforts to impose racial divisions on Hawaii by creating native classifications and powers — and he is proud of it. He was heavily involved in the Obama presidential campaign.
As deputy associate attorney general — a senior Obama political appointee — Hirsch emerges in the privilege logs as the fulcrum around which the New Black Panther case was dismissed. Throughout April and May 2009, Civil Rights Division political appointee Steve Rosenbaum engaged in extensive legal analysis with Hirsch. In turn, Hirsch had extensive communications with Associate Attorney General Perrelli about the case. The emails are sometimes described as “deliberations” between the senior political appointees. These are deliberations which the DOJ inferred never existed. Nothing more than a dispute between civil servants, they repeated without equivocation.
The privilege logs show at least thirteen communications between Hirsch and Perelli in the two weeks before the dismissal on May 15.
On April 30 alone, Hirsch and Rosenbaum communicated at least eight separate times about the case. This occurred the day before the Voting Section decided not to seek a final injunction, and instead asked the court for a two-week delay. Someone, somewhere, didn’t want the easily obtained victory by default. Perhaps it was now-resigned Deputy Attorney General David Ogden. After all, he had some “current thinking” he was eager to share. Perhaps it was someone else.
On May 8, the same day that the logs show the Voting Section provided its analysis supporting a full remedy against all four defendants, Rosenbaum immediately forwarded the Voting Section’s work to the associate attorney general’s office. It’s clear from the logs who was calling the shots — and it wasn’t the career civil servants. Rosenbaum looks like an errand boy, nothing more.
The logs also show extensive communications between Rosenbaum and multiple lawyers inside the Civil Rights Division’s Appellate Section. Apparently Rosenbaum was looking for a second opinion to back up political hostility to the case. He never got it.
According to the logs, the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section was also recruited to help kill the case. On May 12, Rosenbaum wrote an email to political appointee Hirsh, which the privilege log describes as follows:
[Rosenbaum] provides [Associate AG] in charge of CRT with requested follow-up information and confirmation that additional actions would be conducted by Criminal Section Chief per his request.
The logs reveal a full court press to find someone, anyone, willing to provide a death blow to the case with the imprimatur of the civil service.
They never got it.
Political officials Rosenbaum and Hirsch communicate an additional twenty-two times in the days before the case is finally dismissed on May 15. Hirsch even had to review the scaled-down final order which prevents King Samir Shabazz from brandishing a weapon until 2012, and only in Philadelphia.
Reading the logs, one is struck by the level of intimate involvement by the highest-ranking political officials at the DOJ. Frankly, the level of political coordination saddened me, especially given the countless statements to Congress and the public characterizing the decision as having been made only by civil servants.
For example, DOJ press spokesperson Tracy Schmaler has crowed about the Panther dismissal being made solely by career civil service attorneys, and the resulting controversy being nothing more than a “disagreement among career attorneys.” False. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez repeated the same mantra to the Civil Rights Commission. Again, not true.
When Justice Department officials deliberately misrepresent facts to the public and to Congress, there must be consequences.
Schmaler is the same press spokesperson who accused me of deliberately misrepresenting facts to advance an agenda. My testimony was under oath. I gave up a great job at the Department so I could truthfully comply with a subpoena. My only agenda is the truth.
Schmaler, or another Justice official, told Fox News that I had been reassigned to other duties and was therefore a disgruntled employee. This was laughably false. I hadn’t been reassigned anywhere — instead, I had been promoted two weeks before I resigned, and had the same duties with a GS-15-9 pay grade. When I heard this lie, I was astounded that someone at DOJ would not only breach personnel privacy policies, but engage in gutter tactics so completely divorced from the truth.
General Holder should ensure that the first obligation of his press shop is to tell the truth, then spin afterwards. And reporters dealing with Tracy Schmaler should be cautious.
The logs show political officials Hirsch and Rosenbaum, and a press spokesperson, swinging into action as soon as the press reported the dismissal on May 28, 2009. “Response to Malkin” shows up on May 28 — they were coordinating a response to Michelle Malkin’s exclusive breaking the story of the outrageous dismissal. These communications are characterized by the log as “pre-decisional,” and therefore protected. Of course, the decision to dismiss the case had already been made. I can’t wait to see what the court does with that in the FOIA litigation. (Though I suppose the decisions about how to cover up the truth of the dismissal were in the formative, pre-decisional process.)
If Congress ultimately suspects that they were lied to, they might scrutinize an undated entry: Karen Stevens is listed as an author of “talking points for the Attorney General regarding the DOJ’s handling of the NBPP litigation and the decision to drop charges.” She should get a subpoena from Congress next year also.
Similar entries evidencing the creation of an ultimately dishonest spin are throughout the log.
I would not be surprised if the log omitted documents. Inspector General Glenn Fine’s investigation of the Voting Section should include an inquiry into whether the Department is fully responsive to various requests from Congress, the press, and the Civil Rights Commission.
The log provided by DOJ to Judicial Watch contains numerous unidentified documents. The listing provides no information whatsoever about these documents, as the identity of both the authors and recipients are omitted. Congress might also demand to know what all the untitled, undated entries are in the log.
Today was a very bad day for the Justice Department, but a worse day for our country. The privilege logs show what most Americans suspected all along: that the Department was lying, and the corrupt dismissal of the New Black Panther Case was made high up the political chain of command.
Let’s see if the Department’s defenders in the press and on the Civil Rights Commission keep repeating the lies.
Comment:
Maybe the department should be renamed to the Department Of Injustice. The DOI. Say it as a word (DOY), and it has a fittingly Jewish ring to it.
Proof: New Records Show DOJ Lied About New Black Panther Dismissal
PAJAMAS MEDIA
9/20/10
FOIA request reveals contradictions in statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public. Some of these statements were made under oath.
Judicial Watch made an explosive announcement today about the Justice Department’s stonewalling in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case dismissal. Forced to bring a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit after DOJ rebuffed its public records request (so much for transparency), Judicial Watch obtained a privilege log from the DOJ last week.
It shows — in a rather dramatic way — that the DOJ has been untruthful about who was involved in the dismissal of the case.
In July, I complied with a subpoena and provided testimony to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. I did so in part because inaccurate statements had been made about the case by DOJ officials. Some of these statements falsely claimed that ethical rules mandated the dismissal of the charges against the New Black Panthers. This was nonsense.
But the real whopper? DOJ’s claim — repeated over and over again — that career civil servants were wholly responsible for the spiking of the case.
Today we learn, from the Department’s own records, that this claim is demonstrably false.
The privilege log produced in the FOIA litigation contains stunning entries. They show regular discussions and deliberations between the highest political officials inside the DOJ, including the deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general, about what to do with the case. This contradicts numerous statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public.
Some of these statements were under oath.
For example: on May 10, 2009, the third highest-ranking official inside the DOJ — Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli — emailed Sam Hirsch, one of his deputies:
Where are we on the Black Panther case?
The description of the email contains a bombshell:
asking for update on the NBPP litigation between officials in the [Associate’s office] and noting the [deputy attorney general’s] current thoughts on the case.
The deputy attorney general is the second highest-ranking official in the Department. The use of the term “current thoughts” infers that there were prior thoughts and ongoing discussions with the second highest-ranking political official at DOJ about how to handle the case.
Further, the logs show dozens of communications between senior DOJ political officials in the two weeks prior to the dismissal of the case.
Congress and the public have been told — for over a year — that the dismissal of the New Black Panther case resulted from nothing more than a dispute between lowly career civil servants. Lapdog reporters have repeated this lie, if they even covered the case at all. The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch expose the ruse.
Rarely in our nation’s history have officials in the Department of Justice engaged in a dishonest misinformation campaign to Congress, the public, and other fact-finding tribunals. Thankfully, these few episodes have been confined to the darkest and most corrupt eras of the republic.
Sam Hirsch is a former Democratic Party operative, and one of the most partisan election law attorneys in the entire nation. He worked for the Democratic Party in numerous redistricting fights, trying to squeeze every last drop of partisan advantage from plans in places like Texas. He has led efforts to impose racial divisions on Hawaii by creating native classifications and powers — and he is proud of it. He was heavily involved in the Obama presidential campaign.
As deputy associate attorney general — a senior Obama political appointee — Hirsch emerges in the privilege logs as the fulcrum around which the New Black Panther case was dismissed. Throughout April and May 2009, Civil Rights Division political appointee Steve Rosenbaum engaged in extensive legal analysis with Hirsch. In turn, Hirsch had extensive communications with Associate Attorney General Perrelli about the case. The emails are sometimes described as “deliberations” between the senior political appointees. These are deliberations which the DOJ inferred never existed. Nothing more than a dispute between civil servants, they repeated without equivocation.
The privilege logs show at least thirteen communications between Hirsch and Perelli in the two weeks before the dismissal on May 15.
On April 30 alone, Hirsch and Rosenbaum communicated at least eight separate times about the case. This occurred the day before the Voting Section decided not to seek a final injunction, and instead asked the court for a two-week delay. Someone, somewhere, didn’t want the easily obtained victory by default. Perhaps it was now-resigned Deputy Attorney General David Ogden. After all, he had some “current thinking” he was eager to share. Perhaps it was someone else.
On May 8, the same day that the logs show the Voting Section provided its analysis supporting a full remedy against all four defendants, Rosenbaum immediately forwarded the Voting Section’s work to the associate attorney general’s office. It’s clear from the logs who was calling the shots — and it wasn’t the career civil servants. Rosenbaum looks like an errand boy, nothing more.
The logs also show extensive communications between Rosenbaum and multiple lawyers inside the Civil Rights Division’s Appellate Section. Apparently Rosenbaum was looking for a second opinion to back up political hostility to the case. He never got it.
According to the logs, the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section was also recruited to help kill the case. On May 12, Rosenbaum wrote an email to political appointee Hirsh, which the privilege log describes as follows:
[Rosenbaum] provides [Associate AG] in charge of CRT with requested follow-up information and confirmation that additional actions would be conducted by Criminal Section Chief per his request.
The logs reveal a full court press to find someone, anyone, willing to provide a death blow to the case with the imprimatur of the civil service.
They never got it.
Political officials Rosenbaum and Hirsch communicate an additional twenty-two times in the days before the case is finally dismissed on May 15. Hirsch even had to review the scaled-down final order which prevents King Samir Shabazz from brandishing a weapon until 2012, and only in Philadelphia.
