Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Pressure campaign on Supreme Court over health ruling

Dems wage pressure campaign on Supreme Court over health ruling
By Alexander Bolton - 04/02/12 06:02 PM ET

Democrats have waged a not-so-subtle pressure campaign on the Supreme
Court in recent days by warning a ruling against the healthcare reform
law would smash precedent and threaten popular social programs.

President Obama was the latest to weigh in when he declared Monday
that a wide array of legal experts would be astonished if the court
struck down part or all of his signature domestic initiative.


"I'm confident the Supreme Court will uphold the law," Obama said
Monday during a Rose Garden press conference. "That's not just my
opinion, but also the opinion of legal experts across the political
spectrum."

He said it would be "unprecedented" for the court to strike down the
individual mandate, which requires the uninsured to buy health
coverage or pay a penalty.

Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice and a prominent
advocate during Supreme Court confirmation battles, said Obama and
Democrats have made it clear that they would fiercely criticize a
ruling against the healthcare law.

RELATED ARTICLES
Lawmaker warns Obama against 'threatening' Supreme Court
"I do think the statements by some of the senators and the president
are serving notice to the court that, frankly, if the court does
overturn the law, in essence, the court will become a political
football in the election," Aron said.

"I wouldn't have said that before of the president's comments. By
virtue of the fact that he spoke out, it does serve notice: Think
twice before throwing out this baby. It will be viewed more as a
political act," she added.

Justices have shown in the recent past that they are not impervious to
the president's words and how they might influence public perception
of the high court.

Justice Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed the words "not true"
when Obama criticized the court's decision in the Citizens United case
during his 2010 State of the Union address, and Aron noted that Chief
Justice John Roberts has a reputation for being mindful of his legacy.

"We do know this is a justice who reads the press about himself. There
have been reports about that," Aron said.

Senior Democratic lawmakers have warned the court would upend the
legal precedent that gives Congress the power to provide for the
nation's general welfare if it rules that the Constitution's Commerce
Clause does not allow for the mandate to have insurance.

"If they were to throw out the healthcare law, things like Medicare,
Social Security, food-safety laws could be in jeopardy on the very
same grounds," Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking Senate
Democratic leader, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday. "It would be
a dramatic, 180-degree turn of the tradition of the Commerce Clause."

Democrats have cited the words of conservative legal scholars and past
Republican support for the individual mandate to bolster their
argument.

Schumer and Senate Health Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) have
both quoted J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was appointed by former
President Ronald Reagan to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Wilkinson
said "the idea that Congress is constitutionally disabled" from
regulating the healthcare market is a "heavy judicial lift."

Schumer called Wilkinson the dean of conservative judges on the courts
of appeal and has frequently reminded reporters that the Heritage
Foundation, a conservative think tank, first proposed the idea of a
health insurance mandate in 1993.

Harkin said, "the opponents of healthcare reform, the Affordable Care
Act, are basing their arguments on politics rather than precedents."

"This court can go no other way but to uphold the individual mandate
the Congress has put into the individual mandate," he said at a press
conference Democrats held after the second day of oral arguments.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) warned the
court last week that a ruling against the healthcare reform law would
have far-reaching consequences.

"I think it's a clear-cut case. I think you have to stretch to say
this is unconstitutional but Social Security, for example, or Medicare
is constitutional," Leahy said. "If you say this is unconstitutional,
then you have to say Social Security and Medicare are also
unconstitutional. I'm not sure the court is prepared to do that."

Senate Republicans have taken a different tack. Senate Republican
Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) has declined to predict how the court
will rule.

Despite filing an amicus brief in the case, he has been relatively
reticent about the legal merits of the case.

He said last week that if the court upheld the mandate, its
interpretation of the Commerce Clause would be so broad as to make
meaningless its constraint on federal power.

"What that leads to ultimately, we don't know, but we know the
suspense will be over in June," he said.

McConnell says regardless of how the court rules, he is committed to
making repeal of the law a high priority if Republicans capture
control of the Senate.

Some legal experts, however, doubt the Democratic public-relations
campaign will have much influence on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is
widely seen as the swing vote on the closely divided court.

"I don't think they'll have any impact. It's possible they would have
an adverse impact," said Lanny Davis, who served as special counsel to
former President Bill Clinton and is the principal at the law firm of
Lanny J. Davis & Associates.

"The history of Justice Kennedy is quite independent and thoughtful
and he'll make the decision on the merits and not on political
influences. I won't say that about every justice, some of whom came
out of the political world."

Davis, a columnist for The Hill, said it is "perfectly legitimate" for
justices to consider the political ramifications of their decisions.

He noted that then Chief Justice Earl Warren strove to unify his
fellow justices behind a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of
Education of the City of Topeka, Kan., knowing the decision would have
broad political impact and receive criticism. That decision struck
down the "separate but equal" doctrine for racial segregation.

Last week's hearing on the 2010 healthcare reform law was the most
time the Supreme Court set aside for oral arguments since Brown v.
Board of Education, according to Senate sources who reviewed the
record.

More:
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/219613-dems-wage-pressure-campaign-on-supreme-court-over-health-ruling

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Obama ‘confident’ Supreme Court will uphold his healthcare reform law

Obama 'confident' Supreme Court will uphold his healthcare reform law
By Jonathan Easley and Amie Parnes - 04/02/12 02:36 PM ET

President Obama on Monday said he is confident the Supreme Court will
uphold his healthcare reform law and warned a ruling against it would
be an "unprecedented" act of judicial activism.

