Sunday, July 31, 2011

About the "Great Difference" betweeen American Whites or Anglos and the "Illegal Aliens" or other forms of Alienhood that came speaking Spanish, Portuguese or French into U. S Territory from 1510 and later

.
Too many pundits and gurus of "Culture" and too many prophets of Separation and Apartheid - And very few people finding similarities or building bridges between "Cultures".


Scientific Facts :

1) English, Spanish and French are not so distant languages. England was conquered by the Normans that spoke Middle Age French in 1066, the high classes of England spoke French for two centuries. The interaction between England, Spain and France has been very constant for thousands of years, thanks to the short distances, Wars, Fashions, Books, Commerce, Travelers, etc...

2) It has been established that England and the larger United Kingdom was genetically conquered by some Iberians or Primitive Basques after the Ice Age 12,000 or less years ago. According to the Leading Geneticists of England that was the most important influence in English DNA and the subsequent genetic influences of "Celts", Romans and Anglo-Saxons are much less important than previously thought. Some English linguists believe that the Anglo-Saxons were a wider germanic population from Belgium, Netherlands, etc... Many doubts about the big or small number of Anglo-Saxons.

The "Anglo-Saxon" genes are more Germanic than "Anglo-Saxon" and only have some small influence in East Anglia or Eastern England. They are never the dominant pool of genes, even in the "Anglo-Saxon" area.

So, you can not judge Human Genetic Relationships by the Exterior Aspect or apparent Phenotypes of Humans, because changes can be extremely exterior and shallow and evolve very fast under climate, environment, social forces, social selection, etc ....  ( this is Darwinian Evolution )..

This is like races of dogs that appear very different but are extremely closely related ( genetically ) .... All of them coming from wild wolves, not long ago.

I could develop similar theories about Law, Constitutions, Government, Art, Religion, Philosophy, etc.... but this would become tiring and boring. And at the end, extremely idiotic.




Vicente Duque

VIDEO, Use the 14th Amendment President Obama - Thundering Rage and Very Irate Speech of Senator Bernie Sanders against the House Republicans ( the maids of the wealthies Corporations and Richest Cruel guys )

 .
How a few ignorant and foolish Republicans, totally filled with Bigotry and Fanaticism want to sink the American Nation. These cruel people do not think of the poor widows, the pensioneers, the veterans.

These Tea Party Cretins are endangering the Health and Well Being of the Majority of Americans that are not Wealthy Millionaires.

That is what America needs. Valuable Bold, Courageous and Audicious People, against the Hypocrite Liars of the Extreme Right.

The Constitution can not be more clear in giving the President the Authority and Mandate to pay all debts of the American Government, no matter the dysfunctionality of the U. S. House of Representatives, rule by bigoted ignorants.

Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born 1941) is the junior United States Senator from Vermont. Previously, Sanders represented Vermont's at-large district in the United States House of Representatives. Sanders also served as mayor of Burlington, Vermont.

Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, and has praised European social democracy. He is the first person elected to the U.S. Senate to identify as a socialist. Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments, but because he does not belong to a formal political party, he appears as an independent on the ballot. He was also the only independent member of the House during much of his service there.


Uploaded by SenatorSanders on Jul 30, 2011

As the clock ticked toward a Tuesday deadline for raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, Sen. Bernie Sanders spoke during a rare Saturday session to make the case for President Obama lifting the debt ceiling on his own by invoking a provision of the 14th Amendment. "The Constitution is very clear in saying that the debts of the United States 'shall not be questioned,' Sanders said.


The 14th Amendment 




.

.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Forbes : If Obama uses 14th amendment to raise debt ceiling then no plaintiff has "standing" or can "show injury" to sue President Obama for paying the debts that elected officials, past or present, have already authorized and ordered him to pay

.
The Supreme Court can only review this Obama action only if someone has sued him in a Court. But being a plaintiff requires "Standing" and "Showing Injury". The injury should be clearly traced to the actions of the defendant. So it is almost impossible to be accepted as a plaintiff against  President Obama in this case.


And the Impeachment in the U. S. House of Representatives will fail in the Senate.


So nothing happens if Obama has a "Lion's Heart".



Forbes
Can Obama Really Use The 14th Amendment To Raise The Debt Limit?
By Rick Ungar
July 29, 2011


Can Obama Really Use The 14th Amendment To Raise The Debt Limit?


Some excerpts :

So, what happens if President Obama should take this road?

The first question is whether or not the Administration can even be sued in court, thus setting up the opportunity for the Supreme Court to review the action.

In law, there is something called having ‘standing’ to sue. Nobody can get help from any court of law if they do not have standing to bring an action in the first place.

While you might imagine that Congress and/or American taxpayers who disagree with the President’s actions would be in such a position, it is nowhere nearly as clear as you would think.

1. In order to have standing in a federal court, a plaintiff must -

(a) be able to show that the plaintiff has suffered an injury and that the injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable and not distract;

(b) have a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of so that the injury can be traced to the actions of the defendant; and

(c) be likely that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

Can anyone really say that they have been injured by the President’s deciding to pay the debts our elected officials, past or present, have already authorized and ordered him to pay?

Wouldn’t that be like saying that you have been injured by your bank when they have the nerve to ask you to pay your mortgage pursuant to a contract you previously signed but now have decided that you don’t care to pay going forward?

If you think that, by being a taxpayer, you have standing to sue the President for spending your money, think again.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that- except in cases where taxpayers have challenged that the government has allocated funds in a way that violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment-the conduct of the federal government, when it comes to spending your tax dollars, is too far removed from the taxpayer to constitute an ‘injury’ for purposes of determining standing.

Oh well. Surely, Congress can sue for us, right?

Not so much. Congressional Members have typically failed in efforts to sue an Administration as Courts have ruled that Members of Congress lack the standing to do so just as taxpayers do as discussed above.

So, what happens?

Probably nothing happens.
.

Friday, July 29, 2011

HuffPost : Sorry Grandma ! -- Delayed Social Security Payments May Prevent Default But Would Cause Disaster - About 90 percent of women over age 80 derive nearly all of their income from Social Security benefits

.
Euthanasia Kids in the U. S. Congress :

Since White People have a median or average age that is much higher than the other Races or Colors. And since Old People over 75 are predominantly White, then some Congress People are devising a scheme to kill White People. They are accelerating the Minority Majority Nation.

Who is the Real Enemy of Grandma ?? - Who are in the "Death Panel" to kill Grandma ?? - Are these the death panels promised by Sarah Palin ?? - Killing Granma by starvation ??

I do not tell you who are the Euthanasia Kids in the U. S. Congress, so that nobody can accuse me of Partisanship, Bigotry, Prejudice, Intolerance, Racism or Whatever ??

Should we weep or laugh ?? -- Please tell me ! - There are some clowns in Congress, no doubt about that.



Huffington Post
Delayed Social Security Payments May Prevent Default But Would Cause Disaster
By Janell Ross
July 29, 2011


Delayed Social Security Payments May Prevent Default But Would Cause Disaster


NEW YORK -- As the Treasury Department prepares to hit the swiftly-approaching debt limit with no agreement to lift it in sight, fears are growing that the government might opt to skip the next round of Social Security payments.

Experts warn that the program is such a vital source of support for so many low-income and elderly Americans that even one delayed payment could trigger a domino effect, sending millions of households into delinquency on a broad range of bills.

"What we are talking about here," said Joan Entmacher, vice president for family economic security at the National Women's Law Center, "is not the financial markets -- not that they are not important -- but the very ability of millions of Americans to buy food, pay their utility bills, their rent or mortgage and to generally function."