Reading the logs, one is struck by the level of intimate involvement by the highest-ranking political officials at the DOJ. Frankly, the level of political coordination saddened me, especially given the countless statements to Congress and the public characterizing the decision as having been made only by civil servants.
For example, DOJ press spokesperson Tracy Schmaler has crowed about the Panther dismissal being made solely by career civil service attorneys, and the resulting controversy being nothing more than a “disagreement among career attorneys.” False. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez repeated the same mantra to the Civil Rights Commission. Again, not true.
When Justice Department officials deliberately misrepresent facts to the public and to Congress, there must be consequences.
Schmaler is the same press spokesperson who accused me of deliberately misrepresenting facts to advance an agenda. My testimony was under oath. I gave up a great job at the Department so I could truthfully comply with a subpoena. My only agenda is the truth.
Schmaler, or another Justice official, told Fox News that I had been reassigned to other duties and was therefore a disgruntled employee. This was laughably false. I hadn’t been reassigned anywhere — instead, I had been promoted two weeks before I resigned, and had the same duties with a GS-15-9 pay grade. When I heard this lie, I was astounded that someone at DOJ would not only breach personnel privacy policies, but engage in gutter tactics so completely divorced from the truth.
General Holder should ensure that the first obligation of his press shop is to tell the truth, then spin afterwards. And reporters dealing with Tracy Schmaler should be cautious.
The logs show political officials Hirsch and Rosenbaum, and a press spokesperson, swinging into action as soon as the press reported the dismissal on May 28, 2009. “Response to Malkin” shows up on May 28 — they were coordinating a response to Michelle Malkin’s exclusive breaking the story of the outrageous dismissal. These communications are characterized by the log as “pre-decisional,” and therefore protected. Of course, the decision to dismiss the case had already been made. I can’t wait to see what the court does with that in the FOIA litigation. (Though I suppose the decisions about how to cover up the truth of the dismissal were in the formative, pre-decisional process.)
If Congress ultimately suspects that they were lied to, they might scrutinize an undated entry: Karen Stevens is listed as an author of “talking points for the Attorney General regarding the DOJ’s handling of the NBPP litigation and the decision to drop charges.” She should get a subpoena from Congress next year also.
Similar entries evidencing the creation of an ultimately dishonest spin are throughout the log.
I would not be surprised if the log omitted documents. Inspector General Glenn Fine’s investigation of the Voting Section should include an inquiry into whether the Department is fully responsive to various requests from Congress, the press, and the Civil Rights Commission.
The log provided by DOJ to Judicial Watch contains numerous unidentified documents. The listing provides no information whatsoever about these documents, as the identity of both the authors and recipients are omitted. Congress might also demand to know what all the untitled, undated entries are in the log.
Today was a very bad day for the Justice Department, but a worse day for our country. The privilege logs show what most Americans suspected all along: that the Department was lying, and the corrupt dismissal of the New Black Panther Case was made high up the political chain of command.
Let’s see if the Department’s defenders in the press and on the Civil Rights Commission keep repeating the lies.
Comment:
Maybe the department should be renamed to the Department Of Injustice. The DOI. Say it as a word (DOY), and it has a fittingly Jewish ring to it.
9/20/10
FOIA request reveals contradictions in statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public. Some of these statements were made under oath.
Judicial Watch made an explosive announcement today about the Justice Department’s stonewalling in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case dismissal. Forced to bring a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit after DOJ rebuffed its public records request (so much for transparency), Judicial Watch obtained a privilege log from the DOJ last week.
It shows — in a rather dramatic way — that the DOJ has been untruthful about who was involved in the dismissal of the case.
In July, I complied with a subpoena and provided testimony to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. I did so in part because inaccurate statements had been made about the case by DOJ officials. Some of these statements falsely claimed that ethical rules mandated the dismissal of the charges against the New Black Panthers. This was nonsense.
But the real whopper? DOJ’s claim — repeated over and over again — that career civil servants were wholly responsible for the spiking of the case.
Today we learn, from the Department’s own records, that this claim is demonstrably false.
The privilege log produced in the FOIA litigation contains stunning entries. They show regular discussions and deliberations between the highest political officials inside the DOJ, including the deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general, about what to do with the case. This contradicts numerous statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public.
Some of these statements were under oath.
For example: on May 10, 2009, the third highest-ranking official inside the DOJ — Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli — emailed Sam Hirsch, one of his deputies:
Where are we on the Black Panther case?
The description of the email contains a bombshell:
asking for update on the NBPP litigation between officials in the [Associate’s office] and noting the [deputy attorney general’s] current thoughts on the case.
The deputy attorney general is the second highest-ranking official in the Department. The use of the term “current thoughts” infers that there were prior thoughts and ongoing discussions with the second highest-ranking political official at DOJ about how to handle the case.
Further, the logs show dozens of communications between senior DOJ political officials in the two weeks prior to the dismissal of the case.
Congress and the public have been told — for over a year — that the dismissal of the New Black Panther case resulted from nothing more than a dispute between lowly career civil servants. Lapdog reporters have repeated this lie, if they even covered the case at all. The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch expose the ruse.
Rarely in our nation’s history have officials in the Department of Justice engaged in a dishonest misinformation campaign to Congress, the public, and other fact-finding tribunals. Thankfully, these few episodes have been confined to the darkest and most corrupt eras of the republic.
Sam Hirsch is a former Democratic Party operative, and one of the most partisan election law attorneys in the entire nation. He worked for the Democratic Party in numerous redistricting fights, trying to squeeze every last drop of partisan advantage from plans in places like Texas. He has led efforts to impose racial divisions on Hawaii by creating native classifications and powers — and he is proud of it. He was heavily involved in the Obama presidential campaign.
As deputy associate attorney general — a senior Obama political appointee — Hirsch emerges in the privilege logs as the fulcrum around which the New Black Panther case was dismissed. Throughout April and May 2009, Civil Rights Division political appointee Steve Rosenbaum engaged in extensive legal analysis with Hirsch. In turn, Hirsch had extensive communications with Associate Attorney General Perrelli about the case. The emails are sometimes described as “deliberations” between the senior political appointees. These are deliberations which the DOJ inferred never existed. Nothing more than a dispute between civil servants, they repeated without equivocation.
The privilege logs show at least thirteen communications between Hirsch and Perelli in the two weeks before the dismissal on May 15.
On April 30 alone, Hirsch and Rosenbaum communicated at least eight separate times about the case. This occurred the day before the Voting Section decided not to seek a final injunction, and instead asked the court for a two-week delay. Someone, somewhere, didn’t want the easily obtained victory by default. Perhaps it was now-resigned Deputy Attorney General David Ogden. After all, he had some “current thinking” he was eager to share. Perhaps it was someone else.
On May 8, the same day that the logs show the Voting Section provided its analysis supporting a full remedy against all four defendants, Rosenbaum immediately forwarded the Voting Section’s work to the associate attorney general’s office. It’s clear from the logs who was calling the shots — and it wasn’t the career civil servants. Rosenbaum looks like an errand boy, nothing more.
The logs also show extensive communications between Rosenbaum and multiple lawyers inside the Civil Rights Division’s Appellate Section. Apparently Rosenbaum was looking for a second opinion to back up political hostility to the case. He never got it.
According to the logs, the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section was also recruited to help kill the case. On May 12, Rosenbaum wrote an email to political appointee Hirsh, which the privilege log describes as follows:
[Rosenbaum] provides [Associate AG] in charge of CRT with requested follow-up information and confirmation that additional actions would be conducted by Criminal Section Chief per his request.
The logs reveal a full court press to find someone, anyone, willing to provide a death blow to the case with the imprimatur of the civil service.
They never got it.
Political officials Rosenbaum and Hirsch communicate an additional twenty-two times in the days before the case is finally dismissed on May 15. Hirsch even had to review the scaled-down final order which prevents King Samir Shabazz from brandishing a weapon until 2012, and only in Philadelphia.
Reading the logs, one is struck by the level of intimate involvement by the highest-ranking political officials at the DOJ. Frankly, the level of political coordination saddened me, especially given the countless statements to Congress and the public characterizing the decision as having been made only by civil servants.
For example, DOJ press spokesperson Tracy Schmaler has crowed about the Panther dismissal being made solely by career civil service attorneys, and the resulting controversy being nothing more than a “disagreement among career attorneys.” False. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez repeated the same mantra to the Civil Rights Commission. Again, not true.
When Justice Department officials deliberately misrepresent facts to the public and to Congress, there must be consequences.
Schmaler is the same press spokesperson who accused me of deliberately misrepresenting facts to advance an agenda. My testimony was under oath. I gave up a great job at the Department so I could truthfully comply with a subpoena. My only agenda is the truth.
Schmaler, or another Justice official, told Fox News that I had been reassigned to other duties and was therefore a disgruntled employee. This was laughably false. I hadn’t been reassigned anywhere — instead, I had been promoted two weeks before I resigned, and had the same duties with a GS-15-9 pay grade. When I heard this lie, I was astounded that someone at DOJ would not only breach personnel privacy policies, but engage in gutter tactics so completely divorced from the truth.
General Holder should ensure that the first obligation of his press shop is to tell the truth, then spin afterwards. And reporters dealing with Tracy Schmaler should be cautious.
The logs show political officials Hirsch and Rosenbaum, and a press spokesperson, swinging into action as soon as the press reported the dismissal on May 28, 2009. “Response to Malkin” shows up on May 28 — they were coordinating a response to Michelle Malkin’s exclusive breaking the story of the outrageous dismissal. These communications are characterized by the log as “pre-decisional,” and therefore protected. Of course, the decision to dismiss the case had already been made. I can’t wait to see what the court does with that in the FOIA litigation. (Though I suppose the decisions about how to cover up the truth of the dismissal were in the formative, pre-decisional process.)
If Congress ultimately suspects that they were lied to, they might scrutinize an undated entry: Karen Stevens is listed as an author of “talking points for the Attorney General regarding the DOJ’s handling of the NBPP litigation and the decision to drop charges.” She should get a subpoena from Congress next year also.
Similar entries evidencing the creation of an ultimately dishonest spin are throughout the log.
I would not be surprised if the log omitted documents. Inspector General Glenn Fine’s investigation of the Voting Section should include an inquiry into whether the Department is fully responsive to various requests from Congress, the press, and the Civil Rights Commission.
The log provided by DOJ to Judicial Watch contains numerous unidentified documents. The listing provides no information whatsoever about these documents, as the identity of both the authors and recipients are omitted. Congress might also demand to know what all the untitled, undated entries are in the log.
