Archive for the ‘race card’ Tag

Racist NAACP Bigotry Caught on Tape   Leave a comment

Well shut my mouth wide open!  And this is a government official appointed by Obama no less spouting this racist drivel in the NAACP’s own convention.  And this is allowed to take place?  Where’s the outcry now?  Oh wait, the racist NAACP audience was LAUGHING at her comments!  Oh that’s right, because she wasn’t talking about ‘THEIR’ kind’!

Wow–I really always thought racism was dead.  All I’ve been seeing and hearing about is racism against white people still being alive. 

It’s just sad.  Just very, very sad . . .

Advertisements

Latino KKK: Brown Beret Says “This is America–Go back to Europe”   Leave a comment

Hi All!

My goodness, so much has been happening since I last updated my blog that I’m not sure where to start, but I’m going to go ahead and start with this video that I meant to post a few days ago but I was speechless to make comment on it.

Well, I guess the video speaks for itself.  This most likely will not make it into mainstream liberal media, much the way the new black panther video went. 

This is jus the most lunatic, insane thing I have ever seen or heard in my entire life.  These people are REALLY out of touch with reality!

First of Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law S.B. 1070 Hearings Held Today   Leave a comment

Well, it has begun.  The courts are finally going to be hearing the cases against Arizona’s anti-Illegal Immigration laws which mirror the Federal Law on the books. 

Firstly, please note that these trials are happening in Phoenix—a reputed ‘Sanctuary City’—with a judge that sides with Illegal Immigrants.

This does not bode well.  I am trying not to be negative about this and I’m praying for a miracle, but seriously folks . . . the odds are totally against them, even THOUGH THEY ARE IN THE RIGHT!  My prayers are with Arizona though this and it looks like these first frivolous law suits might get thrown out, but still . . .

And the fact that this officer refuses to comply with FEDERAL LAW should also be put under examination.  If he refused to pay his Federal Taxes—which paying them IS A FEDERAL LAW—do you honestly think he would get away with it and be able to use the fact that he refuses to pay his taxes as a reason to sue in court?  THAT is ridiculous!  I can see the point of these illegal immigrant groups that are suing, no matter HOW misguided, but not this guy!  He’s the most misguided of them all!

Sorry, I like to use the term ‘misguided’ in reference to those who are ‘misguided’ and ‘misinformed’ about the law.  LOL!!!  It just seems fitting.

Anyway, you had better believe that next week, when the Department of Justice makes their case, I will be paying attention!  My ears will be perked and my hackles raised to find out what is going to go down and will be until a verdict has been issued.

WE NEED YOUR PRAYERS PEOPLE!  SUPPORT ARIZONA!  FRIEND GOV. JAN BREWER ON HER FACEBOOK PAGE!  IF YOUR STATE ISNT’ ONE OF THE 9 WHO IS SIDING WITH ARIZONA, BUG YOUR CONGRESS-PERSON!  THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN!

>steps off soapbox<

K, here’s the article:

Attorney: Immigration law puts cop’s job at stake

By JACQUES BILLEAUD, Associated Press Writer Jacques Billeaud, Associated Press Writer – 3 mins ago

PHOENIX – A Phoenix police officer’s attorney says the officer could be fired if he doesn’t enforce the state’s new immigration law, which he has sued to block.

Officer David Salgado and the statewide nonprofit group Chicanos Por La Causa filed one of seven lawsuits to try to overturn the law.

Attorneys for the Arizona governor told U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton Thursday that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Salgado and the group lack legal standing to sue and that there’s no valid claim of immediate harm.

Bolton didn’t rule immediately after hearing approximately 40 minutes of arguments on Gov. Jan Brewer’s dismissal motion.

Instead she began hearing arguments on the challengers’ request for an order blocking implementation of the law beginning July 29.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

PHOENIX (AP) — A federal judge heard arguments on Thursday morning over whether Arizona’s new immigration law should take effect at the end of the month, marking the first major hearing in one of seven challenges to the strict law.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also is considering Gov. Jan Brewer’s request to dismiss the challenge filed by Phoenix police Officer David Salgado and the statewide nonprofit group Chicanos Por La Causa.