Speaking at a Rose Garden press conference alongside Mexican President
Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Obama
weighed in for the first time on last week's high court hearings,
which left many Democrats fearful that the court is poised to strike
down his signature domestic achievement.


"I'm confident the Supreme Court will uphold the law," Obama said.
"The reason is, because in accordance with precedent out there, it's
constitutional.

"That's not just my opinion, by the way," Obama continued. "That's the
opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including
two very conservative appellate court justices."

The president said it would be "unprecedented" for the court to strike
down the individual mandate to have insurance because the law was
passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Obama warned the high court against "a lack of judicial restraint," in
which "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly
constituted and passed law."

Beyond the judicial aspect, the president defended the individual
mandate to have insurance, saying there's a "human element" to the
law, and that it's the only way to provide healthcare to those with
pre-existing conditions.


RELATED ARTICLES
Poll finds court reinforced partisan divide
Obama: Striking down law would be 'unprecedented'

"This is not an abstract argument," Obama said. "People's lives are
affected by the lack of availability of healthcare."

The president argued, "Americans all across the country are getting
preventative care because of this law," and that "doesn't count the 30
million people who stand to gain coverage" in 2014.

Opponents of the healthcare law say the insurance mandate is a
breathtaking expansion of federal power that is unsupported by the
Constitution, and many of the Supreme Court justices appeared
receptive to that argument last week. After the arguments ended,
Republicans were optimistic that the healthcare reform law would be
struck down, while Democrats warned against reading too much into the
arguments.

During the press conference, a reporter asked Obama if he had a
contingency plan in place if the healthcare law is struck down. The
president did not answer the question directly, simply reiterating,
"As I said, we're confident that this will be upheld.

"I'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld," he
said. "Again, that's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of a
whole lot of constitutional law professors, academics, judges and
lawyers who examined this law, even if they're not particularly
sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency."

Some legal watchers panned Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's
presentation at the oral arguments last week, with CNN's Jeffrey
Toobin describing the Obama legal case as a "train wreck." Obama did
not speak about Verrilli's performance before the high court last
week, but White House officials have backed the solicitor general.

Verrilli "delivered a solid performance before the Supreme Court.
That's a fact. We feel good about his performance," White House
spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters last week.

Senate Democrats were also infuriated by comments Justice Antonin
Scalia made during the hearings. Scalia mocked a provision of the bill
that had been removed two years ago, and joked that the bill was too
long to read.

Up until Monday, it was unclear what Obama himself was thinking about
the Supreme Court case. Senior administration officials said on Monday
that the president had read the transcripts of the proceedings and had
followed news accounts.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the healthcare law in June.

At the press conference, Calderon also weighed in on the healthcare
question, saying the United States should follow Mexico's lead.

"Of the 120 million Mexicans, 160 million will have universal
healthcare coverage," Calderon said. "So I would say that I would hope
that one of the greatest countries of the world, the United States,
could follow our example in achieving this because it was a great
thing."

More:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/219547-obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-healthcare-law

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: KEITH OLBERMANN SIGNS WITH FRED'S INTERNET NEWS!

Perhaps he has been fired SO many times, is because he SUCKS?
 
Rush's ratings are up beyond comprehension!
 
Well, yours
 
I
 
told ya so, ya duncecap
On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 1:04:33 PM UTC-4, Tommy News wrote:
"He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others."
- Samuel Johnson

On Apr 3, 10:54 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think there should be an investigation done and soon. For Fred to be
> hiring the likes of Olbermann he has to be purposely causing his
> station to take a loss... a BIG loss. Is Fred laundering cash?
>
> On Apr 3, 4:06 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://angrywhitedude.com/2012/03/keith-olbermann-signs-with-freds-in...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Are The New Black Panther Militant Group: Terrorist Organizations Willing To Kill?

 
The REAL Black Panthers, are putting as much distance between these assholes as is humanly possible, Mr PRESIDENT!
 
Dick
On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 11:12:01 AM UTC-4, KeithInTampa wrote:
 

Are The New Black Panther Militant Group: Terrorist Organizations Willing To Kill?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxIjibd_uy4&feature=player_embedded#!

An investigation into the New Black Panthers have been conducted this month revealing New Black Panther ties to the Middle East terrorist group Hezbollah.

Are The New Black Panther Militant Group: Terrorist Organizations Willing To Kill?

According to Homeland Security Today the Government has had their eyes on The New Black Panthers since the 1960's and there's no surprise to me that the NBPP is still going strong. Know there is no concrete evidence that they are tied to Hezbollah, BUT there strong Muslim faith and their deep Intrenchment as a world wide group or organization makes me believe that they do have ties with Hezbollah and probably many other Terrorist groups.

In some of the exerts from and HS Today article you can learn how the NBPP got to be where they are at now. read below and here is the link to read the full article

http://www.hstoday.us/blogs/guest-commentaries/blog/the-new-black-m...

J. Edgar Hoover declared "the Black Panther Party, without question, represents the greatest threat to [the] internal security of the country. Hoover said Black Panther Party was "schooled in the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the teaching of Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung, its members have perpetrated numerous assaults on police officers and have engaged in violent confrontations with police throughout the country. Leaders and representatives of the Black Panther Party travel extensively all over the United States preaching their gospel of hate and violence not only to ghetto residents, but to students in colleges, universities and high schools is well.