Today was a very bad day for the Justice Department, but a worse day for our country. The privilege logs show what most Americans suspected all along: that the Department was lying, and the corrupt dismissal of the New Black Panther Case was made high up the political chain of command.
Let’s see if the Department’s defenders in the press and on the Civil Rights Commission keep repeating the lies.
Comment:
Maybe the department should be renamed to the Department Of Injustice. The DOI. Say it as a word (DOY), and it has a fittingly Jewish ring to it.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
ADL Demands Apology for Time Magazine Cover
NEWSMAX
9/19/10
The Anti-Defamation League has called on Time magazine to apologize for a cover story the League asserts was predicated on the “insidious subtext” of Jews being obsessed with money.
The cover of Time’s Sept. 13 issue features a Star of David with these words inside it: “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.”
ADL National Director Abraham Foxman said the “outcry from the Jewish community and others has been overwhelming. We have received calls and e-mails from around the country expressing outrage at the implication that Israelis care more about money than a future of peace and security.”
In a letter to Managing Editor Richard Stengel, the ADL called on the magazine's editors to issue an apology to readers both for the timing of the article and its evocation of anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews and money.
"The insidious subtext of Israeli Jews being obsessed with money echoes the age-old anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews care about money above any other interest, in this case achieving peace with the Palestinians," Foxman wrote.
"At the same time, Time ignores the very real sacrifices made by Israel and its people in the pursuit of peace and the efforts by successive Israeli governments of reconciliation.
"One can only be cynical about the timing of the article, appearing as Israelis and Palestinians engage in direct negotiations and Jews the world over pray on the High Holidays for a New Year that will bring peace."
Comment:
If the sterotype fits, wear it!
ADL Demands Apology for Time Magazine Cover
NEWSMAX
9/19/10
The Anti-Defamation League has called on Time magazine to apologize for a cover story the League asserts was predicated on the “insidious subtext” of Jews being obsessed with money.
The cover of Time’s Sept. 13 issue features a Star of David with these words inside it: “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.”
ADL National Director Abraham Foxman said the “outcry from the Jewish community and others has been overwhelming. We have received calls and e-mails from around the country expressing outrage at the implication that Israelis care more about money than a future of peace and security.”
In a letter to Managing Editor Richard Stengel, the ADL called on the magazine's editors to issue an apology to readers both for the timing of the article and its evocation of anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews and money.
"The insidious subtext of Israeli Jews being obsessed with money echoes the age-old anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews care about money above any other interest, in this case achieving peace with the Palestinians," Foxman wrote.
"At the same time, Time ignores the very real sacrifices made by Israel and its people in the pursuit of peace and the efforts by successive Israeli governments of reconciliation.
"One can only be cynical about the timing of the article, appearing as Israelis and Palestinians engage in direct negotiations and Jews the world over pray on the High Holidays for a New Year that will bring peace."
Comment:
If the sterotype fits, wear it!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Imam says NYC mosque site is not 'hallowed ground'
AP
9/13/10
NEW YORK – It may be two blocks from ground zero, but the site of a proposed mosque and Islamic center shouldn't been seen as sacrosanct in a neighborhood that also harbors a strip club and a betting parlor, the cleric leading the effort said Monday.
Making an ardent case for the compatibility of Islam and American values, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf reiterated that he was searching for a solution to the furor the project has created. But he left unanswered exactly what he had in mind.
If anything, Rauf only deepened the questions around the project's future, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank that he was "exploring all options" — but declining to specify them — and underscoring what he saw as the importance of a location that would draw attention to his message of promulgating moderate Islam. And while opponents of the project see it as insulting the memories of the thousands killed by Muslim extremists in the 2001 terrorist attacks, Rauf said he didn't see it as sacred memorial space.
"It's absolutely disingenuous, as many have said, that that block is hallowed ground," Rauf said, noting the nearby exotic dance and betting businesses. "So let's clarify that misperception."
The proposed Islamic center has become a flashpoint for worldwide debate about Islam's place in America nine years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Controversy has colored the fall campaign season and cast a a shadow on this past weekend's commemoration of the attacks, with supporters and opponents of the mosque project both holding rallies nearby.
Rauf says a project meant to foster understanding has become unduly mired in conflict and what he describes as misconceptions of a fundamental clash between Islamic and American values. The Kuwait-born imam used his own life story as an example, saying that his own faith had been shaped by the sense of choosing one's identity that American society provided, compared with the predominantly Muslim society from which he emigrated in 1965.
"I'm a devout Muslim ... and I'm also a proud American citizen," said Rauf, noting that he was naturalized in 1979 and has a niece serving in the U.S. Army. "I vote in elections. I pay taxes. I pledge allegiance to the flag. And I'm a Giants fan."
He said Monday that the Islamic center's organizers were surprised by the uproar and might not have pursued it had they known what was coming.
"The events of these past few weeks have really saddened me to my very core," he said, lamenting that the project had been misunderstood, clouded by stereotypes, and "exploited" by some to push personal or political agendas.
But he declined to detail any strategy for quieting the clamor — or say whether that might include moving the project.
"We are exploring all options as we speak right now, and we are working through what will be a solution, God willing, that will resolve this crisis, defuse it and not create any unforeseen or untoward circumstances that we do not want to see happen," Rauf said during a question-and-answer session following his speech. "Everything is on the table. ... We really are focused on solving it, and solving it in the way that will create the best possible outcome for all."
He suggested the locale's high profile served an important purpose for the proposed $100 million Islamic center, which organizers describe as featuring prayer space, but also a swimming pool, culinary school, art studios and other features.
"We need to create a platform where the voice of moderate Muslims would be amplified," Rauf said. "This is an opportunity that we must capitalize on so that those who teach moderation will have a mega-horn."
But to at least some who listened to his talk Monday, that's not what Rauf is doing.
Fouad Ajami, a Middle East studies professor at Johns Hopkins University, said Rauf's appearance didn't change his misgivings about the mosque project.
"I just think it's provocative," Ajami said. While organizers may have the right to build it, "the prudence of it, the wisdom of it" is the question, he said.
Comment:
At least one Raghead (Ajami) understands how wrong this project is.
Rauf claims the ground isn't sacred. Well, if he means did some clergyman consecrate it? I don't think so, but it still is like hallowed ground to many Americans - especially those who lost someone in 9/11. It's totally insensitive.
And what do strip clubs have to do with it? Those businesses were there prior to 9/11, and are not an insult to the memory of those who died.
9/13/10
NEW YORK – It may be two blocks from ground zero, but the site of a proposed mosque and Islamic center shouldn't been seen as sacrosanct in a neighborhood that also harbors a strip club and a betting parlor, the cleric leading the effort said Monday.
Making an ardent case for the compatibility of Islam and American values, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf reiterated that he was searching for a solution to the furor the project has created. But he left unanswered exactly what he had in mind.
If anything, Rauf only deepened the questions around the project's future, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank that he was "exploring all options" — but declining to specify them — and underscoring what he saw as the importance of a location that would draw attention to his message of promulgating moderate Islam. And while opponents of the project see it as insulting the memories of the thousands killed by Muslim extremists in the 2001 terrorist attacks, Rauf said he didn't see it as sacred memorial space.
"It's absolutely disingenuous, as many have said, that that block is hallowed ground," Rauf said, noting the nearby exotic dance and betting businesses. "So let's clarify that misperception."
The proposed Islamic center has become a flashpoint for worldwide debate about Islam's place in America nine years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Controversy has colored the fall campaign season and cast a a shadow on this past weekend's commemoration of the attacks, with supporters and opponents of the mosque project both holding rallies nearby.
Rauf says a project meant to foster understanding has become unduly mired in conflict and what he describes as misconceptions of a fundamental clash between Islamic and American values. The Kuwait-born imam used his own life story as an example, saying that his own faith had been shaped by the sense of choosing one's identity that American society provided, compared with the predominantly Muslim society from which he emigrated in 1965.
"I'm a devout Muslim ... and I'm also a proud American citizen," said Rauf, noting that he was naturalized in 1979 and has a niece serving in the U.S. Army. "I vote in elections. I pay taxes. I pledge allegiance to the flag. And I'm a Giants fan."
He said Monday that the Islamic center's organizers were surprised by the uproar and might not have pursued it had they known what was coming.
"The events of these past few weeks have really saddened me to my very core," he said, lamenting that the project had been misunderstood, clouded by stereotypes, and "exploited" by some to push personal or political agendas.
But he declined to detail any strategy for quieting the clamor — or say whether that might include moving the project.
"We are exploring all options as we speak right now, and we are working through what will be a solution, God willing, that will resolve this crisis, defuse it and not create any unforeseen or untoward circumstances that we do not want to see happen," Rauf said during a question-and-answer session following his speech. "Everything is on the table. ... We really are focused on solving it, and solving it in the way that will create the best possible outcome for all."
He suggested the locale's high profile served an important purpose for the proposed $100 million Islamic center, which organizers describe as featuring prayer space, but also a swimming pool, culinary school, art studios and other features.
"We need to create a platform where the voice of moderate Muslims would be amplified," Rauf said. "This is an opportunity that we must capitalize on so that those who teach moderation will have a mega-horn."
But to at least some who listened to his talk Monday, that's not what Rauf is doing.
Fouad Ajami, a Middle East studies professor at Johns Hopkins University, said Rauf's appearance didn't change his misgivings about the mosque project.
"I just think it's provocative," Ajami said. While organizers may have the right to build it, "the prudence of it, the wisdom of it" is the question, he said.
Comment:
At least one Raghead (Ajami) understands how wrong this project is.
Rauf claims the ground isn't sacred. Well, if he means did some clergyman consecrate it? I don't think so, but it still is like hallowed ground to many Americans - especially those who lost someone in 9/11. It's totally insensitive.
And what do strip clubs have to do with it? Those businesses were there prior to 9/11, and are not an insult to the memory of those who died.
Imam says NYC mosque site is not 'hallowed ground'
AP
9/13/10
NEW YORK – It may be two blocks from ground zero, but the site of a proposed mosque and Islamic center shouldn't been seen as sacrosanct in a neighborhood that also harbors a strip club and a betting parlor, the cleric leading the effort said Monday.
Making an ardent case for the compatibility of Islam and American values, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf reiterated that he was searching for a solution to the furor the project has created. But he left unanswered exactly what he had in mind.