Bolton began by quickly dismissing Brewer as an individual defendant to the lawsuit, a motion unopposed by Salgado’s lawyer. She then began considering whether to dismiss the case.

Bolton said last week that she may not rule on the officer’s request to block the law before it takes effect July 29.

Hearings on the six other lawsuits, including one filed by the federal government, are set for next week.

The large ceremonial courtroom at the main federal courthouse in Phoenix was packed with more than 100 spectators as the hearing began. More than a dozen lawyers were in place along two L-shaped tables, evenly divided between each side. The jury box was filled with law clerks for judges who work in the building who came to observe.

Protesters and supporters of the law gathered outside the courthouse amid heavy security.

About two dozen supporters of the law, many dressed in red, white and blue, held up signs praising Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a major backer of the crackdown on illegal immigrants, and one said “American Pride.”

About 50 feet away a group opposed to the law held up signs calling for repeal of the law.

The groups competed with each other using bullhorns.

“We demand an injunction. We demand a federal intervention,” opponent Sandra Castro of Phoenix, 22, yelled into a bullhorn.

The law requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

Supporters say the law was needed because the federal government hasn’t adequately confronted illegal immigration in Arizona, the busiest illegal gateway for immigrants into the United States. Opponents say the law would lead to racial profiling and distract from police officers’ traditional roles in combating crimes in their communities.

Since Brewer signed the measure into law April 23, it has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.

It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries and prompted the Obama administration to file a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the law.

Salgado’s attorneys argue the judge should block the law before it takes effect because it would require an officer to use race as a primary factor in enforcing the law and because the state law is trumped by federal immigration law.

Attorneys for Brewer asked that the officer’s lawsuit be thrown out because Salgado doesn’t allege a real threat of harm from enforcing the new law and instead bases his claim on speculation. They also said the state law prohibits racial profiling and that it isn’t trumped by federal immigration law because it doesn’t attempt to regulate the conditions under which people can enter and leave the country.

The other challenges to the law were filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, civil rights organizations, clergy groups, a researcher from Washington and a Tucson police officer.

Bolton plans to hold similar hearings July 22 in the lawsuits filed by the federal government and civil rights groups.

__

Associated Press Writers Paul Davenport and Michelle Price contributed to this report.

Republican Senator Says He Backs Birther Lawsuits   Leave a comment

I’m going to have to research on whether or not he really does have a Hawaii birth certificate.  It just seems a bit fishy to me—like of all the states he had to be ‘born in’, it had to be that one.  Right.  Also, the fact that mainstream media didn’t do a very good job of verifying this at all and basically swept it under the rug is also cause for consideration.  Supposedly the birth certificate has been located, but it wasn’t announced on the news or anything for everyone to see.  Apparently THAT information is only for the select few who think birthers are crazy.  Note there are not even any links on the article to any mainstream media exposition of said birth certificate.

Usually when the mainstream liberal media does that, it means that they are hiding something ‘someone’ doesn’t want the public to see.

Okay, I KNOW that sounds conspiracy theory-like, but anyone who spends any time looking at the news can honestly deny that everything every station says sounds the same…exactly the same in some cases—especially in the liberal viewpoints they espouse. It just seems kind of, well, ‘fishy’ (I like that word, I’m going to use it a lot today)!

Vitter actually doesn’t mention the birth certificate matter as a main part of his comments.  It seems like he mentioned it in passing and the media grasped that and viciously dragged it out of context to get some attention.  Even as I write this commentary, I want to touch on the birth certificate issue and what I think of how he feels about it, even though that’s not the point.  However, he does acknowledge the fact that there is still question about it.  Do I think that this is a ploy to get votes?  Of course!  Just because someone is siding with conservatives doesn’t mean that they are not doing so just to get their vote.

But note how he tries to change the subject in the article.  I think he just agreed that it’s an issue, the media and his fellows focused on it to try to make him to be a nut (he IS a Republican in this hostile liberal environment) which I think is wrong but par for the course in mainstream media.

