User Profile
Far too many to list,main ones are archaeology, athropology, history and politics.And girls.
» View Cagy Wolf's profile
» Send Private Message
Search
Blog Viewer
My Blog
Saturday, April 21 2012 - 02:57 AM
Hey we won one for a change on immigration
House Committee Votes to Close Tax Credit Loophole!
Yesterday, Members of the House Ways & Means Committee voted 22-12 to stop the IRS from giving refundable tax credits to illegal aliens.
Last year, the Inspector General for the U.S. Treasury Department released a report revealing that illegal aliens annually receive $4.2 billion in refundable tax credits, primarily through the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC).
The Ways and Means Committee voted to close this tax credit loophole by requiring that individuals who claim the ACTC provide a valid Social Security Number (SSN), based on language introduced by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX). Currently, the IRS only requires applicants for the ACTC to provide an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) indiscriminately hands out to illegal aliens.
The legislation was part of a budget reconciliation proposal that now goes to the House Budget Committee for inclusion in a larger package aimed at saving tax-payer dollars.
FAIR thanks the following Ways and Means Committee Members who voted to close the loophole:
Chairman David Camp (R-MI) Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA)
Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE)
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL)
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH) Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN)
Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) Rep. Rick Berg (R-ND)
Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) Rep. Diane Black (R-TN)
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY)
Members who voted against closing the loophole include:
Rep. Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI) Rep. Mike Thompson, (D-CA)
Rep. Fortney Pete Stark, (D-CA) Rep. John B. Larson, (D-CT)
Rep. Jim McDermott, (D-WA) Rep. Ron Kind, (D-WI)
Rep. John Lewis, (D-GA) Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., (D-NJ)
Rep. Richard E. Neal, (D-MA) Rep. Shelley Berkley, (D-NV)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett, (D-TX) Rep. Joseph Crowley, (D-NY)
Be sure to forward this email to a friend!
. . . . . . . . . .
FAIR is a member of the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance and is one of a select few non-profit organizations that meet their high standards of operation, spending, truthfulness, and disclosure in fundraising.
Charity Navigator has awarded FAIR four out of a possible four stars. In earning Charity Navigator’s highest rating, FAIR has demonstrated exceptional financial health, outperforming most of its peers in its efforts to manage and grow its finances in the most fiscally responsible way possible.
. . . . . . . . . .
For more information,
visit us on the web at
www.fairus.org or
contact us by phone
at 202 328 7004.
NumbersUSA has not endorsed this initiative, but is forwarding information to California members who may be interested.
Also for those that are interested in attending a meeting and get together, read the following letter I was sent.
I know some of you are unhappy that illegal aliens are getting away with murder both criminally and economically here is your chance to push for laws to stop the nonsense that california’s liberal democrazis have created in the state with their do nothing attitude.
Remember its one more step in gaining back our country for our children and their future.
Persevere
Cagy Wolf
Dear California activist,
The organization Taxpayer Revolution is seeking signatures to place the “Protection From Transnational Gangs Act of 2012” on the November ballot in California. If passed by the voters, the initiative would:
•Require full cooperation with the federal Secure Communities program, which verifies lawful status of all booked into jail;
•Require illegal aliens with immigration detainers to be transferred to federal authorities;
•Authorize federal 287(g) program training and allows law enforcement officers to perform certain immigration enforcement functions, including verification of immigration status;
•Prohibit illegal alien sanctuary policies; and
•Require the verification of information submitted in driver’s license/ID applications and makes licenses/IDs expire when a temporary visa expires.
When there are sufficient volunteers, proponents will seek the signatures of 504,760 registered California voters in order to qualify the measure for the ballot. A higher number is needed because some signatures are typically ruled invalid.
An activist’s organizational meeting will be held on Saturday, April 21st, 3-5 p.m. in the California Room of the Hacienda Hotel, which is located at 525 N. Sepulveda Blvd., El Segundo (one mile south of Los Angeles International Airport). The meeting is co-hosted by Ted Hilton, Taxpayer Revolution Committee, and Mike Alexander, President of Tea PAC. Mike has a list of 5,000 signature volunteers. The petition drive will begin when there are enough committed volunteers.
If you are interested in attending, email voter@taxpayerrevolution.org.
Cagy Wolf says...
Expert Finds Illegal Aliens Negatively Affect Wages for American Workers
April 18, 2012 By Eric Ruark 7 Comments
Last week, Julie Hotchkiss, an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, presented her new study which found that illegal aliens in the workforce “exert a downward pressure on wages for other workers,” but insisted that the amount is “negligible overall.” Uncharacteristically for an academic touting her work, Hotchkiss downplayed the significance of her report. She said no one should really be concerned about the results of her study because it was based on a “fairly small sample” of illegal alien workers in Georgia (FAIR question – Why conduct a report based on what you consider to be an unrepresentative sample, and why release a report if you don’t think the results are significant?). And while there is a “negative overall impact for workers whose employers hire [illegal] workers,” on average it is “only $56 a year, but there is a lot of variation across sectors.” In some sectors, the wages of legal workers were found to be lowered by as much as $700 a year, but that was not cause for concern, at least for Hotchkiss.
I would imagine those who have had their wages lowered wouldn’t agree that the effect has been negligible. What Hotchkiss also failed to address in her presentation is that illegal immigration has heavily contributed to wage stagnation in many low-skill occupations. Blue collar workers have not seen their real wages increase since the 1970s. The stagnation of blue collar wages has been driving the increasing income inequality that gets so much attention by politicians and pundits, most of whom ignore the immigration component.
But at least Hotchkiss and the Atlanta Fed are taking a step in the right direction by acknowledging the obvious. In 2010, the San Francisco Fed published a report by Giovanni Peri, despite the fact that his work had been roundly discredited by other economists who have examined his methodology. Peri claimed that illegal immigration does not “diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers,” but instead “creates favorable conditions for all U.S. workers.”
Hotchkiss may qualify her findings by saying that the negative impacts of illegal immigration on American workers is “negligible,” but this latest study is progress nonetheless.
(
send private message
)
marino says...
Did you see the poll in the AVPress recently regarding illegal immigration?
( send private message )
Cagy Wolf says...
No I haven’t Marino what did it say? Can you send me the copy of it by email?
( send private message )
Cagy Wolf says...
Marino the left and the right have seen that immigration is a big topic, Romney will court the hispanic vote and with his record of flip flopping he just isn’t going to get many americans votes. He should have learned from McCain’s voting where hispanics voted mostly for Obama. Courting the hispanic vote isn’t going to be any better than what it did for McCain and McCain had a record of wanting amnesty for illegal immigrants.
( send private message )
Cagy Wolf says...
I hope some of you were able to attend yesterdays event concerning illegal immigration.
( send private message )
Cagy Wolf says...
……AP Newsbreak: AZ sheriff played probe for laughs
By JACQUES BILLEAUD | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago….EmailNew: Now the email button gives you a quick and easy way to start a conversation.
Share6Print……Related Content.
…FILE – In this April 3, 2012, file …
….PHOENIX (AP) — An audio recording has surfaced of an Arizona sheriff playing his refusal to cooperate in a racial profiling investigation for laughs at a fundraiser for an anti-illegal immigration group in Texas. He ridicules politicians who sought the probe and displayed contempt toward federal authorities who were — and are still — investigating him on two fronts.
The dismissive comments in 2009 by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio came as the U.S. Justice Department had already launched a civil rights probe of his trademark immigration patrols and the FBI already was examining abuse-of-power allegations for the sheriff’s investigations of political foes.
In the September 2009 speech in Houston, Arpaio boasted that he arrested hundreds of illegal immigrants after politicians and federal investigators started to pick apart his patrols. He said he wouldn’t cooperate with the inquiry, but said he would tone down the patrols — if he was proven wrong.
“But I’m not. After they went after me, we arrested 500 more just for spite,” the self-proclaimed “America’s toughest sheriff” said, pausing for laughter and applause.
In an interview Thursday, Arpaio defended his comments before Texans For Immigration Reform as a collection of humorous off-the-cuff remarks intended merely to show that he wasn’t going to back down to critics.
“These are not official, under-oath speeches,” Arpaio said. “It’s strictly a speech that when I’m talking to certain groups, they like to hear what I have to say, because they know I’m under the gun.”
The sheriff currently awaits a lawsuit that the U.S. Justice Department has promised to file over its civil rights allegations. Arpaio’s office is accused of racially profiling Latinos and retaliating against critics of its immigration patrols.
Talks to settle the case before going to court fell apart earlier this month when Arpaio balked at a proposal to let a court-appointed official monitor his operations to make sure his office isn’t making unconstitutional arrests.
The current status of the criminal investigation against Arpaio’s office is unknown. At the time of the speech, the FBI was already several months into its investigation of the sheriff’s anti-public corruption squad that criminally investigated county officials and judges who were at odds with Arpaio in legal and political disputes. A grand jury has been investigating those allegations since at least December 2009.
Two county officials and a judge were charged in cases that collapsed in court just a few months after they were filed. An Arpaio ally who prosecuted the cases was disbarred in a ruling earlier this month by an ethics panel of the Arizona courts.
That decision said the cases were brought to embarrass the trio of county officials and that evidence suggested the sheriff conspired with the prosecutor to intimidate the judge with unfounded criminal charges. But the panel said it didn’t have jurisdiction for potential criminal cases.
The FBI declined to provide an update on its investigation. Federal prosecutors didn’t respond to a request for an update.
The recording of the Texas speech was given to The Associated Press recently by Joel Robbins, a Phoenix attorney and longtime Arpaio critic who said he bought a copy from the group after reading about it in a newspaper.
At the time of the speech, only Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley had been criminally charged, though the sheriff was investigating other county officials.
“We have already indicted one, so I am not their favorite guy,” Arpaio said in Houston, drawing laughter. “The county has cut my budget $35 million just for spite. But I’m still locking them all up. I have ways to get the job done.”