If anything, Rauf only deepened the questions around the project's future, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank that he was "exploring all options" — but declining to specify them — and underscoring what he saw as the importance of a location that would draw attention to his message of promulgating moderate Islam. And while opponents of the project see it as insulting the memories of the thousands killed by Muslim extremists in the 2001 terrorist attacks, Rauf said he didn't see it as sacred memorial space.
"It's absolutely disingenuous, as many have said, that that block is hallowed ground," Rauf said, noting the nearby exotic dance and betting businesses. "So let's clarify that misperception."
The proposed Islamic center has become a flashpoint for worldwide debate about Islam's place in America nine years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Controversy has colored the fall campaign season and cast a a shadow on this past weekend's commemoration of the attacks, with supporters and opponents of the mosque project both holding rallies nearby.
Rauf says a project meant to foster understanding has become unduly mired in conflict and what he describes as misconceptions of a fundamental clash between Islamic and American values. The Kuwait-born imam used his own life story as an example, saying that his own faith had been shaped by the sense of choosing one's identity that American society provided, compared with the predominantly Muslim society from which he emigrated in 1965.
"I'm a devout Muslim ... and I'm also a proud American citizen," said Rauf, noting that he was naturalized in 1979 and has a niece serving in the U.S. Army. "I vote in elections. I pay taxes. I pledge allegiance to the flag. And I'm a Giants fan."
He said Monday that the Islamic center's organizers were surprised by the uproar and might not have pursued it had they known what was coming.
"The events of these past few weeks have really saddened me to my very core," he said, lamenting that the project had been misunderstood, clouded by stereotypes, and "exploited" by some to push personal or political agendas.
But he declined to detail any strategy for quieting the clamor — or say whether that might include moving the project.
"We are exploring all options as we speak right now, and we are working through what will be a solution, God willing, that will resolve this crisis, defuse it and not create any unforeseen or untoward circumstances that we do not want to see happen," Rauf said during a question-and-answer session following his speech. "Everything is on the table. ... We really are focused on solving it, and solving it in the way that will create the best possible outcome for all."
He suggested the locale's high profile served an important purpose for the proposed $100 million Islamic center, which organizers describe as featuring prayer space, but also a swimming pool, culinary school, art studios and other features.
"We need to create a platform where the voice of moderate Muslims would be amplified," Rauf said. "This is an opportunity that we must capitalize on so that those who teach moderation will have a mega-horn."
But to at least some who listened to his talk Monday, that's not what Rauf is doing.
Fouad Ajami, a Middle East studies professor at Johns Hopkins University, said Rauf's appearance didn't change his misgivings about the mosque project.
"I just think it's provocative," Ajami said. While organizers may have the right to build it, "the prudence of it, the wisdom of it" is the question, he said.
Comment:
At least one Raghead (Ajami) understands how wrong this project is.
Rauf claims the ground isn't sacred. Well, if he means did some clergyman consecrate it? I don't think so, but it still is like hallowed ground to many Americans - especially those who lost someone in 9/11. It's totally insensitive.
And what do strip clubs have to do with it? Those businesses were there prior to 9/11, and are not an insult to the memory of those who died.
9/13/10
NEW YORK – It may be two blocks from ground zero, but the site of a proposed mosque and Islamic center shouldn't been seen as sacrosanct in a neighborhood that also harbors a strip club and a betting parlor, the cleric leading the effort said Monday.
Making an ardent case for the compatibility of Islam and American values, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf reiterated that he was searching for a solution to the furor the project has created. But he left unanswered exactly what he had in mind.
If anything, Rauf only deepened the questions around the project's future, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank that he was "exploring all options" — but declining to specify them — and underscoring what he saw as the importance of a location that would draw attention to his message of promulgating moderate Islam. And while opponents of the project see it as insulting the memories of the thousands killed by Muslim extremists in the 2001 terrorist attacks, Rauf said he didn't see it as sacred memorial space.
"It's absolutely disingenuous, as many have said, that that block is hallowed ground," Rauf said, noting the nearby exotic dance and betting businesses. "So let's clarify that misperception."
The proposed Islamic center has become a flashpoint for worldwide debate about Islam's place in America nine years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Controversy has colored the fall campaign season and cast a a shadow on this past weekend's commemoration of the attacks, with supporters and opponents of the mosque project both holding rallies nearby.
Rauf says a project meant to foster understanding has become unduly mired in conflict and what he describes as misconceptions of a fundamental clash between Islamic and American values. The Kuwait-born imam used his own life story as an example, saying that his own faith had been shaped by the sense of choosing one's identity that American society provided, compared with the predominantly Muslim society from which he emigrated in 1965.
"I'm a devout Muslim ... and I'm also a proud American citizen," said Rauf, noting that he was naturalized in 1979 and has a niece serving in the U.S. Army. "I vote in elections. I pay taxes. I pledge allegiance to the flag. And I'm a Giants fan."
He said Monday that the Islamic center's organizers were surprised by the uproar and might not have pursued it had they known what was coming.
"The events of these past few weeks have really saddened me to my very core," he said, lamenting that the project had been misunderstood, clouded by stereotypes, and "exploited" by some to push personal or political agendas.
But he declined to detail any strategy for quieting the clamor — or say whether that might include moving the project.
"We are exploring all options as we speak right now, and we are working through what will be a solution, God willing, that will resolve this crisis, defuse it and not create any unforeseen or untoward circumstances that we do not want to see happen," Rauf said during a question-and-answer session following his speech. "Everything is on the table. ... We really are focused on solving it, and solving it in the way that will create the best possible outcome for all."
He suggested the locale's high profile served an important purpose for the proposed $100 million Islamic center, which organizers describe as featuring prayer space, but also a swimming pool, culinary school, art studios and other features.
"We need to create a platform where the voice of moderate Muslims would be amplified," Rauf said. "This is an opportunity that we must capitalize on so that those who teach moderation will have a mega-horn."
But to at least some who listened to his talk Monday, that's not what Rauf is doing.
Fouad Ajami, a Middle East studies professor at Johns Hopkins University, said Rauf's appearance didn't change his misgivings about the mosque project.
"I just think it's provocative," Ajami said. While organizers may have the right to build it, "the prudence of it, the wisdom of it" is the question, he said.
Comment:
At least one Raghead (Ajami) understands how wrong this project is.
Rauf claims the ground isn't sacred. Well, if he means did some clergyman consecrate it? I don't think so, but it still is like hallowed ground to many Americans - especially those who lost someone in 9/11. It's totally insensitive.
And what do strip clubs have to do with it? Those businesses were there prior to 9/11, and are not an insult to the memory of those who died.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Federal Government Deficit On Track As Second-Highest Ever
AP
9/14/10
WASHINGTON - The federal government is on track to record the second-highest deficit of all time with one month left in the budget year.
The deficit totaled $1.26 trillion through August, the Treasury Department said yesterday. That puts it on pace to total $1.3 trillion when the budget year ends Sept. 30, slightly below last year’s record $1.4 trillion deficit.
Soaring deficits have become a major issue with voters heading into the midterm elections. Republicans say the deficits illustrate the growth of spending under Democrats and show their poor handling of the economy.
The Obama administration contends the record deficits were necessary to combat the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.
About one-third of the higher deficits are a result of a drop in government tax revenues. The other two-thirds of the deficit increases reflect higher government spending to stabilize the financial system and boost the economy.
Deficits of $1 trillion in a single year had never happened until two years ago. The $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 was more than three times the size of the previous record-holder, a $454.8 billion deficit recorded in 2008.
Last year’s deficit was equal to 9.9 percent of the total economy - the highest percentage in 65 years. The deficit equaled 21.5 percent of the economy in 1945, at the height of the U.S. involvement in World War II.
Comment:
The worst is yet to come.
9/14/10
WASHINGTON - The federal government is on track to record the second-highest deficit of all time with one month left in the budget year.
The deficit totaled $1.26 trillion through August, the Treasury Department said yesterday. That puts it on pace to total $1.3 trillion when the budget year ends Sept. 30, slightly below last year’s record $1.4 trillion deficit.
Soaring deficits have become a major issue with voters heading into the midterm elections. Republicans say the deficits illustrate the growth of spending under Democrats and show their poor handling of the economy.
The Obama administration contends the record deficits were necessary to combat the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.
About one-third of the higher deficits are a result of a drop in government tax revenues. The other two-thirds of the deficit increases reflect higher government spending to stabilize the financial system and boost the economy.
Deficits of $1 trillion in a single year had never happened until two years ago. The $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 was more than three times the size of the previous record-holder, a $454.8 billion deficit recorded in 2008.
Last year’s deficit was equal to 9.9 percent of the total economy - the highest percentage in 65 years. The deficit equaled 21.5 percent of the economy in 1945, at the height of the U.S. involvement in World War II.
Comment:
The worst is yet to come.
Federal Government Deficit On Track As Second-Highest Ever
AP
9/14/10
WASHINGTON - The federal government is on track to record the second-highest deficit of all time with one month left in the budget year.
The deficit totaled $1.26 trillion through August, the Treasury Department said yesterday. That puts it on pace to total $1.3 trillion when the budget year ends Sept. 30, slightly below last year’s record $1.4 trillion deficit.
Soaring deficits have become a major issue with voters heading into the midterm elections. Republicans say the deficits illustrate the growth of spending under Democrats and show their poor handling of the economy.
The Obama administration contends the record deficits were necessary to combat the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.
About one-third of the higher deficits are a result of a drop in government tax revenues. The other two-thirds of the deficit increases reflect higher government spending to stabilize the financial system and boost the economy.
Deficits of $1 trillion in a single year had never happened until two years ago. The $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 was more than three times the size of the previous record-holder, a $454.8 billion deficit recorded in 2008.
Last year’s deficit was equal to 9.9 percent of the total economy - the highest percentage in 65 years. The deficit equaled 21.5 percent of the economy in 1945, at the height of the U.S. involvement in World War II.
Comment:
The worst is yet to come.
9/14/10
WASHINGTON - The federal government is on track to record the second-highest deficit of all time with one month left in the budget year.
The deficit totaled $1.26 trillion through August, the Treasury Department said yesterday. That puts it on pace to total $1.3 trillion when the budget year ends Sept. 30, slightly below last year’s record $1.4 trillion deficit.
Soaring deficits have become a major issue with voters heading into the midterm elections. Republicans say the deficits illustrate the growth of spending under Democrats and show their poor handling of the economy.
