Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Open Thread

By Greg L | 25 June 2012 | Uncategorized | 67 Comments

While I’m on the road with the Healthcare Freedom Bus Tour I hear that the Supreme Court issued a mixed ruling on Arizona’s SB 1070.  What have I missed?



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

67 Comments

  1. Robert L. Duecaster said on 25 Jun 2012 at 12:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    The PWC “Rule of Law” Resolution language in AZ’s SB 1070 was upheld. It’s time to go state-wide with it.

  2. Citizen12 said on 25 Jun 2012 at 1:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    “The part ruled constitutional is among the most controversial of the law’s provisions. It requires an officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there’s reasonable suspicion that person is in the country illegally.”

    “The three parts ruled unconstitutional make it a state crime for an immigrant not to be carrying papers, allow for warrant-less arrest in some situations and forbid an illegal immigrant from working in Arizona.”

    Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/06/03/20120603arizona-immigration-law-supreme-court-opinion.html#ixzz1ypZTMGcw

    So if I understand the ruling correctly, the state is limited to only identifying suspected illegals and the rest falls under federal jurisdiction?

    If that is the case, what can the state to do to get rid of any illegals identified as such if ICE is being prevented in taking action “unless the person arrested meet priorities for deportation.” It would seem not much of anything.

  3. Robert L. Duecaster said on 25 Jun 2012 at 2:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    That’s correct, C-12. The state cannot deport or issue any type of sanction for being in the country illegally. It can only identify and report. If our federal government does not choose to invest resources necessary to insure the sanctity of its borders and the compliance with its laws, there is nothing more a state can do about it.

  4. Robert L. Duecaster said on 25 Jun 2012 at 3:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Clarification, C-12 - There are other measures that a state can take that would have a deterrent effect on illegal immigration but would not be sanctions against the illegal aliens themselves. For example, a state could require use of the E-verify system for employers and require appropriate ID for distribution of social services and state benefits to insure only legal residents are recipients. Of course, both of these measures are vehemently opposed by those who profit from the presence of illegal aliens, i.e., employers and providers of social services.

  5. Wineplz said on 25 Jun 2012 at 3:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    I haven’t been able to read much about it yet, but saw this Breaking News alert in my Inbox:
    Feds Suspend Immigration Enforcement Program After Court Ruling
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/

    Makes me wonder how that will affect all other states and jurisdictions that have 287g in place. This administration is COMPLETELY out of control!

    “The high court decision Monday struck down three provisions in Arizona’s law, including one that allowed local police to arrest anybody they suspect committed a deportable offense. The ruling left in place, though, a central plank that required local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally — a provision Democrats claim could lead to “racial profiling,” though Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer denies it.

    The Obama administration quickly moved to deflate the remaining provision.

    By Monday afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security had pulled back on a program known as 287(g), which allows the feds to deputize local officials to make immigration-based arrests. According to a DHS official, the administration has determined those agreements are “not useful” now in states that have Arizona-style laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has since rescinded that agreement with Arizona — with the state itself, and three local law enforcement agencies.

    The move means that even if local police step up immigration checks, they’ll have to rely on federal officials to make the arrests.

    And federal officials made clear that ICE would be selective in responding to the expected rise in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria — such as being wanted for a felony.”

  6. Robert L. Duecaster said on 25 Jun 2012 at 3:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    The hallmark of this Administration is its disregard for the Constitution and laws passed by previous administrations. “Out of control” does not describe it. Tyrannical does.

  7. Citizen12 said on 25 Jun 2012 at 4:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Robert L.

    Thanks for the clarification. The destruction from within to the American way of life marches on.

    In PWC we could not get a requirement to supply proper identification for a business licence renewal to stick, there is not much of a chance of E-verify taking place.

    It should also be mentioned that the recent announcement of “non-amnesty” for children under 30 is already being used and abused to provide blanket protection. Adult Criminals are now being released back into our communities because… they were brought here as children.

  8. citizenofmanassas said on 25 Jun 2012 at 5:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    None of that matters. The illegal aliens and their traitor American friends have won. We are now officially a 3rd World Nation. Get use to wide spread lawlessness. I expect that we’ll be like mexico in about ten years, large areas of the Country will be off limits to anyone but gangs and drug gangs. With the added costs of millions of illegals every dire budget prediction will be accelerated by years, which will lead to a huge drop in th quality of iife for everyone. We had a goood run, when we allowed real Americans to run the show.