Now more than 43 years later, the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) – also known as the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, whose motto is, "Freedom or Death" - and associated groups like theNew Black Liberation Militia (NBLM), have also emerged as debatably extremist black socialist separatist organizations that also arguably could meet the government's various criteria for what constitutes an extremist organization, and that certain of their leaders have consorted with the heads of Islamist terror-supporting states and the Muslim Brotherhood.

In testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in Feb. 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller said factions of the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamist group whose ideology has inspired terrorists like Osama Bin Laden, are in the United States and have supported terrorism here and overseas.

While the Obama administration – especially the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security – have focused considerable attention to rightwing oriented hate groups, some observers believe it has taken a conspicuous hands-off approach toward militant, left-leaning black socialist groups like NBPP and its ilk. "President Obama has steadfastly refused to disavow these individuals, and the Attorney General of the United States of America, Eric Holder, has refused to in anyway investigate, let alone prosecute these thugs for their criminal activities, such as voter intimidation,

http://www.hstoday.us/blogs/guest-commentaries/blog/the-new-black-m...

According to Examiner.com Two separate investigations into the New Black Panthers have been conducted this month, one in response to charges of homegrown terrorism and the other in response to the group's placing a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman, the alleged shooter of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin and the second was released yesterday which reveals ties to the middle eastern terrorist group Hezballoh. which exposes significant collaboration between Hezbollah and the New Black Panthers. 

In this video this leader of the new black panther group is spewing many things that I would consider him a Racist, a Marxist, a Communist, Basically he is a Terrorist and so is the group he is representing. America keep your eye on the New Black Panthers and all Muslim groups in America and Abroad.

NBPG spokesman, Minister Mikhail Muhammad, over his group's involvement in the Trayvon Martin case, exposing the party's racism also said that they don't obey white man's law and that according to the street law, he has been charged with murder and when the people find him, he may not be alive. So do your job. Do your job.

A New Black Panther Party leader who offered a $10,000 reward for the capture of the man who killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida was himself behind bars in suburban Atlanta on Tuesday on a weapons charge.

read more here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-usa-shootingpanthersl2e8qr1ps-...


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Obama Calls G.O.P. Budget Plan ‘Social Darwinism’

Obama Calls G.O.P. Budget Plan 'Social Darwinism'
---
though O is half-white he is an idiot like the rest of the socialists
and minorities he represents

On Apr 3, 12:43 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obama Calls G.O.P. Budget Plan 'Social Darwinism'
>
> Luke Sharrett for The New York Times
> President Obama delivered a speech attacking the Republican budget
> plan on Tuesday in Washington.
>
> By MARK LANDLER
> Published: April 3, 2012
>
> WASHINGTON — President Obama opened a full-frontal assault Tuesday on
> the budget adopted by House Republicans, condemning it as a "Trojan
> horse" and "thinly veiled social Darwinism" that would greatly deepen
> inequality in the country.
>
> Mr. Obama's attack, in a speech during a lunch with editors and
> reporters from The Associated Press, was part of a broader indictment
> of the Republican economic blueprint for the nation. The Republican
> budget, and the philosophy it represents, he said in remarks prepared
> for delivery, is "antithetical to our entire history as a land of
> opportunity and upward mobility for everyone who's willing to work for
> it."
>
> With Republicans beginning to coalesce around Mitt Romney as the
> party's likely presidential nominee, Mr. Obama is sharpening his
> political message for the election — one that draws a stark contrast
> between his and Mr. Romney's visions for the country, and flatly
> rejects the Reagan-era mantra of trickle-down prosperity.
>
> In the latest of a series of combative speeches, the president said
> Americans could not afford to elect a Republican president at a time
> of fragile economic recovery, with a weak job market and a crushing
> national debt from "two wars, two massive tax cuts and an
> unprecedented financial crisis."
>
> The widening gulf between the rich and everyone else, Mr. Obama said,
> was hobbling the country's economic growth. He cited studies that
> found that societies with less income inequality had stronger and
> steadier growth.
>
> "In this country, broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from
> the success of a wealthy few," the president said, according to
> excerpts of his address. "It has always come from the success of a
> strong and growing middle class. That's how a generation who went to
> college on the G.I. Bill, including my grandfather, helped build the
> most prosperous economy the world has ever known."
>
> Many of Mr. Obama's themes echoed his State of the Union address in
> January and his speech in Osawatomie, Kan., last December, where he
> invoked a Republican predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, who he said
> combined a fervent belief in the free market with a resolve to protect
> people from its worst predations.
>
> But the president reserved his harshest words for the 2013 budget
> proposal recently passed by the Republican-controlled House. The
> budget, drafted by Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of
> Wisconsin, calls for $5.3 trillion in spending cuts, as well as tax
> cuts for households earning more than $250,000.
>
> "Disguised as a deficit reduction plan, it's really an attempt to
> impose a radical vision on our country. It's nothing but thinly veiled
> social Darwinism," Mr. Obama said. "By gutting the very things we need
> to grow an economy that's built to last — education and training,
> research and development — it's a prescription for decline."
>
> More:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/us/politics/obama-attacks-house-gop...
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest

I'll tell you what, cupcake.  I've been to jail, and if I wasn't seached, I'd be scared shitless, and so would YOU,  Dunce
 

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 1:49:37 PM UTC-4, Tommy News wrote:
Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: April 2, 2012
Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin

comments (1892)
Sign In to E-Mail

Print

Single Page


Reprints

Share
CloseDiggRedditTumblrPermalink WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on
Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people
arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to
jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of
contraband.