The Obama administration contends the record deficits were necessary to combat the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.
About one-third of the higher deficits are a result of a drop in government tax revenues. The other two-thirds of the deficit increases reflect higher government spending to stabilize the financial system and boost the economy.
Deficits of $1 trillion in a single year had never happened until two years ago. The $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 was more than three times the size of the previous record-holder, a $454.8 billion deficit recorded in 2008.
Last year’s deficit was equal to 9.9 percent of the total economy - the highest percentage in 65 years. The deficit equaled 21.5 percent of the economy in 1945, at the height of the U.S. involvement in World War II.
Comment:
The worst is yet to come.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Local US ban on hiring, housing illegal migrants struck down
AFP
9/9/10
A Philadelphia federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a law that sought to punish landlords and employers of illegal immigrants.
The court said the ordinance passed by the small Pennsylvania town of Hazleton violated federal prerogatives on immigration issues.
Civil rights groups, which challenged the ordinance almost immediately after Hazleton passed it in 2006, welcomed the ruling.
The decision comes ahead of a challenge to a similar law in Arizona, which the Supreme Court will hear in December.
Thursday's ruling found that the Hazleton ordinance effectively infringed upon policy areas that belong to the federal government.
"It appears plain that the purpose of these housing provisions is to ensure that aliens lacking legal immigration status reside somewhere other than Hazleton," the court wrote.
"It is this power to effectively prohibit residency based on immigration status that is so clearly within the exclusive domain of the federal government."
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the decision, saying it sent a strong message.
"The case, Lozano v. Hazleton, has been closely watched across the country because the Hazleton ordinance has served as a model for similar laws nationwide and was challenged by civil rights groups in a lengthy trial," the group said in a statement.
"This is a major defeat for the misguided, divisive and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the rest of the country," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.
The Hazleton ordinance was passed after an influx of Hispanic immigrants into the small town, home to some 30,000 people, in the early part of the decade.
The ordinance sought to prevent "the threat of crime," and to ensure city residents would not be "burdened by the cost of providing goods, support and services to aliens unlawfully present in the United States," it said.
It also aimed to ensure legal residents were "free of the debilitating effects on their economic and social well being imposed by the influx of illegal aliens."
There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, most of them from Latin America.
Attempts in recent years to draft legislation that would grant amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants have been stymied by fierce opposition, particularly from Republican lawmakers.
Comment:
There you have it again folks! The Federal government sues local governments because the locals are enforcing immigration laws. The locals only do this because the Feds refuse to enforce their own laws. If the government won't enforce the law, then we have to do it ourselves. Vigilantism? If wanting to protect yourself from unwanted and unwelcome foreign invaders is vigilantism, then call me a vigilante.
9/9/10
A Philadelphia federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a law that sought to punish landlords and employers of illegal immigrants.
The court said the ordinance passed by the small Pennsylvania town of Hazleton violated federal prerogatives on immigration issues.
Civil rights groups, which challenged the ordinance almost immediately after Hazleton passed it in 2006, welcomed the ruling.
The decision comes ahead of a challenge to a similar law in Arizona, which the Supreme Court will hear in December.
Thursday's ruling found that the Hazleton ordinance effectively infringed upon policy areas that belong to the federal government.
"It appears plain that the purpose of these housing provisions is to ensure that aliens lacking legal immigration status reside somewhere other than Hazleton," the court wrote.
"It is this power to effectively prohibit residency based on immigration status that is so clearly within the exclusive domain of the federal government."
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the decision, saying it sent a strong message.
"The case, Lozano v. Hazleton, has been closely watched across the country because the Hazleton ordinance has served as a model for similar laws nationwide and was challenged by civil rights groups in a lengthy trial," the group said in a statement.
"This is a major defeat for the misguided, divisive and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the rest of the country," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.
The Hazleton ordinance was passed after an influx of Hispanic immigrants into the small town, home to some 30,000 people, in the early part of the decade.
The ordinance sought to prevent "the threat of crime," and to ensure city residents would not be "burdened by the cost of providing goods, support and services to aliens unlawfully present in the United States," it said.
It also aimed to ensure legal residents were "free of the debilitating effects on their economic and social well being imposed by the influx of illegal aliens."
There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, most of them from Latin America.
Attempts in recent years to draft legislation that would grant amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants have been stymied by fierce opposition, particularly from Republican lawmakers.
Comment:
There you have it again folks! The Federal government sues local governments because the locals are enforcing immigration laws. The locals only do this because the Feds refuse to enforce their own laws. If the government won't enforce the law, then we have to do it ourselves. Vigilantism? If wanting to protect yourself from unwanted and unwelcome foreign invaders is vigilantism, then call me a vigilante.
Local US ban on hiring, housing illegal migrants struck down
AFP
9/9/10
A Philadelphia federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a law that sought to punish landlords and employers of illegal immigrants.
The court said the ordinance passed by the small Pennsylvania town of Hazleton violated federal prerogatives on immigration issues.
Civil rights groups, which challenged the ordinance almost immediately after Hazleton passed it in 2006, welcomed the ruling.
The decision comes ahead of a challenge to a similar law in Arizona, which the Supreme Court will hear in December.
Thursday's ruling found that the Hazleton ordinance effectively infringed upon policy areas that belong to the federal government.
"It appears plain that the purpose of these housing provisions is to ensure that aliens lacking legal immigration status reside somewhere other than Hazleton," the court wrote.
"It is this power to effectively prohibit residency based on immigration status that is so clearly within the exclusive domain of the federal government."
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the decision, saying it sent a strong message.
"The case, Lozano v. Hazleton, has been closely watched across the country because the Hazleton ordinance has served as a model for similar laws nationwide and was challenged by civil rights groups in a lengthy trial," the group said in a statement.
"This is a major defeat for the misguided, divisive and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the rest of the country," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.
The Hazleton ordinance was passed after an influx of Hispanic immigrants into the small town, home to some 30,000 people, in the early part of the decade.
The ordinance sought to prevent "the threat of crime," and to ensure city residents would not be "burdened by the cost of providing goods, support and services to aliens unlawfully present in the United States," it said.
It also aimed to ensure legal residents were "free of the debilitating effects on their economic and social well being imposed by the influx of illegal aliens."
There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, most of them from Latin America.
Attempts in recent years to draft legislation that would grant amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants have been stymied by fierce opposition, particularly from Republican lawmakers.
Comment:
There you have it again folks! The Federal government sues local governments because the locals are enforcing immigration laws. The locals only do this because the Feds refuse to enforce their own laws. If the government won't enforce the law, then we have to do it ourselves. Vigilantism? If wanting to protect yourself from unwanted and unwelcome foreign invaders is vigilantism, then call me a vigilante.
9/9/10
A Philadelphia federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a law that sought to punish landlords and employers of illegal immigrants.
The court said the ordinance passed by the small Pennsylvania town of Hazleton violated federal prerogatives on immigration issues.
Civil rights groups, which challenged the ordinance almost immediately after Hazleton passed it in 2006, welcomed the ruling.
The decision comes ahead of a challenge to a similar law in Arizona, which the Supreme Court will hear in December.
Thursday's ruling found that the Hazleton ordinance effectively infringed upon policy areas that belong to the federal government.
"It appears plain that the purpose of these housing provisions is to ensure that aliens lacking legal immigration status reside somewhere other than Hazleton," the court wrote.
"It is this power to effectively prohibit residency based on immigration status that is so clearly within the exclusive domain of the federal government."
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the decision, saying it sent a strong message.
"The case, Lozano v. Hazleton, has been closely watched across the country because the Hazleton ordinance has served as a model for similar laws nationwide and was challenged by civil rights groups in a lengthy trial," the group said in a statement.
"This is a major defeat for the misguided, divisive and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the rest of the country," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.
The Hazleton ordinance was passed after an influx of Hispanic immigrants into the small town, home to some 30,000 people, in the early part of the decade.
The ordinance sought to prevent "the threat of crime," and to ensure city residents would not be "burdened by the cost of providing goods, support and services to aliens unlawfully present in the United States," it said.
It also aimed to ensure legal residents were "free of the debilitating effects on their economic and social well being imposed by the influx of illegal aliens."
There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, most of them from Latin America.
Attempts in recent years to draft legislation that would grant amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants have been stymied by fierce opposition, particularly from Republican lawmakers.
Comment:
There you have it again folks! The Federal government sues local governments because the locals are enforcing immigration laws. The locals only do this because the Feds refuse to enforce their own laws. If the government won't enforce the law, then we have to do it ourselves. Vigilantism? If wanting to protect yourself from unwanted and unwelcome foreign invaders is vigilantism, then call me a vigilante.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
20 States Prepare for Day in Court Against Health Care Law
FOX NEWS
9/13/10
PENSACOLA, Florida -- The Obama administration will try to persuade a federal judge Tuesday to throw out a lawsuit by 20 states that claim the president's health care overhaul is unconstitutional.
The fight will primarily be over sections of the law that will require individuals to have health insurance or face tax penalties and require states to pay additional costs for the Medicaid health insurance program for the indigent that are not covered by the federal government.
Attorneys defending the law will argue that the section requiring health insurance doesn't take effect until 2015 and it's up to an individual taxpayer -- not the states -- to challenge the law then. The government has said it has the right to create the insurance mandate under the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution.
Florida's Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law last March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The country's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, has joined McCollum's suit, and a similar case is unfolding in Virginia.
There, the Obama administration also tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, saying Virginia lacked standing to sue, but a federal judge has allowed it to continue, ruling that the overhaul raises complex constitutional issues.
Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University law school in Virginia, said it will be difficult for the states to argue that the federal government can't force individuals to have health insurance when the law won't take effect for years.
But more than 30,000 members of the federation are already suffering, said Karen Harned, executive director of its Small Business Legal Center.
Many insurance companies have changed their plans or discontinued their policies in advance of the new law, making it more expensive for small businesses to meet the requirements, she said. Fewer than half of the country's small businesses provide employee health insurance now, she said, and the law would create a financial burden for many of them.
"We would agree with the government that the individual mandate is the key to the entire health care law, but we think the entire health care law is bad," she said.
Attorneys for the states and the Justice Department will each have 45 minutes to present their case to U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, who is expected to release a written decision later. The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, probably before the 2012 presidential election.
The other states that are suing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
Comment:
SURPRISE! Anyone notice that Mexifornia is not on that list? The most liberal state in the country is still kissing ZOG's ass for more loan money, so Schwarzenigger doesn't want to rock the boat.
