Race, Racism and Raciality - Analysis of Racism, History, Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy - American Politics is largely about Race - Supreme Court Decisions on Racial Matters - Racial Jurisprudence and Laws - Race Laws
The Craziest Republican. And he is from Illinois. He says that American Jews are too Pro-Palestinian. . - The Best Tea Party Idiot ever !
This guy is one thousand times crazier than Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck tied together.
Uploaded by TheYoungTurks on May 27, 2011
Cenk Uygur on MSNBC tells us about the male equivalent of Michelle Bachmann, Joe Walsh. In an interview with Slate Joe Walsh says the reason Obama was elected was because of his race.
Rep. Joe Walsh: Race Won Obama Presidency
Joe Walsh is a bull in a China Store :
Uploaded by TheYoungTurks on May 26, 2011
Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL) had harsh criticism for President Barack Obama over his stance on Israel and Palestine. Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
A Demographic Explosion will defeat this Circus of Gerrymandering in a few years - See many maps in this page. -
Republicans try to create a super-majority Hispanic district in the Dallas-Forth Worth area so as to confine the effect of Hispanics. Hispanic officials believe that they will have 4 or 5 super Hispanic Districts in a few years.
DailyKos.com Texas Redistricting - An Actual Republican Proposal (Plan C115) By W. Mayes
May 13, 2011
This map absolutely sucks. There is only 1 Democratic district in Dallas-Fort Worth (just like now) and only 3 Democratic districts in Houston (just like now). We can get 3 and 4 there, respectively, easily. Central Texas has been gerrymandered to absolute hell. With Demographic changes, I could see maybe two or three other districts coming into play for us, but not very soon. I also would not be surprised if some Hispanic group goes to court over the VRA.
This map is only what appears to be the official map, but is backed up by the Texas Legislative Council's release of an incumbent list for the map (hat tip to Minnesota Mike).
SEIU : Service Employees International Union : "Business Death Penalty" Wrongly Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court"
It is my impression that SEIU and Sonia Sotomayor think that "Human Nature" as it is will create more cheating and shrewd methods to evade and elude the law.
You can have one million intelligent reasons to think that the Supreme Court Decision is right, or that it is very constitutional and juridically intelligent. And you may be right ..... But does this Arizona Law make sense from an economic point of view ??
SEIU : Service Employees International Union "Business Death Penalty" Wrongly Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court" By Gebe Martinez
May 26, 2011
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent: 'Permitting States to make use of E-Verify mandatory improperly puts States in the position of making decisions for the Federal Government that directly affect expenditure and depletion of federal resources.'"
"Such policies ruin the economy and create a disadvantage for honest employers who are trying to follow the law, while tax-cheating employers drive the underground cash economy with disqualified workers.
"The clear message that should come from this ruling is this: Immigration continues is the sole responsibility of the Federal government, much in the same way that printing money is a uniquely federal responsibility. Immigration enforcement should not be up to the states where short-sighted efforts are more focused on attacking hard working people than on helping our economy.
"Congress must act quickly on comprehensive immigration solutions so that our economy can thrive with workers who become legalized and allow all employers in all states to play by the same set of rules."
And Nixon's best friend was Bebé Rebozo, a Cuban Millionaire in Florida. So making Latinos a Race was a gift in a "Baby Shower" when America was Young.
This was a Republican Gift, and Ronald Reagan was also a Great Friend of Hispanics, contrary to modern day Republicans that seem to have given a quantum jump to Progroms in Tsarist Russia and Nazi Trains to Auschwitz. But that Republican trait will be corrected in next Election Catastrophes and Shellacking of Republicans.
Some friends write notes and comments telling me that Hispanics come in different colors and flavors and some of them can be confused with Southern Europeans and in a few cases with Northern Europeans. While others are perfectly Indian, Black or Mixed.
Recently I saw this in a VIDEO : Some Nice Native Indian Ladies approached Janet Murguia of "La Raza" and told her in perfect Spanish that they did not feel Latino or Hispanic at all, because they felt discriminated and set aside by everybody else, they were American Citizens but not Latino at all. Janet Murguia looked stunned and surprised, but she recovered and said that she wanted to include them and look for ways to treat them better. There is a YouTube Video that I posted, and the startling thing was Janet's surprise or confusion.
I agree with my friends that this is extremely confusing .... You find that people in Northern Spain are blonde and blue-eyed in a good proportion, many descend from the Germanic Visigoths that invaded Spain in the fourth or fifth century ...... while in Andalusia they are swarthy or "moreno", that is that they descend from the Moors of North Africa, that are Muslim and speak Arabic.
The proportion of Nordic Whites or Visigoth looking is not so great in Latin America as in Spain, because of the mixture with Indians and Blacks.
Things are complicated by this fact : Have you observed that some people that come from the United Kingdom or Ireland look like Southern Europeans ??
That is funny and even in Medieval Times around year 1,000 after Christ, some people in the British Isles were called "Black John" or "Black Tom" because of being somewhat swarthy.
This is a very interesting matter from the point of view of Genetics and Biology and I would like to study more.
Pragmatism and Action are better than Foolish Inaction, Laziness, Negligence, Partisanship, Careless Neglect ..... . . Even if you as Republican Governor are accused of being a Hypocrite. -
POLITICO.COM Republican governors move ahead on health exchanges By SARAH KLIFF
May 29, 2011
A small but growing number of prominent, Republican governors — including Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour — are taking the lead to shape a key component of the health care overhaul their party fought so hard to kill.
It’s a delicate balancing act for Republicans who, on the one hand, oppose federal health
reform, even challenging its constitutionality in federal court, and, on the other hand, are pragmatically trying to control as much of the implementation process as they can.
In Indiana, Gov. Mitch Daniels issued an executive order that allowed the state to become one of just three to receive a multimillion dollar grant to establish a health exchange, the online insurance marketplaces that all states must eventually have if the reform law stands up in court.