Mel Evans/Associated Press
Albert W. Florence was strip-searched twice after being wrongly
detained over a fine.

Related
Sidebar: Justices' Cerebral Combativeness on Display (April 3, 2012)
Related in Opinion
The Loyal Opposition: The Right to Strip (April 2, 2012)
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (1892) »
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court's conservative wing,
wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of
correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of
smuggled weapons and drugs, but also public health and information
about gang affiliations.

"Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be
required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,"
Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are
admitted each year to the nation's jails.

The procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at
least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal
authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar
Association, international human rights treaties also ban the
procedures.

The federal appeals courts had been split on the question, though most
of them prohibited strip-searches unless they were based on a
reasonable suspicion that contraband was present. The Supreme Court
did not say that strip-searches of every new arrestee were required;
it ruled, rather, that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of
unreasonable searches did not forbid them.

Daron Hall, the president of the American Correctional Association and
sheriff of Davidson County, Tenn., said the association welcomed the
flexibility offered by the decision. The association's current
standards discourage blanket strip-search policies.

Monday's sharply divided decision came from a court whose ideological
differences are under intense scrutiny after last week's arguments on
President Obama's health care law. The ruling came less than two weeks
after a pair of major 5-to-4 decisions on the right to counsel in plea
negotiations, though there Justice Kennedy had joined the court's
liberal wing. The majority and dissenting opinions on Monday agreed
that the search procedures the decision allowed — close visual
inspection by a guard while naked — were more intrusive than being
observed while showering, but did not involve bodily contact.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, said the
strip-searches the majority allowed were "a serious affront to human
dignity and to individual privacy" and should be used only when there
was good reason to do so.

Justice Breyer said that the Fourth Amendment should be understood to
bar strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses not involving
drugs or violence, unless officials had a reasonable suspicion that
they were carrying contraband.

Monday's decision endorsed a recent trend, from appeals courts in
Atlanta, San Francisco and Philadelphia, allowing strip-searches of
everyone admitted to a jail's general population. At least seven other
appeals courts, on the other hand, had ruled that such searches were
proper only if there was a reasonable suspicion that the arrested
person had contraband.

According to opinions in the lower courts, people may be
strip-searched after arrests for violating a leash law, driving
without a license and failing to pay child support. Citing examples
from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that
people have been subjected to "the humiliation of a visual
strip-search" after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler,
failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible
bell.

A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing
during an antiwar demonstration.

Justice Kennedy responded that "people detained for minor offenses can
turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals." He noted
that Timothy McVeigh, later put to death for his role in the 1995
Oklahoma City bombing, was first arrested for driving without a
license plate. "One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks
was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking
Flight 93," Justice Kennedy added.

The case decided Monday, Florence v. County of Burlington, No. 10-945,
arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. Mr.
Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper
pulled his wife, April, over for speeding. A records search revealed
an outstanding warrant for Mr. Florence's arrest based on an unpaid
fine. (The information was wrong; the fine had been paid.)

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest

nothing right wing about it ... only an idiot cop would not search
someone they're placing under arrest .. it's sop.

I am, however, surprised that a jewish/catholic USSC decided the way
they did. It's way past time to make the USSC represent America's
demographics better.