If Social Security payments don't come, Entmacher said, "there are a whole series of very serious, deeply frightening consequences that could, and very likely would, follow."

There are about 54.8 million Americans who receive some form of Social Security benefits each month, according to government data (see Table 2). Most payments are made to retirees, disabled individuals and certain dependent children and adults. The next monthly payment is due Aug. 3. Another 15 million Americans are also due veterans' benefits, federal or postal employee retirement benefits and other payments on that date.

For a substantial share of the people who receive Social Security benefits, that income is essential. About 40 percent of all unmarried individuals who receive social security benefits rely on the program for at least 90 percent of their income, the Social Security Administration's inspector general found in a November 2010 report. About 90 percent of women over age 80 derive nearly all of their income from Social Security benefits.

Losing that income could prove disastrous. Households that don't pay utility bills eventually face shut off. Banks can charge account overdraft fees. And creditors also generally charge late fees for overdue payments. Credit card companies can raise a customer's interest rate due to overdue bills.

"Suddenly the credit card with 19 percent interest goes up to an unmanageable 30 percent interest," said Entmacher. "I don't think it requires too much imagination to consider what happens to American households from there."
...................

While only Congress has the ability to ensure the government pays all of its bills, Treasury will provide more information as we get closer to Aug. 2 regarding how the government would operate without new borrowing authority if the debt limit is not increased.
--------------------------

Near the other end of that scale would be a delay in payments due to states for things such as roads, schools amd foster care subsidies. Skipping those payments could lead to additional public worker furloughs and a hold on state and local government spending.
.................

It is possible that that furloughing government workers and delaying other payments would not raise enough cash to pay interest on the national debt, Behravesh said. In that case, social security benefits would have to be held.
.............

"But if that happens, there is no question that the consequences would, almost immediately, be enormous and painful for a lot of households."
.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

History of Hate and Fear against Immigrants in the 19 Century : Germans, Irish, Poles, Italians - Videos of Great Movies of anti-Immigration. History of Know Knothing societies and their impact in Politics, Klu Klux Klan, etc....

.
These are my movies of anti-Immigration in the 19 century ( murdering the Irish, Italians, etc ) :


Videos of Movie "Gangs of New York" ( Leonardo di Caprio ) - Killing and Hanging Blacks - Draft Riots in New York City - Hate and Battles against the Catholic Irish



Vendetta ( 1999 ) : A Movie about the Historical Lynching of many Italians in New Orleans in 1891 - Racial Murder against Italians - Racism


History of Brutality and Bastardy ( Behavior of  Bastards ) against European Whites :

The Know Knothing societies against Immigrants in Wikipedia


Some excerpts ;

The Know Nothing movement was a nativist American political movement of the 1840s and 1850s. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to Anglo-Saxon Protestant values and controlled by the Pope in Rome.

Mainly active from 1854 to 1856, it strove to curb immigration and naturalization, though its efforts met with little success. Membership was limited to Protestant males of British lineage over the age of 21. There were few prominent leaders, and the largely middle-class and entirely Protestant membership fragmented over the issue of slavery.

The movement originated in New York in 1843 as the American Republican Party. It spread to other states as the Native American Party and became a national party in 1845. In 1855 it renamed itself the American Party.[1] The origin of the "Know Nothing" term was in the semi-secret organization of the party. When a member was asked about its activities, he was supposed to reply, "I know nothing."

History
Underlying issues

The immigration of large numbers of Irish and German Catholics to the United States in the period between 1830 and 1860 made religious differences between Catholics and Protestants a political issue, tensions which echoed European conflicts between Catholics and Protestants. Violence occasionally erupted over elections.

Although Catholics asserted that they were politically independent of priests, Protestants alleged that Pope Pius IX had put down the failed liberal Revolutions of 1848 and that he was an opponent of liberty, democracy and Republicanism. One Boston minister described Catholicism as "the ally of tyranny, the opponent of material prosperity, the foe of thrift, the enemy of the railroad, the caucus, and the school."[3][4] These fears encouraged conspiracy theories regarding the Pope's purported plans to subjugate the United States through a continuing influx of Catholics controlled by Irish bishops obedient to and personally selected by the Pope. In 1849, an oath-bound secret society, the Order of the Star Spangled Banner, was created by Charles B. Allen in New York City. It became the nucleus of some units of the American Party.

Fear of Catholic immigration led to a dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party, whose leadership in many cities included Irish American Catholics. Activists formed secret groups, coordinating their votes and throwing their weight behind candidates sympathetic to their cause. When asked about these secret organizations, members were to reply "I know nothing," which led to their popularly being called Know Nothings. This movement won elections in major cities from Chicago to Boston in 1855, and carried the Massachusetts legislature and governorship.

Immigration during the first five years of the 1850s reached a level five times greater than a decade earlier. Most of the new arrivals were poor Catholic peasants or laborers from Ireland and Germany who crowded into the tenements of large cities. Crime and welfare costs soared. Cincinnati's crime rate, for example, tripled between 1846 and 1853 and its murder rate increased sevenfold. Boston's expenditures for poor relief rose threefold during the same period.


In spring 1854, the Know Nothings carried Boston, Salem, and other New England cities. They swept the state of Massachusetts in the fall 1854 elections, their biggest victory. The Whig candidate for mayor of Philadelphia was editor Robert T. Conrad, soon revealed as a Know Nothing; he promised to crack down on crime, close saloons on Sundays, and to appoint only native-born Americans to office. He won by a landslide. In Washington, D.C., Know-Nothing candidate John T. Towers defeated incumbent Mayor John Walker Maury, causing opposition of such proportion that the Democrats, Whigs, and Freesoilers in the capital united as the "Anti-Know-Nothing Party." In New York, in a four-way race, the Know-Nothing candidate ran third with 26%. After the fall 1854 elections, they claimed to have exerted decisive influence in Maine, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and California, but historians are unsure due to the secrecy, as all parties were in turmoil and the anti-slavery and prohibition issues overlapped with nativism in complex and confusing ways. They did elect the Mayor of San Francisco, Stephen Palfrey Webb, and J. Neely Johnson as Governor of California. They were still an unofficial movement with no centralized organization. The results of the 1854 elections were so favorable to the Know Nothings that they formed officially as a political party called the American Party, and attracted many members of the now nearly-defunct Whig party, as well as a significant number of Democrats and prohibitionists. Membership in the American Party increased dramatically, from 50,000 to an estimated one million plus in a matter of months during that year.[5]

The same person might also split tickets to vote for Americans, Democrats and Republicans, for party loyalty was in confusion. Simultaneously, the new Republican party emerged as a dominant power in many northern states. Very few prominent politicians joined the American Party, and very few party leaders had subsequent careers in politics. The major exceptions were Schuyler Colfax in Indiana and Henry Wilson in Massachusetts, who became Republicans and both were elected Vice President.


A historian of the party concludes:

The key to Know Nothing success in 1854 was the collapse of the second party system, brought about primarily by the demise of the Whig party. The Whig party, weakened for years by internal dissent and chronic factionalism, was nearly destroyed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Growing anti-party sentiment, fueled by anti-slavery as well as temperance and nativism, also contributed to the disintegration of the party system. The collapsing second party system gave the Know Nothings a much larger pool of potential converts than was available to previous nativist organizations, allowing the Order to succeed where older nativist groups had failed.