Wisconsin, under the leadership of Gov. Scott Walker, is one of six states to win an Early Innovator grant. While the grant was received under Walker’s predecessor, Gov. Jim Doyle, Walker has continued to use the resource, setting up the Office of Free Market Health Care that has prominently advertised its innovator status.
And in a weird twist of politics in Mississippi, state agencies of Gov. Haley Barbour have relied on little-used statutory authorities to set up an exchange, reviving a Democratic-sponsored effort to do so through the Mississippi State Legislature.
..............
Many strategists in D.C. contend that setting up the exchanges undermines Republicans’ constitutional challenges to the health reform law.
..........
And still other Republican governors, with smaller national profiles, have also endorsed implementing state-run health exchanges.They include Nevada’s Brian Sandoval, who is backing an exchange implementation bill in the Nevada State Legislature, Georgia’s Nathan Deal and Virginia’s Bob McDonnell.
“The big picture is that, while there’s an ideological divide, many governors see the exchange as an empty vessel they can shape in their own image,” says Ian Morrison, an independent health policy consultant in California. “Republican governors like the idea of more commercial insurance.”
Joe Horn was told by police on the phone not to shoot two unarmed suspects that were not threatening him or his property, he shot them in their backs outside of Joe's property. Later the two dead suspects turned out to be illegal aliens and Joe Horn was absolved without Judge, Jury or Trial. He was never accused.
According to Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News, Joe Horn committed murder and only in Texas could you escape so easily.
Uploaded by GoTimothy on May 29, 2011
Remember the Seinfeld episode titled, "The Raincoats"? In that episode Kramer found a used clothing store that would sell Seinfeld's father, Marty's, raincoats, that he invented. The raincoats were in Florida and the Seinfeld were in New York. Marty called his friend in Florida and told him to break into the house, get the raincoats and ship them to New York. The friend actually cut his hand brake and into the window, but good thing Joe Horn, was not there to kill him, or it would not be a comedy show.
Did you ever lose your keys or lock them inside your car or house and needed someone to break in with a coat hanger or crawl into a window? I did several times. I really don't think the people I asked to help me out, should be killed, by gun owners.
The reason why people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, is because the neighbor could have been on vacation and told his friends to break into the house, like Seinfeld's father told his friend, to break into the house and get his raincoat and mail them to New York. Episode, "The Raincoats." Joe Horn had no clue to who the people were, that were breaking into the house, he just shot them dead. It is just a coincidence that they were criminals and not friends of the homeowner.
Can you imagine locking the keys inside your car or in the house and trying to get break in with a coat hanger or a window and some mentally retarded gun nut, like Joe Horn, who happens to be driving by, sees you and decides to blow you away.
What you think about that gun owners? Should Joe Horn be able to kill you, if you lock your keys inside your or car and try to get in? He's not going to ask you who you are or what you're doing, if your break-in into something. He not only believes you should be killed, he takes out a gun and kills you. Many gun owners support this guy killing people, when he doesn't know who they are, what they are doing , without a trial, without a jury, without a judge.
Some say this is a immigration issue. Some say this is a crime issue. But the fact is Joe Horn, did not know who they were, he didn't know they were illegal aliens, he didn't even know if they were criminals. They could in fact have been friends of the homeowner. Joe Horn did not care. He only wanted to kill someone. This is a murder issue and Joe Horn is the murderer.
If he is not charged with murder, you will never be able to lock your keys inside your own car or house because, if one of the 140 million gun owners, will assume they have the legal right to kill you, if they happen to be driving by, while you're trying to get into your house or car.
This Bill O'Reilly claims, that Texas has a lot of crime and that this guy should be able to kill criminals. What? The gun owners are claiming that more guns people have, the less crime there is. There is more guns in Texas than any other state, so they should have the lowest crime rate. Someone is lying to us.
The Class of 2011 is more connected through Internet and Social Networks than any previous Generation - And they believe very different things to the previous X generation or the early Millennials.
Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, co-authors of the upcoming "Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation is Remaking America,"
Delaware Online Grads face -- and shape -- a new world
For class of 2011, optimism is tempered by apprehension
Hais predicts this diversity will have a profound impact on all aspects of American society.
"In society, and in the American family and home, we expect to see a continuation of the recent trends toward greater inter-racial, inter-ethnic, and inter-religious dating and subsequent marriage," he said. "In the media, we expect to see those real-life trends reflected in increased diversity in scripted and unscripted TV programming. In government policy, we would expect that the nation will, at some point in the next decade, deal with the matter of immigration in a manner that both brings stability to the borders but also recognizes and regularizes the status of undocumented immigrants now in the country."
................
Last year's health care bill allowing children to stay on parents' insurance until they are 26 is an example of altered expectations of when children should leave the parental nest.
"College deans tell me that 26 is the new 18," said Tim Elmore, author of the parenting book, "Generation Y: Our Last Chance to Save Their Future."
.................
People under 30 consider the use of technology the single-largest factor distinguishing them from their parents, Elmore said. But the integration of technology into every aspect of life divides the Class of 2011 even from older millennials. A Harvard University Institute of Politics poll released in March said that 18- and 19-year-olds were nearly twice as likely to believe they could influence someone online rather than face-to-face. Surveys have also shown younger millennials are more likely than those in their 20s to keep in touch with friends by texting, rather than a phone call or email.
...................
The heavy use of social networking has changed the definition of friendship (you can have thousands of them) and changed learning.
Texas has a super majority GOP, but it seems that the Governor did not push for legislation with the same strength of his Political Campaign for Governor. And this guy wants to be President of the United States of America !
Being Governor is very different to being in Political Campaign : Before elections you pander to Super Conservatives, Right Wingnuts, Tea Party, Racists, etc .... After you win the Governorship you have to be more careful with Business, Communities, Organizations, Police Chiefs opposed to the extremist measures, etc .... that want to avoid the fate of Arizona.