On Apr 3, 1:10 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A boring and predictable right wing reaction.
>
> Next......
>
> On Apr 3, 1:08 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest
> > ---
> > anyone who has been arrested should be searched
>
> > next ...
>
> > On Apr 3, 12:49 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest
> > > By ADAM LIPTAK
> > > Published: April 2, 2012
> > > Recommend
> > > Twitter
> > > Linkedin
>
> > > comments (1892)
> > > Sign In to E-Mail
>
> > > Print
>
> > > Single Page
>
> > > Reprints
>
> > > Share
> > > CloseDiggRedditTumblrPermalink WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on
> > > Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people
> > > arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to
> > > jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of
> > > contraband.
>
> > > Mel Evans/Associated Press
> > > Albert W. Florence was strip-searched twice after being wrongly
> > > detained over a fine.
>
> > > Related
> > > Sidebar: Justices' Cerebral Combativeness on Display (April 3, 2012)
> > > Related in Opinion
> > > The Loyal Opposition: The Right to Strip (April 2, 2012)
> > > Connect With Us on Twitter
> > > Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
>
> > > Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
> > > Readers' Comments
> > > Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
> > > Read All Comments (1892) »
> > > Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court's conservative wing,
> > > wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of
> > > correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of
> > > smuggled weapons and drugs, but also public health and information
> > > about gang affiliations.
>
> > > "Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be
> > > required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,"
> > > Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are
> > > admitted each year to the nation's jails.
>
> > > The procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at
> > > least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal
> > > authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar
> > > Association, international human rights treaties also ban the
> > > procedures.
>
> > > The federal appeals courts had been split on the question, though most
> > > of them prohibited strip-searches unless they were based on a
> > > reasonable suspicion that contraband was present. The Supreme Court
> > > did not say that strip-searches of every new arrestee were required;
> > > it ruled, rather, that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of
> > > unreasonable searches did not forbid them.
>
> > > Daron Hall, the president of the American Correctional Association and
> > > sheriff of Davidson County, Tenn., said the association welcomed the
> > > flexibility offered by the decision. The association's current
> > > standards discourage blanket strip-search policies.
>
> > > Monday's sharply divided decision came from a court whose ideological
> > > differences are under intense scrutiny after last week's arguments on
> > > President Obama's health care law. The ruling came less than two weeks
> > > after a pair of major 5-to-4 decisions on the right to counsel in plea
> > > negotiations, though there Justice Kennedy had joined the court's
> > > liberal wing. The majority and dissenting opinions on Monday agreed
> > > that the search procedures the decision allowed — close visual
> > > inspection by a guard while naked — were more intrusive than being
> > > observed while showering, but did not involve bodily contact.
>
> > > Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, said the
> > > strip-searches the majority allowed were "a serious affront to human
> > > dignity and to individual privacy" and should be used only when there
> > > was good reason to do so.
>
> > > Justice Breyer said that the Fourth Amendment should be understood to
> > > bar strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses not involving
> > > drugs or violence, unless officials had a reasonable suspicion that
> > > they were carrying contraband.
>
> > > Monday's decision endorsed a recent trend, from appeals courts in
> > > Atlanta, San Francisco and Philadelphia, allowing strip-searches of
> > > everyone admitted to a jail's general population. At least seven other
> > > appeals courts, on the other hand, had ruled that such searches were
> > > proper only if there was a reasonable suspicion that the arrested
> > > person had contraband.
>
> > > According to opinions in the lower courts, people may be
> > > strip-searched after arrests for violating a leash law, driving
> > > without a license and failing to pay child support. Citing examples
> > > from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that
> > > people have been subjected to "the humiliation of a visual
> > > strip-search" after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler,
> > > failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible
> > > bell.
>
> > > A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing
> > > during an antiwar demonstration.
>
> > > Justice Kennedy responded that "people detained for minor offenses can
> > > turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals." He noted
> > > that Timothy McVeigh, later put to death for his role in the 1995
> > > Oklahoma City bombing, was first arrested for driving without a
> > > license plate. "One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks
> > > was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking
> > > Flight 93," Justice Kennedy added.
>
> > > The case decided Monday, Florence v. County of Burlington, No. 10-945,
> > > arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. Mr.
> > > Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper
> > > pulled his wife, April, over for speeding. A records search revealed
> > > an outstanding warrant for Mr. Florence's arrest based on an unpaid
> > > fine. (The information was wrong; the fine had been paid.)
>
> > > More:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-...
>
> > > --
> > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > Have a great day,
> > > Tommy
>
> > > --
> > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > Have a great day,
> > > Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** Fw: [Opinion Maker] FW: It's Not Joke Aitizaz, My Friend..!!

 
----- Original Message -----

Corruption At The Level of PM and Aitzaz
* Senate ki seat
* LPG ka quota
* Beti ko Geneva main nokeri 
* Bivi ko Women Cricket Board ka Head
* And last but not the least;
  Plea to Supreme Court to 
  respect & favor his Client 
  Because he is a "Gaddi 
  Nasheen  and Pir"!!

  ..From Judges advocate to 
  Devil's advocate.. WOW!!

  " kehti hy tujh ko Khalq e Khuda ghaibana kia.."!!__._,_.___
 
__,_._,___


**JP** Fw: Separatist Movement in Pakistan and Iran



--- On Sun, 1/4/12, Nayyer Bhai <nayyerbhai@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Nayyer Bhai <nayyerbhai@gmail.com>
Subject: Separatist Movement in Pakistan and Iran
To:
Date: Sunday, 1 April, 2012, 8:33 AM

From: Javeed Khan <javeed_aziz@hotmail.com>



The Soros and Rockefeller Networks Financially Support the Separatist Movement in Pakistan and Iran


Author : Hendrajit - Executive Director of Global Future Institute (GFI)


Several international funding connected with George Soros and Rockefeller dynasty  have been actively involved in provoking the separatist movement Baluchistan, southwest's Pakistan province, and the possible insurgency conducted by the other ethnic minority groups in Kurdish minority, Baluch and Arab. The George Soros funded groups and think-thank consist of Human Right Watch, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Ford Foundation.

 

The agent that seems to be instructed to run that clandestine operation is  Selig Harrison, from Center for International Policy, a think-thank financially funded by Soros' Open Society Institute. 

The first signal over an active involvement o the Soros networks in supporting a separatist group in Pakistan is an activity conducted by Human Right Watch portraying the latest spat of violence in Pakistan's southwest Baluchistan province as the result of Pakistani government brutality. The reports emanating from HRW have been compiled by USZ State Department mouthpiece Radio Free Europe Radio (RFERL) and published in Foreign Policy Magazine. In identical form to the propaganda campaigns being conducted by the nefarious, corporate-serving USZ State Department in nations across the planet, we see yet another concerted effort to play on the emotions of the liberal-progressives that line the majority of the West's NGO networks.

And at the same time, the State Deaprtmen mouthpiece Radio Free Europe has claimed that he Baluchistan minority is waging the latest in a long series of armed insurrections against Pakistan's Islamabad government, the latest of which is claimed to have started in 2004. The report also describes how the Baluchi minority can be found on the other side of Pakistan's border in Iran as well. In Iran, the Baluchi are claimed to also be subjected to "oppression."