In 1854, members of the American Party allegedly stole and destroyed the block of granite contributed by Pius IX for the Washington Monument. They also took over the monument's building society and controlled it for four years. What little progress occurred in their tenure had to be undone and remade. For the full story, see Washington Monument: History.

In California in 1854, Sam Roberts founded a Know-Nothing chapter in San Francisco. The group was formed in opposition to Chinese and Irish immigrants.
Fillmore/Donelson campaign poster

In spring 1855, Levi Boone was elected Mayor of Chicago for the Know Nothings. He barred all immigrants from city jobs. Statewide, however, Republican Abraham Lincoln blocked the party from any successes. Ohio was the only state where the party gained strength in 1855. Their Ohio success seems to have come from winning over immigrants, especially German Lutherans and Scotch Irish Presbyterians who opposed Catholicism. In Alabama, the Know Nothings were a mix of former Whigs, malcontented Democrats, and other political outsiders who favored state aid to build more railroads. In the tempestuous 1855 campaign, the Democrats won by convincing state voters that Alabama Know Nothings would not protect slavery from Northern abolitionists.

The party name gained wide but brief popularity. Nativism became a new American rage: Know-Nothing candy, Know-nothing tea, and Know-Nothing toothpicks appeared. Stagecoaches were dubbed "The Know-Nothing." In Trescott, Maine, a shipowner dubbed his new 700-ton freighter, "Know-Nothing."[6]
Violence

Certain Know Nothings were not content to attempt to bring about their agenda through peaceful means. Intimidation meant to keep Catholics away from the ballot box came to a head on August 6, 1855, in Louisville, Kentucky. In a hotly contested race for the office of governor of that state, Know Nothings killed 22, injured many more, and destroyed property. The Louisville riot was only the most spectacular of violent acts perpetrated by Know Nothing sympathizers in 1855.[7]

In Baltimore the mayoral elections of 1856, 1857 and 1858 were all marred by violence and well-founded accusations of ballot-rigging.

In Maine, Know-Nothings were associated with the tarring and feathering of a Catholic priest, John Bapst in the coastal town of Ellsworth in 1851 and the burning of a Catholic church in Bath in 1854.
Decline

The party declined rapidly in the North in 1855 and 1856. In the Election of 1856 it was bitterly divided over slavery. The main faction supported the ticket of presidential nominee Millard Fillmore and vice-presidential nominee Andrew Jackson Donelson. Fillmore, a former President, had been a Whig, and Donelson was the nephew of Democratic President Andrew Jackson, so the ticket was designed to appeal to loyalists from both major parties. It won 23% of the popular vote and carried one state, Maryland, with eight electoral votes. Fillmore did not win enough votes to block Democrat James Buchanan from the White House. After the Supreme Court's controversial Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling in 1857, most of the anti-slavery members of the American Party joined the Republican Party. The pro-slavery wing of the American Party remained strong on the local and state levels in a few southern states, but by the 1860 election, they were no longer a serious national political movement. Most of their remaining members supported the Constitutional Union Party in 1860.[8]

Some historians argue that in the South the Know Nothings were fundamentally different from their northern counterparts, and were motivated less by nativism or anti-Catholicism than by conservative Unionism; southern Know Nothings were mostly ex-Whigs who were worried about both the pro-slavery extremism of the Democrats and the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican party in the North. In Louisiana and Maryland, the Know-Nothings enlisted Catholics.[9] Historian Michael F. Holt, however, argues, "Know Nothingism originally grew in the South for the same reasons it spread in the North — nativism, anti-Catholicism, and animosity toward unresponsive politicos — not because of conservative Unionism." He quotes William B. Campbell, former governor of Tennessee, who wrote in January 1855, "I have been astonished at the widespread feeling in favor of their principles — to wit, Native Americanism and anti-Catholicism — it takes everywhere."[10]

Few Know-Nothings were wealthy, but their incomes, occupation and social status were about average, according to detailed historical studies of once-secret membership rosters. Fewer than 10% were unskilled workers who might come in direct competition with Irish laborers. They enlisted few farmers, but on the other hand they included many merchants and factory owners.[11] The party's voters were by no means all native born Americans, for it won more than a fourth of the German and British Protestants in numerous state elections. It especially appealed to Lutherans, Dutch Reformed and Presbyterians.[12]

Know-Nothings scored startling victories in northern state elections in 1854, winning control of the legislature in Massachusetts and polling 40 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania. Although most of the new immigrants lived in the North, resentment and anger against them was national, and the American Party initially polled well in the South, attracting the votes of many former southern Whigs. But in the 1850s, no party could ignore slavery, and in 1855 the American Party split into northern (anti-slavery) and southern (pro-slavery) wings. Soon after this split, many people who had voted for the Know-Nothings shifted their support to another new party, one that combined many characteristics of the Whigs with a westward-looking, expansionist, free-soil policy. This was the new Republican Party, founded in 1854.
Platform

The platform of the American Party called for, among other things:[citation needed]

Severe limits on immigration, especially from Catholic countries.
Restricting political office to native-born Americans of English and/or Scottish lineage and Protestant persuasion.
Mandating a wait of 21 years before an immigrant could gain citizenship.
Restricting public school teacher positions to Protestants.
Mandating daily Bible readings in public schools.
Restricting the sale of liquor.
Restricting the use of languages other than English.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Know Nothing Platform 1856
Presidential candidates
Election year Result Nominees
President Vice President
1856 lost Millard Fillmore Andrew Jackson Donelson
Legacy

The nativist spirit of the Know Nothing movement was revived in later political movements, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the American Protective Association, according to William Safire.[13] George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign was said by Time to be under the "neo-Know Nothing banner".[13] Editor Fareed Zakaria has said that politicians who "encouraged Americans to fear foreigners" were becoming "modern incarnations of the Know-Nothings".[13] President Millard Fillmore became a member of the American Party or "Know Nothing" shortly after his term.
Fictional portrayals

The American Party was represented in the 2002 film Gangs of New York, led by William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), the fictionalized version of real-life Know Nothing leader William Poole. The Know Nothings also play a prominent role in the historical novel Shaman by Noah Gordon.
Usage of the term

The term "Know Nothing" is better remembered than the party itself. In the late 19th century, Democrats would call the Republicans "Know Nothings" in order to secure the votes of Germans, as in the Bennett Law campaign in Wisconsin in 1890.[14][15] A similar culture war took place in Illinois in 1892, where Democrat John Peter Altgeld denounced the Republicans:
“ The spirit which enacted the Alien and Sedition laws, the spirit which actuated the "Know-nothing" party, the spirit which is forever carping about the foreign-born citizen and trying to abridge his privileges, is too deeply seated in the party. The aristocratic and know-nothing principle has been circulating in its system so long that it will require more than one somersault to shake the poison out of its bones.[16] ”

The term has become a provocative slur, suggesting that the opponent is both nativist and ignorant. For example, in 2006, an editorial in The Weekly Standard by conservative William Kristol accused populist Republicans of "turning the GOP into an anti-immigration, Know-Nothing party."[17] The lead editorial of The New York Times for May 20, 2007, on a proposed immigration bill, referred to "this generation's Know-Nothings".[18] An editorial written by Timothy Egan in The New York Times on August 27, 2010, entitled "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings", discussed the Birther movement, which believes that President Barack Obama is not a legal citizen of the United States and is Muslim.
...