Dallas Morning News Illegal immigration bills had tough time in Texas Legislature By CHRISTY HOPPE
May 28, 2011 11:27 PM
"AUSTIN — This was going to be the illegal immigration session, with a GOP supermajority in the Legislature, tea party vigor, the backing of a powerful governor and a slew of get-tough ideas that picked up where Arizona left off.
No safe harbors, no easy employment, no citizenship for children"
It was supposed to be the session of birther bills, criminalizing an illegal immigrant’s presence in the state (as opposed to being only a federal civil violation), limiting an illegal immigrant’s access to courts, mandating electronic employment verification and even stripping babies born in Texas to illegal immigrants of their birthright citizenship. But the 82nd Legislature, as a whole, did not have the stomach for the most draconian proposals.
Even the so-called “sanctuary cities” legislation, which some called “Arizona lite,” failed to make much headway. (It would have prohibited communities from adopting policies that would prevent law enforcement officers from inquiring about the immigration status of people detained or arrested.) It did not pass the Senate after Democrats, 12 in all, voted against bringing up the bill for a floor debate.
Some immigration measures are on their way to the governor’s desk, including a bill that would allow counties to adopt stricter rules for legal immigrants who apply for indigent health care. And it is possible that some of the tougher proposals may yet be resurrected in the final hours of the session.
New York Times : Failure of Anti-Immigrant laws in Florida ( 2 weeks ago ) and Texas ( on last Thursday ). Texas police chiefs turned out forcefully against the measure, although Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, had made it a priority.
"Maryland and Connecticut, with small but rapidly growing Latino populations, went a different way entirely, passing laws to allow illegal immigrant students to attend public colleges at in-state rates".
Everything is not Fear and "Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth" in the Immigration Communities that are threatened by anti-Immigrant and anti-Ethnic Laws, such as the ones of Arizona.
The New York Times Justices’ Arizona Ruling on Illegal Immigration May Embolden States By JULIA PRESTON
May 27, 2011
The decision by the Supreme Court this week upholding an Arizona law punishing employers for hiring illegal immigrants was an energy boost for state lawmakers across the country who have proposed bills this year to curb illegal immigration. As if they needed it.
..................
Arizona’s statute includes the most severe penalties of any state hiring law, imposing what employers call a “business death penalty”: on the second offense of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant, the business loses its license permanently. Arizona also mandated the use by all employers of a federal electronic program for verifying the work authorization of new hires, known as E-Verify.
................
Several states stood down at the last minute. After intense opposition by Florida growers and the tourism industry, legislators let an enforcement measure die in the final hours of their session. On Thursday, Democrats in the Texas Senate blocked a measure that would have stepped up immigration enforcement in cities. Texas police chiefs turned out forcefully against the measure, although Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, had made it a priority.
"Miss Havisham" in novel "Great Expectations" : In the books of Charles Dickens you see bad characters of selfishness, stinginess, lack of generosity, meanness, you see many mean and low actions.
But you also see the opposite, people with a good heart. Noble Human Beings of Love and sharing with others.
From Wikipedia :
Miss Havisham is a significant character in the Charles Dickens novel Great Expectations (1861). She is a wealthy spinster, who lives in her ruined mansion with her adopted daughter, Estella, whom she has sent to France, while she herself is described as looking like "the witch of the place."
Although she has often been portrayed in film versions as very elderly, Dickens's own notes indicate that she is only in her mid-fifties. However, it is also indicated that her long life away from the sunlight has in itself aged her, and she is said to look like a cross between a waxwork and a skeleton, with moving eyes.
..............
Many people today are like "Miss Havisham" : selfish, mean, envious, filled with resentment against others, against life, against the hand of cards that they were dealt in this Casino that we call "Life".
Some people may be rich but resent the happiness of the Poor, of Minorities, etc .... like in the comic "Lucky Ducky" of "Tom the dancing bug", satirical comic strip by cartoonist and political commentator Ruben Bolling that covers current events from a liberal point of view.
Hollingsworth Hound says to Lucky Ducky that is mopping the floor of his offices : "You poor make me sick", You pay no income taxes, Yet you take take Government services".
From Wikipedia :
Lucky Ducky (purportedly from Wall Street Journal Comix) is a duck who despite being homeless, destitute, and working in a crummy job always manages to enrage his arch-nemesis, the very wealthy Hollingsworth Hound. Hollingsworth usually views any source of joy or happiness in Lucky's life to be too much of an advantage and does his best to eliminate it, claiming that the joy or happiness is at the expense of the rich. Hollingsworth tries to show that taxes especially hurt the poor, and demolish claims that they do not. Lucky Ducky first appeared after The Wall Street Journal editorialized against progressive tax policies, calling poor workers "lucky duckies" because they have a smaller federal income tax burden.
Being rich does not mean that you do not feel ENVY, or that you are not a BASTARD !
As my old father used to say "All problems in the world start with ENVY !", "Children, never feel envy"..... "IF God gave money to your neighbor, then pray to Saint Peter to bless it and multiply it"...
And I forgot that tell you that I was educated in the highest respect for British Economist John Maynard Keynes and for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ..... And I have never seen an intellectual development, event or powerful idea to change my mind.
This is an Arizona Stale Law against "Illegal Employers" .... The Chamber of Commerce opposes it. The Supreme Court supported Arizona but its decision is split with three dissents - Justice Elena Kagan abstained or recused herself from this discussion.
