Arizona's New Immigration Law

[Trample the Elderly]

For years the Catholic Church has been losing numbers, IMO because of the homosexual child molesting priests. To make up for their lost numbers, they've been welcoming in illegal alien Mexicans. They protected them from law enforcement and have pissed all over the sovereignty of the US. Karma is a MOFO.

Drunk illegal alien, awaiting deportation kills nun in Va.

But they all come here to work. More like they come here to work you over. Ha!

[Trample the Elderly]

This was posted on Craigslist Richmond. I thought I would share it with y'all.

SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN!

Oh, there's MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe!

Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take the department over, and the CountySupervisors said okay.

The animal shelters are now all staffed and operated by prisoners. They feed and care for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows.

The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a
Maricopa County shelter two years ago. He was neutered, and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78.

The prisoners get the benefit of about $0.28 an hour for working, but most would work for free, just to be out of their cells for the day. Most of his budget is for utilities, building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals.

I have long wondered when the rest of the country would take a look at the way he runs the jail system, and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county years ago, where inmates can work, and they grow most of their own fresh vegetables and food, doing all the work and harvesting by hand.

He has a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat, and fertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and you can buy a living Christmas tree for $6 - $8 for the Holidays, and plant it later. We have six trees in our yard from the Prison.

Yup, he was reelected last year with 83% of the vote.
Now he's in trouble with the ACLU again. He painted all his buses and vehicles with a mural, that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and report suspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in his eyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specifically for enforcing immigration laws, started up his hotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a 'Git-R Dun' kind of S heriff.

TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO

HE IS THE MARICOPA ARIZONA COUNTY SHERIFF

AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER
THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (In Arizona ) who created the ' Tent City Jail':
He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights Cut off all but 'G' movies.

He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.

Then He Started Chain Gangs For Women So He Wouldn't Get Sued For Discrimination.

He took away cable TV Until he found out there was A Federal Court Order that Required Cable TV For Jails So He Hooked Up The Cable TV Again . Only Let In The Disney Channel And The Weather Channel.

When asked why the weather channel, He Replied, "So They Will Know How Hot It's Gonna Be While They Are Working ON My Chain Gangs".

He Cut Off Coffee Since It Has Zero Nutritional Value.

When the inmates complained, he told them, 'This Isn't The Ritz/Carlton...... If You Don't Like It, Don't Come Back.'

More On The Arizona Sheriff:

With Temperatures Being Even Hotter Than Usual In Phoenix (116 Degrees Just Set A New Record), the Associated Press Reports:
About 2,000 Inmates Living In A Barbed-Wire-Surrounded Tent Encampment At The Maricopa County Jail Have Been Given Permission To Strip Down To Their Government-Issued
Pink Boxer Shorts.

On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached
138 Degrees Inside The Week Before.

Many Were Also Swathed In Wet, Pink Towels As Sweat Collected On Their Chests And Dripped Down To Their PINK SOCKS.

'It Feels Like We Are In A Furnace,' Said James Zanzot, An Inmate Who Has Lived In The TENTS for 1 year. 'It's Inhumane.'

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic.... He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: 'It's 120 Degrees In Iraq And Our Soldiers Are Living In Tents Too, And They Have To Wear Full Battle Gear, But They Didn't Commit Any Crimes,So Shut Your Mouths!'

Way To Go, Sheriff!

Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.

If you agree, pass this on. If not, just delete it.

[mlmpetert]

ARIZONA ILLEGALS DEFACE AMERICAN FLAG - CNN iReport

[GhettoDogAllStars]

@TTE: Good post. You should try the positive approach more often -- supporting your arguments to make a point, rather than attacking other viewpoints with hateful blabber. I'll bet you're good at it.

@mlmpetert: As best I can tell (from other sources) those people are not illegals, they only support illegal immigration (or oppose the law, I can't tell). Shame on CNN for missing that.

On another note, who the hell cares about defacing the flag? Is one form of free-speech better or worse than another? I would never dream of defacing the flag, but I don't get caught up in sensationalism. (let the flaming begin)

[saden1]

Crime happens in America all the time, I don't give a shit who commits them so long as they are punished. Carry on.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

For years the Catholic Church has been losing numbers, IMO because of the homosexual child molesting priests. To make up for their lost numbers, they've been welcoming in illegal alien Mexicans. They protected them from law enforcement and have pissed all over the sovereignty of the US. Karma is a MOFO.

Drunk illegal alien, awaiting deportation kills nun in Va.

But they all come here to work. More like they come here to work you over. Ha!

You may want to check your facts, you sound like an idiot. A simple lookup on wiki before you made your post should've stopped this nonsense before it turned into a post. Facts are the problems in the Catholic Church were no greater than society as a whole.

As far as the Catholic Church losing membership and that's why they're protecting illegals, that's complete BS. Between 1997 and 2007 the Catholic population in the U.S. increased 15%. The Catholic Church supporting illegals staying in the U.S. has nothing to do with $$$$, it's based on compassion. Catholics aren't the only ones protecting illegals either. Last I checked, the Catholic Church didn't set any city policies for several sanctuary cities. Born again Pres. Bush did little to nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration. And BTW not all Catholics agree with the church's stance on this.

Before you make a dumbass, offensive, statement like a nun being killed was "karma". Have your facts straight....and yes I'm Catholic.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

@TTE: Good post. You should try the positive approach more often -- supporting your arguments to make a point, rather than attacking other viewpoints with hateful blabber. I'll bet you're good at it.