Yesterday is late to intensify the Voter Registration of Latinos and other Minorities. The evil work of Tea Party and bigoted Republicans to put obstacles in the way of the Democratic Voter can be defeated by hard work and enthusiasm. And by legal challenges against the new "Jim Crow" laws

.
Extremely Important : To register new voters, as many as possible : Native American Indians, Blacks, Asians, Latinos and other Minorities, also Poor Whites that are also oppressed by the Republican Machinery.. And create conscience in many White Youngsters that are going to vote for the First Time.

Of course Slavery and Segregation was worse than anything that America sees today, but Black People should not be offended if we say that there is an ongoing fight for "Civil Rights".

Why not ??  -- Because we learn "Black History" as a very important subject. If we want to study what will happen in the next few years then take a look at Martin Luther King and Black History as a guide and beacon of light. Black History is inspirational for the rest of Mankind. As time goes on their great figures will grow in Historical Size and Human Dimensions.

And some Black Giants of Civil Rights ( The Sixties 1960s ) are still living and we can listen to their important speeches today.

Vicente Duque
.

HuffPost : "the defense of racial and economic privilege under the rhetoric of "taking back our country" or of "living within our means" further undermines our political culture today as it starves future generations of cultural and economic opportunity"

.
"This Week, a new report was released showing the extraordinary increase in the disparity of wealth between whites and nonwhites in the United States. The new data allows us to understand the stalemate in Washington over raising the debt ceiling from another perspective".




Huffington Post
Budgeting for Greater Inequality
July 27, 2011

By Michael Roth
President, Wesleyan University


Budgeting for Greater Inequality


Some excerpts :

As the New York Times reported::

The study, which used data collected by the Census Bureau, found that the median wealth of Hispanic households fell by 66 percent from 2005 to 2009. By contrast, the median wealth of whites fell by just 16 percent over the same period. African Americans saw their wealth drop by 53 percent. Asians also saw a big decline, with household wealth dropping 54 percent.

The biggest reason cited in the report was that non-whites had a much greater percentage of their wealth in real estate where the losses were deepest and the "recovery" the slowest. We also know that unemployment among nonwhites is more widespread, and that it lasts longer than it does among whites. As Al Sharpton pointed out on the HuffingtonPost, since this report only uses data through 2009, the news could be far worse.

This has led to the greatest disparity of wealth between whites and nonwhites since the Census Bureau began collecting this sort of information 25 years ago. White households now have an average wealth that is 20 times greater than black households and 18 times greater than Hispanic households!

This data allows us to understand the stalemate in Washington over raising the debt ceiling from another perspective. The reason we have not yet had an agreement is that the president is insisting in what he calls a "balanced approach" in which families making more than $250,000 a year will have to pay more in taxes. Republicans (and apparently many Democrats), on the other hand, reject this tax increase and call for deeper spending cuts to further shrink the size of government.

Given the Republican reluctance to count the savings that should come from winding down the military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, shrinking the size of government will reduce services to the most needy. This will certainly mean that services for blacks and Hispanics will decrease, and it will have the immediate effect of accelerating the disparities of wealth between these groups and whites. Cutting long-term investment in educational opportunities will deepen the hole for those struggling for the American dream. The refusal to pass just some of the burden of shrinking government services on to the people who can most afford it will further accelerate greater racial inequality in this country.

Of course, there are poor whites, too, and they would also suffer from an effort to balance the budget so as to further advantage the richest members of our society. And there are some wealthy black and Hispanic households that would not be hurt by cuts to programs aimed to protect the most vulnerable.

But the refusal to consider increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans is part of a network of efforts to maintain the trends toward inequality in this country. The report released this week from Pew Research Center reminds us that this is also a defense of the growing disparities between whites on the one hand, and blacks and Hispanics, on the other. The defense of racial and economic privilege under the rhetoric of "taking back our country," or of "living within our means" further undermines our political culture today as it starves future generations of cultural and economic opportunity.
.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

VIDEO : At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Senator Al Franken ( Democrat Minnesota ) grills anti-gay rights leader at marriage hearing. Al Franken totally destroyed Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery’s arguments.

.
Al Franken is pungent,  penetrating, biting, caustic, acid against a homophobic bigot. ( He was a humorist in a previous life ).

Al Franken Destroys Focus On The Family Witness, Exposes Misuse Of HHS Study - During Senate DOMA hearings, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) destroyed Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery’s argument that children are better off with opposite-sex parents by demonstrating how Minnery misrepresented an HHS study. The study — which Minnery cited to oppose marriage equality — actually found that children do best in two-parent households, regardless of the parents’ gender.

“I checked the study out,” Franken told the anti-gay rights crusader. “It doesn’t actually say what you said it says. It says ‘nuclear families’ not ‘opposite-sex couples.’”

“Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a same sex couples would fall under the definition of nuclear family?”

“I would assume it would mean a family with husband and wife,” Minnery replied.

“It doesn’t,” Franken explained. “I frankly don’t know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies this way.”





Uploaded by ThinkProgressVideo on Jul 20, 2011


Franken Destroys Focus On The Family Witness




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyAueltLsa4

.

40 pages, Legal Scholars : Immigration State Laws of Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, etc, are unconstitutional. State enforcement would be unconstitutional even if it were explicitly authorized by Congress. U. S. Congress cannot remove constitutional powers from President and share with non-Executive branch officials

.
Social Science Research Network
Duke Law Journal, Forthcoming
The Unconstitutionality of State Regulation of Immigration through Criminal Law

By Gabriel J. Chin
University of California, Davis, School of Law


By Marc L. Miller
University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law


Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 10-25

The Unconstitutionality of State Regulation of Immigration through Criminal Law



Abstract:
The “mirror image” theory of cooperative state enforcement of federal immigration law is a phenomenon, one of the most wildly successful legal movements and ideas in decades. The mirror-image theory proposes that states can enact and enforce criminal immigration laws based on federal statutes. The theory that it is unobjectionable for a state to carry out federal policy is the basis of Arizona’s SB1070, similar immigration laws already in force in seven states, and copycat bills pending in dozens more. The mirror-image theory has succeeded not only in legislatures, but also as an idea in the larger political culture: it has been embraced by dozens of U.S. Senators and Representatives, by policy groups, private citizens, and commentators including George Will, Sarah Palin, and the editors of the New York Post and Washington Times.

The mirror image theory is indeed appealing. But it is also fundamentally flawed. This article, the first to subject the mirror image theory to sustained scholarly scrutiny, demonstrates that the mirror image theory fails to identify a legitimate source of state power to legislate on immigration matters.

No one denies that Congress and the Federal executive have exclusive authority over the substance and procedure of admission, exclusion and removal of non-citizens, documented and undocumented. To the extent there has ever been any question, this proposition was firmly established by a pair of Supreme Court decisions from 1876. The mirror image theory does not challenge this deep-rooted idea head-on, but instead proposes that state legislative authority over immigration flows from cases and provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizing states to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law. However, those authorities contemplated state assistance with enforcement only through arrests. Arrest authority does not imply the power to legislate or prosecute. To the contrary, other provisions of the INA make clear that federal agencies have exclusive power to make prosecutorial and administrative decisions after arrest, and to create supplementary regulations.

The mirror image theory rests on the erroneous premise that Congress has implicitly authorized state enforcement of federal immigration law. This article argues that state enforcement would be unconstitutional even if it were explicitly authorized by Congress. First, the federal immigration power is exclusive and non-delegable. Second, criminal prosecution and immigration enforcement is an executive power which Congress cannot remove from the President and share with non-Executive branch officials. Finally, the Supreme Court has held that states cannot prosecute crimes which affect only the sovereign interests of the United States. Accordingly, state immigration prosecutions are irremediably unconstitutional.
.