John Blackman's Blog Legislative History Clashes in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
May 27, 2011
"JUSTICE BREYER poses several rhetorical questions challenging our reading of IRCA and then goes on to propose two seemingly alternative views of the phrase “licensing and similar laws”—that it was meant to refer to “employment-related licensing systems,” post, at 11 (dissenting opinion) (emphasis deleted), or, even more narrowly, to “the licensing of firms in the business of recruiting or referring workers for employment,such as . . . state agricultural labor contractor licensing schemes,” post, at 13. If we are asking questions, a more telling one may be why, if Congress had intended such limited exceptions to its prohibition on state sanctions, it did not simply say so, instead of excepting “licensing and similar laws” generally? JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR takes a different tack. Invoking arguments that resemble those found in our implied preemption cases, she concludes that the Arizona law “falls outside” the savings clause and is expressly preempted because it allows “state courts to determine whether a person has employed an unauthorized alien.” Post, at 2 (dissenting opinion). While JUSTICE BREYER would add language to the statute narrowly limiting the phrase “licensing and similar laws” to specific types of licenses, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR creates an entirely new statutory requirement: She would allow States to impose sanctions through“licensing and similar laws” only after a federal adjudication. Such a requirement is found nowhere in the text, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR does not even attempt to link it to a specific textual provision. It should not be surprising that the two dissents have sharply different views on how to read the statute. That is the sort of thing that can happen when statutory analysis is so untethered from the text."
More broadly, the Court rejects the Chamber of Commerce’s reading of the legislative history.
"The Chamber argues that its textual and structural arguments are bolstered by IRCA’s legislative history. We have already concluded that Arizona’s law falls within the plain text of IRCA’s savings clause. And, as we have said before, Congress’s “authoritative statement is the statutory text, not the legislative history.” Exxon Mobil Corp.v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U. S. 546, 568 (2005); see also Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U. S. 137, 149–150, n. 4 (2002). Whatever the usefulness of relying on legislative history materials in general, the arguments against doing so are particularly compelling here. Beyond verbatim recitation of the statutory text, all of the legislative history documents related to IRCA save one fail to discuss the savings clause at all. The Senate Judiciary Committee Report on the Senate version of the law does not comment on it. See S. Rep. No. 99–132 (1985). Only one of the four House Reports on the law touches on the licensing exception, see H. R. Rep. No. 99–682, pt. 1, p. 58 (1986), and we have previously dismissed that very report as “a rather slender reed” from “one House of a politically divided Congress.” Hoffman, supra, at 149–150, n. 4. And the Conference Committee Report does not discuss the scope of IRCA’s preemption provisioning any way. See H. Conf. Rep. No. 99–1000 (1986).6"
I will soon post the Scolding or Rant of Chief Justice John G. Roberts against the dissenter Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen G. Breyer ( this pair joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ) and some comments.
Lexis Nexis Communities Emerging Issues Law Community Split U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Alien Employment Law by Bajeerah LaCava
May 26, 2011
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. joined in the opinion in full. Justice Clarence Thomas joined in parts of the opinion and concurred in the judgment.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which he was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, holding that the Arizona law does not fall within the IRCA's savings clause that preserves from preemption state "licensing and similar laws."
"Arizona calls its state statute a 'licensing law,' and the statute uses the word 'licensing.' But the statute strays beyond the bounds of the federal licensing exception, for it defines 'license' to include articles of incorporation and partnership certificates, indeed virtually every state-law authorization for any firm, corporation, or partnership to do business in the State. . . . Congress did not intend its 'licensing' language to create so broad an exemption, for doing so would permit States to eviscerate the federal Act's pre-emption provision, indeed to subvert the Act itself, by undermining Congress' efforts (1) to protect lawful workers from national-origin-based discrimination and (2) to protect lawful employers against erroneous prosecution or punishment," Justice Breyer wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also filed a dissenting opinion. She opined that the majority's "reading of the saving clause cannot be reconciled with the rest of IRCA's comprehensive scheme. Having constructed a federal mechanism for determining whether someone has knowingly employed an unauthorized alien, and having withheld from the States the information necessary to make that determination, Congress could not plausibly have intended for the saving clause to operate in the way the majority reads it to do. When viewed in context, the saving clause can only be understood to preserve States' authority to impose licensing sanctions after a final federal determination that a person has violated IRCA by knowingly employing an unauthorized alien. Because the Legal Arizona Workers Act instead creates a separate state mechanism for Arizona state courts to determine whether a person has employed an unauthorized alien, I would hold that it falls outside the saving clause and is pre-empted."
The Anti-Business, Anti-Obama anti-Democratic Party Supreme Court - This is Conservative Judicial Activism at its best. Comprehensive Immigration Reform is impossible for now. The majority opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. found the Arizona legislation is not pre-empted by federal immigration law.
ReporterGary.com SCOTUS upholds Arizona immigration law By JAY GOODMAN TAMBOLI
May 27, 2011
The law had been challenged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which argued that only the federal government could penalize businesses for immigration law violations. The Obama administration had supported that view.
..................
The Chamber of Commerce argued that revoking a business license is a punishment, just like a fine, and therefore states should be prohibited from revoking licenses on the basis of immigration law violations.
......................
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. In their dissents, the justices argued that punitive license revocation allowed under the Arizona law was the kind of thing Congress sought to prevent when it passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
Sotomayor wrote that one of Congress’s motivations in passing the Immigration Reform and Control Act was to overrule state laws imposing fines on businesses who hired undocumented immigrants. In that law, Sotomayor argued, Congress “made explicit its intent that [immigration laws] be enforced uniformly” across the country.
. The British Guardian - Arizona's big win on immigration law - The supreme court decision upholding LAWA makes immigration reform next to impossible now for the Obama administration - By Stewart J Lawrence May 27, 2011
Thursday's decision by the US supreme court to uphold a 2007 Arizona state law punishing businesses that hire illegal aliens has just thrown a huge monkey wrench into the nation's immigration policy debate.
In fact, it's a landmark decision that threatens to push the boundary line between federal and state authority for immigration closer to the federalist principle that states have a right to initiate their own laws – a huge blow to traditonalists, including Obama justice department lawyers, who insist that the US constitution gives the federal government a near-monopoly on the making and enforcing of the nation's immigration laws.
The 2007 law in question, known as the Legal Arizona Workers Act, or LAWA, allows state authorities to suspend, and if necessary, to revoke the business licences of employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Even more striking, the law also mandates that employers adopt a workplace verification system known as "E-Verify" to screen prospective employees based on their legal status.