Anyway, here’s the article.

Republican senator says he backs birther lawsuits

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer Ben Evans, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jul 13, 1:58 am ET

WASHINGTON – Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana says he supports conservative organizations challenging President Barack Obama’s citizenship in court.

Vitter, who is running for re-election, made the comments at a town hall-style event in Metairie, La., on Sunday when a constituent asked what he would do about what the questioner said was Obama’s “refusal to produce a valid birth certificate.”

Such claims about Obama’s birth certificate have been discredited. But with the crowd applauding the question, Vitter responded that although he doesn’t personally have legal standing to bring litigation, he supports “conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court,” according to a video of the event.

“I think that is the valid and most possibly effective grounds to do it,” Vitter said, although he later cautioned that the matter could distract from policy issues.

“I think if we focus on that issue and let our eye off the ball … I think that’s a big mistake,” he said. “I’m not dismissing any of this. I think first and foremost, we need to fight the Obama agenda at the ballot box starting this fall.”

So-called birthers have challenged Obama’s standing as president by arguing that he was not born in the United States.

Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed the president’s citizenship, and his Hawaiian birth certificate has been made public, along with newspaper birth notices published when he was born in 1961.

Last year, a federal judge in Washington threw out a lawsuit on the issue, calling the case a waste of the court’s time and suggesting the plaintiff’s attorney may have to compensate the president’s lawyer.

Vitter said at Sunday’s event that the only direct information he has about the issue is what he’s learned through the news media “filter.” His spokesman did not respond to a question Monday about whether the senator questions Obama’s citizenship.

A spokesman for Rep. Charlie Melancon, a Democrat challenging Vitter, called the birth certificate issue “nonsense.”

“While Louisiana families are suffering from the biggest man-made disaster in history, David Vitter is trying to score political points by perpetuating a completely debunked conspiracy theory,” spokesman Jeff Giertz said.

Obama: Al Qaeda Is Racist–NOT because of 9/11, but Because of Uganda   Leave a comment

HOW is this even POSSIBLE!?  HOW?  Tell me please!  How can our president, the president of OUR country, say NOTHING about al-Qaeda for his entire presidency, and then when they admit to the World Cup bombing in Uganda he comes alive and condemns them as ‘racist’. 

NOT FOR KILLING 4,000 AMERICANS ON AMERICAN SOIL USING HIJACKED AMERICAN AIRLINERS . . .NOT BECAUSE THEY THREATEN OUR COUNTRY–BIOLOGICAL, NUCLEAR, THREATENING ALL THE TIME THAT THEY ARE GOING TO KILL AMERICANS AND BEHEADING OUR SOLDIERS ON TAPE AND SHOWING IT ON THEIR TV . . . but because they blew up Africans in Uganda and seek out Africans to to use as suicide bombers.

*Double Facepalm*

Okay–no, I don’t think what al-Qaeda did was right, nor am I lessening the fact that it happened.  Not one bit.  But COME ON!  What side is Obama on?  Ours?  I don’t see it!  He didn’t mention us once?  Not once?  Not one of those 4000 civilians on 9/11 or not one of those American soldiers?  Not ONCE?

And from what I’ve heard from mainstream media about that group, I really don’t think they are focused on Africans.  They pretty much sound like they are focused on US and destroying US . . . and that’s not considered racism? 

So Tea Partiers are racist because they don’t like the socialist agenda, but al-Qaeda isn’t, even after 9-11?  It took a bombing in Africa to get a reaction.   

*Triple Facepalm*

And he wonders why his popularity rating has dropped so much?

The news just amazes me every day…

President Obama, White House: Al Qaeda Is Racist

In an interview earlier today with the South African Broadcasting Corporation to air in a few hours, President Obama disparaged al Qaeda and affiliated groups’ willingness to kill Africans in a manner that White House aides say was an argument that the terrorist groups are racist.

Speaking about the Uganda bombings, the president said, “What you’ve seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself.  They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains.”

Earlier today a senior administration official said the Obama administration believes that Al Shabaab carried out the attack.