9/13/10
PENSACOLA, Florida -- The Obama administration will try to persuade a federal judge Tuesday to throw out a lawsuit by 20 states that claim the president's health care overhaul is unconstitutional.
The fight will primarily be over sections of the law that will require individuals to have health insurance or face tax penalties and require states to pay additional costs for the Medicaid health insurance program for the indigent that are not covered by the federal government.
Attorneys defending the law will argue that the section requiring health insurance doesn't take effect until 2015 and it's up to an individual taxpayer -- not the states -- to challenge the law then. The government has said it has the right to create the insurance mandate under the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution.
Florida's Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law last March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The country's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, has joined McCollum's suit, and a similar case is unfolding in Virginia.
There, the Obama administration also tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, saying Virginia lacked standing to sue, but a federal judge has allowed it to continue, ruling that the overhaul raises complex constitutional issues.
Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University law school in Virginia, said it will be difficult for the states to argue that the federal government can't force individuals to have health insurance when the law won't take effect for years.
But more than 30,000 members of the federation are already suffering, said Karen Harned, executive director of its Small Business Legal Center.
Many insurance companies have changed their plans or discontinued their policies in advance of the new law, making it more expensive for small businesses to meet the requirements, she said. Fewer than half of the country's small businesses provide employee health insurance now, she said, and the law would create a financial burden for many of them.
"We would agree with the government that the individual mandate is the key to the entire health care law, but we think the entire health care law is bad," she said.
Attorneys for the states and the Justice Department will each have 45 minutes to present their case to U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, who is expected to release a written decision later. The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, probably before the 2012 presidential election.
The other states that are suing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
Comment:
SURPRISE! Anyone notice that Mexifornia is not on that list? The most liberal state in the country is still kissing ZOG's ass for more loan money, so Schwarzenigger doesn't want to rock the boat.
20 States Prepare for Day in Court Against Health Care Law
FOX NEWS
9/13/10
PENSACOLA, Florida -- The Obama administration will try to persuade a federal judge Tuesday to throw out a lawsuit by 20 states that claim the president's health care overhaul is unconstitutional.
The fight will primarily be over sections of the law that will require individuals to have health insurance or face tax penalties and require states to pay additional costs for the Medicaid health insurance program for the indigent that are not covered by the federal government.
Attorneys defending the law will argue that the section requiring health insurance doesn't take effect until 2015 and it's up to an individual taxpayer -- not the states -- to challenge the law then. The government has said it has the right to create the insurance mandate under the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution.
Florida's Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law last March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The country's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, has joined McCollum's suit, and a similar case is unfolding in Virginia.
There, the Obama administration also tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, saying Virginia lacked standing to sue, but a federal judge has allowed it to continue, ruling that the overhaul raises complex constitutional issues.
Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University law school in Virginia, said it will be difficult for the states to argue that the federal government can't force individuals to have health insurance when the law won't take effect for years.
But more than 30,000 members of the federation are already suffering, said Karen Harned, executive director of its Small Business Legal Center.
Many insurance companies have changed their plans or discontinued their policies in advance of the new law, making it more expensive for small businesses to meet the requirements, she said. Fewer than half of the country's small businesses provide employee health insurance now, she said, and the law would create a financial burden for many of them.
"We would agree with the government that the individual mandate is the key to the entire health care law, but we think the entire health care law is bad," she said.
Attorneys for the states and the Justice Department will each have 45 minutes to present their case to U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, who is expected to release a written decision later. The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, probably before the 2012 presidential election.
The other states that are suing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
Comment:
SURPRISE! Anyone notice that Mexifornia is not on that list? The most liberal state in the country is still kissing ZOG's ass for more loan money, so Schwarzenigger doesn't want to rock the boat.
9/13/10
PENSACOLA, Florida -- The Obama administration will try to persuade a federal judge Tuesday to throw out a lawsuit by 20 states that claim the president's health care overhaul is unconstitutional.
The fight will primarily be over sections of the law that will require individuals to have health insurance or face tax penalties and require states to pay additional costs for the Medicaid health insurance program for the indigent that are not covered by the federal government.
Attorneys defending the law will argue that the section requiring health insurance doesn't take effect until 2015 and it's up to an individual taxpayer -- not the states -- to challenge the law then. The government has said it has the right to create the insurance mandate under the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution.
Florida's Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law last March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The country's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, has joined McCollum's suit, and a similar case is unfolding in Virginia.
There, the Obama administration also tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, saying Virginia lacked standing to sue, but a federal judge has allowed it to continue, ruling that the overhaul raises complex constitutional issues.
Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University law school in Virginia, said it will be difficult for the states to argue that the federal government can't force individuals to have health insurance when the law won't take effect for years.
But more than 30,000 members of the federation are already suffering, said Karen Harned, executive director of its Small Business Legal Center.
Many insurance companies have changed their plans or discontinued their policies in advance of the new law, making it more expensive for small businesses to meet the requirements, she said. Fewer than half of the country's small businesses provide employee health insurance now, she said, and the law would create a financial burden for many of them.
"We would agree with the government that the individual mandate is the key to the entire health care law, but we think the entire health care law is bad," she said.
Attorneys for the states and the Justice Department will each have 45 minutes to present their case to U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, who is expected to release a written decision later. The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, probably before the 2012 presidential election.
The other states that are suing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
Comment:
SURPRISE! Anyone notice that Mexifornia is not on that list? The most liberal state in the country is still kissing ZOG's ass for more loan money, so Schwarzenigger doesn't want to rock the boat.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Urge Your Senators to End Birthright Citizenship!
Numbers.Org
The issue of Birthright Citizenship highlights another key area where our elected officials allow our immigration laws to be abused by illegal aliens--instead of protecting U.S. citizens and legal residents. This practice of granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens only encourages more people to come to the United States illegally..
There is already a bill in the House, H.R. 1868, that would change current U.S. law and prevent the children of illegal aliens from receiving birthright citizenship. However, there is no legislation proposed in the Senate to make this happen. Please don't delay. Send this critical message to your two Senators today, and ask them to put more of an emphasis on enforcing our immigration laws and preventing future illegal immigration.
Comment:
Comrades, this issue is of paramount importance. The Constitutional Amendment that give anyone who is born on American soil automatic citizenship was intended to protect the children of freed slaves, the children of Indians (Native Americans), and the children of LEGAL immigrants from having to go through the naturalisation process. It was never, never intended to be used as an anchor for illegal immigrants
to stay in the United States.
Illegals use this provision as a tool to stay in this country, and to get free healthcare and education for their children whenever they can. THIS MUST END NOW!
Firstly, because it isn't right. They are using a legal loophole in the law, and they know it.
Secondly, we simply can no longer afford it. Our hospitals, schools, and social programs are being drained by these leeches, and it must stop. H.R. 1868 is great way, along with immigration laws like in Arizona to make things as difficult as possible for them. If because of laws like these, the illegals are no longer able to find the better life they're looking for, then they will have no reason to run our borders (unless they're drug smugglers and fugitives, in which case they'll run our borders anyway). Email your Congreesman and Senators and tell them to support this bill. No matter how much our leaders may or may not sympathise with these invaders, the gravy train has run dry and we simply cannot afford to help them any longer.
It's like at Christmas time as I'm passing a Salvation Army Santa, if I don't have any money, then I can't donate, no matter how worthy the cause may or may not be. As it is, when we help and support any foreigners, whether by letting them into the country to suckle on our teats, or by giving out foreign aid, we're basically doing it with borrowed money. How crazy is that? No matter how generous a person may be, and we Aryans are the most generous people in the world, would any of you borrow money to make a donation? I wouldn't. Who in their right minds would? Only the liberals, but then again, I said, "Who in their RIGHT minds." Enough said.
The issue of Birthright Citizenship highlights another key area where our elected officials allow our immigration laws to be abused by illegal aliens--instead of protecting U.S. citizens and legal residents. This practice of granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens only encourages more people to come to the United States illegally..
There is already a bill in the House, H.R. 1868, that would change current U.S. law and prevent the children of illegal aliens from receiving birthright citizenship. However, there is no legislation proposed in the Senate to make this happen. Please don't delay. Send this critical message to your two Senators today, and ask them to put more of an emphasis on enforcing our immigration laws and preventing future illegal immigration.
Comment:
Comrades, this issue is of paramount importance. The Constitutional Amendment that give anyone who is born on American soil automatic citizenship was intended to protect the children of freed slaves, the children of Indians (Native Americans), and the children of LEGAL immigrants from having to go through the naturalisation process. It was never, never intended to be used as an anchor for illegal immigrants
to stay in the United States.
Illegals use this provision as a tool to stay in this country, and to get free healthcare and education for their children whenever they can. THIS MUST END NOW!
Firstly, because it isn't right. They are using a legal loophole in the law, and they know it.
Secondly, we simply can no longer afford it. Our hospitals, schools, and social programs are being drained by these leeches, and it must stop. H.R. 1868 is great way, along with immigration laws like in Arizona to make things as difficult as possible for them. If because of laws like these, the illegals are no longer able to find the better life they're looking for, then they will have no reason to run our borders (unless they're drug smugglers and fugitives, in which case they'll run our borders anyway). Email your Congreesman and Senators and tell them to support this bill. No matter how much our leaders may or may not sympathise with these invaders, the gravy train has run dry and we simply cannot afford to help them any longer.
It's like at Christmas time as I'm passing a Salvation Army Santa, if I don't have any money, then I can't donate, no matter how worthy the cause may or may not be. As it is, when we help and support any foreigners, whether by letting them into the country to suckle on our teats, or by giving out foreign aid, we're basically doing it with borrowed money. How crazy is that? No matter how generous a person may be, and we Aryans are the most generous people in the world, would any of you borrow money to make a donation? I wouldn't. Who in their right minds would? Only the liberals, but then again, I said, "Who in their RIGHT minds." Enough said.
Urge Your Senators to End Birthright Citizenship!
Numbers.Org
The issue of Birthright Citizenship highlights another key area where our elected officials allow our immigration laws to be abused by illegal aliens--instead of protecting U.S. citizens and legal residents. This practice of granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens only encourages more people to come to the United States illegally..
There is already a bill in the House, H.R. 1868, that would change current U.S. law and prevent the children of illegal aliens from receiving birthright citizenship. However, there is no legislation proposed in the Senate to make this happen. Please don't delay. Send this critical message to your two Senators today, and ask them to put more of an emphasis on enforcing our immigration laws and preventing future illegal immigration.