Paul Charlton, an attorney who represented Stapley and has listened to portions of Arpaio’s speech, described the comment as “close to a confession as you may ever get.”
“He is drawing the nexus himself between the budget cut of $35 million dollars and an investigation of the Board of Supervisors. A threat to lock them up, which in fact he did,” Charlton said.
Arpaio maintains that he never investigated county officials because they cut his budget.
Elsewhere in the speech, Arpaio — a former federal drug agent — makes the Justice Department the butt of his jokes, saying, “It usually takes them two years to open a letter up and then another two years to buy the airline ticket.”
The sheriff also boasted of kicking federal civil rights investigators out of his office. And he acknowledged that most controversies were only to his benefit, pointing out that his re-election campaign raised $50,000 when the Rev. Al Sharpton came to Arizona to criticize his immigration patrols.
The crowd cheered and whistled when Arpaio raised the possibility of subpoenaing President Barack Obama to testify in a civil rights lawsuit that might be filed by the federal government. They lined up to have Arpaio sign a copy of his latest book.
Meanwhile, a modest but noisy protest brewed outside the hotel. Several dozen anti-Arpaio protesters carried signs saying “No To Racism,” while his supporters carried signs such as “Sheriff Joe Arpaio, USA Hero.”
Democratic state Rep. Steve Gallardo, a longtime Arpaio critic who listened to portions of the speech, said the sheriff’s comments prove that he uses illegal immigrants to elevate his national political profile.
“This is not about enforcing our laws,” Gallardo said. “This is about going after human beings. This is about targeting elected officials. This is about, exactly, using immigrants as props or pawns in his own world.”
For his part, Arpaio said his only regret in making the speech was that he used the wrong figure for the number of illegal immigrants arrested after the civil rights inquiry began.
“It was wrong,” Arpaio said. “It wasn’t 500. It was thousands.”
..I love Joe Arpaio he is my hero.
Persevere Joe
Larry
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
Hey my horoscope for the day.
Aquarius (1/20-2/18)
How can you move beyond past mistakes when you won’t let yourself forget them? The only person who is still beating you up over what you did is you — so stop it! You are a wonderful person who isn’t perfect, but then again, no one is. Holding yourself to a higher standard is not going to force you to rise to your expectations. It’s only going to make you feel like you’re not doing your best — and you know that you are. So give yourself an emotional hug today.
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
Friends of ALIPAC,
We have a very strong warning and activism request for you!
After promising all Americans he would crack down on illegal immigration and veto any Amnesty, numerous news outlets are reporting that Mitt Romney may be about to shift or flip flop on the illegal immigration issue thus depriving Americans of a choice on the matter this November.
We do not know if Romney is really considering this change which would harm his campaign and our nation, or if the media and their master Obama are trying to lure him into the trap of “softening” his approach on immigration.
We must all take immediate action to try and prevent this tragedy.
Please take 5 minutes of your time to take the following 2 simple steps.
Step 1:
Read, understand, circulate, forward, and distribute our national press release on this matter as soon as possible. Our release explains the situation and gives readers Mitt Romney’s campaign number.
Mitt Romney Change on Illegal Immigration Issue Could Spell Doom for America
http://www.alipac.us/content/mitt-ro…m-america-391/
Step 2: Call the Mitt Romney campaign and emphatically deliver your own version of this message.
Romney Campaign: 857-288-3500
“Please tell Mitt Romney that if he betrays his promise to GOP voters to oppose Amnesty and enforce our existing immigration laws he is going to harm his campaign like Rick Perry and John McCain. American voters oppose Amnesty 3 to 1 and that is why Romney should not pick Amnesty supporter Marco Rubio as his running mate. If Mitt Romney wants to be president, the president’s job is to defend all states from invasion and enforce the laws passed by Congress instead of trying to match Obama by supporting Amnesty for illegal aliens.”
You may also want to consider telling the Romney campaign that changing positions on illegal immigration will cost them your support. While such statements have great impact, we will leave that decision up to you.
Please take this activism alert very seriously.
Please take 5 minutes to follow our plan and take action now!
Please share this activism alert with others via email, website posts, phone calls, Facebook and Twitter posts!
America could be on the verge of being deprived of a choice on illegal alien Amnesty this November and such a trap could cost our loyal American elected officials their control of the US House which would spell disaster for us all.
If you have any questions, feedback, suggestion, then please post them at this link in the activism tracking area….
http://www.alipac.us/f8/call-mitt-romney-now-ask-him-not-support-amnesty-illegal-aliens-255393/
Let’s Roll!
William Gheen and The ALIPAC Team
AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION PAC
www.alipac.us
Post Office Box 30966, Raleigh, NC 27622-0966
Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 703-0864
FEC ID: C00405878
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
Here is a story from the New York Times, it is laughable if not a serious issue. Read the comments from readers they are funny as hell and the New York limosine liberals were taking a beating. The New York Times closed any further comments.
An Invitation to Abuse and ChaosPublished: April 21, 2012
Arizona’s cold-blooded immigration statute was enacted in 2010 to bring about “attrition through enforcement” — to make life so harsh for undocumented immigrants that they would be driven out of the state. It invites unfettered racial profiling and the abuse of police power. And, if allowed to stand, it opens the door to states’ writing their own foreign policy, in defiance of the Constitution.
Related
Times Topic: Arizona Immigration Law (SB 1070)
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on whether the state can enforce key parts of this law, despite the federal government’s exclusive constitutional authority to regulate foreign affairs, including immigration policy. Any sensible reading of the statute, the Constitution and legal precedents going back to the nation’s founding would say no.
The Arizona statute, which has become a model for other states, makes a state crime of being in the United States unlawfully and failing to register with the federal government. Its enforcement provisions essentially turn all Hispanics, including American citizens and legal residents, into criminal suspects. Both a Federal District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have blocked four parts of the statute from going into effect because they so clearly usurp federal authority. The justices hearing the case (Justice Elena Kagan is recused) should affirm that finding in the strongest terms.
The legal issue is whether federal immigration law pre-empts, or disallows, the state regulations. Pre-emption doctrine enforces national standards when the federal government has set them. Arizona argues that because federal law does not explicitly prohibit the state provisions, they are valid unless Congress implicitly intended to bar such measures. It contends there is no “clear conflict” between any federal law and the state statute, which “simply uses state resources to enforce federal rules.”
In pre-emption cases, the Constitution’s supremacy clause ensures that when there is a conflict, federal law prevails. But the constitutional threat in this extraordinary case goes beyond routine pre-emption analysis. By the framers’ intent, foreign-policy making is entrusted to the federal government through presidential and Congressional powers. That authority is exclusive, barring any state intrusion. As the Supreme Court said in a 2003 immigration case, “any policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government.”
While Arizona says its law merely empowers law enforcement to work cooperatively with federal officers, that is demonstrably false. The four provisions at issue go far beyond federal law, turning federal guidelines into state enforcement rules and violations of federal rules into state crimes. They transform a federal policy that allows discretion in seeking serious criminals among illegal immigrants into a state mandate to target everyone in Arizona illegally. How the provisions overstep federal law is worth noting:
¶Law enforcement officers are required to verify the immigration status of any person they stop, arrest or detain if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally. Any official who restricts enforcement of the provision is subject to a fine of up to $5,000 a day. There is no such mechanism in federal law.
¶Failure to carry legal immigration papers is a crime in Arizona, though this is not a crime under federal immigration law. The statute also interferes with the discretion of federal officials, who under federal law have the power to put off proceedings against undocumented immigrants or to allow their release from custody.
¶It is a state crime for an undocumented immigrant to apply for a job, solicit a job or work in Arizona, though Congress does not criminalize such conduct.
¶Police may arrest anyone without a warrant as long as an officer has “probable cause to believe” that person has committed a crime that could make him subject to deportation — even if that person is not wanted for the alleged offense and the federal government may not want to deport or even detain him.
These provisions defy federal law. The justices should forcefully repudiate Arizona’s unconstitutional statute and send a clear message to other states following Arizona’s pernicious lead.
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
Its these liberal loony left run Newspapers who are helping keep american citizens from employment and a rightful place in the private and public sector jobs by their “opinion”.
They cater to the rich who employ these "poor"illegal aliens thereby saving them money by paying decent wages to american workers only too willing to work but not at the substandard wages that illegals are willing to work for.
( send private message )
Cagy Wolf says...
Call your Senators and Tell Them to Strike the U Visa Provisions from VAWA!
Any day now, the Senate is poised to take up the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization bill (S. 1925), which would grant tens of thousands of additional U visas to aliens, both legal and illegal.
Although VAWA was created to help victims of domestic violence and abuse, the open-borders lobby has turned the bill into its latest vehicle to increase visas and grant amnesty to illegal aliens. In fact, the latest version before the Senate (S. 1925) by Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) would increase U visas by over 34,000! Call your Senators and urge them to oppose expansion of the U Visa Program!
Here is why the U Visa Program represents bad immigration policy:
•Although Congress created the U visa to help victims of domestic violence, the program is actually a path to citizenship for virtually anyone who applies.
•Illegal aliens are eligible for U visas, and once obtained, they may remain in the country for four years at a time, receive work authorization, and become eligible for a green card after three years!
•There is no limit to the number of derivative visas that may be issued to qualifying family members of a U visa holder.
•Once a U visa application is approved, work authorization is granted automatically to the alien and his or her qualifying family.
•Even family members in deportation proceedings or with final orders of removal are eligible for legal status under the program.
•The U visa program is unnecessary: USCIS already has authority to grant temporary legal status through humanitarian parole or deferred action to alien victims who help prosecute their assailants.
To combat this effort to exploit VAWA, Senate Republicans, led by Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Charles Grassley (R-IA), have offered alternate legislation that would strike the immigration-related provisions in the bill. Call your Senators NOW and urge them to support the Hutchison-Grassley alternative to S.1925.