@mlmpetert: As best I can tell (from other sources) those people are not illegals, they only support illegal immigration (or oppose the law, I can't tell). Shame on CNN for missing that.

On another note, who the hell cares about defacing the flag? Is one form of free-speech better or worse than another? I would never dream of defacing the flag, but I don't get caught up in sensationalism. (let the flaming begin)

Yeah i was wondering if they were illegals or not. I dont think they did anything illegal, so i dont think the cops had any reason to verify if they were legal or not. Regardless i think its poor taste for any media outlet to label people illegals without offering any explanation how they know this.

Also Slinging Sammy, i was raised Catholic and was an altar boy for the Alexandria diocese (i wasnt raped, fyi). I am not a practicing Catholic and have not been for at least 10 years. I followed my mom after she stopped going to church when the whole alter boy scandal stuff came out, primarily because of the way it was handled and covered up. I know other people who also have lost faith in the Catholic church because of what happened, and what continues to happen. I would have to assume that part of the growth in the church is due to the growth of the Hispanic population, since it seems most Hispanic people are Catholic. Either way TTE use of the word karma was very insensitive and wrong.

[gafinfan]

Having come to this thread at a very late date I will offer something that I didn't see offered, if I've missed it then I can only say please forgive my wearding ways.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial of the Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer. « Publius-Huldah's Blog

1. Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. It is certain that only a few in Congress have even heard of it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

It appears to me that with all the lawyers in power, including Obama who is a Constitutional lawyer (you must be kidding me), reading the Constitution appears to be considered a waste of time or at the very least they think the average american doesn't read or care about that wonderful piece of legislation.

Sadly I must add the governor's lawyers seem to be in the same boat, they can't read either.

Governor, get yourself a more competent group/firm!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by gafinfan

Having come to this thread at a very late date I will offer something that I didn't see offered, if I've missed it then I can only say please forgive my wearding ways.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial of the Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer. « Publius-Huldah's Blog



It appears to me that with all the lawyers in power, including Obama who is a Constitutional lawyer (you must be kidding me), reading the Constitution appears to be considered a waste of time or at the very least they think the average american doesn't read or care about that wonderful piece of legislation.


Sadly I must add the governor's lawyers seem to be in the same boat, they can't read either.

Governor, get yourself a more competent group/firm!

The problem isn't their understanding of the Constitution but your profound misunderstanding of it and our judicial system. Like, ummm, federal courts assist, ummm, like, ummm, the Supreme Court. Capisce?

[gafinfan]

Originally Posted by saden1

The problem isn't their understanding of the Constitution but your profound misunderstanding of it and our judicial system. Like, ummm, federal courts assist, ummm, like, ummm, the Supreme Court. Capisce?

My profound misunderstanding of it, Hmmm.

Article III section 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

You know you really should take time to read it, your understanding of it would then be profound, ummm, like, ummm the lower courts have NO legal right to render a ruling. Capisce?

[CRedskinsRule]

I'd really like a lawyer to chime in, but here is a good article on original jurisdiction:

The Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - United States Constitution

[saden1]

There is lots of historical background on the subject but all that's needed is The Judiciary Act of 1789 passed by the first congress:

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul, or vice consul, shall be a party. And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.

p.s. You can take any suite to the Supreme Court but that doesn't mean it will get reviewed and you get adjudication.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

There is lots of historical background on the subject but all that's needed is The Judiciary Act of 1789 passed by the first congress:

I am sure we can bicker back and forth, but The Judiciary Act of 1789, and specifically part of clause 13 was nullified by Marshall:

Originally Posted by From my other link

However, another clause of § 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was not accorded the same presumption by Chief Justice Marshall, who, interpreting it as giving the Court power to issue a writ of mandamus on an original proceeding, declared that as Congress could not restrict the original jurisdiction neither could it enlarge it and pronounced the clause void.1093

I doubt gafinfan's right that the lawsuit was invalid solely because it was brought in the wrong court, but really, unless I miss my guess, none of us are Supreme Court scholars.

Of course I realize Saden stays at a Holiday Inn Express EVERY night, so he is always chocked full of knowledge!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I am sure we can bicker back and forth, but The Judiciary Act of 1789, and specifically part of clause 13 was nullified by Marshall:


I doubt gafinfan's right that the lawsuit was invalid solely because it was brought in the wrong court, but really, unless I miss my guess, none of us are Supreme Court scholars.

Of course I realize Saden stays at a Holiday Inn Express EVERY night, so he is always chocked full of knowledge!

You're sure he nullified section 13? You should read your own link again, understand it, then try again. Nullify means a specific thing.

You don't have to be a Supreme Court Scholar or stay at a Holiday Inn to know you sue officials in Federal Courts before the Supreme Court. I have sued several federal official pro-se and successfully in Federal Court.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're sure he nullified section 13? You should read your own link again, understand it, then try again. Nullify means a specific thing.

You don't have to be a Supreme Court Scholar or stay at a Holiday Inn to know you sue officials in Federal Courts before the Supreme Court. I have sued several federal official pro-se and successfully in Federal Court.

I didn't say he nullified section 13, I said he nullified a part (or clause) of it, or as my link said, he voided it. But, please continue your lectures, personally I am always entertained.