The principle aim of such propaganda condemning the use of violence and repression in Baluchistan is to provoke the emotions of what they called liberal-progressives that line the majority of the West's NGO networks. 

In reality, several sources said through http://pakistancyberforce.blogspot.com that the unrest in Baluchistan on both the Pakistani and Iranian sides of the border, has been the subject of US' planning, organizing, funding, and outright calls to arm the Baluchi minority to literally take over the province and carve it out of Pakistan's sovereign territory – not for "democracy" or "human rights" but for the expressed purpose of derailing China's investments and logistical networks built in cooperation with the Islamabad government.

According the facts researched by Global Future Institute, In regards to Iran, a 2009 report titled, "Which Path to Persia?" from the Brookings Institution, a Fortune 500-funded (page 19 of PDF) USZ think tank, talked of arming Iran's Baluchi minority and having them wage war against the government in Tehran. The following passage also makes mention of the Kurdish minority currently running amok between Iran, Iraq, and now Syria's borders.

Broking Institution is a kind of think-thank under the auspice of the US State Departmen, is financially funded by among other things, Fortune 500. It strategic agenda is to support several separatist movements like ethnic minority in Pakistan and Iran. Quite understandable if those research institutes focused their attention of financially assisting the Kurdish minority in Irak, Iran and Syria. 

Thus, the United States of Zionism could opt to work primarily with various unhappy Iranian ethnic groups (Kurds, Baluch, Arabs, and so on) who have fought the regime at various periods since the revolution. A coalition of ethnic opposition movements, particularly if combined with dissident Persians, would pose a serious threat to regime stability. In addition, the unrest the groups themselves create could weaken the regime at home. At the least, the regime would have to divert resources to putting down the rebellions. At most, the unrest might discredit the regime overtime, weakening its position vis-à-vis its rivals." 

One of the principle agent behind the Soros Foundation is Selig Harrison, from Center for International Policy. Harrison's February 2011 piece, "Free Baluchistan," calls to "aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression." He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, "Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces. 

Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis." He begins by stating, "China's expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. " He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, "to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States of Zionism should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar."

The role played by Harrison deserves special attention. At the International Conference on Free Baluchistan, Harrison makes incessant calls for "international intervention" on behalf of the Baluchi opposition. Most of the Baluchi opposition leaders live in exile in the US, UK, and France. 

And at the other international conference on Baluchistan, Selig Harrison is also a regular attendee at these "Balochistan International Conferences" and frequently reiterates his calls for a "An independent Baluchistan." With him is Washington lobbyist Andrew Eiva, a former special forces operator who took part in supporting the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He proposes a vision of a bright future where Baluchis will enjoy their gas and oil wealth one day in their own autonomous, free nation.

Active participations shown by Harrison through international forums, is possible because of  financial support given by Ford Foundation, George Soros' Open Society Institute and Rockefeller's Family and Associates to Harrison's research study Center for International Policy. Or Eiva's flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function-funded by oil giants Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America and Shell International.  

Whose Center for International Policy is funded by the Ford Foundation, George Soros' Open Society Institute, and Rockefeller Family and Associates, or Eiva's flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function – funded by oil giants Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America, the GE Foundation, Shell International.  

 

My dear Baluchees!  Not only Baluchistan but whole Pakistan is yours.
Struggle to save it  from the enemies and convert it into a Real Islamic State.
God bless Pakistan.
Nayyer Shakeb Khan
Director Information,
Human Rights Network Pakistan.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

**JP** Indo-Pak Friendship (Urdu)

 

Re: *? 2 ALL: 5 DEAD IN OAKLAND RELIGIOUS SCHOOL SHOOTING - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?*

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes - SCOTUS
-------------------
 
These liberal froo-froos need to realize that black letter law has been DECIDED, and they lost.
 
Its OVER kids.  Next soapbox?
 

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 11:05:19 AM UTC-4, KeithInTampa wrote:
I'm curious Tom,  would you also eliminate guns from our government,. and eventually from all governments?  In other words,  each and every Nation,  State,  individual, entity, etc.,  would be eliminated from havng any type of firearms?  
 
Please answer;
 
Keith

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:07 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes - SCOTUS
 
Keep flogging the dead, as in VERY dead horse, Tom
 

On Monday, April 2, 2012 4:32:46 PM UTC-4, Tommy News wrote:
Gun violence is out of control, and only getting worse.
The way to stop it is to eliminate all guns, gradually, over time.
More guns only make the problem worse.
People with guns are much more likely to be shot. -T


From Greg

Video at http://tinyurl.com/6w7nzb9

Hi Team!

*? 2 ALL:

5 DEAD IN OAKLAND RELIGIOUS SCHOOL SHOOTING -

The L.A. Times reports:
"Oakland police said there were 'multiple fatalities' after a gunman
opened fire at an Oakland religious nursing college.

"Officials at a news conference said the gunman came into the college
and fired multiple shots just after 10 a.m. They did not say how many
people were hit. (Update: 5 reported dead)

"Officials said they don't know if the gunman is inside the campus or
fled the scene. SWAT officials were still evacuating students,
according to Officer Joanna Watson.

(above): Map locates Oikos
University in Oakland California

"Oakland police announced that the suspect is an Asian man with a
heavy build and wearing khaki clothing. Officials also urged the
public to avoid the area.