CALL your Senators TODAY and tell them:
•You oppose expansion of the U visa program;
•You oppose attempts to exploit VAWA to increase immigration and give amnesty to illegal aliens; and
•You want the Senate to support the Hutchison-Grassley alternative to S. 1925, which strikes the immigration provisions from the bill.
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
A Renewed Assault on Freedom of Speech
by EDWARD CLINE
April 23, 2012
House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi of California and her fellow Democrats wish to “amend” the First Amendment in order to prohibit corporations from saying anything or spending anything during national elections. There is some satisfaction to be had in no longer having to identify her as House Speaker. I never liked seeing her wield that gavel. Someone once remarked that a hammer in hand causes one to search for nails to pound in, and she was always searching for nails. She specialized in coffins.
It may be an act of desperation that moves her and her party to push for an “amendment” of the First Amendment in light of President Barack Obama’s falling poll numbers — numbers he seems determined to see fall every time he opens his mouth on any subject – to pull his reelection chances from the jaws of ignominious but well-deserved defeat. Or it may be an expression of defeat but an assurance that the Democrats will stick one more knife into America’s back with such an “amendment,” to better the party’s chances of winning the White House in 2016 by loading the campaign finance dice.
Or it may be to establish a legacy of unprecedented malice and contempt for the country.
Think about it: It costs demagogues and wannabe totalitarians nothing to usurp the Constitution. They are all paid handsomely and enjoy fringe benefits and privileges most Americans could not afford. They are also exempt from having to submit to Obamacare. However, it will cost a concerned electorate time and money to combat and possibly see repealed or declared unconstitutional the blatant and sanctimonious thievery of our liberties and wealth. And that’s only if the courts – especially the Supreme Court – is dealing with a full deck and understands the issues and what’s at stake.
Or it may be an act of over-confidence that Obama will be reelected this November, regardless of his poll numbers, and here’s a sample of what the Democrats plan to foist on the country after all the destructive “hope and change” of the last three and a half years. An amendment to the First Amendment would be no less a guarantee than how the Obamacrats fixed BHO’s nomination and probable election in 2008 in several state caucuses and primaries with voter fraud and cooking the electoral books.
One really can’t decipher what goes on inside the minuscule minds of Democrats, except that it’s bound to be no good. That’s for professional strategy watchers to second-guess.
Sporting what looked like a dry-cleaned Confederate Army officer’s tunic, Pelosi explained why she wants to amend the First Amendment. She and her Democrat colleagues wish to prohibit corporations, regardless of their status as for-profits or non-profits, from having any role in political debate or in endorsing any candidate or idea. The Democrats harbor an unrelenting animosity for the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case of 2010, decided in favor of freedom of speech by the Supreme Court (at least partly; the whole 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act , a.k.a. the McCain-Feingold Act or “BCRA,” ought to have been declared null and void). It weighs in the Democrats’ collective political stomach like a helping of Yorkshire pudding, which often has the consistency of a lump of badly set cement.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority 5-4 opinion, noted several key but not fundamental issues in Citizens United. Among them was that the First Amendment, expressing a broad principle that prohibits the government from discriminating between corporations and the news media, consequently, if only implicitly, prohibits the government from exempting newspapers, books, broadcast advocacy and blog sites from a law that suppresses the speech of individuals or entities not favored by the law. Newspapers, networks, and book and blog writers would have an unfair advantage over gagged corporations. To allow that power, would ultimately lead to the regulation or suppression of speech of the formerly exempted.
Kennedy also wrote that the broad protection of the principle behind the First Amendment applied to all individuals, either as persons or collectively in any association, such as a corporation, and that the government could not discriminate between individuals and associations. The identity of a “speaker” is irrelevant and should not carry an arbitrarily assigned stigma or prejudice against such associations. The fact that a group of individuals expressed a position on a candidate or an issue and happened to be expressing it under the aegis of a corporation, or spent money to express such a position or granted another entity (such as Citizens United) the funds to express that position, is irrelevant. The principle applies to all individuals, singly or in groups.
Corporations, the Court asserted, are groups of individuals, and the agreement of those individuals on specific issues, and the leave they grant to a corporation to speak for them on those issues, should not prejudice such an arrangement. The First Amendment does not allow the government to impinge on the right of those individuals to express themselves in such a manner.
By extension, the Court applied the same arguments to the expenditure of money to speak freely in any manner.
The Court’s finding was a “close analysis” of the issue – what I call “bean counting” – and not explicitly based on the principle of freedom of speech. It did not touch on the role of property as a means to exercise that freedom. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the majority opinion but wrote a rebuttal to it, saying that the whole campaign finance law should be stricken down, and not just that part of it that abridged on corporations’ First Amendment rights.
Examine this exchange between Chief Justice John Roberts and the government attorney on the status of corporate money:
House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi of California and her fellow Democrats wish to “amend” the First Amendment in order to prohibit corporations from saying anything or spending anything during national elections. There is some satisfaction to be had in no longer having to identify her as House Speaker. I never liked seeing her wield that gavel. Someone once remarked that a hammer in hand causes one to search for nails to pound in, and she was always searching for nails. She specialized in coffins.
It may be an act of desperation that moves her and her party to push for an “amendment” of the First Amendment in light of President Barack Obama’s falling poll numbers — numbers he seems determined to see fall every time he opens his mouth on any subject – to pull his reelection chances from the jaws of ignominious but well-deserved defeat. Or it may be an expression of defeat but an assurance that the Democrats will stick one more knife into America’s back with such an “amendment,” to better the party’s chances of winning the White House in 2016 by loading the campaign finance dice.
Or it may be to establish a legacy of unprecedented malice and contempt for the country.
Think about it: It costs demagogues and wannabe totalitarians nothing to usurp the Constitution. They are all paid handsomely and enjoy fringe benefits and privileges most Americans could not afford. They are also exempt from having to submit to Obamacare. However, it will cost a concerned electorate time and money to combat and possibly see repealed or declared unconstitutional the blatant and sanctimonious thievery of our liberties and wealth. And that’s only if the courts – especially the Supreme Court – is dealing with a full deck and understands the issues and what’s at stake.
Or it may be an act of over-confidence that Obama will be reelected this November, regardless of his poll numbers, and here’s a sample of what the Democrats plan to foist on the country after all the destructive “hope and change” of the last three and a half years. An amendment to the First Amendment would be no less a guarantee than how the Obamacrats fixed BHO’s nomination and probable election in 2008 in several state caucuses and primaries with voter fraud and cooking the electoral books.
One really can’t decipher what goes on inside the minuscule minds of Democrats, except that it’s bound to be no good. That’s for professional strategy watchers to second-guess.
Sporting what looked like a dry-cleaned Confederate Army officer’s tunic, Pelosi explained why she wants to amend the First Amendment. She and her Democrat colleagues wish to prohibit corporations, regardless of their status as for-profits or non-profits, from having any role in political debate or in endorsing any candidate or idea. The Democrats harbor an unrelenting animosity for the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case of 2010, decided in favor of freedom of speech by the Supreme Court (at least partly; the whole 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act , a.k.a. the McCain-Feingold Act or “BCRA,” ought to have been declared null and void). It weighs in the Democrats’ collective political stomach like a helping of Yorkshire pudding, which often has the consistency of a lump of badly set cement.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority 5-4 opinion, noted several key but not fundamental issues in Citizens United. Among them was that the First Amendment, expressing a broad principle that prohibits the government from discriminating between corporations and the news media, consequently, if only implicitly, prohibits the government from exempting newspapers, books, broadcast advocacy and blog sites from a law that suppresses the speech of individuals or entities not favored by the law. Newspapers, networks, and book and blog writers would have an unfair advantage over gagged corporations. To allow that power, would ultimately lead to the regulation or suppression of speech of the formerly exempted.
Kennedy also wrote that the broad protection of the principle behind the First Amendment applied to all individuals, either as persons or collectively in any association, such as a corporation, and that the government could not discriminate between individuals and associations. The identity of a “speaker” is irrelevant and should not carry an arbitrarily assigned stigma or prejudice against such associations. The fact that a group of individuals expressed a position on a candidate or an issue and happened to be expressing it under the aegis of a corporation, or spent money to express such a position or granted another entity (such as Citizens United) the funds to express that position, is irrelevant. The principle applies to all individuals, singly or in groups.
Corporations, the Court asserted, are groups of individuals, and the agreement of those individuals on specific issues, and the leave they grant to a corporation to speak for them on those issues, should not prejudice such an arrangement. The First Amendment does not allow the government to impinge on the right of those individuals to express themselves in such a manner.
By extension, the Court applied the same arguments to the expenditure of money to speak freely in any manner.
The Court’s finding was a “close analysis” of the issue – what I call “bean counting” – and not explicitly based on the principle of freedom of speech. It did not touch on the role of property as a means to exercise that freedom. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the majority opinion but wrote a rebuttal to it, saying that the whole campaign finance law should be stricken down, and not just that part of it that abridged on corporations’ First Amendment rights.
Examine this exchange between Chief Justice John Roberts and the government attorney on the status of corporate money:
In 2009, when the Supreme Court first heard oral arguments in the Citizens Unitedcase, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart told the court that the administration believed the Constitution allowed the government to ban a corporation from using its general treasury funds to publish a book if the book advocated voting for something. “Take my hypothetical,” Chief Justice John Roberts said to Stewart as he asked him about what kind of books the Obama administration believed it could constitutionally ban, “. This [book] is a discussion of the American political system, and at the end it says: Vote for X.” “Yes,” said Deputy Solicitor General Stewart, “our position would be that the corporation would be required to use PAC [political action committee] funds rather than general treasury funds.” Roberts followed up: “And if they didn’t, you could ban it?” “If they didn’t, we could prohibit the publication of the book using corporate treasury funds,” Stewart answered.
General treasury funds? Political action committee funds? Piggy bank funds? Money market funds? This is an example of bean-counting that eludes the Court, and Chief Justice Roberts did not or was not able to address the issue in terms of fundamentals. It shouldn’t matter where the money comes from. It’s private wealth being expended for private reasons.