  9. Chester said on 25 Jun 2012 at 6:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Attorney General Eric Holder issued the following statement today:

    “I welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down major provisions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 on federal preemption grounds. Today’s ruling appropriately bars the State of Arizona from effectively criminalizing unlawful status in the state and confirms the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate in the area of immigration.

    “While I am pleased the Court confirmed the serious constitutional questions the government raised regarding Section 2, I remain concerned about the impact of Section 2, which requires law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped or detained when they have reason to suspect that the person is here unlawfully. As the Court itself recognized, Section 2 is not a license to engage in racial profiling and I want to assure communities around this country that the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination. We will closely monitor the impact of S.B. 1070 to ensure compliance with federal immigration law and with applicable civil rights laws, including ensuring that law enforcement agencies and others do not implement the law in a manner that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against the Latino or any other community.

    “We will also work to ensure that the verification provision does not divert police officers away from traditional law enforcement efforts in order to enforce federal immigration law, potentially impairing local policing efforts and discouraging crime victims, including children of non-citizens, victims of domestic violence, and asylum seekers, from reporting abuses and crimes out of fear of detention or deportation. We will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans.”

  10. Chester said on 25 Jun 2012 at 7:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    June 25, 2012 Justice Antonin Scalia
    Bench Statement

    No.11-182 - Arizona v. United States

    For almost a century after the Constitution was ratified, there were no
    federal immigration laws except one ofthe infbmous Alien and Sedition Acts that
    was discredited and allowed to expire. In that first century all regulation of
    immigration was by the States, which excluded various categories ofwould-be
    immigrants, including convicted criminals and indigents. Indeed, many questioned
    whether the federal government had any power to control immigration—that was
    Jefferson’s and Madison’s objection to the Alien Act.

    The States’ power to control immigration, however, has always been
    accepted, and is indeed reflected in some provisions ofthe Constitution. The
    provision that “[tJhe Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
    Immunities of Citizens in the several States” was a revision of the provision in the
    Articles of Confederation which gave those privileges and immunities to
    “inhabitants” of each State. ft was revised because giving that protection to mere
    “inhabitants” would allow the immigration policies of one State to be imposed on
    the others. Even that revision was not thought to be enough, because the States
    were not willing to have their immigration policies determined by the citizenshi
    requirements of other States. Hence the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution,
    which enables the federal government to control who can be a citizen.

    Of course the federal power to control immigration was ultimately accepted,
    and rightly so. But where does that power come from? Jefferson and Madison
    were correct that it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution’s enumeration of
    federal powers. The federal power over immigration cannot plausibly derive from
    the Naturalization Clause. Not only does the power to confer citizenship have
    nothing to do with the power to exclude immigrants, but, as I have described, the
    Naturalization Clause was a vindication of state rather than federal power over
    immigration.

    Federal power over immigration comes from the same source as state power
    over immigration: it is an inherent attribute—perhaps the fundamental attribute—
    of sovereignty. The States, of course, are sovereign, the United States being a
    Union of sovereign States. To be sovereign is necessarily to possess the power to
    exclude unwanted persons and things from the territory. That is why the
    Constitution’s prohibition of a State’s imposing duties on imports made an
    exception for “what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection
    Laws.” Thus, this Court’s cases have held that the States retain an inherent power
    to exclude. That power can be limited only by the Constitution or by laws enacted
    pursuant to the Constituti on, The Constitution, as we have seen, does not limit the

    States’ power over immigration but to the contrary vindicates it. So the question in
    this case is whether the laws ofthe United States forbid what Arizona has done.
    Our cases have held, with regard to claimed federal abridgment by law of
    another inherent sovereign power ofthe States—their sovereign immunity from
    suit—that the abridgement must be “unequivocally expressed.” The same
    requirement must apply here; and there is no unequivocal congressional
    prohibition ofwhat Arizona has done. It is not enough to say that the federal
    immigration laws implicitly “occupy the field.” No federal law says that the States
    cannot have their own immigration law.

    Of course the Supremacy Clause establishes that federal immigration law is
    supreme, so that the States’ immigration laws cannot conflict with it—cannot
    admit those whom federal law would exclude or exclude those whom federal law
    would admit But that has not occurred here. Arizona has attached consequences
    under state law to acts that are unlawful under federal law—illegal aliens’ presence
    in Arizona and their failure to maintainfederal alien registration. It is not at all
    unusual for state law to impose additional penalties or attach additional
    consequences to acts that are unlawful under federal law—state drug laws are a
    good example. That does not conifict with federal law.