Monday, July 25, 2011

VIDEO, Obama's speech to La Raza - Reminds them of Sonia Sotomayor, Hilda Solis and many other Obama Administration officials and appointees. Latinos part of the American Family. "Yes, We Can", "Yes We Can", hot audience

.
Obama says :


Latino Unemployment is painful for the President too ! - The economic troubles were prepared during many years and are not going to be solved overnight. My Greatest Priority is Jobs, and to help Business to generate jobs. La Raza fights for the opportunities of Education and Jobs

We want to help entrepreneurs to advance more new ideas, I want the Latino Construction Workers building Houses again.

If the only thing that we do is to cut the budget and spending, then many Elderly People are going to lose their Health in Medicare, and many Children are going to lose Schools and Teachers.

We can not continue loopholes for the rich and at the same time deprive students from their careers.

It is unjust that only the Poor, the Old and Children pay for the trouble of the American Economy.

NCLR ( National Council La Raza ) is to work for the Community and that is very American. That is what America is, a land of opportunity where people help each other.

We work for securing education for Children and health insurance for Children - We work to give every opportunity for Children to succeed.

We want to help Latino Children to learn English, we want to help Latino Students to enter College and have the best education possible.

I went to El Paso Texas, and told my vision of Immigration according to our American Values.


I want Congress to pass many laws like the "Dream Act" and "Immigration Reform" that Republicans proposed and wrote and later abandoned.


Uploaded by whitehouse on Jul 25, 2011

In an address to the nation's largest Hispanic civil rights organization, President Obama reiterates his vision for an immigration system that holds true to our values and meets our economic and security needs. July 25, 2011.

President Obama Addresses Council of La Raza




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqve7zzX4HQ
.

Two VIDEOs on States passing Immigration Laws, New America Foundation at National Press Club, Businessmen, Intellectuals, Attorney Generals, Legal Scholars - Issues of Constitutionality ! - the Economics and Practicality of the Approach !

.
The Lady that directs these panels is Tamar Jacoby, Liberal Intellectual and Civil Rights Fighter. She is also President of ImmigrationWorks USA.

Uploaded by NewAmericaFoundation on Jul 21, 2011

Should the States Take on Immigration? - Panel 1

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 8:30am - 11:00am
National Press Club-First Amendment Lounge

With Congress deadlocked on immigration, state lawmakers across the country continue to take matters into their own hands. So far in 2011, ten states have enacted tough enforcement measures, mandating E-Verify for employers or empowering local police to ask people about their immigration status.

Even as states continue to alter the reality on the ground, their right to do so under the Constitution remains unsettled. The recent Supreme Court ruling upholding Arizona's 2007 employer sanctions law expanded the states' right to regulate what employers do, but it's unclear whether the decision also empowers states to use policing and other means to control immigration. And what will happen if Congress overturns state workplace enforcement measures by passing an E-Verify bill of its own?

Join the New America Foundation and ImmigrationWorks USA to consider these questions. Panelists include state leaders trying to forge responsible immigration policies and legal scholars who will assess how immigration fits into the broader national debate about federalism -- in healthcare policy, gay marriage and environmental regulation.


8:30 am -States: The Improbable Laboratories of Immigration Policy

Michelle Bolton
Vice President, Public Affairs and Economic Development
Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce

Sen. Curtis S. Bramble (R-Utah)
Utah State Senator, District 16

Mark Gerstle
Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
Cummins Inc.

Mark Shurtleff
Attorney General, Utah

Moderator
Tamar Jacoby
President
ImmigrationWorks USA


Should the States Take on Immigration? - Panel 1





***************************************
*****************************************


Uploaded by NewAmericaFoundation on Jul 21, 2011

Should the States Take on Immigration? - Panel 2

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 8:30am - 11:00am
National Press Club-First Amendment Lounge

With Congress deadlocked on immigration, state lawmakers across the country continue to take matters into their own hands. So far in 2011, ten states have enacted tough enforcement measures, mandating E-Verify for employers or empowering local police to ask people about their immigration status.

Even as states continue to alter the reality on the ground, their right to do so under the Constitution remains unsettled. The recent Supreme Court ruling upholding Arizona's 2007 employer sanctions law expanded the states' right to regulate what employers do, but it's unclear whether the decision also empowers states to use policing and other means to control immigration. And what will happen if Congress overturns state workplace enforcement measures by passing an E-Verify bill of its own?

Join the New America Foundation and ImmigrationWorks USA to consider these questions. Panelists include state leaders trying to forge responsible immigration policies and legal scholars who will assess how immigration fits into the broader national debate about federalism -- in healthcare policy, gay marriage and environmental regulation.

:45 am-SB 1070, ICE and E-Verify: The Founding Fathers' View

Carter Phillips
Managing Partner
Sidley Austin LLP

Peter J. Spiro
Charles R. Weiner Professor of Law
Temple University

Greg Zoeller
Attorney General, Indiana

Moderator
David G. Savage
Supreme Court Correspondent
Los Angeles Times






Should the States Take on Immigration? - Panel 2




.

BLOOMBERG.COM : If the debt ceiling is increased then the president has a chance to stay on the offensive on the deficit issue, particularly if he offers significant budget cuts and revenue increases now and next year that are supported by the public

.
Debt-Ceiling Victory for Obama ??. - If the Republicans are stubborn then the scenario is more difficult to predict and would be charged with Omens of Partisanship and fighting between the President and the House of Representatives.

Politically ( That is Electorally ), it would be better for President Obama to look centrist and independent and not as a Liberal Bigot and Fanatic. Everybody says that the Unemployment rate will decide the 2012 Presidential Election, but there is a chance that this consideration is wrong, Tea Party Economic Remedies would shock and kill the patient, and people can see great qualities in the President for Compromise and Moderation even if he can not completely tame the Unemployment Monster.

This article at BLOOMBERG studies the concerns with Unemployment in Swing States and the Electoral College.

BLOOMBERG.COM
Debt Fight Is Secondary to Jobs in 2012 Election
By Albert R. Hunt
Albert R. Hunt is the executive editor for Washington at Bloomberg News.
July 24, 2011


Debt Fight Is Secondary to Jobs in 2012 Election


Some excerpts :

Electoral College

More instructive than national data may be the numbers in the important states. There are two caveats: too much attention is paid to the Electoral College; with the exception of the 2000 election, it always follows the popular vote. And there are other factors: two of the three states with the highest unemployment rates, California and Rhode Island, are certain to be in the Obama column 15 months from now. The three states with the lowest jobless rate, all under 5 percent, Nebraska and North Dakota and South Dakota, are just as certain to vote Republican.

Nevertheless, it’s instructive to look at the blue states (which went for Obama in 2008) that’ll be most hotly contested this time.

When it comes to jobs numbers, they can be divided almost in half. In June, four had unemployment rates well above the national average: Nevada (the highest, at 12.4 percent), Michigan, Florida, and North Carolina. Ohio, with an 8.8 percent jobless rate last month, is close to the national average. It’ll be a tough slog in these states, which have a combined 84 electoral votes. (Adjusting for Census changes, Obama won the Electoral College 360 to 178.)
Battleground States

Other battleground states, such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin, have unemployment numbers below the national average, though they all have added more than 100,000 people to the jobless ranks over the past three years.

There are many uncertainties. It’s never wise in politics to count chiefly on your opponents’ shortcomings. Still, a Republican field that is privately viewed as second-rate by many party leaders and that could be forced to the right by conservative activists isn’t the stuff of a formidable general- election campaign.