Let us now turn to the perspective of that Wise Wasp Lady and former Speaker of the House. At the very beginning, she targets the Court’s 2010 Citizens Unitedfinding.
“We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the role of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.
It’s so unfair, isn’t it? All those secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns. Which campaigns? Whose campaigns? Doubtless, Republican campaigns. The Democrats never did such a thing, don’t you know? So this proposed abridgement of the First Amendment would not apply to the Democrats. Exempt from that abridgement would be People for the American Way, Media Matters, Common Cause, and any of George Soros’s well-heeled front groups. They’ll find a way around the amended Amendment and keep under wraps and out of sight, but it will be perfectly legal – until someone uncovers its illegality.
“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”
It is difficult not to laugh at the first sentence. From the very beginning – nay, long before Obama set foot in the White House – the Democrat Party, with Obama as its iconic mover and shaker, has been responsible for a continuing flow of oozing and poisonous slime, such as TARP, Obamacare, the taxpayer-funded but failing “green” companies, the takeover of General Motors to reward and secure the unions, the creation of a kingdom of czardoms, cash-for-clunkers, the subsidy of various “artistic” groups to promote Obama’s agenda, his opposition to making the country oil-independent of parasitical Mideast régimes, Fast & Furious, and an attempted court-packing with two individuals friendly to all manner of collectivized rights, not individual rights. Among his other depredations, too numerous to list here.
Yes, Nancy, the Founders had an idea that escapes you. It wasn’t “democracy” that they slaved to create, but a republican form of government whose Constitution specifically barred Congress and the Executive branch from infringing on individual rights. Built into that Constitution was a mechanism that would protect individuals from the mob rule of democracy. It says: the power of the people stops here. Not that Congress has been listening for the past century.
And, Nancy, you weren’t clear on what exactly you want to reverse: the Founders’ vision, or a Supreme Court decision that denies you the power to put corporations in government-mandated straight-jackets.
Pelosi was joined in her whimsical reflections on the Founders by two other enemies of the First Amendment.
The participants noted that several members in both houses of Congress have offered various versions of an amendment to reverse Citizen United v. FEC and curb unwanted speech by corporations. Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) is one of the members sponsoring an amendment. (Italics mine.)
“I’ve introduced a People’s Rights Amendment, which is very simple and straightforward,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) said at the forum. "It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights.
“It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and nonprofits, in the same way, as artificial creatures of the state that we, the people, govern, not the other way around,” said McGovern.
Mr. McGovern is aptly named. No one ever said that corporations were “people.” And note that he repeats that hoary old communist chestnut that corporations govern and hold political power, and it oughtn’t to be allowed. Notice also that their speech is “unwanted.” Unwanted by whom? The “people”? Which “people”? Does Mr. McGovern include himself as one of those “people”?
No, corporations are not “creatures of the state.” They are entities formed for the protection of private property. Very likely McGovern would have advocated another old idea, that of granting all corporations “federal charters.” Just as they did in Britain. Remember the East India Company? The royally chartered trading company whose tea was dumped into Boston Harbor? Americans fought a war against Britain for many reasons, and one of them was to get from under the powers and weight of “federally” chartered companies granted monopolies in trade.
Rep. Donna Edwards (D.-Md.) explained the basic principle this move to amend the Constitution is advancing.
“In Citizens United, what the court said is that Congress has no authority to regulate this kind of political speech,” said Edwards. "And so all of these constitutional amendments go to this question of giving Congress the authority that the Supreme Court, I think wrongly, decided isn’t within Congress’s constitutional—our constitutional purview.
“And so, you know, the traditional rights of free speech that we have known as citizens would not be disturbed by any of these constitutional amendments,” said Edwards. “But what it would do is it would say, all of the speech in which, whether it’s corporations or campaign committees and others engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress and—and under our Constitution.”
“I mean, in my view, a corporation is not a person. It is not an individual,” said Edwards. “The rights that it has are those that are granted by the state, granted by the, by the Congress.”
Donna Edwards doesn’t seem certain what she is saying. Bluntness is not her style. She dances around the idea that Congress or a delegated committee of empowered interlopers, such as the Federal Election Commission, should regulate speech. Well, what would Congress or the FEC allow a corporation to say? Would it depend on how much money the corporation was willing to spend? Or would it depend on whether or not Congress or the FEC agreed with what the corporation wished to say? This idea is as fuzzy in her head as it is in the other forum heads.
She does repeat a fallacy subscribed to by both Democrats and Republicans: that freedom of speech is “traditional.” No, it isn’t traditional. It isn’t a ritual or practice whose origins are lost in the mists of time, something to be updated or discarded or preserved because it’s old fashioned or because it’s been done over seven score generations. Freedom of speech is integral to the individual in society. If a man must speak out in favor of justice or to defend his life and property, he must be able to speak without hindrance or obstruction, provided it is by means of his property or that of another individual or a corporation.
But the campaign finance law already regulates the property – that is, the money – which is an issue that has not been addressed by the Supreme Court, at least it wasn’t in Citizens United. Pelosi’s forum wishes to close that limited route of expression entirely.
The Founders denied Congress the authority to prohibit speech for any reason. Nevertheless, Pelosi et al want it for specious reasons, one of them being that Democrats don’t wish to have to compete in the realm of political persuasion.
This is the leitmotif of ambitious, not-yet-ready-for-prime-time tyrants. Nancy Pelosi, of course, would like the amendment to the First Amendment hammered out behind closed doors, and once it’s passed the House and the Senate and is on its way to the Oval Office, then we can see what’s in it.
Censorship for some, for now. Followed inexorably by censorship for all, forever.
In 2009, when the Supreme Court first heard oral arguments in the Citizens Unitedcase, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart told the court that the administration believed the Constitution allowed the government to ban a corporation from using its general treasury funds to publish a book if the book advocated voting for something. “Take my hypothetical,” Chief Justice John Roberts said to Stewart as he asked him about what kind of books the Obama administration believed it could constitutionally ban, “. This [book] is a discussion of the American political system, and at the end it says: Vote for X.” “Yes,” said Deputy Solicitor General Stewart, “our position would be that the corporation would be required to use PAC [political action committee] funds rather than general treasury funds.” Roberts followed up: “And if they didn’t, you could ban it?” “If they didn’t, we could prohibit the publication of the book using corporate treasury funds,” Stewart answered.
General treasury funds? Political action committee funds? Piggy bank funds? Money market funds? This is an example of bean-counting that eludes the Court, and Chief Justice Roberts did not or was not able to address the issue in terms of fundamentals. It shouldn’t matter where the money comes from. It’s private wealth being expended for private reasons.
Let us now turn to the perspective of that Wise Wasp Lady and former Speaker of the House. At the very beginning, she targets the Court’s 2010 Citizens Unitedfinding.
“We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the role of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.
It’s so unfair, isn’t it? All those secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns. Which campaigns? Whose campaigns? Doubtless, Republican campaigns. The Democrats never did such a thing, don’t you know? So this proposed abridgement of the First Amendment would not apply to the Democrats. Exempt from that abridgement would be People for the American Way, Media Matters, Common Cause, and any of George Soros’s well-heeled front groups. They’ll find a way around the amended Amendment and keep under wraps and out of sight, but it will be perfectly legal – until someone uncovers its illegality.
“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”
It is difficult not to laugh at the first sentence. From the very beginning – nay, long before Obama set foot in the White House – the Democrat Party, with Obama as its iconic mover and shaker, has been responsible for a continuing flow of oozing and poisonous slime, such as TARP, Obamacare, the taxpayer-funded but failing “green” companies, the takeover of General Motors to reward and secure the unions, the creation of a kingdom of czardoms, cash-for-clunkers, the subsidy of various “artistic” groups to promote Obama’s agenda, his opposition to making the country oil-independent of parasitical Mideast régimes, Fast & Furious, and an attempted court-packing with two individuals friendly to all manner of collectivized rights, not individual rights. Among his other depredations, too numerous to list here.
Yes, Nancy, the Founders had an idea that escapes you. It wasn’t “democracy” that they slaved to create, but a republican form of government whose Constitution specifically barred Congress and the Executive branch from infringing on individual rights. Built into that Constitution was a mechanism that would protect individuals from the mob rule of democracy. It says: the power of the people stops here. Not that Congress has been listening for the past century.
And, Nancy, you weren’t clear on what exactly you want to reverse: the Founders’ vision, or a Supreme Court decision that denies you the power to put corporations in government-mandated straight-jackets.
Pelosi was joined in her whimsical reflections on the Founders by two other enemies of the First Amendment.
The participants noted that several members in both houses of Congress have offered various versions of an amendment to reverse Citizen United v. FEC and curb unwanted speech by corporations. Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) is one of the members sponsoring an amendment. (Italics mine.)
“I’ve introduced a People’s Rights Amendment, which is very simple and straightforward,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) said at the forum. "It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights.
“It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and nonprofits, in the same way, as artificial creatures of the state that we, the people, govern, not the other way around,” said McGovern.
Mr. McGovern is aptly named. No one ever said that corporations were “people.” And note that he repeats that hoary old communist chestnut that corporations govern and hold political power, and it oughtn’t to be allowed. Notice also that their speech is “unwanted.” Unwanted by whom? The “people”? Which “people”? Does Mr. McGovern include himself as one of those “people”?
No, corporations are not “creatures of the state.” They are entities formed for the protection of private property. Very likely McGovern would have advocated another old idea, that of granting all corporations “federal charters.” Just as they did in Britain. Remember the East India Company? The royally chartered trading company whose tea was dumped into Boston Harbor? Americans fought a war against Britain for many reasons, and one of them was to get from under the powers and weight of “federally” chartered companies granted monopolies in trade.
Rep. Donna Edwards (D.-Md.) explained the basic principle this move to amend the Constitution is advancing.