    In sum, Arizona is entitled to impose additional penalties and consequences
    for violations ofthe federal immigration laws, because it is enaiiledto have its own
    immigration laws, As my opinion describes in more detail, however, most of the
    provisions challenged here do not even impose additional penalties or
    consequences for violation of federal immigration laws; they merely apply stricter
    enforcement. The federal government would have us believe (and the Court today
    agrees) that even that is forbidden. The government’s brief asserted that “the
    Executive Branch’s ability to exercise discretion and set priorities is particularly
    important because of the need to allocate scarce enforcement resources wisely”

    But there is no reason why the federal Executive’s need to allocate its scarce
    enforcement resources should disable Arizona from devoting its resources to
    illegal immigration in Arizona that in its view the Federal Executive has given
    short shrift, Arizona asserts without contradiction and with supporting citations
    the following: “[I]n the last decade federal enforcement efforts have focused
    primarily on areas in California and Texas, leaving Arizona’s border to suffer from
    comparative neglect. The result has been the funneling of an increasing tide of
    illegal border crossings into Arizona, Indeed, over the past decade, over a third of
    the Nation’s illegal border crossings occurred in Arizona,” Must Arizona’s ability
    to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate
    funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise
    targeting of that funding?

    But leave that aside. It has become clear that federal enforcement
    priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate socalled scarce
    enforcement resources—is not the problem here. After this case was argued and
    while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a
    program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1 .4 million illegal
    immigrants. The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the
    justification for this, since those resources will be eaten up by the considerable
    administrative cost of conducting the nonenforcement program, which will require
    as many as 1.4 million background checks and biennial rulings on requests for
    dispensation. The President has said that the new program is “the right thing to
    do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of
    the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say,
    as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of
    federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind,

    The Court’s opinion paints what it considers a looming specter of inutterable
    horror: “If §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself
    independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,” That seems to
    me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with
    us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A federal
    government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and
    leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws
    exclude.

    So the issue is a stark one: Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the
    federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws? A good way
    of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered
    into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Imagine a
    provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, ci. 4, the Naturalization Clause—
    which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish
    Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only
    to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand
    Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall,

    As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object
    of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit.
    Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens
    feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade
    their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy.
    Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have
    recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so, Arizona has moved to
    protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete
    compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal
    immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If
    securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should
    cease referring to it as a sovereign State. For these reasons, I dissent.

  11. Citizen12 said on 25 Jun 2012 at 8:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    It would seem laws meant to protect and defend Americans are being twisted and used against us to advance the agenda of our enemies.

    One might get the idea that certain United States citizens, in position to use federal power to orchestrate a stand down of law enforcement thereby enabling the continued invasion, colonization and exploitation of our nation by agents and citizens under direction of a foreign government, are the enemy of the United States.

    Citizens of Mexico have been encouraged, instructed and directed to violate the laws of the United States by their government. They have been instructed to stay loyal to their homeland, exploit any and all our resources by any and all means available in order to send the bounty of their exploitation’s back home. At the same time lay the ground work for the eventual takeover.

    “This invasion is encouraged, abetted and organized by the Mexican state and supported by all citizens in Mexican society. Calderon provides his ‘troops’ with maps, water, provisions and aid to invade America’s border.”

    “One of Calderon’s cabinet officers, Juan Hernandez said, “The Mexican population is 100 million and 23 million who live in the United States.”

    The very same Juan Hernandez that McAmnesty picked to be his presidential campaign
    Hispanic Outreach Director.

    ” A few weeks ago, Hernandez visited a U.S. credit union in North Carolina on a tour to extend banking privileges to undocumented Mexicans and to drive down wire-transfer fees for Mexicans sending money back to their families. *

    MEXICO’S WAR ON AMERICA
    http://www.redcounty.com/node/27463

    http://www.juanhernandez.org/news/poet-takes-lead-on-us-mexico-issues

  12. BattleCat said on 25 Jun 2012 at 9:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    The DoJ has already set up a hotline for anyone who feels their civil rights were violated in Arizona. Gotta figure the first ACLU lawsuit should be filed by noon tomorrow, right?

  13. Cynic said on 25 Jun 2012 at 9:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Justice Antonin Scalia - One of the few remaining non-whimpering wimps of our pandering Republic.

    All the lefties/traitors are out there gleefully celebrating/cheering this defeat of the Arizona immigration law. They continue to glorify the additional rights gained by the illegals, but have nothing to say about the damages the illegals have inflicted upon American Citizens and their communities.

    Thursday - would not be surprised if all of the ObamaCare law were upheld by our radical SCOTUS.