Explaining the president’s comment, an administration official said Mr. Obama “references the fact that both U.S. intelligence and past al Qaeda actions make clear that al Qaeda — and the groups like al Shabaab that they inspire — do not value African life. The actions of al Qaeda and the groups that it has inspired show a willingness to sacrifice innocent African life to reach their targets.”

This can be seen, the official said, in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, when hundreds of Africans were killed and thousands wounded.

“Additionally, U.S. intelligence has indicated that al Qaeda leadership specifically targets and recruits black Africans to become suicide bombers because they believe that poor economic and social conditions make them more susceptible to recruitment than Arabs,” the official said. “Al Qaeda recruits have said that al Qaeda is racist against black members from West Africa because they are only used in lower level operations.”

“In short,” the official said, “al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life.”
The president also said in the interview that “it was so tragic and ironic to see an explosion like this take place when people in Africa were celebrating and watching the World Cup take place in South Africa.  On the one hand, you have a vision of an Africa on the move, an Africa that is unified, an Africa that is modernizing and creating opportunities; and on the other hand, you’ve got a vision of al Qaeda and Al Shabaab that is about destruction and death. 

“And I think it presents a pretty clear contrast in terms of the future that most Africans want for themselves and their children,” Mr. Obama said. “And we need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to support those who want to build, as opposed to want to destroy.”

Arizona poll finds big surge for Brewer   1 comment

Good news!  Gov. Jan Brewer’s popularity is surging due to her bill!  Awesome!  She has my vote, even though I’m not living in Arizona lol!  We could use more gutsy politicians to stand up for what’s right in this country and FOR this country for that matter! 

My hat is off and my prayers are with her and her state!  To stand up to the President of the United States with such an important and controversial issue in the political world and NOT back down when said president viciously turns on her for doing the right thing?  That is amazing! 

Anyway, my two cents! 

GO ARIZONA!  YOU HAVE MY FULL SUPPORT!

Arizona poll finds big surge for Brewer

A new poll says Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s popularity surged in recent months, with the Behavior Research Center saying she surfed “a political wave” from signing Arizona’s immigration enforcement law.

The Phoenix-based center’s survey was conducted June 30 through July 11. It found Brewer with support from 57 percent of surveyed Republicans and independents planning to vote in the Republican primary on Aug. 24. That’s up from 22 percent in April, when roughly half of the republican voters undecided. 

The combined sample of 236 registered Republicans and independents had a margin of error of 6.5 percent.

The new poll found Buz Mills with support from 12 percent and State Treasurer Dean Martin with 9 percent. Both have suspended their campaigns.

Justice: ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Safe from Law–Arizona ‘actually interferes’   Leave a comment

Wow–what an amazing statement!

Ug there is too much here to comment on so I am taking it line by line, but the article speaks for itself.  How lame that our congress refuses to stand up for its own law and chooses to back down from those who openly defy it–backing down from both illegal immigrants and the sanctuary cities that offer them safe shelter.  THIS is why we are having so many issues!  If you give them incentives to come and stay here then they will never leave.  If they are forced to stay in their own country then they will actually have to deal with their own political problems and stand up for themselves instead of sneaking across the border and leaching off of us.  Maybe they’ll have a revolt and put a new party in government, a non-corrupt one, or maybe not.  Either way, that’s something we could deal with down the road, AFTER we seal the borders and send them all back.

Anyway, just my two cents. 

Here’s the article:

Justice: Sanctuary cities safe from law

Arizona’s policy ‘actually interferes’

A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state’s immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that “actively interferes.”

”There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”

THIS doesn’t make sense!!!!!!!!  I mean it LITERALLY doesn’t make sense!!!!!!  Laws are SUPPOSED to be UPHELD!  Right?  Am I right?  Or am I just reading too much into it…?

But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration laws thinks the administration is misreading the statute and that sanctuary cities are in violation of federal law. Drawing a distinction between those localities and Arizona, he said, is “flimsy justification” for suing the state.

“For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law  who fail to comply with the law  is absurd,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. “Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not.”