“In Citizens United, what the court said is that Congress has no authority to regulate this kind of political speech,” said Edwards. "And so all of these constitutional amendments go to this question of giving Congress the authority that the Supreme Court, I think wrongly, decided isn’t within Congress’s constitutional—our constitutional purview.
“And so, you know, the traditional rights of free speech that we have known as citizens would not be disturbed by any of these constitutional amendments,” said Edwards. “But what it would do is it would say, all of the speech in which, whether it’s corporations or campaign committees and others engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress and—and under our Constitution.”
“I mean, in my view, a corporation is not a person. It is not an individual,” said Edwards. “The rights that it has are those that are granted by the state, granted by the, by the Congress.”
Donna Edwards doesn’t seem certain what she is saying. Bluntness is not her style. She dances around the idea that Congress or a delegated committee of empowered interlopers, such as the Federal Election Commission, should regulate speech. Well, what would Congress or the FEC allow a corporation to say? Would it depend on how much money the corporation was willing to spend? Or would it depend on whether or not Congress or the FEC agreed with what the corporation wished to say? This idea is as fuzzy in her head as it is in the other forum heads.
She does repeat a fallacy subscribed to by both Democrats and Republicans: that freedom of speech is “traditional.” No, it isn’t traditional. It isn’t a ritual or practice whose origins are lost in the mists of time, something to be updated or discarded or preserved because it’s old fashioned or because it’s been done over seven score generations. Freedom of speech is integral to the individual in society. If a man must speak out in favor of justice or to defend his life and property, he must be able to speak without hindrance or obstruction, provided it is by means of his property or that of another individual or a corporation.
But the campaign finance law already regulates the property – that is, the money – which is an issue that has not been addressed by the Supreme Court, at least it wasn’t in Citizens United. Pelosi’s forum wishes to close that limited route of expression entirely.
The Founders denied Congress the authority to prohibit speech for any reason. Nevertheless, Pelosi et al want it for specious reasons, one of them being that Democrats don’t wish to have to compete in the realm of political persuasion.
This is the leitmotif of ambitious, not-yet-ready-for-prime-time tyrants. Nancy Pelosi, of course, would like the amendment to the First Amendment hammered out behind closed doors, and once it’s passed the House and the Senate and is on its way to the Oval Office, then we can see what’s in it.
Censorship for some, for now. Followed inexorably by censorship for all, forever.
Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk series of novels set in England and Virginia in the decades leading up to the American Revolution, and also of Whisper the Guns and First Prize. His essays, books reviews, and other nonfiction have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and other periodicals. He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason and The Dougout.
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
April 22 marked the 42nd anniversary of Earth Day. Even though numerous Presidential and Congressional bodies and councils have concluded that stemming America’s population growth is necessary to maintain and improve the quality of life Americans enjoy and to protect the seashores, prairies, marshlands, forests, and mountain vistas we all know and love, Congress has not acted on the advice of these councils. Indeed, Congress has done the exact opposite since the introduction of Earth Day and passed bill after bill to increase immigration to the United States: in 1970, the United States admitted 373,326 legal immigrants; in 2011, the number was over 1.2 million — an increase of more than 300%!
Clearly, Congress hasn’t gotten the message and time is fast running out. If immigration continues to increase at its current rate, the United States’ population will reach 458 million by the year 2050. Is this the nation we want to leave for our children and our grandchildren?
Please send a fax to your Members of Congress and tell them that our nation’s out-of-control immigration policies are destroying our nation and degrading the quality of life for all Americans.
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
Illegal Aliens Fleeing America As Activists Prepare for Arizona Law Blitz
by ALIPAC Rate this article
Excellent Good Average Bad Terrible
Published on 04-25-2012 01:02 PM Number of Views: 638 1 Comment 8Illegal Aliens Fleeing America As Activists Prepare for Arizona Law Blitz
by William Gheen
President of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC
www.alipac.us
April 25, 2012
Citizen activists committed to defending American jobs, taxpayer resources, sovereignty, and lives are issuing a call today. More Americans are needed to get involved in efforts to spread Arizona’s and Alabama’s state level illegal immigration ‘enforcement only’ legislation to every state in America if the US Supreme Court does rule in favor of Arizona’s SB 1070.
The US Supreme Court takes up the case of Arizona’s historic legislation, which is designed to mirror existing federal laws dealing with illegal immigration. The Obama administration, the nation of Mexico, and a constellation of illegal alien sponsoring nations have sued to stop Arizona from allowing local police to enforce immigration law. This measure is supported by 81% of Americans according to a Zogby America Poll conducted in 2005. Only 14% of Americans disagree according to the poll.
Two recent polls show overwhelming support for state level immigration enforcement and Arizona’s historic illegal immigration fighting laws even after the biased global corporate media has attacked the law and the law’s backers viciously for the past two years. Still, after two years of siege by dictator Barack Obama, MSNBC, CBS, and most of the liberal daily newspapers like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, the new polls show America stands strong behind Arizona.
Power To The People
Rasmussen Reports found back in February of 2011 that 67% of Americans say states should be able to enforce immigration laws if the feds are not. Just 22% disagree (3 to 1 margin). Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans and 74% of voters not affiliated with either major party say states should have the right to enforce immigration laws if they believe the federal government is not doing the job.
Daily Caller headlines announced this week that “Americans overwhelmingly support the Arizona immigration law” in response to the new Quinnipiac University poll released April 20, 2012, which asked 2,577 registered voters nationwide whether they support Arizona’s immigration law, S.B. 1070, passed in 2010. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they approved of the law while 27 percent said they disapproved of it.
A Fox News poll, also released on April 20, shows 65 percent of voters favor the controversial law, while 31 percent oppose it.
Get In Formation With American Defenders
ALIPAC is asking American citizens who are concerned about illegal immigration to join our e-mail alerts list at www.ALIPAC.us. Help us saturate all state level lawmakers with copies of these poll results along with encouragement and political support for each state to follow the lead of the illegal immigration crackdown legislation recently passed in Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, Utah, Indiana and South Carolina.
While the Supreme Court may not rule on Arizona’s law until this summer, we need more support for our 40,000 national supporters, who are engaged in this issue. Our e-mail alerts combined with our Facebook and Twitter posts are how we organize Americans into successful strategies against illegal immigration and Amnesty.
It is time to prime the political pump in expectation of a favorable ruling from the US Supreme Court. We can only hope and pray that the the court remains immune to the globalist financial interests that have so many traitorous politicians supporting the illegal alien invasion of America above the needs and desires of American citizens. Each activist needs to know the full contact information for their state representatives, how to communicate with every state lawmaker in their state, and how to go ahead and make contact sharing this polling information.
Would the US Supreme Court dare to slight 68% of the American populace by siding with Obama and Mexico against the citizens and the U.S. Constitution they serve? We hope not.
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC was the first national organization to call for citizen activists to begin spreading the news about Arizona’s law to other states. We launched this strategy when Arizona came under attack. We helped defend Arizona, create multiple targets for the Obama administration to address, and to get the illegal aliens on the run from as many states as possible.
While this strategy was initially successful and ALIPAC played a strong role in helping to pass enhanced versions of Arizona’s law in several other states, momentum has stalled in the last 6 months as many states have taken a wait and see posture regarding the US Supreme Court ruling on this matter.
We are now preparing for rapid advance across the nation if the supremes go our way. California, Texas, Florida, help is on the way!
The Illegal Aliens Are Fleeing America
Current news reports and studies released this week indicate that our efforts at ALIPAC as part of a the broader immigration enforcement political movement in America, combined with these new state laws and combined with the poor US economy, has finally reversed illegal immigration as our platform has promised.
The Washington Post and many other news publications proclaim, “For the first time since Depression, more Mexicans leave U.S. than enter.”
Five years ago, ALIPAC added two articles to our 4 point platform titled, “How To Reverse Illegal Immigration in America,” and, “Why The Illegals Must Go.” We pointed out to you that our research of local enforcement efforts and past efforts to control illegal immigration in the 1930’s and 1950’s showed that the perception of increased immigration law enforcement would lead to a reversal of this invasion. The evidence that we have reached this point is now coming in from numerous directions and sources across the political spectrum.
Of course, many Americans reading this report will scoff at this if they are located in the major illegal immigration disaster areas like Southern California, where the illegals still dominate. The illegal immigration high water mark may be receding and the reports of jobs once dominated by illegals opening up for Americans in states like South Carolina are encouraging to us.
We believe we have the illegal aliens on the run, and it is time to charge and to take advantage of this turn in the battle.
If Americans respond to the favorable battle news by going back to sleep instead of routing our enemies out then our defense against this invasion will fail. It is important for all of you to stay motivated, focused, and organized regardless of which way this battle for America teeters at any particular time.
ALIPAC has more unique, unexpected, and effective strategies that we have yet to release. They are coming soon, but we need more support and more supporters to have the type of impact we need.
Get on our e-mail alerts. Get others to join our e-mail alerts. Read each alert carefully and respond to each alert as fully as possible.
ALIPAC has been quoted in the national media three times in the last week alone, proving that all efforts by illegal alien supporters to silence us have failed. Their defamation and smear campaigns have failed to contain us. Their hacker attacks and threats have failed to slow us down. Their financial advantage and control of the media will not stop the political revolution brewing in America against these corrupt elites who are trying to throw the people of America out of power in our own nation with their imported replacements.
Please make sure you review our candidate endorsements. Locate the endorsed campaigns closest to you and vote for them, donate to them, and volunteer to help them. Rally around the candidates who stand with We The People of America against this corporation sponsored illegal alien invasion of our homeland.
Time to rally Americans! Let’s get these illegal aliens and the politicians who support them on the run forevermore!
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
Be that as it may Martel but two states aren’t going to be passing any anti-illegal immigration laws, those two states are California and New York both enjoy the cheap labor afforded by hiring illegals to work in their homes and businesses. It has to also have federal enforcement of the immigration laws to be effective.
( send private message )
Cagy Wolf says...