  14. The Real Disgusted said on 26 Jun 2012 at 6:28 am:
    Flag comment

    Sucks being you conservatards, doesn’t it. You whine about the Administration not honoring the decisions of previous administrations, while at the same time are doing everything in your power to derail the current president. Two faced hypocrites.

    The ONLY thing that will cease the flood of illegals into the US is the Army being stationed all along the border. It’s time someone with a modicum of guts does this. No soulless politician from either side of the aisle will.

    BTW, SCOTUS will declare the personal mandate unconstitutional and will uphold the rest of the healthcare law, as it should.

  15. Robert L. Duecaster said on 26 Jun 2012 at 10:18 am:
    Flag comment

    What sucks is having people like TRD, above, in the country.

  16. BattleCat said on 26 Jun 2012 at 10:24 am:
    Flag comment

    So, help me out, here. The Executive Branch has declined to do its job, and the legislative branch is borrowing money from China on behalf of the taxpayers in order to fund the activities of the executive branch. That about right? Not too sure, but I feel like maybe I’m getting screwed, here!

  17. Robert L. Duecaster said on 26 Jun 2012 at 11:48 am:
    Flag comment

    We got screwed by previous administrations, BC. Now we’re getting blued and tattooed by this one.

  18. Cromagnum said on 26 Jun 2012 at 11:59 am:
    Flag comment

    Would we be getting our new Gov. Cuccinelli sooner than currently expected?

    http://www.wtop.com/120/2919120/McDonnell-shifts-response-to-idea-of-vetting-for-VP

  19. Not Dick Cheney said on 26 Jun 2012 at 2:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Would we be getting our new Gov. Cuccinelli sooner than currently expected?”

    Not likely. Romney is Mr. Play it Safe. McDonnell is not the safe pick. Unlikely he will pick Governor Bob.

    If Romney were to pick McDonnell there is still the general election to win. A lot can change between now and November but, as of today, I wouldn’t place any large bets on Romney being elected president.

    But, for the sake of fun speculation, let’s assume McDonnell as running mate and a Republican victory in November. I believe that would make Bill Bolling governor, not Cuccinelli.

  20. Anonymous said on 27 Jun 2012 at 9:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Obama is a traitor and a saboteur, so this comes as no surprise:

    DHS denies Virginia’s request for 287(g) agreement

    DHS denies Virginia’s request for 287(g) agreement

    On Tuesday, Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) announced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has denied his request for the Virginia State Police to join the 287(g) program which trains local and state law enforcement to identify illegal aliens in custody for possible deportation.

    Gov. McDonnell told reporters: “I’m incredibly disappointed with the Obama administration.”

    In August 2010, McDonnell asked DHS to allow 28 state troopers to receive the specified training in order to identify illegal aliens charged with serious crimes such as “major drug offenses or violent offenses such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and kidnapping, as well as DUI offenses.”

    After nine months with no answer, the governor sent a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, stating: “We have patiently waited nine months for formal approval and the time to act is now. Virginia meets all the qualifications and has proven to be an excellent partner state and I ask you to approve our application without further delay.”

    McDonnell continued: “We must retain the right to remove the most dangerous illegal aliens from our borders, and 287(g) agreements have been approved across the country for that purpose. Virginia must have the ability to exercise this authority statewide.”

    The Homeland Security Act of 2002 allows DHS to grant state police forces the authority to perform some immigration enforcement functions such as deportations, if those states enter into a 287 (g) agreement with the federal government.

    Of course, the Obama administration abruptly ended the federal government’s 287(g) agreement with the state of Arizona after the Supreme Court upheld a key portion of the state’s immigration law known as SB1070.

    In recent months, several high-profile crimes have been committed in Virginia by illegal aliens:

    Illegal alien charged with triple murder

    Illegal alien convicted of murdering nun

    Illegal aliens sentenced for Va. Beach rape

    Illegal alien sentenced for Va. beach murder

    http://www.examiner.com/article/dhs-denies-virginia-s-request-for-287-g-agreement

  21. Doug Brown said on 28 Jun 2012 at 2:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Read the ruling on Obamacare, “the mandate” under the Commerce Clause was rejected. Cuccinelli wins; Obama raises taxes in a recession.

  22. Cynic said on 28 Jun 2012 at 4:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    Cynic said on 25 Jun 2012 at 9:51 pm

    “Thursday - would not be surprised if all of the ObamaCare law were upheld by our radical SCOTUS.”

  23. The Real Disgusted said on 28 Jun 2012 at 8:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    WOW! Healthcare is constitutional! Roberts was the deciding vote! The Cooch was wrong!