"Dramatic live television footage showed officer swarming around the
small Christian university, with some appearing to enter the main
building. Some civilians were seen being rushed from the building and
into police vehicles.

"The shootings occurred at Oikos University, which according to its
website is a Christian university that 'was established specifically
to serve the community of Northern California in general and San
Francisco and Oakland areas in particular.'"

5 dead in Oakland religious school shooting - what are your comments?

Greg Dempsey
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SECULARHUMANIST/
Voice of the People


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Get your Mitt Romney Campaign Materials and Gear Here

 

On Monday, April 2, 2012 10:24:24 AM UTC-4, Tommy News wrote:
Get your Mitt Romney Campaign Materials and Gear Here

Click Here:

http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist/4261706


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: *? 2 ALL: 5 DEAD IN OAKLAND RELIGIOUS SCHOOL SHOOTING - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?*

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes - SCOTUS
 
Keep flogging the dead, as in VERY dead horse, Tom
 

On Monday, April 2, 2012 4:32:46 PM UTC-4, Tommy News wrote:
Gun violence is out of control, and only getting worse.
The way to stop it is to eliminate all guns, gradually, over time.
More guns only make the problem worse.
People with guns are much more likely to be shot. -T


From Greg

Video at http://tinyurl.com/6w7nzb9

Hi Team!

*? 2 ALL:

5 DEAD IN OAKLAND RELIGIOUS SCHOOL SHOOTING -

The L.A. Times reports:
"Oakland police said there were 'multiple fatalities' after a gunman
opened fire at an Oakland religious nursing college.

"Officials at a news conference said the gunman came into the college
and fired multiple shots just after 10 a.m. They did not say how many
people were hit. (Update: 5 reported dead)

"Officials said they don't know if the gunman is inside the campus or
fled the scene. SWAT officials were still evacuating students,
according to Officer Joanna Watson.

(above): Map locates Oikos
University in Oakland California

"Oakland police announced that the suspect is an Asian man with a
heavy build and wearing khaki clothing. Officials also urged the
public to avoid the area.

"Dramatic live television footage showed officer swarming around the
small Christian university, with some appearing to enter the main
building. Some civilians were seen being rushed from the building and
into police vehicles.

"The shootings occurred at Oikos University, which according to its
website is a Christian university that 'was established specifically
to serve the community of Northern California in general and San
Francisco and Oakland areas in particular.'"

5 dead in Oakland religious school shooting - what are your comments?

Greg Dempsey
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SECULARHUMANIST/
Voice of the People


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: KEITH OLBERMANN SIGNS WITH FRED'S INTERNET NEWS!

After the liberals trumpeting Rush Limbaugh's downfall and loss of advertisers, his ratings are up double digits, and Carbonite is begging for forgiveness!
 
LOL!!!
 
Sooooooo-ie!
 

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:06:54 AM UTC-4, Travis wrote:

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Dupes for the State


Dupes for the State
by Walter E. Williams

Public misunderstanding, ignorance and possibly contempt for liberty play into the hands of people who want to control our lives. Responses to my recent column "Compliant Americans" brought this home to me. In it, I argued that the anti-tobacco movement became the template and inspiration for other forms of government intrusion, such as bans on restaurants serving foie gras, McDonald's giving Happy Meals with toys, and confiscating a child's home-prepared lunch because it didn't meet Department of Agriculture guidelines. A few responses read like this: "Smoking is different because that actually affects other people. We should be living by the notion that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt other people. Smoking hurts other people."

If we banned or restricted all activities that affect, harm or have the possibility of harming other people, it wouldn't be a very nice life. Let's look at what can affect or harm other people. Non-obese people are harmed by obesity, as they have to pay more for health care, through either higher taxes or higher insurance premiums. That harm could be reduced by a national version of a measure introduced in the Mississippi Legislature in 2008 by state Rep. W.T. Mayhall that in part read, "An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state Department of Health." The measure would have revoked licenses of food establishments that violated the provisions of the act. Fortunately, the measure never passed, but there's always a next time.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that in 2010, nearly 33,000 people were killed in auto crashes. That's a lot of harm that could be reduced by lowering the speed limit to 5 or 10 miles an hour. You say, "Williams, that's ridiculous!" What you really mean to say but don't have the courage to is that to save all of those lives by making the speed limit 5 or 10 miles per hour is not worth the inconvenience. Needless to say – or almost so – there are many activities we engage in that either cause harm to others or have the potential for doing so, but we don't ban all of these activities.

One of the least-understood functions of private property rights is that of determining who may harm whom in what ways. In a free society, it is presumed that the air in a person's house, restaurant, hotel, car or place of business is his property. That means that if you own a restaurant and don't want your air polluted by tobacco smoke, it is your right. Most would deem it tyranny if a bunch of smokers had the political power to get the city council to pass an ordinance forcing you to permit smoking. You'd probably deem it more respectful of liberty if those who wanted to smoke sought a restaurant owner who permitted smoking. The identical argument can be made about a restaurant owner who permits smoking in a city where nonsmokers have the political power. The issue is not whether smoking harms others. The issue is the rights associated with property ownership.

The emerging tragedy is our increased willingness to use the coercive powers of government, in the name of health or some other ruse, to forcibly impose our preferences upon others. In the whole scheme of things, the tobacco issue itself is trivial. Far more important is its template for massive government disrespect for private property.