Two lower courts ruled in 2008 that LAWA was constitutional, despite furious challenges from a coalition of civil rights and immigration rights organisations, and business groups, which saw the sanctions law as likely to interfere with their ability to hire cheap foreign labour. The two lower courts, and now the US supreme court, cited a critical but little-known 1976 supreme court decision upholding a state employer sanctions law in California, as well as the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, or IRCA, which established a new federal employer sanctions regime, but explicitly excluded issues relating to "business licencing" from the scope of the law.
US supreme court chief justice John Roberts cited that "savings clause" in his majority ruling that has upheld LAWA as constitutional. Three liberal justices, including Sonia Sotomayor disagreed, saying the 1986 law should "pre-empt" – meaning supercede – LAWA.
...........
The Obama administration had hoped that the supreme court would strike Arizona's 2007 law down, as part of a broader push toward eliminating the growing patchwork of state laws that have emerged in the wake of the failure of Congress to pass meaningful immigration reform legislation. Instead, the court's decision is likely to do just the opposite: embolden conservatives – and even some progressive groups that favour local "sancutary" laws protecting illegal immigrants from being deported - to pass even more state-level laws.
. I do not know who is the author of this song, or perhaps the Girl has changed the Lyrics of another song. But I like it. In the second video, you perhaps listen to the Original Song by Jack Johnson.
Name of the Girl : Natty Guzman !
Uploaded by Janeg2001 on May 18, 2011
Arizona Immigration Law
Oh, how ignorant these lawmakers are!
Lyrics:
Now I was sitting, hated, wishing that you believed in immigration But clearly that is not the case But Lord knows Arizona's cruel We ain't the Lord, we're just Chicanos Learning loving a state don't make them love you
CHORUS Must we always be //hated// by you? Must we always be //playing// your fools?
You passed SB 1070 On April 23, 2010 To support law enforcement and your neighborhoods And maybe to you we're aliens But we're human too So please don't ignore These next few lines cuz they're directed at YOU
CHORUS
You keep making your laws And you don't want us here You're making it clear Your legislation does too You say we're immigrants? But you're immigrants too! Don't you really think so?
//We're all aliens here Both us and you//
Well if I was in your position I'd stop attacking immigration I'd wonder why it'd taken me so long But thank the Lord that I'm not you And if I was, I wouldn't be so cruel Cuz staying in this state ain't so easy to do
Must we always be //hated// by you? Must we always be //playing// your fools? No, we won't always be //hated// by you! Yes, we will rise up and do what we have to do :)
Sitting, Hated, Wishing
Jack Hody Johnson (born 1975) is an American folk rock singer-songwriter, surfer and musician known for his work in the soft rock and acoustic genres. In 2001, he achieved commercial success after the release of his debut album, Brushfire Fairytales. He has since released four more albums, a number of EPs and surfing movies/soundtracks. He is also known for organizing an annual event, the Ko-kua Festival. He currently has sold 15 million albums worldwide. His highest–selling album is Sing-A-Longs and Lullabies for the Film Curious George, with 4 million albums shipped worldwide, due to the success of the 2006 Curious George film. Notable songs from Johnson's repertoire include "Upside Down"; "Flake"; "Sitting, Waiting, Wishing"; "If I Had Eyes"; "You and Your Heart" and the widely-popular fan favorite, "Better Together".
Uploaded by Twilightjukebox on Oct 21, 2008
this is my theme song for Jacob. Not so much him hating Bella and dating her friends but that is sitting on a log or at home wait to see if bella has figured out his secret that night he came into her room
Lynn Jenkins (born 1963) is the U.S. Representative for Kansas's 2nd congressional district, serving since 2009. She is a member of the Republican Party. As of the 112th Congress, she is the senior member of Kansas' House delegation.
Eric Ivan Cantor ( born 1963) is the U.S. Representative for Virginia's 7th congressional district, serving since 2001. A member of the Republican Party, he became House Majority Leader when the 112th Congress convened on January 3, 2011. He previously served as House Minority Whip from 2009 to 2011.
Ideas, Observations, & Mental Machinations Eric Cantor & House Republicans willing to hold Joplin hostage, mind boggling By Xobekim
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Lynn Jenkins in Campaign 2010 described Eric Cantor as America's Next Great White Hope. Never mind the blatant racism, just think about what Cantor thinks about those of us who live in or near Kansas' Second Congressional District. He thinks that when our cities are obliterated by Mother Nature, called Acts of God, that we can well be on our own.
Cantor says that there can be no federal relief for Joplin until we find budget offsets first. That's right, Jenkins' Great White Hope is using the pain and suffering of Joplin as a political football.
Republicans like Cantor and Jenkins have worked tirelessly to make sure that America's most wealthy get to keep paying little to no taxes while demanding that we can no longer afford Medicare. These Republicans now want to let an entire American city go to oblivion, being held hostage to their radical agenda.
Missouri's Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill said: "There is no question we have to be careful about the way we spend federal money, but with all due respect to Congressman Cantor, I have a hard time believing that if this were in his congressional district he would be talking about how additional disaster relief would not be available unless we found some other program to take it from"
Missouri's Republican Senator, Roy Blunt, echoed McCaskill telling Cantor to find the offsets. Politico reported the Senator's statement: "We need to prioritize spending, and this needs to be a priority. I’m sure Eric [Cantor] will help find the necessary off-sets."
In the end Lynn Jenkins' Great White Hope, Eric Cantor, caved to the pressure. He "Our hearts are w/ victims of #Joplin tragedy. House #GOP ready to help & has found offsets for emergency $$$". Cantor suddenly found the offsets.
..............
Our deficit is because too many American corporations pay little to no taxes. Our deficit is because the effective tax rate of the richest Americans is at the lowest point in our nation's history.