    Hahahahahahaha!!!

    You conservatards are going to sooo hate November.

  24. Doug Brown said on 29 Jun 2012 at 9:50 am:
    Flag comment

    TRD,

    If you read the decision, you would know they actually said Cuccinelli was right.

    And Obama was wrong, the mandate is a tax.

  25. Cromagnum said on 29 Jun 2012 at 10:15 am:
    Flag comment

    A good Summary of the SCOTUS on ObamaC-tax or is that ObamaCaTaxtrophe

    The ruling or “How I learned to stop worrying, and Love the Bomb”……………..lol
    There are 2 aspects to the ruling: Legal & Political.
    On the legal side, the basis of the affirmative ruling, that it is a tax, is a complete legal travesty.
    The political side is a different matter. The first and primary obligation of the Court (and any judge) is to uphold the law and the Constitution, so violating the legal no matter what the political effect is completely unacceptable for any one serious about the Constitution and the rule of law. In summary here are the basic problems with the tax issue: It is an established principle in law, in all legal precedents, that no one has standing to even have their case heard on any tax issue, unless the tax has actually been enacted and collected. All of the parties in this case, the Obama administration, the plaintiffs, and the Supreme Court Justices explicitly spoke to this tax issue early in the oral arguments, agreeing that it was not a tax and therefore could be heard by the Court.
    So, long story short, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t decide that the case is not a tax in order to have the case heard, and then have the basis of your ruling be that it is a tax. It cannot be both a tax and a non-tax at the same time. It is logically and legally absurd.
    Furthermore, Justice Roberts failed to indicate what type or category of tax it is in his ruling, and merely made the assertion. In our Constitution there are only 3 enumerated types of taxes : direct, excise, (and by the 16th amendment) income tax.
    He completely ignores this, and just baldly asserts it is some type of tax. How so? If you cannot assign it to one of the permissible enumerated types of taxes in the Constitution, then by legal definition it is not a tax as that is all the Constitution permits as a “tax”. In other, words you need to demonstrate how it falls under these 3 categories in order to justify that the law falls under the taxing power. He failed to do this.

  26. Anonymous said on 29 Jun 2012 at 2:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Real disgusted, I want you hang around and in November we will see who gets their ass handed to them. Romney has raised more than 4 Million in 24 hours.

  27. Vigilant1 said on 29 Jun 2012 at 3:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Time for another “tea party.” Court ruling was another “Boston Massacre.”

  28. Citizen-Veteran said on 29 Jun 2012 at 5:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Virginians should be paying close attention to the Obama lawless Administration attack on the State of Arizona. Virginia could be next. . . particularly Prince William County. We can count on greasy Gerry Connolly to point this out to DHS and the Obama White House.

    Where are our US Senators, Leftie Warner and Loony Webb, on this issue? Hiding? Gutless Democrap Senators are a blight on the US Constitution and the state they “represent.” Warner and Webb prefer to cavort with their leftwing ilk in the US Senate than consider what is best for Virginians and America. Opns normal.

    Regardless of how bad and dangerous Obama is for America - you can count on all the Democraps in the House and Senate to be there . . . for him.

    Now we have the head cheerleader for Obama, Kane, running for the US Senate. How pathetic! This guy has been undercutting Virginians, Virginia, and America by marching hand-in-hand with Obama for the past four years. Now he is running around Virginia as if none of this ever happened. Virginians only need to be reminded that Tim Kane was at the right hand of his master, Obama, the hater of America, during the entire disgusting Obama Administration performance.

  29. citizenofmanassas said on 29 Jun 2012 at 10:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    For all you transplants from above the Mason Dixon line, this is exactly why my family took to arms in 1861 to fight a Federal Government that was quickly losing sight of the Constitution. It’s ironic that at the time the GOP was in favor of an overeaching Government and wanted to consolidate power in Washington. It’s a shame the end result of the war was not only the defeat of the South, but it also ment the start of big Government and we have been paying a stiff price since.

  30. Hank said on 30 Jun 2012 at 11:52 am:
    Flag comment

    @citizenofmanassas: In 1861 the South picked a fight with people who were its technological, moral, and intellectual betters. Feel free to try it again, and we’ll hand your asses to you again. In my mind another Civil War is just what we need to put down these regressive, dangerous inbred yokels that keep trying to ruin this country.