And while jobs will be a bigger voting issue than deficits, the current high-stakes battle between House Republicans and the president will shape next year’s debate. With their preference for cutting back on Medicare and Social Security instead of raising taxes on higher-income Americans, the Republicans are getting clobbered in polls of voters.
...............

Obama certainly has lost any shot at short-term stimulus, except possibly extending the payroll-tax cut for workers. Finally, the man hailed only three years ago as the best political communicator since Reagan has to belatedly offer a vision of America’s economic future and jobs outlook.

Whether the jobless rate is closer to 9 percent or 8 percent a year from now, Obama will be in trouble if he doesn’t rise to this challenge.
.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

VIDEO, Democratic National Committee - Obama Re-election Campaign for 2012 - Ad in Spanish - My translation to English - "Republicans deceive us with their ads - Obama in Congress passed Health Care and Education for our Children"

.
Who should we trust ?? ( "En quien confiar ??" )

Republicans deceive us because the Republican Party would end Medicare as we know it to pay for tax cuts for the very rich. It was Obama that has been giving solutions to educated our Children and keep them Healthy. The Health Care Overhaul is a guarantee for our Health and that of our Children.

Obama has lowered our taxes for the Middle Class and the Poor.

According to Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz the ads will run in these locations : Denver, Colorado, and the following media markets: Nevada : Reno and Las Vegas, Florida : in Tampa, Orlando, Miami, New Mexico : Albuquerque, and Washington D.C..



Uploaded by DemocraticVideo on Jul 21, 2011

DNC TV AD: "En quien confiar"



.

The Narcissist Terrorist in Norway : "You must therefore embrace and familiarize yourself with the concept of killing women, even very attractive women". - Hate for Children, Adolescents and Women

.
"Dress up as a police officer. Arrive with insignias :-) Will be awesome as people will be very astonished". This Terrorist was in Police Uniform when killing the Youngsters in the Norwegian Island - Writings and Ideas of a Right Wing Cretin and Bastard.

This guy would have enjoyed Fox News, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh - I would bet any money that he listened and enjoyed that crap. We are now in a Global Village.

We are now in a Global Village and this tragedy in Norway is our own Tragedy. Neo Nazis are a Global Curse and Tragedy. And they should be fought Globally.




Harry's Place
Anders Breivik boasts of 22/7 in 2083 book: "Dress as police officer, this will be awesome as people will be very astonished"
by Joseph W
July 23rd 2011


Anders Breivik boasts of 22/7 in 2083 book: "Dress as police officer, this will be awesome as people will be very astonished"


Some excerpts :

On killing girls and women:

"Every female category A, B, C traitor or system protector out there is someone's daughter, someone's sister or mother. But then again, so are the victims of the current systems, for example the girl who committed suicide after being gang-raped by Muslims.

War isn't pretty. It never has been. It is essential to know that approximately 60-70% of all cultural Marxists or suicidal humanist are female and up to 20% of police officers and military personnel (system protectors). Being a Justiciar Knight will involve killing our targets, or any system protector trying to stop us, indiscriminately. You will face women in battle and they will not hesitate to kill you. To them, you are just another armed criminal nut case as they will not know your true political agenda until after you have been slain or are apprehended. If you hesitate as much as a second due to the fact that your opponent is female you will fail. You must therefore embrace and familiarize yourself with the concept of killing women, even very attractive women".
.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

British Guardian : Anders Behring Breivik, 32, charged with killing 92 Norwegians - Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist hates Muslims - High school friends suggest he attended neo-Nazi Camps - Hated Black Somalis in Scandinavia

.
He openly spoke of his Racist Views. And he is suspect of having attended NeoNazi activities.





British Guardian
Anders Behring Breivik: profile of a mass murderer
A right-wing fundamentalist with a hatred for Norway's left, multiculturalism and Muslims
By Peter Beaumont
Saturday 23 July 2011


Anders Behring Breivik: profile of a mass murderer


Some excerpts :

It is to here, Asta, that armed police came on Friday night with orders to search a farmhouse and buildings for information about 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, the man charged with killing at least 91 of his countrymen. One of two properties linked to a man accused of bombing central Oslo before commencing a shooting spree at a political youth camp on the island of Utøya, the interest in the farm – which Breivik had registered as a vegetable-growing business called GeoFarm – was obvious. In May, he had six tonnes of chemical fertiliser delivered which police believe was used in the making of his bomb.

The search of the Asta property, as well as Breivik's home in Oslo, came as investigators started piecing together a profile of the man behind the worst attack on Norway since the second world war. They are attempting to burrow deep into his beliefs and to try to understand what he hoped to achieve.

A friend told the Norwegian newspaper VG that Breivik had been from the far right politically since at least his late twenties, when he began posting a series of controversial opinions on Facebook and the Norwegian site Document.no, which is critical of Islam.

What has emerged so far paints a disturbing picture: a Christian fundamentalist with a deep hatred of multiculturalism, of the left and of Muslims, who had written disparagingly of prominent Norwegian politicians.
................

Writing later about his teenage years, he would describe racial tension between Norwegians and young immigrants.
........................

His businesses, however, were not much of a success, each one being dissolved after a short while after making a loss, until he established his farm business in 2009 and moved out of Oslo.
.............

But the man who listed Kafka and George Orwell's 1984 as his favourite books on Facebook made little secret to friends and others who frequented Christian fundamentalist and far-right websites of his racist views. A member of an Oslo Masonic lodge, reportedly a body builder and a hunter with two registered weapons – a Glock pistol and an automatic rifle – it has been Breivik's online profile that has, so far supplied the most public information.

He was a former "youth member" of his country's conservative Progress party between 1999 and 2004, a party he criticised in one posting for embracing "multiculturalism" and "political correctness" rather than taking an "idealistic stand".
..........

However, some who remember him from secondary school suggested that his far-right leanings went back to that period of his life; at least one suggested he had attended neo-Nazi events at the time.

In web postings, Breivik is clear of the nature of his notion of "idealism". He has described himself as a "nationalist" and written offensively of Somali immigrants with "full Norwegian passports" sitting at home on benefit and sending back money to the Islamist al-Shabaab.
.

POLITICO.COM : "I couldn’t get a phone call returned from Boehner" Obama said Friday - "I’ve been left at the altar now a couple of times" - Boehner’s aides say the reason he didn’t call back was simple: They didn’t have anything more to discuss"

.
John Boehner said : "I came back away from the tree to take a look at the forest" after walking away of talks with the President - The Republicans are the primitive savages on top of forest trees shooting darts to the President.

Rudeness, Discourtesy, Lack Of Politeness and Civility, Contempt and Disrespect for the President. Incivility, Primitives of Ill-breeding, ungracious savages ! - Bad examples for Elementary Schools and High Schools.

Children !, Don't be rude and nasty like the U. S. House Speaker. !

POLITICO.COM
Phone tag and wrong numbers: The collapse of the debt talks
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN
July 23, 2011

Phone tag and wrong numbers: The collapse of the debt talks


Some excerpts :

If there’s any short-term political gain, it might go to Obama, who sounded fed up Friday night as he recounted his take on the story, painting Republicans as ideological purists bent on cutting popular entitlement programs to protect the wealthy. And Obama made clear who was boss — summoning Boehner and other congressional leaders to the White House Saturday morning.

“We have run out of time,” Obama said. “And they are going to have to explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default.”