Comment:
Comrades, this issue is of paramount importance. The Constitutional Amendment that give anyone who is born on American soil automatic citizenship was intended to protect the children of freed slaves, the children of Indians (Native Americans), and the children of LEGAL immigrants from having to go through the naturalisation process. It was never, never intended to be used as an anchor for illegal immigrants
to stay in the United States.
Illegals use this provision as a tool to stay in this country, and to get free healthcare and education for their children whenever they can. THIS MUST END NOW!
Firstly, because it isn't right. They are using a legal loophole in the law, and they know it.
Secondly, we simply can no longer afford it. Our hospitals, schools, and social programs are being drained by these leeches, and it must stop. H.R. 1868 is great way, along with immigration laws like in Arizona to make things as difficult as possible for them. If because of laws like these, the illegals are no longer able to find the better life they're looking for, then they will have no reason to run our borders (unless they're drug smugglers and fugitives, in which case they'll run our borders anyway). Email your Congreesman and Senators and tell them to support this bill. No matter how much our leaders may or may not sympathise with these invaders, the gravy train has run dry and we simply cannot afford to help them any longer.
It's like at Christmas time as I'm passing a Salvation Army Santa, if I don't have any money, then I can't donate, no matter how worthy the cause may or may not be. As it is, when we help and support any foreigners, whether by letting them into the country to suckle on our teats, or by giving out foreign aid, we're basically doing it with borrowed money. How crazy is that? No matter how generous a person may be, and we Aryans are the most generous people in the world, would any of you borrow money to make a donation? I wouldn't. Who in their right minds would? Only the liberals, but then again, I said, "Who in their RIGHT minds." Enough said.
The issue of Birthright Citizenship highlights another key area where our elected officials allow our immigration laws to be abused by illegal aliens--instead of protecting U.S. citizens and legal residents. This practice of granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens only encourages more people to come to the United States illegally..
There is already a bill in the House, H.R. 1868, that would change current U.S. law and prevent the children of illegal aliens from receiving birthright citizenship. However, there is no legislation proposed in the Senate to make this happen. Please don't delay. Send this critical message to your two Senators today, and ask them to put more of an emphasis on enforcing our immigration laws and preventing future illegal immigration.
Comment:
Comrades, this issue is of paramount importance. The Constitutional Amendment that give anyone who is born on American soil automatic citizenship was intended to protect the children of freed slaves, the children of Indians (Native Americans), and the children of LEGAL immigrants from having to go through the naturalisation process. It was never, never intended to be used as an anchor for illegal immigrants
to stay in the United States.
Illegals use this provision as a tool to stay in this country, and to get free healthcare and education for their children whenever they can. THIS MUST END NOW!
Firstly, because it isn't right. They are using a legal loophole in the law, and they know it.
Secondly, we simply can no longer afford it. Our hospitals, schools, and social programs are being drained by these leeches, and it must stop. H.R. 1868 is great way, along with immigration laws like in Arizona to make things as difficult as possible for them. If because of laws like these, the illegals are no longer able to find the better life they're looking for, then they will have no reason to run our borders (unless they're drug smugglers and fugitives, in which case they'll run our borders anyway). Email your Congreesman and Senators and tell them to support this bill. No matter how much our leaders may or may not sympathise with these invaders, the gravy train has run dry and we simply cannot afford to help them any longer.
It's like at Christmas time as I'm passing a Salvation Army Santa, if I don't have any money, then I can't donate, no matter how worthy the cause may or may not be. As it is, when we help and support any foreigners, whether by letting them into the country to suckle on our teats, or by giving out foreign aid, we're basically doing it with borrowed money. How crazy is that? No matter how generous a person may be, and we Aryans are the most generous people in the world, would any of you borrow money to make a donation? I wouldn't. Who in their right minds would? Only the liberals, but then again, I said, "Who in their RIGHT minds." Enough said.
Friday, September 17, 2010
U.S. Border Patrol Agents in 'Firefight' With Mexican Gang
FOX NEWS
9/14/10
SAN ANTONIO -- U.S. Border Patrol agents fired gunshots into Mexico after coming under attack during a half-ton drug bust and giving chase to a truck along the Rio Grande, U.S. authorities said Monday.
No Border Patrol agents were hurt during the "fire fight" early Saturday in Mission, agency spokeswoman Rosalinda Huey said. She did not say whether Border Patrol gunfire hit anyone, citing the ongoing investigation.
"The firing they received came from the Mexican side," Huey said.
Huey said several Border Patrol agents, at least some of whom were patrolling in boats, were seizing a half-ton of marijuana when they came under gunfire. Federal officials said the shots from Mexico began when a truck that was being chased by another group of Border Patrol agents entered the area.
FBI special agent Jorge Cisneros said the truck, which was on the U.S. side, appeared to be connected to the drug seizure. He said the gunfire from Mexico was a "direct result" of Border Patrol agents doing their jobs.
"We're obviously concerned with what happened, that they would be shooting from the Mexico side to us," Cisneros said.
Federal officials did not release how many agents were involved, how many shots were fired or the number of shooters on the Mexico side. Cisneros said the FBI was working with Mexico authorities, including the Mexican military and the Tamaulipas state police, to determine what happened.
It was at least the second time in three months that Border Patrol agents in Texas have fired into Mexico. In June, a Border Patrol agent fatally shot a 15-year-old Mexican boy after authorities say a group trying to illegally enter Texas threw rocks at officers near downtown El Paso.
Reports of bullets whizzing across the border from Mexico also are on the rise. At least eight bullets have been fired into El Paso in the last few weeks from the rising violence in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, where drug violence has killed more than 4,000 people since 2009, making it one of the deadliest cities in the world.
Cisneros said he can recall a handful of times in the last few years that gunfire from Mexico has crossed over the border. He said Border Patrol agents "have always been very good about not shooting back unless there is a life-threatening situation."
Huey who would not say whether the agents involved in the shooting still were on patrol. She said agents are authorized to fire their weapons any time they feel lives are at risk, even into Mexico.
"As long as our agents feel their life is in danger, they are allowed lethal (force)," she said.
Comment:
This is more proof that it's only a matter of time. The lid is on the pot, and it's going to explode - and soon.
The second Mexican-American war is coming. When it starts, then maybe our government will start expelling Mexican Nationals on the grounds they are enemy aliens. They already are enemy aliens, but maybe the Feds will finally admit it.
But there is another problem we'll have to face. The Mexicans who have been nationalised as American Citizens, and their children and grandchildren. We'll have a high incidence of treason, sabotage, and espionage from these people. I think the government should seriously consider rebuilding places like Manzanar and Los Alamos. What we did during WWII with the Japs was necessary, and we'll have to do the same thing with the Spics if war does break out - even more so than the Japs. The thing about Gooks is when they come here, they want to be Americans. Spics do not. They want to be Mexicans who live and work in America for financial benefits, but their first loyalty is always to their Motherland. We must never forget that.
FOX NEWS
9/14/10
SAN ANTONIO -- U.S. Border Patrol agents fired gunshots into Mexico after coming under attack during a half-ton drug bust and giving chase to a truck along the Rio Grande, U.S. authorities said Monday.
No Border Patrol agents were hurt during the "fire fight" early Saturday in Mission, agency spokeswoman Rosalinda Huey said. She did not say whether Border Patrol gunfire hit anyone, citing the ongoing investigation.
"The firing they received came from the Mexican side," Huey said.
Huey said several Border Patrol agents, at least some of whom were patrolling in boats, were seizing a half-ton of marijuana when they came under gunfire. Federal officials said the shots from Mexico began when a truck that was being chased by another group of Border Patrol agents entered the area.
FBI special agent Jorge Cisneros said the truck, which was on the U.S. side, appeared to be connected to the drug seizure. He said the gunfire from Mexico was a "direct result" of Border Patrol agents doing their jobs.
"We're obviously concerned with what happened, that they would be shooting from the Mexico side to us," Cisneros said.
Federal officials did not release how many agents were involved, how many shots were fired or the number of shooters on the Mexico side. Cisneros said the FBI was working with Mexico authorities, including the Mexican military and the Tamaulipas state police, to determine what happened.
It was at least the second time in three months that Border Patrol agents in Texas have fired into Mexico. In June, a Border Patrol agent fatally shot a 15-year-old Mexican boy after authorities say a group trying to illegally enter Texas threw rocks at officers near downtown El Paso.
Reports of bullets whizzing across the border from Mexico also are on the rise. At least eight bullets have been fired into El Paso in the last few weeks from the rising violence in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, where drug violence has killed more than 4,000 people since 2009, making it one of the deadliest cities in the world.
Cisneros said he can recall a handful of times in the last few years that gunfire from Mexico has crossed over the border. He said Border Patrol agents "have always been very good about not shooting back unless there is a life-threatening situation."
Huey who would not say whether the agents involved in the shooting still were on patrol. She said agents are authorized to fire their weapons any time they feel lives are at risk, even into Mexico.
"As long as our agents feel their life is in danger, they are allowed lethal (force)," she said.
Comment:
This is more proof that it's only a matter of time. The lid is on the pot, and it's going to explode - and soon.
The second Mexican-American war is coming. When it starts, then maybe our government will start expelling Mexican Nationals on the grounds they are enemy aliens. They already are enemy aliens, but maybe the Feds will finally admit it.
But there is another problem we'll have to face. The Mexicans who have been nationalised as American Citizens, and their children and grandchildren. We'll have a high incidence of treason, sabotage, and espionage from these people. I think the government should seriously consider rebuilding places like Manzanar and Los Alamos. What we did during WWII with the Japs was necessary, and we'll have to do the same thing with the Spics if war does break out - even more so than the Japs. The thing about Gooks is when they come here, they want to be Americans. Spics do not. They want to be Mexicans who live and work in America for financial benefits, but their first loyalty is always to their Motherland. We must never forget that.
U.S. Border Patrol Agents in 'Firefight' With Mexican Gang
FOX NEWS
9/14/10
SAN ANTONIO -- U.S. Border Patrol agents fired gunshots into Mexico after coming under attack during a half-ton drug bust and giving chase to a truck along the Rio Grande, U.S. authorities said Monday.
No Border Patrol agents were hurt during the "fire fight" early Saturday in Mission, agency spokeswoman Rosalinda Huey said. She did not say whether Border Patrol gunfire hit anyone, citing the ongoing investigation.