Roxi this one is for you and Cybercretin about those fine unions you talk of all the time. Well I was in a union once and it was all horsecrap, they took union dues and allow a 96% of the workers to be illegal immigrants from mexico.
This caused wages lowered and conditions
of safety for workers to be lowered, citizens were allowed to be physically attacked and our shop steward to take a management level job and remain a shop steward. When complaints were taken by this sorry individual no action were taken and no discussion with upper level of the abuse by these fine people who just want to work against american workers.
People that were compete suck ups and brown nosers were allowed to remain when they should have been fired for not being capable of doing their jobs. Its like the story of a union worker who until he retired who did nothing more than take a big hammer and hit on his work bench with every time a boss walked though his area, as long as he looked busy no one asked what he did. And for all those years he “worked” he did nothing more then hit his bench once every so often. Sure thats an extreme example but it shows the level of thinking for the average union worker. I was actually bitched at by the other welders for producing more product and on my hour for lunch I kept making stuff and for my own use.
Then when mexicans were getting promoted it then after it was tooo late banded together against the mojados.
I would bet any amount of money that you won’t see any american workers at local 170 at Pure Aire Corp.
But I digress once again.
Yet Another Reason Why Today’s Unions Suck: Dues Devour Wage Increases
Posted by LaborUnionReport (Diary)
Thursday, April 26th at 6:00PM EDT
5 Comments On the eve of Obama’s NLRB unleashing its new rules giving unions the ability to hold ambush elections—that is, the evisceration of employers’ ability to question or challenge unions in their quest to cherry-pick voting units—more data was just released by the Bureau of National Affairs that calls into question why anyone in their right mind would pay dues to a union today.
In addition to the $369 billion in underfunded union (private-sector) pension plans, the abundant evidence that unions kill companies and destroy jobs, today’s unions are doing such a miserable job at the one thing they’re supposed to do—negotiate contracts—that union members should demand refunds from their union bosses.
According to the April 9th issue of the Bureau of National Affairs Daily Labor Report (subscription required), unions negotiated contracts in 2011 that, in 41% of the contracts, employees received no increase in the contracts’ first year.
While 41% of the contracts negotiated by unions in 2011 contained wage freezes, according to BNA’s survey, of the contracts where increases were negotiated, the average wage increase that was obtained for the first year was a pathetic 1.4%.
According to BNA:
A Bloomberg BNA analysis of collective bargaining agreements negotiated in 2011 found that the average first-year wage increase under contracts negotiated last year was 1.4 percent, compared with 1.6 percent reported in 2010. The average second-year increase in 2011 was 1.7 percent, compared with 2 percent in 2010, and the average third-year increase was 2.1 percent, compared with 2.3 percent a year earlier….
Given that union dues for most union members range from around 1.3% to 5% of pay, once union dues are deducted from members’ wages, the negotiated increases unions “achieved” for their members in 2011 are eaten up (and then some) by union dues.
Of course, union bosses continue to blame “the 1%” for their failure to garner anything better for their union members. However, the reality is, today’s unions have become nothing more than parasites sucking the life out of job creators and their employees.
•Related: How to Kick A Union Out of Your Workplace
_____________
Originally posted on LaborUnionReport.com.
Follow LUR on Twitter.
“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)
Sponsored Content
Category: Bureau of National Affairs, wage increasesRSS feed
5 Comments Leave a comment
No one ever recoups the money lost
jakee308 Thursday, April 26th at 6:50PM EDT (link)
from a strike.
I tell folks that unionism relies on OTHER workers not being unionized otherwise all the gains made by unions would go to paying for OTHER workers high wages. Think about it.
It why unions love illegal immigrants. It’s why they restrict entry to trades as once you learn the trade, you don’t need the union so much.
Unions are all about RESTRICTING LABOR. that’s why union workers are generally less productive than those who are not. Some will try to convince you that that’s because employers will abuse their workers and sometimes this is true but not so much anymore and not for those who are semi-skilled, skilled or experienced.
Union workers will do their best to maintain a reduced pace so’s not to “kill the job”. It’s why they ‘re so violent as anyone who opposes them forces them to work for their money and they’ve been taught that’s a suckers game.
Whoever allowed government unionization should hang alongside the guy who thought up deducting taxes directly from your pay
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
Mexican Net-Zero Migration?
April 24, 2012 By Jack Martin 8 Comments
Pew Hispanic Center researchers have issued a new report on Mexican migration to the United States in which they say there has been virtually no increase since 2007. They explain this change from Mexico’s previous role of dominating the annual average increase in the foreign-born population in these terms:
“The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and changing economic conditions in Mexico.”
While it is clear that those factors all have contributed to a decrease in Mexican illegal migration, a further factor is the series of laws adopted in a number of states across the country that collectively send the message to Mexico and other illegal alien sending states that the illegal arrival of their nationals looking for work will not be tolerated from now on. This is a message that will either be reinforced or weakened by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court when it decides the constitutionality of Arizona’s SB 1070 law. Unless the law discouraging illegal immigration is found to be Constitutional by the Court and that ruling encourages similar measures to be adopted more widely, we would expect the policy of the Obama administration of accommodating non-criminal illegal aliens to result in a resurgence in Mexican illegal immigration if and when jobs in construction and services rebound.
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
And tonight if you caught Fox news where that illegal alien supporter Francisco whatever his name was. Was trying to get it illegal to call illegal aliens, illegal aliens. I watched enough to see that logic and reason wasn’t going to get though to Francisco, he was still whining and crying that it should be illegal and all. I liked it that Fox news was saying what about the first amendment and if it was truth then why not call it like it is. At least immigration is now going to be a national issue because of all the attention.
( send private message )
Cagy Wolf says...
File – In this June 8, 2011, file …
….McALLEN, Texas (AP) — An unprecedented surge of children caught trudging through South Texas scrublands or crossing at border ports of entry into the U.S. without their families has sent government and nonprofit agencies scrambling to expand their shelter, legal representation and reunification services. On any given day this year, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement has been caring for more than 2,100 unaccompanied child immigrants.
The influx came to light last week when 100 kids were taken to Lackland Air Force Base near San Antonio for temporary housing. It was the first time the government has turned to the Defense Department — now, 200 boys and girls younger than 18 stay in a base dormitory.
While the issue of unaccompanied minors arriving in the U.S. isn’t new, the scale of the recent increase is. From October 2011 through March, 5,252 kids landed in U.S. custody without a parent or guardian — a 93 percent increase from the same period the previous year, according to data released by the Department of Health and Human Services. In March alone, 1,390 kids arrived.
“The whole community right now is in triage mode,” said Wendy Young, executive director of Kids in Need of Defense, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that matches pro bono attorneys with unaccompanied minors navigating the immigration system. “It’s important that the resources and the capacity meet the need, and we’re not quite there yet.”
The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement facilities in 10 states range from shelters to foster homes and have about 2,500 beds. Government-contracted shelters were maxing out their emergency bed space, setting up cots in gymnasiums and other extra spaces.
“It’s a much more limited set of services,” said Lauren Fisher of the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project, which helps children and their families navigate the system. “It felt something like a Red Cross shelter, a hurricane shelter.”
Unaccompanied children are first processed by the Department of Homeland Security, and then turned over to the ORR while the deportation process begins. Once in a shelter, the search begins for their relatives or an acceptable custodian, while nonprofit organizations try to match the children with pro bono attorneys. When a custodian is found, the child can leave the shelter and await immigration proceedings.
Eighty percent of the children referred to the ORR end up in a shelter, according to a report released last month by the Vera Institute of Justice — a nonprofit that developed a program to better provide access to legal services for children. The average shelter stay is 61 days, and the report found that at least 65 percent of the kids end up with a sponsor in the U.S.
The cause of the surge remains a mystery to child migrant advocates and government officials. The kids are coming from the same places as usual —Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico — and they offer the same range of explanations: they made the trek to look for parents already in the U.S.; they’re seeking economic opportunity to send money home; they want to escape violence or abuse.
“We’re talking to the children, but we don’t have one solid answer,” Fisher said. “There seem to be the same reasons that we’ve seen before.”
Some have suggested that human smugglers are more aggressively marketing their services. Others wonder if the Border Patrol, whose presence has doubled in recent years, is simply catching more of them. But Border Patrol apprehensions of children and adults were cut in half from 2008 to 2011, and only 5 percent of those caught are unaccompanied children. Younger children commonly cross with adult smugglers at the ports of entry, while older kids join groups that follow guides through the brush.
A South Texas woman told border authorities this month that the 5-year-old girl accompanying her at the international bridge connecting Hidalgo, Texas, and Reynosa, Mexico, was her sister, according to court records. She even presented a Texas birth certificate. But the girl couldn’t answer basic questions, so the woman told customs officers that she wasn’t related to the girl at all. She said that a man whom she worked with in Mexico offered her $2,000 to “cross” the girl — who was actually from Guatemala — and accompany her to Houston. The woman was charged with transporting an illegal immigrant.
This week, the first ladies of Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala spoke at a three-day conference on unaccompanied minors in Washington, D.C. Mexico’s first lady, Margarita Zavala, and Honduran counterpart Rosa Elena Bonilla de Lobo noted that tougher U.S. border security made it more difficult for parents working in the U.S. to return for their children, a suggestion as to why parents increasingly would put their children in a smuggler’s care.
“The statistics are worrisome,” said Rosa Maria Leal de Perez, Guatemala’s first lady. “We’ve had 6,000 unaccompanied children repatriated in the last year.”
The Department of Health and Human Services limited its public statements on the unaccompanied migrant children program, but it allowed a few reporters to take a short tour this week of the housing at Lackland Air Force base. They were not allowed to speak with children.
The beige, nondescript four-story dormitory is located deep on the base. When children arrive, they are issued black duffel bags filled with clothing and are allowed two phone calls a week. Three-quarters of the children are boys, most between 14 and 17 years old.