Protecting the Poor and Minorities from the assault of Republicans, these last guys want to give hundreds of billions to the super rich and wealthy, while the Poor and Minorities go unprotected with diminished Medicare and a Denial of Social Security, these things are called "Entitlements" with great derision and contempt by Republicans, but they are the necessary fuel for the future. "To Win the Future" as President Obama says.
Five republicans in the senate joined all the Democrats to defeat the Absurd Measure of Republican Representative Paul Ryan from Wisconsin.
Uploaded by SenatorMenendezNJ on May 25, 2011
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez took to the Senate floor to vote to protect Medicare and speak in strong opposition the Republican plan to end the program. The House-passed Republican budget proposal would have increased the cost of health care for seniors while extending billions in tax breaks to millionaires and Big Oil companies. The bill was defeated 40-57.
. Modern Times Magazine in Arizona - Print editions distributed monthly - Gov. Brewhaha Still Fighting For SB1070 -
Arizona Governor Skips Ninth Circuit Court Appeal And Takes Immigrant Legislation Directly To The Supreme Court
The state of Arizona has until July 11, 2011, to file its official petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. It will likely be late September or early October before the court announces whether it will hear the case.
A "petition for writ of certiorari" is filed with the Supreme Court when a party wants the court to review a decision of a federal or state court. A petition is printed in booklet format and 40 copies are filed with the Court. If the Court grants the petition, the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument.
A minimum of four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four.” The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term.
In 2009, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1 percent. The Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases over which the Court has jurisdiction and which the Court considers sufficiently important, such as cases involving deep constitutional questions, to merit the use of its limited resources. The Supreme Court sometimes grants a writ of certiorari to resolve a "circuit split," when the federal appeals courts in two (or more) federal judicial circuits have ruled differently in similar situations. These are often called "percolating issues."
Haven’t Brewer and Senate President Russell Pearce learned their lesson yet? During this legislative session, someone told Brewer and Pearce "enough." Who? A group of more than 60 business and educational leaders who drafted a public letter in late March to Senate President Russell Pearce in an effort to stop his newest attempts to impact immigration issues, such as ‘denying’ citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.
. We are talking here, of course, of American Foreign Policy and the Future of Latin America :
Nobody can do the task for Latin Americans, much less the USA involved in so many problems in the Middle East, Asia and Tough Elections at home with rough issues like Medicare, Social Security, spending in Education for Minorities and the Poor ( the Dream Act ) and Immigration.
I add this to Latin Americans and their duty : Fight against corruption in Governments ( very grave ). Fight against corrupt, lazy and useless bureaucrats, specially in the Judicial System : Useless Fiscalías ( District Attorneys ) and Procuradurías ( overseers of Civil Servants )
In Latin America "civil servants" are "civil dictators" ..
The USA can not replace the "Hope that always springs in the Human Heart", in this case Latin American Hearts.
A Great Victory for President Obama and the Democratic Party :
The Republican Candidate was fed with millions from billionaires and with lots of Prejudice, Bias and Bigotry from Tea Party. ... New York State loves Medicare and despises Bigotry, anti-Minorities, and anti-Poor Bias !.
Kathleen "Kathy" Courtney Hochul is the Congresswoman elect from New York's 26th congressional district, formerly County Clerk of Erie County, New York serving since 2007. She was the Democratic Party and Working Families Party candidate in the May 24, 2011 special election to fill the seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, (NY-26) left vacant by the resignation of Chris Lee. Her opponents were: Republican Jane Corwin, independent Jack Davis and Green Ian Murphy. Hochul's political positions include preserving Medicare and opposing a privatized voucher payment system; raising taxes on those making more than $500,000 per year; opposing free trade and developing alternative energy sources.
Previously, Hochul was a deputy county clerk, a member of the Hamburg town board, a practicing attorney and a legislative aide.
Uploaded by WIVBTV on May 24, 2011
Democrat Kathy Hochul has done what many thought was impossible. She has won a congressional district that Republicans had never lost before. Jane Corwin conceded the race.
Underdog Kathy Hochul comes out on top
The Ad that won the race in New York - Protect Medicare - No more tax breaks for the Wealthy :
Uploaded by KathyHochul on Apr 25, 2011
"The Right Way" stresses the choice voters have between Assemblymember Jane Corwin, who supports ending Medicare as we know it, and Kathy Hochul, who will fight to protect our seniors by rejecting any budget that fundamentally alters the program.
"There's a contradiction that needs to be exposed," Henderson said, in answer to a question from this reporter about the issue of privatizing the legal defense of public policies which normally would be paid for by taxpayers.
...............
Back on Capitol Hill, it is almost certain that comprehensive immigration reform will fail to fly in the current Congress, given the partisan split between a Republican-dominated House and a Democratic-controlled Senate. If no breakthrough is achieved, national immigration reform will not see any meaningful action until 2013 at the earliest.
As stop-gap measures, pro-immigrant forces are pressuring the Obama administration to suspend the deportation of undocumented young people, known as Dreamers, who were brought here as children, and end Immigration and Customs Enforcement's 287(g) program that deputizes local police to carry out federal immigration law enforcement functions.
The demands have the sympathetic ears of prominent individuals like Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank, Wade Henderson and many others in the law enforcement, civil rights, labor and religious communities.
Henderson attended the late April White House meeting where President Barack Obama reiterated his pledge to work for comprehensive immigration reform.
But he predicted that it would be politically difficult for Obama to administratively halt deportations, and that it would require a bipartisan initiative in Congress to safeguard young people who arrived in this country through no fault of their own.
Henderson criticized attacks on immigrants as part of a broader assault on workers, the young, the poor and people of color, especially Latinos. He called the attacks part and parcel of a politicized, "coordinated campaign of subtle and not-so subtle intimidation."
Whether immigration will reemerge as an important issue in the 2012 elections is an open question. For now at least, the economy, the deficit and the crisis in the Arab world all overshadow an issue that counts decades without serious action at the federal level.
Freshman Sen. Marco Rubio is often billed as the answer to the Republicans’ Hispanic problem.