  31. citizenofmanassas said on 30 Jun 2012 at 2:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hank,

    I believe more yankees were killed during the war. The only thing we lacked were supplies and men, but even outnumbered, we still beat the shit out of y’all for four years. But like a good slave and yokel, you can’t get enough Government, and that’s our problem today. The north was not smarter, nor did it have better morals. It’s funny the most liberal places in this Country are full of the most stupid and lazy people who are slaves to hand outs and can’t function without the Government telling them how to live. Where you find less Government is where you find the most productive people and the most freedom.

  32. The Real Disgusted said on 1 Jul 2012 at 5:13 am:
    Flag comment

    Anon…how much did Mr. McCain have in HIS war chest?

    So if Roberts had voted with the minority, he’d be a star and you all would be singing the praises of the Court’s “wisdom”? You conservatards can’t comprehend there are many in this country that don’t share your fringe views. Now you got Greg L dropping the F-bomb even though he’s a “man of God”, the Cooch is oh-fer in the big cases, the Tea Party has disappeared…you guys are going nuts! This is better than a Zimmerman walk-off in the bottom of the 9th!

    And to whatever moron above that called for another civil war, the federal government won the last one rather convincingly. My ancestors paid dearly for their states rights beliefs. It’s unrealistic and traitorous. May I suggest you move to Mexico where the environment is more ripe for your unintelligent, reactionary methods.

  33. citizenofmanassas said on 1 Jul 2012 at 7:55 am:
    Flag comment

    The real disgusted,

    That would hank, a liberal like you, who called for another war.

    The Tea Party is alive and well, unless of course you want to ignore the races they have won. I suppose we could say the same about any political party after any race they lose.

    The funny thing is the Supreme Court ruling might in the end benefit the right than the left. How ironic that would be.

  34. Cynic said on 1 Jul 2012 at 9:01 am:
    Flag comment

    “Now you got Greg L dropping the F-bomb even though he’s a “man of God”, ”

    Are you implying that only you high class lefties are authorized to use the F-bomb?

  35. The Real Disgusted said on 1 Jul 2012 at 12:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    No Cynic, just pointing out the BS. Besides, no one should use it, right or left (are you implying the Right should?) Greg uses his religion only when it serves his political purposes (”We’ll send them back in love.”), like most of you conservatards. It is to laugh.

    COM…when did I call for a war? I don’t believe either of us was around for the last civil war. And I’m waiting for Jamie Ratke’s run against Kain…..wait, she didn’t win the nomination, did she. So much for the Tea Party. A quick check on the PWC Tea Party website show NO EVENTS SCHEDULED IN JULY!! Oh, a few in Hanover & elsewhere, but none here at home. :-( Game, set match.

  36. citizenofmanassas said on 1 Jul 2012 at 1:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Real,

    I did not say you called for war, I said Hank did. Wow, you think one loss is the end of the Tea party? Really? That’s just not good political analyst. The Tea Party is a Nation wide movement, and like all political parties will win some and lose some.

  37. The Real Disgusted said on 1 Jul 2012 at 1:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    COM…and trends are a characteristic of any analysis, political or otherwise. The trend in Virginia and PWC is a Tea Party on the decline.

    The Tea Party’s days are over. They won a few primaries, but they will go down to defeat in November. Your best and brightest in Virginia, a typically conservative state, lost. That’s Ratke and Jeff Frederick. Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, & etc., lost. Romney scares the pants off of you all because he ISN’T a “true” conservative. You all had better make-up with the old true blue republicans because you have nowhere else to go. But I’d LOVE to see a third party split the Republican vote.

  38. Doug Brown said on 1 Jul 2012 at 2:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    TRD,

    Cuccinelli won. Obama is raising taxes on the middle and lower middle classes. And Greg didn’t drop the F-Bomb, i.e., he didn’t direct the obscenity at an opponent, he creatively and accurately captured the atttitude and spirit of our elected public school officials towards those PWC citizens who would like more transparency and less corruption by those who presume to lead them, and in this case, those who are in charge of educating PWC youth.

  39. The Real Disgusted said on 1 Jul 2012 at 4:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Douglas, the Cooch lost because the healthcare law stands. Call it a tax, call it a penalty. I call it the law of the land. The Cooch REALLY had his butt handed to him on the EPA decision. (Apparently he was daydreaming when they discussed the scientific method in his grade school.) He has frittered away millions of OUR tax money courting you conservatards to be your darling in 2013, or maybe a VP candidate. He’s a blowhard, er, perfect Tea Party member.

  40. Doug Brown said on 1 Jul 2012 at 9:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    TRD,

    Conservatards? Should we refer to u as a libtrd? Such vowel name calling!