Officials in Arizona say they’ve been unfairly singled out by President Obama and Mr. Holder, who last week sued to overturn Arizona’s new law, arguing that it could lead to a patchwork of state immigration rules.

Obama is also making a laughing stock of our country by doing this!  What are other countries THINKING about us?  If America was a family (which it is, I suppose) and the president was the father (which he is, I suppose) then HOW does it look when the father sues a family member?  It’s sick!  It’s foolish!  It’s not right!  Obama needs to support Arizona because OBVIOUSLY there is something very wrong!

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and other critics said that sanctuary cities  — localities that refuse to check on someone’s legal status or won’t alert immigration authorities when they encounter illegal immigrants  — are just as guilty of creating a patchwork of laws, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

Mr. Smith said the administration doesn’t appear to understand his law, which requires localities to share information on illegal immigrants with federal authorities.

“The White House is just plain wrong on the premise since the Arizona law mirrors federal law – it does not ‘interfere’ with it,” he said.

The Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29 unless a court blocks it, requires authorities to inquire about the legal status of any detained person about whom they have reasonable suspicion might be in the country illegally. The law as amended specifically prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion.

Messages left with Mrs. Brewer‘s office Wednesday were not returned. But in a statement last week, she said Arizona was being targeted.

“President Obama‘s administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials,” she said.

Mr. Obama took an active role in targeting Arizona, including ordering the Justice Department to get involved. But on sanctuary cities, the White House has deflected questions, first telling a reporter it would get an answer about the president’s thinking but eventually shifting questions over to the Justice Department.

In his original directions to Justice to review the Arizona law, Mr. Obama asked for lawyers to look into potential conflicts with federal immigration law and potential civil rights violations, such as racial profiling.

When it was filed July 6, though, the Justice Department lawsuit attacked the law only as an infringement on federal prerogatives. It did not make any accusations that the law violates civil rights, though Mr. Holder threatened a second lawsuit on that issue during on Sunday’s political talk shows.

The REASON WHY they couldn’t sue for racial profiling IS BECAUSE THE LAW SPECIFICALLY IS AGAINST RACIAL PROILING!!!!!!  D’UH!

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez defended the Arizona lawsuit on Monday, telling the American Constitution Society that the federal government can’t tolerate different policies.

“You cannot have a system of 50 quarterbacks in the immigration system because immigration includes issues of law enforcement, it involves decisions with implications in foreign policy, it involves incidents with humanitarian implications, and you can’t have 50 states making immigration law and have a coherent system,” Mr. Perez said, according to MainJustice.com, which covers the Justice Department.

But defenders say Arizona’s law would be a problem only if it conflicted with Congress’ immigration policy.

Which it doesn’t.  It supports the current anti-Illegal Immigration law already on federal books.

On Wednesday, Michigan Attorney General Michael A. Cox filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the federal lawsuit arguing that Arizona’s law is consistent with what Congress intended. He was joined by attorneys general from eight states and one territory.

The Arizona law has become a flash point for the broader immigration debate, with polls showing a majority of voters supporting the crackdown.

Arizona officials have said the federal government has failed in its responsibility to police the borders, and the state is experiencing a crime wave spurred by illegal immigration. They have said the new law is meant to fill in the gaps in enforcement.

On Wednesday, two Republican senators – Jim DeMint of South Carolina and David Vitter of Louisiana – announced that they will introduce an amendment to a bill that would halt the Justice Department lawsuit by denying it federal funding.

Sanctuary cities are difficult to categorize, and there is no hard-and-fast rule for the label.

A 2007 report from the Justice Department‘s inspector general found 15 cities that don’t regularly inform federal authorities when they arrest an illegal immigrant, and 10 cities that wouldn’t regularly tell authorities when a known illegal immigrant was being released from custody, either of which could be viewed as shielding illegal immigrants from detection.

The IG report said two jurisdictions – Oregon, and the city and county of San Francisco – acknowledge themselves as sanctuaries. It also said that many cities that are categorized as sanctuaries include language in their policies requiring local authorities to cooperate to the extent required by federal law.

A 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service listed 32 jurisdictions it said might be considered sanctuary cities.