His hasty appearance Friday night in the White House briefing room capped a 24-hour period in which Obama went from believing he was on the cusp of an agreement to literally waiting by the phone and ultimately losing the opportunity to seal an historic deficit-reduction deal of more than $3 trillion.

“I think that one of the questions that the Republican Party is going to have to ask itself is, can they say yes to anything? Can they say yes to anything?” Obama said. “I mean, keep in mind, it’s the Republican Party that has said that the single most important thing facing our country is deficits and debts. We’ve now put forward a package that would significantly cut deficits and debt. It would be the biggest debt reduction package that we’ve seen in a very long time.”

The negotiations broke down over the same issue that has stalled bipartisan cooperation for months, and tied American politics in knots for the last three decades: taxes.
.

Friday, July 22, 2011

HuffPost : The Ugliest and most Despicable Racism in Georgia : Grieving Black Mother Faces 36 Months In Jail For Jaywalking After Son Is Killed By Drunk Hit-And-Run Driver - Unbelievable, Incredible, Amazing !

.
It seems that some people in the State of Georgia are in a competition to surpass each other in Racism, Brutality and Imbecility against Blacks. This is very hard to believe. Where else can you find such Old Fashioned Racists ?? - Where can you find such a big display of Stupidity ??

And this happens after the crops are rotting in the Georgia Fields, thanks to the big show of stupidity of the State Legislature and the Governor, they kicked out a lot of Latinos, just because of Hate and Fear.



Huffington Post
Grieving Mother Faces 36 Months In Jail For Jaywalking After Son Is Killed By Hit-And-Run Driver
By Radley Balko
July 21, 2011


Grieving Mother Faces 36 Months In Jail For Jaywalking After Son Is Killed By Hit-And-Run Driver


Some excerpts :

On April 10, 2010, Raquel Nelson lost her 4-year-old son. Nelson was crossing a busy Marietta, Georgia, street with her son and his two siblings when they were struck by a hit-and-run driver. Police were able to track down the driver, Jerry Guy, who later admitted he had been drinking and had taken painkillers the night of the accident. He was also mostly blind in one eye. Guy had already been convicted of two prior hit-and-runs. He pleaded guilty, served six months of his five-year sentence, and was released last October.

If it ended there, this story would merely be tragic. But it gets worse. Last week Nelson herself was convicted on three charges related to her son's death: reckless conduct, improperly crossing a roadway and second-degree homicide by vehicle. Each is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in prison. Nelson could spend up to six times as many months in jail as the man who struck her son and then fled the scene. Nelson's crime: jaywalking.

Nelson had taken her children with her to shop for groceries and supplies for her upcoming birthday party. The working mother and college student regularly took public transportation, but she and her kids missed their intended bus that night, putting them an hour behind schedule. The bus they caught pulled up to their stop after nightfall, and Nelson stepped off, clutching her kids' hands through the shopping bags wrapped around her wrists. Nelson's apartment complex sits across the street from the bus stop, but the nearest crosswalk is three-tenths of a mile away. So Nelson did what everyone who uses that bus stop does, and what the other disembarking passengers all did that night: She crossed one side of the divided highway to the median, where she waited for a break in the traffic.

Several people then crossed the street before Nelson thought it was safe. She waited with her kids. But when others started to move towards the road, Nelson's son must taken it as a cue it was time to go. She felt his grip on her hand loosen and he darted out into the road. She followed. Guy's car struck Nelson, her son and her daughter, and the boy died.

Over the next month, as Guy was processed by Georgia's criminal justice system, Nelson buried and grieved for her son. But on May 14, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran a long story under the headline, "Jaywalkers take deadly risks." The article mentioned Nelson and her son, pointing out that she hadn't been charged with any crime. Three days later, the Georgia Solicitor General's office charged Nelson with the three misdemeanors.

Nelson was convicted last week, and she'll be sentenced on July 26.

Nelson, a black woman, was convicted by an all-white jury. She relies on public transportation; she is a pedestrian in a car-oriented Atlanta suburb. During jury questioning, none of the jurors who would eventually convict Nelson raised their hands when asked if they relied on public transportation. Just one juror admitted to ever having ridden a public bus, though in response to a subsequent question, a few said they'd taken a bus to Braves games.

Nelson was not judged by a jury of her peers; she was convicted by a jury that had no understanding of the circumstances that compelled her to cross the street where she did.

According to the Daily Mail, other tenants in Nelson's apartment complex had complained to the city about their difficulties getting home from the bus stop. The Transportation in America blog shows a photo of the stretch of highway where Nelson crossed as evidence city planners are guilty of "poor planning and dangerous designs."

No one forced Raquel Nelson to jaywalk the night of her son's death. The suggestion here isn't that the city owes Nelson anything for the consequences of her actions. But there is something to be said for designing cities with an eye toward how people actually behave, not how urban planners wish they would. Putting a bus stop in the middle of a busy highway, three-tenths of a mile away from the nearest crosswalk -- while zoning for apartments and businesses on the other side of the same street -- is poor planning.
,

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Very Tough : Professor Kevin Johnson, Dean of U.C. Davis School of Law, strongly scolds Carol Swain, professor of Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt University, for writing "Why the Court should uphold S.B. 1070" ( Supreme Court )

.
ScotusBlog.com -
Supreme Court of the United States Blog -
By Kevin Johnson -
Dean of University of California at Davis School of Law -
Tuesday July 19th, 2011


Response to Arizona v. United States symposium contributors


Some excerpts :

Although not feeling a need to elaborate on my legal analysis or predictions, I do feel compelled to register disagreement with the rhetorical approach of one of the contributions. Professor Carol Swain (“Why the Court should uphold S.B. 1070”) states that “[c]riticisms of S.B. 1070 seem to be politically motivated and orchestrated by groups and foreign entities that benefit directly or indirectly from lax immigration enforcement.” This blunt accusation unfortunately denigrates the good faith legal concerns with Arizona’s foray into immigration regulation. Indeed, several contributions to the symposium, at least in my estimation, raise valid legal concerns with S.B. 1070 and do not appear to be “orchestrated” by outside agitators.

Professor Swain’s summary defense of S.B. 1070 blames “excessive crime, homelessness, and high employment” on “the uncontrolled influx of illegal aliens across the Southwestern border,” with Arizona’s “capital city of Phoenix dubbed as the `kidnapping capital of America.’” Given the hyperbole, I almost expected a reference to Governor Jan Brewer’s fabricated claim of headless bodies in the Arizona desert as one of the reasons the state needed S.B. 1070.

These strong, unqualified, and charged claims hide the fact that these are deeply contested propositions with which many, probably most, respected immigration scholars would disagree. A quick perusal of the evidence is to the contrary. For example, an in-depth USA Today investigative report last week concludes that, despite the hyperbolic claims by politicians of a border “crime wave,” crime rates in border cities have been decreasing for several years.

And how can one colorably contend that there has been an “uncontrolled influx of illegal aliens” when the undocumented population has decreased by roughly a million people over the last few years?

Despite the fact that the Obama administration has deported more noncitizens than any presidency in U.S. history – close to 400,000 last year, Professor Swain states emphatically that the U.S. immigration laws “are not being enforced by the federal government,” and that the resulting “crisis . . . threatens the sovereignty of the nation.” That is because, in her words, “President Obama, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security have sided with interest groups who favor open borders and amnesty.”