    Here is what the AG has to say:

    http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/29/cuccinelli-supreme-court-health-care-ruling-reaffirmed-limits-to-congresss-authority/

  41. citizenofmanassas said on 1 Jul 2012 at 9:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Real,

    The true conservatives did not lose. I suppose the Tea Party is just in Virginia? Again, your political analysis is way off.

  42. Cynic said on 1 Jul 2012 at 10:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    “No Cynic, just pointing out the BS. Besides, no one should use it, right or left (are you implying the Right should?)”

    Implying - No.

    Has not our SC ruled on the issues related to this and other related words?

  43. The Real Disgusted said on 2 Jul 2012 at 4:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Douglas, Our gracious host has liberally (re: excessive) sprinkled his posts with a veritable cornucopia of liberal epithets over the years. I guess you all have missed those.

    COM…please define a true conservative for me. Is it Romney? Santorum? Nixon? Goldwater? Viguerie? Norquist? Koch? Dare I say it…Reagan?

  44. The Real Disgusted said on 2 Jul 2012 at 5:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    If Texas is one of the most conservative states in the Union, why is it last in high school graduation rates?

  45. So There said on 2 Jul 2012 at 6:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Maybe because Texas has a whole lot of illegal aliens that don’t think education is worth anything? By allowing illegal aliens to stay we are cultivating a third world country here in America.

  46. citizenofmanassas said on 2 Jul 2012 at 7:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Real,

    Maybe you should, since you believe they lost something.

  47. Doug Brown said on 2 Jul 2012 at 8:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    TRD,

    One data point, Greg’s colorful language, leads you to extrapolate an epithet on all conservative posters and readers of this site? You must have been snoozing while Ken was daydreaming during that class on the scientific method.

  48. The Real Disgusted said on 3 Jul 2012 at 5:31 am:
    Flag comment

    Dougie, Our long suffering host has many fans that do not hesitate to berate anyone that speaks from a different viewpoint on this site. You are disingenuous to even think there’s only one data point. I find it hypocritical that his piety quickly falls to the wayside when his righteous indignation bursts into full conflagration. You people are his enablers.

    Ronald Reagan would be ashamed at this lack of civility. I did not agree with a lot of his views, but I respected him for his leadership. You guys, and especially the Tea Party fringe, can’t even begin to be compared to him. He was principled but pragmatic. You all are posers and lightweights.

  49. citizenofmanassas said on 3 Jul 2012 at 6:07 am:
    Flag comment

    The real,

    Reagan would be more turned off by the left. Who has called Americans the enemy? Who has said they cling to guns and their Religion? Who has used the race card in attempt to discredit any disagreements? Who has attacked the police, troops and Capitalism? Who has burned cars, trucks and houses in the name of their politics? And since you believe the tea party is done, why do you keep bringing it up? Talk about a light weight. LOL.

  50. The Real Disgusted said on 3 Jul 2012 at 4:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    …I keep bringing it up because you keep reacting. I can’t help myself. It’s a character fault.

  51. Real Disgusted said on 3 Jul 2012 at 5:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have a real problem with anyone who doesn’t think like me. They’re all stupid idiots. I, a moderate Marxist of the Hugo Chavez school think all you conservatards should be sent to re-education camps. Gulags for everyone who fails to appreciate the brilliance of our Dear Leader, the True Obama, who heals the planet and brings the workers into glorious harmony! Forward!

  52. citizenofmanassas said on 3 Jul 2012 at 10:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    LOL.

  53. The Real Disgusted said on 4 Jul 2012 at 5:23 am:
    Flag comment

    No thank you RD. I’m a moderate, which to this crowd may seem totalitarian.

  54. The Real Disgusted said on 4 Jul 2012 at 5:24 am:
    Flag comment

    …now, which thread can I derail next?

  55. Cynic said on 4 Jul 2012 at 9:17 am:
    Flag comment

    “I, a moderate Marxist of the Hugo Chavez school think all you conservatards should be sent to re-education camps. Gulags for everyone who fails to appreciate the brilliance of our Dear Leader, the True Obama, who heals the planet and brings the workers into glorious harmony! Forward!”

    One of the many, minor details for you lefty Revolutionaries to consider before you attempt to implement your programs that will lead us into “glorious harmony”:

    RE-education camps. Really, there are a sufficient numbers of educated - as opposed to indoctrinated - lefties to staff re-education camps? No way.

  56. Doug Brown said on 4 Jul 2012 at 9:55 am:
    Flag comment

    TRD,

    How do you derail an open thread?