John Adams said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."


http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams119.html

KEITH OLBERMANN SIGNS WITH FRED'S INTERNET NEWS!


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 4/3/12 (3)



 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 4/3/12 (2)

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 4/3/12 (1)




 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: A sobering Plea

they are protecting illegal alien/criminals

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/immigration/ig/Immigration-Cartoons/Border-Fence.0zJI.htm

On Apr 2, 8:15 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>
> **
> **
>
> __._,_.___
>
>  .
>
> __,_._,___
>
>  A942.jpg
> 95KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: DHS To Grant Illegal Aliens "Unlawful Presence Waivers"

the Obama Administration is
working behind the scenes to halt the deportation of certain illegal
immigrants by granting them "unlawful presence waivers."
----
it's way past time to remove this pos from office by any means
necessary

On Apr 2, 6:00 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the regime can decide if ou do or not not deserve a papal indulgence,
> perhaps based on how you vote
>
> **
>
> **
> **
>
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/04/dhs-to-grant-illegal-aliens...
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Washington, DCApril 02, 2012The Judicial Watch Blog****
> DHS To Grant Illegal Aliens "Unlawful Presence Waivers"****
>
> April 02, 2012 ****
>
> In its quest to implement stealth amnesty, the Obama Administration is
> working behind the scenes to halt the deportation of certain illegal
> immigrants by granting them "unlawful presence waivers." ****
>
> The new measure would apply to illegal aliens who are relatives of American
> citizens. Here is how it would work, according to a Department of Homeland
> Security (DHS) announcement<https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/04/02/2012-7698/provisi...>posted
> in today's Federal Register, the daily journal of the U.S.
> government; the agency will grant "unlawful presence waivers" to illegal
> aliens who can prove they have a relative that's a U.S. citizen. ****
>
> Currently such aliens must return to their native country and request a
> waiver of inadmissibility in an existing overseas immigrant visa process.
> In other words, they must enter the U.S. legally as thousands of foreigners
> do on a yearly basis. Besides the obvious security issues, changing this
> would be like rewarding bad behavior in a child. It doesn't make sense. ****
>
> But the system often causes U.S. citizens to be separated for extended
> periods from their immediate relatives," according to the DHS. The proposed
> changes, first announced in January, will significantly reduce the length
> of time U.S. citizens are separated from their loved ones while required to
> remain outside the United States during the current visa processing system.
> ****
>
> The administration also claims that relaxing the rule will also "create
> efficiencies for both the U.S. government and most applicants." How exactly
> is not listed in the Federal Register announcement, which gives the public
> 60 days to comment. That's only a formality since the DHS has indicated
> that the change is pretty much a done deal. ****
>
> This appears to be part of the Obama Administration's bigger plan to blow
> off Congress by using its executive powers to grant illegal immigrants
> backdoor amnesty. The plan has been in the works for years and in 2010
> Texas's largest newspaper published an exposé
> <http://www.chron.com/news/article/Feds-moving-to-dismiss-some-deporta...>about
> a then-secret DHS initiative that systematically cancelled pending
> deportations. The remarkable program stunned the legal profession and
> baffled immigration attorneys who said the government bounced their
> clients' deportation even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed.****
>
> In late 2011 a mainstream newspaper obtained internal Homeland Security
> documents outlining "sweeping changes" in immigration enforcement that halt
> the deportation of illegal aliens with no criminal records. This also
> includes a nationwide "training program" to assure that enforcement agents
> and prosecuting attorneys don't remove illegal immigrants who haven't been
> convicted of crimes. ****
>
> Judicial Watch has been a front runner in investigating the Obama
> Administration's stealth amnesty program by pursuing DHS records concerning
> "deferred action" or "parole" to suspend removal proceedings against a
> particular group of individuals. Last spring JW
> sued<http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/jw-files-two-l...stealth-amnesty"-plan/>DHS
> to obtain information because the agency ignored a federal public
> records request that dates back to July 2010.****
>
> ****
>
>  __._,_.___
>   Reply to sender <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'jmac1...@bellsouth.net?subject\x3dRe%3A%20DHS%20To%20Grant%20Illegal%20Aliens%20%22Unlawful%20Presence%20Waivers%22');>|
> Reply
> to group <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'Hope4Amer...@yahoogroups.com?subject\x3dRe%3A%20DHS%20To%20Grant%20Illegal%20Aliens%20%22Unlawful%20Presence%20Waivers%22');>|
> Reply
> via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hope4America/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJzODlhMXB2...>|
> Start
> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hope4America/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNHY2czcz...>
> Messages in this
> topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hope4America/message/376037;_ylc=X3oDMT...>(
> 1)
>  Recent Activity:
>
>  Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hope4America;_ylc=X3oDMTJmajQ0ZWk4BF9TA...>
>  IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM!
> Please visit:www.operationshoebox.com
>  [image: Yahoo!
> Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldWd0M3M4BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycEl...>
> Switch to: Text-Only <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'Hope4America-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject\x3dChange+Delivery+Format:+Traditional');>,
> Daily Digest <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'Hope4America-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject\x3dEmail+Delivery:+Digest');>•
> Unsubscribe <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'Hope4America-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject\x3dUnsubscribe');> • Terms
> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>    .
>
> __,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.