This is quite an indictment indeed. True, some advocates and policymakers – including Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, have called for some kind of “amnesty,” or path to earned legalization, for undocumented immigrants. I am not aware, however, of any influential advocacy groups seriously calling for anything approximating “open borders.” This phrase is a red herring regularly thrown into the discussion by ardent advocates for increased immigration enforcement, such as Lou Dobbs and Michelle Malkin, or the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Center for Immigration Studies, seeking to end, not begin, a dialogue on the real issues. In any event, the characterization that this administration somehow has been “captured” by “open borders” advocates fails to account for the fact that immigrant rights advocates have harshly criticized the Obama administration for its aggressive immigration enforcement efforts.

In the immigration debate, inflammatory rhetoric all too often obscures the truth — that the claims about the alleged litany of horribles brought by the “invasion” of immigrants simply are not substantiated by the facts. Unfortunately, this kind of approach is characteristic of far too much of the national debate over immigration and demonstrates the difficulties in having an informed national dialogue on this all-important topic – or apparently even a discussion among lawyers and professors about how the Supreme Court might rule on the constitutionality of Arizona’s S.B. 1070.

Ultimately, Professor Swain’s contribution seems to prove the point of Rogers Smith that Arizona and its ideological supporters want an immigration policy other than that passed by the U.S. Congress and enforced by the Executive Branch. This is, of course, precisely what the U.S. government, as the plaintiff in United States v. Arizona, is contending. And it is one of the most powerful arguments for finding that federal immigration law preempts S.B. 1070.
.....................

To achieve true immigration reform, what the nation needs is an open and fair discussion, based on the facts, of the issues surrounding U.S. immigration law and its enforcement. It seems to me that academics, policy-makers, and commentators should strive to promote and facilitate such a discussion of the issues, not foment divisions among us through mean-spirited sloganeering. Careful analysis, learning and adhering to the facts, and listening to – not denouncing – people’s concerns are what are necessary.
.

Many Legal Experts think that the Supreme Court is not going to study and decide on SB 1070 at least for two years. SB 1070 is ideal to burn the court and to produce reversals in the Future with another more Liberal Supreme Court

.
The Supreme Court knows that SB 1070 is a VERY HOT POTATO ideal to burn the court, and therefore they want the lower courts and the Circuits of Appeals to be busy with the many immigration cases that come from Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, Utah, South Carolina, etc ... etc... 

These lower courts will produce more legal studies, opinions, theories, views, etc... that can be used later by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can send back SB 1070 to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to be judged by a panel of 11 judges. 

This Arizona State Law and its clones have International Law and International Human Rights implications, and therefore are of Great Interest to the State Department. Hillary Clinton, the secretary of that Department has already been asked in foreign countries that feel that their nationals can be harassed, corraled and herded in miserable crowded prisons, persecuted, demeaned and debased in Arizona and the other mentioned states.

As time goes on and after the new President is elected or reelected in 2012 then things will be more clear and the fog of Racist Hate and Resentment can be somewhat partially dispelled ( Hopefully ).

Take into account that the International Conflicts, Wars, etc .... receive an impact of what is going in the "Racial Profiling" of these "Confederate States" and the USA is easily accused of being a "Racist Nation" or "Apartheid Nation" as Racial Profiling proceeds.

Time is of the essence of the Solution... This is like muddy water that needs to be decanted in a reservoir.


Vicente Duque
...

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

SB 1070 - Professor Hope Lewis, Northeastern University School of Law : Is the USA going to be Insular, against Human Rights and International Laws and Agreements ?? - Is that Possible and Responsible in the New Global Economy ??

.
SaltLaw Organization
A community of progressive law teachers working for justice, diversity and academic excellence
Human rights implications of Arizona v. United States
July 19, 2011

by Hope Lewis
Hope Lewis is professor of law at Northeastern University School of Law. Professor Lewis serves on the Executive Council of the American Society of International Law and on the Society of American Law Teachers Board of Governors. She co-authored Human Rights and the Global Marketplace: Economic, Social, and Cultural Dimensions (Brill 2005), co-edits the SSRN abstracts journal Human Rights; the Global Economy, and contributes regularly to the blog IntLawGrrls.com.


Human rights implications of Arizona v. United States


Some Excerpts of a very long article :


Serious implications for U.S. foreign policy interests and U.S. compliance with international human rights standards will be at stake if the Supreme Court considers Arizona SB 1070’s constitutionality.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Arizona is consistent with U.S. obligations under international human rights law as well as the Constitution. It at least partially protects the significant national interest in the conduct of foreign policy between the U.S. and Mexico as well. The decision upheld U.S. District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton’s preliminary injunction against key portions of Arizona’s infamous “Support Our Law Enforcement and Secure Neighborhoods Act,” also known as Arizona S.B. 1070, as amended by Arizona H.B. 2162.

Migrants and human rights in the United States

Migrants to the U.S. have fundamental human rights recognized under international law. Our government has been reminded of that fact by authoritative international experts.
....................

The international human rights implications of Arizona S.B. 1070

International monitoring and compliance bodies have taken direct note of the Arizona controversy, as well as other U.S.-based anti-immigrant measures. Shortly after Arizona S.B. 1070 was enacted, several UN independent experts and special rapporteurs issued a joint statement raising strong concerns about its status under international law. They warned that a “disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin.…” The experts further called on the State of Arizona and the United States government “to take all measures necessary” to ensure that the Arizona law and other immigration control mechanisms are carried out in a non-discriminatory manner.
.............

Arizona S.B. 1070 and racial profiling

Not surprisingly given the law’s vagueness, internal contradictions, and breadth, human rights, civil rights, and immigrants’ rights organizations charge that Arizona S.B. 1070 is likely to mask or encourage widespread official racial and ethnic profiling. Such profiling is likely to have a disproportionate impact, particularly on Latino/as, indigenous peoples, and other racial and ethnic minorities, whether or not they are lawfully present in the state.
..................

Arizona S.B. 1070 requires police officers and other authorities to take certain measures if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an unauthorized alien. Such a vague and subjective standard will, in many circumstances, act as an easily accessible cover for racial discrimination and xenophobia, especially in a political environment that implicitly or explicitly rewards such behavior.
...............

Rather than specify the criteria that could lead to a “reasonable suspicion” about unauthorized status, even well-intentioned officers may be left instead to rely on subjective beliefs and stereotypes. They will be tempted to use color of skin, physical appearance, language, accent, or national origin as proxy indicators of unauthorized or alien status prior to obtaining identification papers. Members of Latino/a communities, indigenous peoples, and other minorities are likely to be targeted, whether they are citizens, tourists, students, businesspeople, or undocumented workers. As similar laws mushroom throughout the country, similarly specious and unreliable indicia of minority status or “foreign-ness” will be used.
...................

Conclusion

In the likely review of United States v. Arizona, the Roberts Court should address the important international human rights and foreign policy implications raised by Arizona S.B. 1070. If such state laws threaten to place the U.S. in violation of international human rights standards, interfere with international economic and political relations, and complicate, or conflict with, the implementation of federal priorities on migration, then the Court should affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision on preemption grounds.

Further, in a global economy, the U.S. can no longer afford to ignore, or give short shrift to, the international and transnational human rights implications of migration. Recent estimates put the number of first- and second- generation immigrants in the U.S. at more than 60 million people. Migration law and policy are matters of core national interest. All branches and levels of the U.S. government, therefore, face a choice between a false insularity and isolationism or an inclusive approach to U.S. performance on the world stage.

States and local entities can, and should, play a role in immigration law and policy. But those roles must be taken on in accordance with constitutional standards. In turn, our nation as a whole must more fully embrace human rights for all, including migrants, as we move toward a more responsible place in the international community.
..........