  57. citizenofmanassas said on 4 Jul 2012 at 10:29 am:
    Flag comment

    Don’t say anything he’s on a roll. lol.

  58. citizenofmanassas said on 4 Jul 2012 at 4:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    We support public education in school districts that have not been ruined by the left, where education is the focus, and not the teacher’s union. Look at the City of Chicago, the teachers have one of the shortest school years, and shortest days. Yet, they are going to strike in order to get a 30% pay increase. The graduation rate for the district is about 50%. Now, of course the teachers are not the only issue, but they need to understand that they cannot simply ask for more money if the product they are producing is a failure.

  59. TRD said on 5 Jul 2012 at 5:39 am:
    Flag comment

    UH-OH! God particle discovered at CERN! Conservatards are going to become unhinged. “Too much change…too much science…too fast…”

  60. citizenofmanassas said on 5 Jul 2012 at 6:06 am:
    Flag comment

    Not unhinged at all, we know the truth, and science is not it. LOL.

  61. TRD said on 5 Jul 2012 at 9:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not science? What, wizardry? COM, Harry Potter is fiction. It’s not real.

  62. citizenofmanassas said on 6 Jul 2012 at 6:34 am:
    Flag comment

    TRD,

    Yes, sicence is not correct in this case.

  63. TRD said on 6 Jul 2012 at 4:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    COM,

    ahmm…its sCience, not sIcence, so strictly speaking, your statement is accurate.

  64. Holly said on 6 Jul 2012 at 5:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    DALE CITY, Virginia — Both sides of the U.S. immigration debate have tried to claim victory after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s tough immigration law. The Court upheld a provision of the law that allows local police to check the immigration status of people stopped or detained on some other legitimate basis. But critics argue there are other unintended consequences of these laws that could invite future legal challenges.

    Francisca Sorto is the owner of “El Rinconcito Latino” restaurant in Prince William County, Virginia, where she serves up specialties like tamales from her native El Salvador.

    ““My employee [count] is 22 in the past, now only one,” Sorto said.

    After she opened, the restaurant was often filled. But in the next few weeks she will close for good, due to lack of business. She says many of her mostly-Latino customers left Prince William County after an immigration law similar to Arizona’s was enacted in 2007.

    “The people leave for Prince William County law. Because it is they escape the law,” Sorto said. “They no [longer] want to live in Prince William County.”

    Prince William County is a suburban community south of Washington D.C. Twenty percent of its legal residents are Latino. There is also an illegal immigrant population. According to police, some illegal immigrants wait at this convenience store looking for work as day laborers.

    The part of the Arizona law the Supreme Court upheld last month requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain or arrest. The Prince William law only requires officers to check after an arrest.

    County Supervisor Corey Stewart says the law became necessary after several high-profile crimes involving illegal immigrants.

    “There has been a substantial decrease in violent crime since we adopted the policy,” Steward said. “According to Prince William County Police statistics, the violent crime rate has come down almost 48 percent.”

    Many in the Prince William County police force have had concerns about the policy. Chief of Police Charlie Deane says that is why officers check immigration status only after someone is arrested.

    “We felt that it was lawful, but that it was very high-risk policy,” he said. “Prior to arrest puts officers in circumstances that they can be sued by those that say they aren’t doing enough and those that say they are doing too much.”

    Community activists like Aracely Panameno say beyond the economic impact, and legal issues, the law has divided the community. She recalls someone leaving a note on her car telling to go back to her native El Salvador. As an American citizen she was deeply offended.

    “I felt the divisiveness and the hatred,” she said. “And I couldn’t go back anywhere because this is home.”

    When the Supreme Court upheld the part of Arizona’s law that allows police to check immigration status, it did so with a caveat. The court invited those effected to challenge the law in court. To date, there have been no successful challenges to Prince William County’s similar law. But the ruling leaves the door open.
    http://www.voanews.com/content/immigration-law-in-washington-dc-suburb-divides-community/1364603.html

    According to police, some illegal immigrants wait at this convenience store looking for work as day laborers. Would that be the 7-11 ?

  65. citizenofmanassas said on 6 Jul 2012 at 7:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Trd,

    Thank you for the correction. Science is not correct in this case. There you go. LOL.

  66. Cynic said on 7 Jul 2012 at 10:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Political correct justice in action!

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/07/shame-on-the-nation-american-hero-.html

  67. Cynic said on 11 Jul 2012 at 12:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    American History

    On this day, July 11, 1804, Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton in the gut. Alexander died the next day.

    http://duel2004.weehawkenhistory.org/theduel.php

Leave a Reply



Views: 1738