On his party’s shortlist of vice presidential candidates, he is a darling of the tea party, represents the largest swing state — and as the son of Cuban immigrants, could make history as the first Hispanic-American on a national ticket.
But since stepping onto the national stage last year, Rubio has taken a hard right turn on immigration that could drive away the very Hispanic voters Republicans need to win the White House in 2012.
Hispanic and immigration activists had held out hope that with the election behind him, Rubio might return to some of the more moderate positions he staked out as a state lawmaker. Instead, they’re now seething after Rubio hardened his opposition to the DREAM Act and continues to repeat the harsh rhetoric of the right wing, dismissing anything other than border and workplace enforcement as “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.
The backlash has intensified in recent days after Rubio reiterated his positions on immigration in a national Spanish-language interview, leading some Hispanic leaders to accuse him of placing his political ambitions above the needs of his community.
“There’s a Benedict Arnold feeling,” said Jorge Mursuli, a Cuban immigrant and executive director of Miami-based Democracia, a Hispanic civic engagement group. “Having known him, his political career and knowing where he comes from — a hardworking immigrant family — one has to wonder what it is that he’s thinking or how his political ambitions outweigh his life experiences. ... It’s not only disappointing; it’s disheartening and, frankly, almost unbelievable.”
.................
“To be against comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship and against the DREAM Act defines you in the Latino immigrant community as a hard-liner and an enemy of the community,” said Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigration advocacy group.
"Maybe, as it’s been alleged, Jose Guerena was part of a home-invasion ring with family members, ripping and running with body armor and assault weapons, posing as a cop". - And perhaps that is false !
Arizona Daily Star Brodesky: Tucson deserves to know more about Guerena shooting
Saturday, May 21, 201
But all we know, more than two weeks after SWAT officers shot him 60 times, is that Guerena was a Marine who served in Iraq and had no criminal record. We know he worked the night shift at the Asarco Mission Mine, and he was a father and husband. We know that what SWAT officers said they found in Guerena’s home — guns, body armor, a piece of law enforcement clothing, a portrait of Jesus Malverde, “the narco saint,” under his bed — might be suggestive of home invasions, but certainly are not illegal.
Could Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik have bungled the explanation for this shooting any worse? His department first said Guerena fired at the SWAT officers. Then it said he didn’t. The officers now say he raised his gun with the safety on and pointed it at the officers. And since they said that, Dupnik has refused to comment on what went down.
“I have to do what I think is right to protect the case to ensure that it has the opportunity to progress where we think it should go,” he told me Friday, explaining his silence.
Dupnik said he was withholding comment because his department is continuing with its criminal investigation into the alleged home-invasion ring. Meanwhile, the Pima County Attorney’s Office is investigating the shooting. And a shooting board, comprised of commanders from the various agencies involved with the SWAT incident, is also investigating. Dupnik said it wouldn’t make any sense to talk to the public before talking to the shooting board.
On top of the wall of silence, court documents and the search warrant for the home have been sealed. The Star plans to sue for those records.
Dupnik said opening up those documents would put someone’s life at risk. An informant? Presumably, but he wouldn’t say.
“I don’t know when they are going to be unsealed, if ever,” he said. “Those are the real sensitive parts of why we are having difficulty with trying to put information out publicly — because we don’t want to get somebody killed.”
That would make sense, except Michael Storie, the attorney for the SWAT officers, gave a press conference Thursday to provide details of the May 5 shooting.
When I asked Dupnik if anything Storie said at that presser undermined the criminal investigation or other concerns, all he said was, “No.”
So then why not at least release that information?
. An American Veteran of two tours of duty in Iraq was killed at home in front of family and wife : 71 bullets and he did not shoot :
British "Daily Mail" 'Government killed one of their own': Iraq war vet and father of two shot 71 times in own HOME by SWAT team By Daily Mail Reporter
May 22, 2011
Some excerpts of a long article with many photos and information :
Jose Guerena, 26,survived two tours of duty in Iraq as a marine, only to be gunned down in a hail of 71 bullets in his own Tucson, Arizona home, while his wife and four-year old son hid in a nearby closet.
Mr Guerena's wife, Vanessa, said she heard her husband moaning as he lay dying, his body struck by 60 of the bullets.
Ms Guerena told ABC News: 'I saw his stomach, all the blood on the floor'.
She said her goal now is to 'clear his good name'. Ms Guerena said their son Joel keeps asking about his deceased father, 'Is he a bad guy?'
The Tucson SWAT team responsible for the May 5 house shooting defends its actions, saying the team was conducting a multi-house drug investigation based on a search warrant when they saw Mr Guerena aiming an assault rifle at them.
At first, the SWAT team had said Mr Guerena fired first, but then they retracted that statement, saying he had left the safety on.
Re-posted under Title 17fair use for education and research and non profit use. KGUN 9 gets ALL the video/story credit.
TTRT comments and asks 1st Amendment PROTECTED freedom of speech Questions to the Public:
It will be interesting to see what kind of alleged evidence was obtained? Was it worth killing a man shooting squad style to obtain?
A question to be asked is, Was this a Law-full killing or a unlawful murder?
Are any military personnel upset about this incident?
Are the officers who fired on this house and man going to be charged for murder?
Was in the alleged warrant particularly describing the Person or things and places to be searched and or seized? Additionally what was listed on the warrant to be seized?
Do you have a right of self defense in Pima County when someone uses deadly force?
Do the Pima County Sheriffs Shoot first than ask questions later?
Noting how this incident ended, what if this Military man did successfully defend his life and family, would he be a hero or a criminal now that we all know what the PCSD SWAT will do to even service man?
Do you have the right to protect your family against deadly force?
How many bullets hit close to the mother and child?
Did the Branch Davidiens at WACO have the right to defend themselves from deadly force?
Did the 911 operator seem helpful to the vivtim or victims wife?