"The firing they received came from the Mexican side," Huey said.
Huey said several Border Patrol agents, at least some of whom were patrolling in boats, were seizing a half-ton of marijuana when they came under gunfire. Federal officials said the shots from Mexico began when a truck that was being chased by another group of Border Patrol agents entered the area.
FBI special agent Jorge Cisneros said the truck, which was on the U.S. side, appeared to be connected to the drug seizure. He said the gunfire from Mexico was a "direct result" of Border Patrol agents doing their jobs.
"We're obviously concerned with what happened, that they would be shooting from the Mexico side to us," Cisneros said.
Federal officials did not release how many agents were involved, how many shots were fired or the number of shooters on the Mexico side. Cisneros said the FBI was working with Mexico authorities, including the Mexican military and the Tamaulipas state police, to determine what happened.
It was at least the second time in three months that Border Patrol agents in Texas have fired into Mexico. In June, a Border Patrol agent fatally shot a 15-year-old Mexican boy after authorities say a group trying to illegally enter Texas threw rocks at officers near downtown El Paso.
Reports of bullets whizzing across the border from Mexico also are on the rise. At least eight bullets have been fired into El Paso in the last few weeks from the rising violence in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, where drug violence has killed more than 4,000 people since 2009, making it one of the deadliest cities in the world.
Cisneros said he can recall a handful of times in the last few years that gunfire from Mexico has crossed over the border. He said Border Patrol agents "have always been very good about not shooting back unless there is a life-threatening situation."
Huey who would not say whether the agents involved in the shooting still were on patrol. She said agents are authorized to fire their weapons any time they feel lives are at risk, even into Mexico.
"As long as our agents feel their life is in danger, they are allowed lethal (force)," she said.
Comment:
This is more proof that it's only a matter of time. The lid is on the pot, and it's going to explode - and soon.
The second Mexican-American war is coming. When it starts, then maybe our government will start expelling Mexican Nationals on the grounds they are enemy aliens. They already are enemy aliens, but maybe the Feds will finally admit it.
But there is another problem we'll have to face. The Mexicans who have been nationalised as American Citizens, and their children and grandchildren. We'll have a high incidence of treason, sabotage, and espionage from these people. I think the government should seriously consider rebuilding places like Manzanar and Los Alamos. What we did during WWII with the Japs was necessary, and we'll have to do the same thing with the Spics if war does break out - even more so than the Japs. The thing about Gooks is when they come here, they want to be Americans. Spics do not. They want to be Mexicans who live and work in America for financial benefits, but their first loyalty is always to their Motherland. We must never forget that.
FOX NEWS
9/14/10
SAN ANTONIO -- U.S. Border Patrol agents fired gunshots into Mexico after coming under attack during a half-ton drug bust and giving chase to a truck along the Rio Grande, U.S. authorities said Monday.
No Border Patrol agents were hurt during the "fire fight" early Saturday in Mission, agency spokeswoman Rosalinda Huey said. She did not say whether Border Patrol gunfire hit anyone, citing the ongoing investigation.
"The firing they received came from the Mexican side," Huey said.
Huey said several Border Patrol agents, at least some of whom were patrolling in boats, were seizing a half-ton of marijuana when they came under gunfire. Federal officials said the shots from Mexico began when a truck that was being chased by another group of Border Patrol agents entered the area.
FBI special agent Jorge Cisneros said the truck, which was on the U.S. side, appeared to be connected to the drug seizure. He said the gunfire from Mexico was a "direct result" of Border Patrol agents doing their jobs.
"We're obviously concerned with what happened, that they would be shooting from the Mexico side to us," Cisneros said.
Federal officials did not release how many agents were involved, how many shots were fired or the number of shooters on the Mexico side. Cisneros said the FBI was working with Mexico authorities, including the Mexican military and the Tamaulipas state police, to determine what happened.
It was at least the second time in three months that Border Patrol agents in Texas have fired into Mexico. In June, a Border Patrol agent fatally shot a 15-year-old Mexican boy after authorities say a group trying to illegally enter Texas threw rocks at officers near downtown El Paso.
Reports of bullets whizzing across the border from Mexico also are on the rise. At least eight bullets have been fired into El Paso in the last few weeks from the rising violence in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, where drug violence has killed more than 4,000 people since 2009, making it one of the deadliest cities in the world.
Cisneros said he can recall a handful of times in the last few years that gunfire from Mexico has crossed over the border. He said Border Patrol agents "have always been very good about not shooting back unless there is a life-threatening situation."
Huey who would not say whether the agents involved in the shooting still were on patrol. She said agents are authorized to fire their weapons any time they feel lives are at risk, even into Mexico.
"As long as our agents feel their life is in danger, they are allowed lethal (force)," she said.
Comment:
This is more proof that it's only a matter of time. The lid is on the pot, and it's going to explode - and soon.
The second Mexican-American war is coming. When it starts, then maybe our government will start expelling Mexican Nationals on the grounds they are enemy aliens. They already are enemy aliens, but maybe the Feds will finally admit it.
But there is another problem we'll have to face. The Mexicans who have been nationalised as American Citizens, and their children and grandchildren. We'll have a high incidence of treason, sabotage, and espionage from these people. I think the government should seriously consider rebuilding places like Manzanar and Los Alamos. What we did during WWII with the Japs was necessary, and we'll have to do the same thing with the Spics if war does break out - even more so than the Japs. The thing about Gooks is when they come here, they want to be Americans. Spics do not. They want to be Mexicans who live and work in America for financial benefits, but their first loyalty is always to their Motherland. We must never forget that.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Israeli students burn New Testament
AP
9/15/10
Orthodox Jews set fire to hundreds of copies of the New Testament in the latest act of violence against Christian missionaries in the Holy Land.
Or Yehuda Deputy Mayor Uzi Aharon said missionaries recently entered a neighborhood in the predominantly religious town of 34,000 in central Israel, distributing hundreds of New Testaments and missionary material.
After receiving complaints, Aharon said, he got into a loudspeaker car last Thursday and drove through the neighborhood, urging people to turn over the material to Jewish religious students who went door to door to collect it.
"The books were dumped into a pile and set afire in a lot near a synagogue," he said.
The newspaper Maariv reported Tuesday that hundreds of yeshiva students took part in the book-burning. But Aharon told The Associated Press that only a few students were present, and that he was not there when the books were torched.
"Not all of the New Testaments that were collected were burned, but hundreds were," he said.
He said he regretted the burning of the books, but called it a commandment to burn materials that urge Jews to convert.
"I certainly don't denounce the burning of the booklets, he said. I denounce those who distributed the booklets."
Jews worship from the Old Testament, including the Five Books of Moses and the writings of the ancient prophets. Christians revere the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, which contains the ministry of Jesus.
Calev Myers, an attorney who represents Messianic Jews, or Jews who accept Jesus as their savior, demanded in an interview with Army Radio that all those involved be put on trial. He estimated there were 10,000 Messianic Jews, who are also known as Jews for Jesus, in Israel.
Police had no immediate comment.
Israeli authorities and Orthodox Jews frown on missionary activity aimed at Jews, though in most cases it is not illegal. Still, the concept of a Jew burning books is abhorrent to many in Israel because of the association with Nazis torching piles of Jewish books during the Holocaust of World War II.
Earlier this year, the teenage son of a prominent Christian missionary was seriously wounded when a package bomb delivered to the family's West Bank home went off in his hands.
Last year, arsonists burst into a Jerusalem church used by Messianic Jews and set the building on fire, raising suspicions that Jewish extremists were behind the attack. No one claimed responsibility, but the same church was burned down 25 years ago by ultra-Orthodox Jewish extremists.
Comment:
More proof of how evil these creatures are. They condone this kind of behaviour when they are the ones behind it. Yet when we do the exact same thing, it's a Holocaust. They really do believe they are 'The Chosen' and we are here to serve them. Many ask, "Why do so many WN's want to eliminate the Jews?" Well, this story is a perfect example of one of the many reasons why.
9/15/10
Orthodox Jews set fire to hundreds of copies of the New Testament in the latest act of violence against Christian missionaries in the Holy Land.
Or Yehuda Deputy Mayor Uzi Aharon said missionaries recently entered a neighborhood in the predominantly religious town of 34,000 in central Israel, distributing hundreds of New Testaments and missionary material.
After receiving complaints, Aharon said, he got into a loudspeaker car last Thursday and drove through the neighborhood, urging people to turn over the material to Jewish religious students who went door to door to collect it.
"The books were dumped into a pile and set afire in a lot near a synagogue," he said.
The newspaper Maariv reported Tuesday that hundreds of yeshiva students took part in the book-burning. But Aharon told The Associated Press that only a few students were present, and that he was not there when the books were torched.
"Not all of the New Testaments that were collected were burned, but hundreds were," he said.
He said he regretted the burning of the books, but called it a commandment to burn materials that urge Jews to convert.
"I certainly don't denounce the burning of the booklets, he said. I denounce those who distributed the booklets."
Jews worship from the Old Testament, including the Five Books of Moses and the writings of the ancient prophets. Christians revere the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, which contains the ministry of Jesus.
Calev Myers, an attorney who represents Messianic Jews, or Jews who accept Jesus as their savior, demanded in an interview with Army Radio that all those involved be put on trial. He estimated there were 10,000 Messianic Jews, who are also known as Jews for Jesus, in Israel.
Police had no immediate comment.
Israeli authorities and Orthodox Jews frown on missionary activity aimed at Jews, though in most cases it is not illegal. Still, the concept of a Jew burning books is abhorrent to many in Israel because of the association with Nazis torching piles of Jewish books during the Holocaust of World War II.
Earlier this year, the teenage son of a prominent Christian missionary was seriously wounded when a package bomb delivered to the family's West Bank home went off in his hands.
Last year, arsonists burst into a Jerusalem church used by Messianic Jews and set the building on fire, raising suspicions that Jewish extremists were behind the attack. No one claimed responsibility, but the same church was burned down 25 years ago by ultra-Orthodox Jewish extremists.
Comment:
More proof of how evil these creatures are. They condone this kind of behaviour when they are the ones behind it. Yet when we do the exact same thing, it's a Holocaust. They really do believe they are 'The Chosen' and we are here to serve them. Many ask, "Why do so many WN's want to eliminate the Jews?" Well, this story is a perfect example of one of the many reasons why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)