Attack on 1st amendment squelched

Today, the U.S. Senate voted 57 to 41 on a procedural motion to end debate on the DISCLOSE Act.  Such motions must get 60 votes in order to pass, so there for the DISCLOSE Act is most likely a dead issue, for the time being. 

But do you think censorship is a dead issue with Democrats?

OH HELL NO.

The Hill reports that Senator Charles Schumer, the one who was the socialist sponsor for the Act, has vowed that the Senate “will go back at this bill again and again and again until we pass it.” 

Thats unless you loose seats in the Senate, which it looks like this IS a real possibility this Nov.

But you might expect to see the DISCLOSE Act rise up before then, as the Socialist Dems know they are in hot water with the American people and I envision a 'scorched earth' agenda before Nov.

Cemetery Tells Father of Iraq War Vet to Take Down Flags

From FOX Chicago News- Skokie, Ill Cemetery tells father of an Iraq War vet to take down the American flags that have been erected at his sons grave site or "We will take them down".

I say, they take them down, we PUT THEM RIGHT BACK UP, AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN until they get the message, don't fu*k with OUR American War dead!!

Illegals sell up and flee Arizona ahead of crackdown

Wow a law that falls in line with Federal law, actually works......

 PHOENIX (Reuters) – Nicaraguan mother Lorena Aguilar hawks a television set and a few clothes on the baking sidewalk outside her west Phoenix apartment block.

A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbor Wendi Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on illegal immigrants.

"Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving," said Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. "We have no alternative. They have us cornered."

The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.

The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.

It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers' status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.

Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.

In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.

On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix/

"They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect," said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.

She said she had taken in just $20 as "everyone is selling and nobody wants to buy."

Supremacy- Article 6

Lets, for a moment take a look at the Federal Government, on behalf of the DOJ, DHS, DOS case against Arizona.
The Feds case is this:
The United States, on its own behalf and on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of State, brings suit against the State of Arizona arguing Arizona law, SB 1070, as amended, is preempted by federal law and violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.


But if we look at the paragraph in the US Constitution, article 6 (aka Supremacy) this is what it says, in plain, logical and coherent language (with key noted words).


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Now where does it say that no state shall make laws pursuant to US laws. 

It doesn't. 

It clearly states that Federal law is "Pursuant" to state law and that "Judges" in every State shall be bound thereby (first and foremost) by it.

This is why sanctuary laws in states can exist. However their sanctuary laws are null and void, as Federal law supersedes it.

But they enforce their laws with little to no challenge by the US Government.

Judge Bolton holding hearings on SB-1070

The hearing of suit the Federal government has filed against Arizona began today with opening argument. 
Here are some of the back and forth from the Feds and Jan Brewer lawyer with Judge Bolton.

Omar Jadwat, representing the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said Congress never made it a crime for those in this country illegally to seek casual employment.

But Bolton told Jadwat he is making a presumption about what Congress intended.

“Or did they just not deal with it?” she asked.“We know Congress knows how to preempt expressly,”

But Bolton did not spare John Bouma, the attorney for Gov. Jan Brewer, from her inquisitions.

She pointed out that police “arrest” people all the time for minor crimes, issue them a citation and let them go about their business. Bolton said this provision of SB 1070 would appear to require police to hold people for some extra period of time -- one attorney said it can take an average of 88 minutes to get a response from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- beyond what is necessary to cite and release.

Bouma said lawmakers meant to apply that only to people who actually are taken into custody and “booked” into jail.

“That’s what they should have said then,” Bolton responded. She said it could result in detaining tens of thousands of people “who otherwise could be cited and released.”

The questioning is significant because the judge is weighing each of the provisions in the law to determine if there is sufficient legal reason to bar any or all of them from taking effect as scheduled on July 29.

As part of that determination, the judge needs to make at least a preliminary decision on whether the provisions of the law are constitutional. If she believes some sections are not legal -- and if she determines there the harms to some if the law is allowed to proceed are sufficient -- then she will place the law on “hold” until there can be a full hearing on its legality.

Bolton’s questioning made it clear, though, that she will not invalidate the entire law.

As I predicted. The Feds don't have a case to strike down the entire law, so they are using this as a stall tactic so they can get immigration reform passed and signed.

What do you think? Will the Fed be successful in achieving their goal of placing the law on hold, so Congress can ram through immigration reform to get millions a legal path to....Vote in Nov?