What took the medics so long after the 911 call was made? Who is responsible for delaying medical attention and for what legitimate reason? Did any of the neighbors see what was going on? Did officers shoot blindly into the house from outside? if Officers did shoot blindly into the house than will they be charged with attempted murder of the mother and child or other appropriate charges? What is the PIMA COUNTY SWAT "Use of Force Policy, Rules and Regulations?
Why did this military mans rights of Life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness end in this manner in vain?
Do you have a 2nd Amendment in Tucson Arizona?
Will the Sheriffs in Pima County respect your rights?
Will Sheriffs honor there oath in Pima County?
(Please see more TTRT videos for more on that)
Were the Sheriffs in the right or wrong?
Is the Sheriffs Attitude similar to, "How dare you defend yourself?
NOTE - This man is dead now, God will have to sort this issue out now!
What can the Sheriffs do to make this right or better if anything?
Has even one of the PCSD or any Swat members even apologized to the wife and family for changing there lives for ever?
can you trust your local SWAT team to do the right thing?
Can you trust Sheriff Dupnik?
Do you have the RIGHT of self defense?
Do The Sheriffs Have a legitimate excuse for what they did?
Will this Incident affect Sheriff Dupnik running again for Sheriff or him getting elected? They did not have a MURDER warrant and they all seem to very clearly have committed CHILD ENDANGERMENT also involving there firearms being shot into a home with a child in it. Were any Government officers charged at Waco for shooting into the WACO Texas buildings that had children inside? Or did all the government employees get away with MURDER back then just because they wanted one man?
If the Sheriffs and Swat attempt again a cover this up, than who will now be the scape goat, the poor unsuspecting wife?
I can only say this much more, I know that the P.C.S.D. is out of control as My TTRT you Tube page has a lot of documentation of such. Accordingly My Prayers, best wishes and blessing to the wife Vanessa Guerena, May God be with you, your family and your friends and my sincere condolences over you Loss. I am so, so sorry.
0142 TTRT coments on Marine murdered by SWAT at home on 5-5-11 in Tucson?
It is necessary to acknowledge that Newt Gingrich has an excellent Bilingual Website with Great Quality. And this article about the 2012 strategy of Democrats to win the Presidency is of very great interest.
The Americano Democrats Believe Hispanics the “Key” to Obama’s 2012 Bid
Friday, May 20th, 2011
According to Roll Call, the 2012 electoral map is different than the one that saw Obama win by a large margin and many states Democrats had not won in many years. Democrats believe Obama can still win enough battleground states to win the upcoming election.
No, it is not the ambitious 2012 strategy that worked to perfection and allowed Obama to carry more states than he expected. This time his re-election team knows the field is different and a much less aggressive path than the one he forged in 2008.
A Democratic official familiar with the still-forming re-election campaign told Roll Call that the focus will be on holding the 2008 pickups of Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina, winning over Latino voters in the West and flooding the traditional swing states of Ohio and Florida with resources. The Democrats feel good about winning New Mexico and Nevada, especially given the population growth among Hispanics.
It is worthwhile noting that these Democrats are counting on Hispanic voters in all of these states to win the election.
According to Roll Call this campaign will be focused on maintaining popularity with the black voters who can help Obama win Virginia and North Carolina a second time. It means the president must keep Latino voters interested in the election to help him lock down Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado — and, as is the talk in some optimistic circles, Arizona.
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said that when he led the party in 2008, his strategy accounted for Obama losing Ohio and Florida but still winning the White House. Obama exceeded his expectations by running the table with swing-state victories, and Dean feels even more confident today.
“The West is a big cushion. If we win Florida, we win the whole thing, and Florida is very, very winnable,” Dean said in an interview. That, however, is an overly-optimistic view.
I am a fan of Billie Greenwood and "Border Explorer Blog" ... She constantly roams the Border and goes into Mexico. She has a deep understanding of Immigration, being the friend of many Immigrants and their Employers .... She explains why this matter is not so simple and easy.
Border Explorer Blog - Immigration and illegal employers - By Billie Greenwood
May 18, 2011
It is a simple premise: stop "illegal employers" and you stop "illegal immigration." But, while I'm not defending the unscrupulous capitalist, I've talked to enough people to see that simple solutions and snap judgments don't stand up to the complexity of the U.S. immigration problem.
First, it is not the employer's responsibility to be an immigration agent. If the employer makes a reasonable and honest effort to ascertain a laborer's authorization to work, they have done what they need to do. It's not their job to sniff out counterfeit documents or to take on the role of a mini-CBP agent. We cannot blame them if the system has not sent them authorized prospective employees.
Second, the seven million employed immigrants currently working in the U.S. without worker documentation are performing jobs that the U.S. middle class and the U.S. poor are unwilling and unable to do. They take the jobs that are dirty, difficult and dangerous. They are farmworkers, construction workers, maintenance workers. They work as housekeepers and as yard workers. They slaughter our animals and process our meat. They are nannies for wealthy children. They flip hamburgers in the fast food industry. They assume positions that neither we nor our children want--as careers.
A woman I know well enough to attest to her good heart told me that the small family-owned restaurant-- into which she and her husband pour their lives--could not function without workers who are not authorized. "There aren't employees for us, otherwise," she admitted frankly. "We really have to rely on them."
I realized that I was looking into the face of an "illegal employer." But she did not fit my image.
She was uneasy. She was concerned. She felt stuck in a bad situation. And she and her husband, who rely so completely on their kitchen workers, did what they could to help their workers function in the dysfunctional dilemma of living "illegally" in a foreign land.
She described the painful choices she saw workers face. Sometimes, for instance, workers must attend to family back home, knowing they may not be able to return again to the U.S. under its tightened security. Then, it is back to "square one" not only for them, but also for the restaurant. The owners must live with the employee's choices much as the employees must cope with their adopted country's broken immigration system.
The group I judgmentally termed "illegal employers" have many more options, but they are equally stuck in an antiquated immigration system that the nation will not fix.