Green cots were spaced two feet apart along the stark-white walls. A media room held a large flat-screen television and a video game console; there were also board games and an outside area with a basketball hoop and two soccer goals. The kids play outside for an hour each day.
“We are looking to add some educational features that are appropriate for a 30-day temporary program,” HHS spokesman Jesse Garcia said, though the goal is to move kids to more established accommodations within 15 days.
As of late Friday, 83 kids had already been transferred out of Lackland, most to permanent facilities. Nineteen had been reunited with family.
__
Associated Press writer Paul Weber in San Antonio contributed to this report.
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
Justices Not Buying Administration’s Immigration Enforcement Supremacy Bid
By Van Esser, Friday, April 27, 2012, 6:45 AM EDT – posted on NumbersUSA
When the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on the Arizona SB 1070 case, the Justices left little doubt that the Obama Administration’s central argument – Congress gave the feds sole authority over immigration – just didn’t hold water. The discussion focused rather on how the Arizona law might work in tandem with federal law, or possibly be in conflict. This is good news for those interested in expanding state and local government immigration enforcement efforts.
The question before the Court is whether four provisions of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:
•Section 2(B), which requires police, after a lawful stop and if practicable, to check the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens;
•Section 3, which makes it a state crime for an alien to be in Arizona without valid federal immigration documents;
•Section 5©, which makes it a state crime to apply for or hold a job in Arizona without authorization; and
•Section 6, which gives police the power to arrest someone, without a warrant, if an officer has probable cause that suggests the person committed a crime that makes him/her deportable.
Paul Clement, the lead attorney for the State of Arizona, pushed two themes at the hearing. First, the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws caused a crisis in Arizona that made it necessary to enact SB 1070. Second, SB 1070 is not preempted because it does not conflict with federal law or create its own system of immigration regulation. Instead it mirrors federal law and helps the federal government to enforce it.
So Clement argued that under Sections 2(B) and 6 — police status checks and warrantless arrests — police officers are simply helping to identify illegal aliens whose destiny is left up to the feds. Under Section 3, which concerns immigration documents, the state is simply prohibiting what federal law already prohibits. Section 5 – the no jobs without authorization provision — furthers the crack down on illicit employment by mirroring state penalties for illegal aliens.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, on behalf of the federal government, painted a very different picture for the Justices. He said Congress gave the federal government sole authority over immigration. Although Arizona claims to want to enhance federal enforcement, it is in fact interfering with both federal priorities and foreign policy. Arizona can’t be allowed to implement Attrition Through Enforcement because Congress has already set up comprehensive schemes for registering immigrants and allowing them to work. And the state certainly can’t decide who should be detained or deported.
It was apparent from Justices’ statements, and their questions for Clement, that most would accept the requirement for police status checks, especially since police can already request such checks at their own discretion. Unlike open border groups, the Justices seemed to accept that Arizona police would be circumspect in their implementation of the law. What they needed was reassurance that suspected illegal aliens would not be unnecessarily detained and Clement seemed to come through. However, some Justices had difficulty with the concept of creating a state crime for working without authorization or failure to carry federal registration documents.
General Verrilli’s case about federal supremacy never really got off the ground. Justice Sotomayor, for example, said that Verrilli’s arguments left her “terribly confused.” She could not understand what was wrong with a system in which an officer contacted federal officials and released the people the feds did not want detained. She even made the point that the Justices weren’t buying Verrilli’s arguments and asked if he had any other cogent ideas.
Based on the interrogatories, it appears that Justices Scalia and Roberts are siding with two or more Arizona provisions. Justice Thomas, who said nothing at the hearing, is a likely third vote because he is known to oppose challenges like the one Verrilli offered. Justices Kennedy and Alito should fill out the majority that can rule in favor of some provisions.
Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor could have but did not speak out on behalf of the fed’s challenge, although they were definitely troubled by some provisions and the prospect for long detentions. That means the Court could uphold some sections with more than a five-vote minimum – an exciting prospect.
Court observers think a ruling will be released by June, at which time the case will be remanded to a District court. There are ongoing related challenges in that court, plus challenges to other SB 1070 provisions that the Supreme Court did not consider. As such, it is not clear when affirmed provisions can take effect.
The Supreme Court’s decision may have ramifications for states with laws similar to SB 1070 – Alabama, Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina and Utah. Opponents have already mounted challenges to those laws so the Court’s ruling on police immigration status checks, for example, could influence that litigation.
Will a green light on some measures prompt other states to act soon? Most legislatures have already completed their 2012 session so don’t look for much action this year. Pennsylvania, which remains in session throughout most of the year, may take up Rep. Darryl Metcalfe’s enforcement bills. It’s also possible but unlikely that a Mississippi bill could be revived.
Next year is another matter. You could see bills re-introduced in a number of states, including Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.
You can read a transcript of the Supreme Court hearing here.
VAN ESSER is the Chief of Membership Services for NumbersUSA
NumbersUSA’s blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.
Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.
(
send private message
)
Cagy Wolf says...
New York Times withholds key fact in story
By Jeremy Beck, Thursday, April 26, 2012, 9:30 AM EDT – posted on NumbersUSA
The New York Times’ April 23 story, “Justices to Rule on Role of the States in Immigration,” was frightening, but dishonest.
The anti-enforcement wing of the agricultural lobby must have been pleased with the Times piece which portrayed farmers as the hapless victims of state enforcement laws run amok (the photo for the story online depicted a forlorn-looking farmer, alone in his fields). According to the Times, farmers in Georgia “could not recall a more acute labor shortage” after Georgia passed its local enforcement law. Farmers warned “that they could go out of business if the labor supply continues to decline.” The story was smothered in negative language (“fear,” “turmoil,” “terror,” “unanticipated consequences,” “negative fallout”) bookended by the cries of local farmers who claimed to “need the [illegal] labor.”
I hate to be the one to let truth get in the way of a good story but the federal government gives farmers an unlimited guestworker program to fill all of their labor needs. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:
When U.S. employers have a shortage of available U.S. workers to fill temporary or seasonal agricultural jobs, they may file an H-2A petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for permission to employ foreign workers to perform that work in the United States. Once the petition is approved, these workers, if they are eligible for admission, may enter the United States in H-2A nonimmigrant status.
The H-2a visa program is well-known to the Times which reported last year that “Mexican workers can now receive their [H-2a] documents the same day that they apply.” Ironically, the story reports that some farmers moved to North Carolina after Georgia passed its law. Perhaps they will join the North Carolina Growers Association which, according to its website, uses the H-2a program to provide its members with “a workforce that is legal, reliable, and ready to ensure that your crops are planted, maintained, and harvested in a timely fashion.”
For reasons known only to the imes, the paper withheld the existence of the unlimited guestworker program from readers of the story.
The obligatory American-bashing frequently found in stories like this did, however, find its way into print. According to a farmer who spoke with the Times, a local advertisement he “placed for 16 workers brought one local man, who lasted half a day in the heat of Georgia summer.” The Times did not track down the “local man” to verify the farmer’s story (there is no indication that the reporter even tried). American workers are routinely abused like this by the press, which never gives the workers voice to present their side of the story. Had the reporter interviewed the “local man,” readers would have gained a legal worker’s perspective about pay and working conditions in Georgia’s agricultural industry.
That insight would have been informative, but the Times must know that scary stories are best told to audiences left in the dark.
JEREMY BECK is the Director of the Media Standards Project for NumbersUSA
NumbersUSA’s blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.
Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.
(
send private message
)
Would you like to comment on this blog post? Login to talk back!
Cagy Wolf says...
Elected Officials Who…
Voted on Amendment to Detain Illegal Aliens who are Violent Criminals While Awaiting Deportation
Updated Friday, June 3, 2011, 11:36 AM EDT – posted on
NumbersUSA
June 2, 2011 — Voted for Cravaack Amendment to H.R.2017
A “Yes” vote was to ensure that illegal aliens who are violent criminals are detained while awaiting deportation A “No” vote would allow illegal aliens who are violent criminals to not be detained while awaiting deportation
Here are the ones who voted yes:
Young (AK-R)
Aderholt (AL-R)
Bachus (AL-R)
Bonner (AL-R)
Brooks (AL-R)
Roby (AL-R)
Rogers (AL-R)
Ross (AR-D)
Crawford (AR-R)
Griffin (AR-R)
Womack (AR-R)
Flake (AZ-R)
Franks (AZ-R)
Gosar (AZ-R)
Quayle (AZ-R)
Schweikert (AZ-R)
Baca (CA-D)
McNerney (CA-D)
Richardson (CA-D)
Schiff (CA-D)
Sherman (CA-D)
Bilbray (CA-R)
Calvert (CA-R)
Campbell (CA-R)
Denham (CA-R)
Dreier (CA-R)
Gallegly (CA-R)
Herger (CA-R)
Hunter (CA-R)
Issa (CA-R)
Lewis (CA-R)
Lungren (CA-R)
Mack (CA-R)
McCarthy (CA-R)
McClintock (CA-R)
McKeon (CA-R)
Miller, Ga. (CA-R)
Nunes (CA-R)
Rohrabacher (CA-R)
Royce (CA-R)
Perlmutter (CO-D)
Coffman (CO-R)
Gardner (CO-R)
Lamborn (CO-R)
Tipton (CO-R)
Carney (DE-D)
Adams (FL-R)
Bilirakis (FL-R)
Buchanan (FL-R)
Crenshaw (FL-R)
Diaz-Balart (FL-R)
Mack (FL-R)
Mica (FL-R)
Miller (FL-R)
Nugent (FL-R)
Posey (FL-R)
Rivera (FL-R)
Rooney (FL-R)
Ros-Lehtinen (FL-R)
Ross (FL-R)
Southerland (FL-R)
Stearns (FL-R)
Webster (FL-R)
West (FL-R)
Young (FL-R)
Barrow (GA-D)
Broun (GA-R)
Gingrey (GA-R)
Graves (GA-R)
Kingston (GA-R)
Price (GA-R)
Scott, A. (GA-R)
Westmoreland (GA-R)
Woodall (GA-R)
Boswell (IA-D)
Loebsack (IA-D)
King (IA-R)
Latham (IA-R)
Labrador (ID-R)
Simpson (ID-R)
Costello (IL-D)
Lipinski (IL-D)
Biggert (IL-R)
Dold (IL-R)
Hultgren (IL-R)
Johnson (IL-R)
Kinzinger (IL-R)
Roskam (IL-R)
Schilling (IL-R)
Schock (IL-R)
Shimkus (IL-R)
Walsh (IL-R)
Donnelly (IN-D)
Bucshon (IN-R)
Burton (IN-R)
Pence (IN-R)
Rokita (IN-R)
Stutzman (IN-R)
Young (IN-R)
Huelskamp (KS-R)
Jenkins (KS-R)
Pompeo (KS-R)
Yoder (KS-R)
Chandler (KY-D)
Davis (KY-R)
Guthrie (KY-R)
Rogers (KY-R)
Whitfield (KY-R)
Alexander (LA-R)
Boustany (LA-R)
Cassidy (LA-R)
Fleming (LA-R)
Landry (LA-R)
Scalise (LA-R)
Keating (MA-D)
Lynch (MA-D)
Markey (MA-D)
Tsongas (MA-D)
Hoyer (MD-D)
Ruppersberger (MD-D)
Sarbanes (MD-D)
Van Hollen (MD-D)
Bartlett (MD-R)
Harris (MD-R)
Michaud (ME-D)
Peters (MI-D)
Amash (MI-R)
Benishek (MI-R)
Camp (MI-R)
Huizenga (MI-R)
McCotter (MI-R)
Miller (MI-R)
Rogers (MI-R)
Upton (MI-R)
Walberg (MI-R)
Peterson (MN-D)
Bachmann (MN-R)
Cravaack (MN-R)
Kline (MN-R)
Paulsen (MN-R)
Carnahan (MO-D)
Akin (MO-R)
Emerson (MO-R)
Graves (MO-R)
Hartzler (MO-R)
Long (MO-R)
Luetkemeyer (MO-R)
Harper (MS-R)
Nunnelee (MS-R)
Palazzo (MS-R)
Rehberg (MT-R)
Kissell (NC-D)
McIntyre (NC-D)
Miller (NC-D)
Price (NC-D)
Shuler (NC-D)
Coble (NC-R)
Ellmers (NC-R)
Foxx (NC-R)
Jones (NC-R)
McHenry (NC-R)
Berg (ND-R)
Fortenberry (NE-R)
Smith (NE-R)
Terry (NE-R)
Bass (NH-R)
Guinta (NH-R)
Garrett (NJ-R)
Lance (NJ-R)
LoBiondo (NJ-R)
Runyan (NJ-R)
Smith (NJ-R)
Heinrich (NM-D)
Pearce (NM-R)
Berkley (NV-D)
Heck (NV-R)
Higgins (NY-D)
Hochul (NY-D)
Israel (NY-D)
Lowey (NY-D)
Owens (NY-D)
Buerkle (NY-R)
Gibson (NY-R)
Grimm (NY-R)
Hanna (NY-R)
Hayworth (NY-R)
King (NY-R)
Reed (NY-R)
Kaptur (OH-D)
Austria (OH-R)
Chabot (OH-R)
Gibbs (OH-R)
Johnson (OH-R)
Jordan (OH-R)
LaTourette (OH-R)
Latta (OH-R)
Renacci (OH-R)
Schmidt (OH-R)
Stivers (OH-R)
Tiberi (OH-R)
Turner (OH-R)
Boren (OK-D)
Cole (OK-R)
Lankford (OK-R)
Lucas (OK-R)
Sullivan (OK-R)
DeFazio (OR-D)
Wu (OR-D)
Walden (OR-R)
Altmire (PA-D)
Critz (PA-D)
Holden (PA-D)
Barletta (PA-R)
Dent (PA-R)
Fitzpatrick (PA-R)
Gerlach (PA-R)
Kelly (PA-R)
Marino (PA-R)
Meehan (PA-R)
Murphy (PA-R)
Pitts (PA-R)
Platts (PA-R)
Shuster (PA-R)
Thompson (PA-R)
Duncan (SC-R)
Gowdy (SC-R)
Mulvaney (SC-R)
Scott (SC-R)
Wilson (SC-R)
Noem (SD-R)
Cooper (TN-D)
Black (TN-R)
Blackburn (TN-R)
DesJarlais (TN-R)
Duncan (TN-R)
Fincher (TN-R)
Fleischmann (TN-R)
Roe (TN-R)
Cuellar (TX-D)
Jackson Lee (TX-D)
Barton (TX-R)
Brady (TX-R)
Burgess (TX-R)
Carter (TX-R)
Conaway (TX-R)
Culberson (TX-R)
Farenthold (TX-R)
Flores (TX-R)
Gohmert (TX-R)
Granger (TX-R)
Hall (TX-R)
Hensarling (TX-R)
Johnson (TX-R)
Marchant (TX-R)
McCaul (TX-R)
Neugebauer (TX-R)
Olson (TX-R)
Paul (TX-R)
Poe (TX-R)
Sessions (TX-R)
Smith (TX-R)
Thornberry (TX-R)
Matheson (UT-D)
Bishop (UT-R)
Connolly (VA-D)
Moran (VA-D)
Cantor (VA-R)
Forbes (VA-R)
Goodlatte (VA-R)
Griffith (VA-R)
Hurt (VA-R)
Rigell (VA-R)
Wittman (VA-R)
Wolf (VA-R)
Dicks (WA-D)
Smith (WA-D)
Beutler (WA-R)
Hastings (WA-R)
Reichert (WA-R)
Rodgers (WA-R)
Kind (WI-D)
Duffy (WI-R)
Petri (WI-R)
Ribble (WI-R)
Ryan (WI-R)
Sensenbrenner (WI-R)
Capito (WV-R)
McKinley (WV-R)
Lummis (WY-R)
And here are the idiots and traitors who voted no:
Sewell (AL-D)
Grijalva (AZ-D)
Pastor (AZ-D)
Bass (CA-D)
Becerra (CA-D)
Berman (CA-D)
Capps (CA-D)
Cardoza (CA-D)
Chu (CA-D)
Costa (CA-D)
Davis (CA-D)
Eshoo (CA-D)
Farr (CA-D)
Filner (CA-D)
Garamendi (CA-D)
Honda (CA-D)
Lee (CA-D)
Matsui (CA-D)
Napolitano (CA-D)
Pelosi (CA-D)
Roybal-Allard (CA-D)
Sanchez (CA-D)
Sanchez (CA-D)
Speier (CA-D)
Stark (CA-D)
Thompson (CA-D)
Waters (CA-D)
Waxman (CA-D)
Woolsey (CA-D)
DeGette (CO-D)
Polis (CO-D)
Courtney (CT-D)
DeLauro (CT-D)
Himes (CT-D)
Larson (CT-D)
Murphy (CT-D)
Brown (FL-D)
Castor (FL-D)
Deutch (FL-D)
Hastings (FL-D)
Wasserman Schultz (FL-D)
Wilson (FL-D)
Bishop (GA-D)
Johnson (GA-D)
Lewis (GA-D)
Scott, D. (GA-D)
Hanabusa (HI-D)
Hirono (HI-D)
Braley (IA-D)
Davis (IL-D)
Gutierrez (IL-D)
Jackson (IL-D)
Quigley (IL-D)
Schakowsky (IL-D)
Carson (IN-D)
Visclosky (IN-D)
Yarmuth (KY-D)
Richmond (LA-D)
Capuano (MA-D)
Frank (MA-D)
McGovern (MA-D)
Olver (MA-D)
Tierney (MA-D)
Cummings (MD-D)
Edwards (MD-D)
Pingree (ME-D)
Clarke (MI-D)
Conyers (MI-D)
Dingell (MI-D)
Kildee (MI-D)
Levin (MI-D)
Ellison (MN-D)
McCollum (MN-D)
Walz (MN-D)
Clay (MO-D)
Cleaver (MO-D)
Thompson (MS-D)
Butterfield (NC-D)
Watt (NC-D)
Andrews (NJ-D)
Holt (NJ-D)
Pallone (NJ-D)
Pascrell (NJ-D)
Payne (NJ-D)
Rothman (NJ-D)
Sires (NJ-D)
Lujan (NM-D)
Ackerman (NY-D)
Bishop (NY-D)
Clarke (NY-D)
Crowley (NY-D)
Engel (NY-D)
Hinchey (NY-D)
Maloney (NY-D)
McCarthy (NY-D)
Meeks (NY-D)
Nadler (NY-D)
Rangel (NY-D)
Serrano (NY-D)
Slaughter (NY-D)
Tonko (NY-D)
Towns (NY-D)
Velazquez (NY-D)
Weiner (NY-D)
Fudge (OH-D)
Kucinich (OH-D)
Ryan (OH-D)
Blumenauer (OR-D)
Schrader (OR-D)
Brady (PA-D)
Doyle (PA-D)
Fattah (PA-D)
Cicilline (RI-D)
Langevin (RI-D)
Clyburn (SC-D)
Cohen (TN-D)
Doggett (TX-D)
Gonzalez (TX-D)
Green, A. (TX-D)
Green, G. (TX-D)
Hinojosa (TX-D)
Johnson (TX-D)
Reyes (TX-D)
Scott (VA-D)
Welch (VT-D)
Inslee (WA-D)
Larsen (WA-D)
McDermott (WA-D)
Baldwin (WI-D)
Moore (WI-D)
Rahall (WV-D)
Notice who voted no, most of the clowns responsible for making California a shithole. Cretins like Pelosi, Waters, and Waxman voted no. Maxine Waters just blows me away with her lack of caring about how illegal immigration affects the black community and race.
( send private message )