Statement by Governor Jan Brewer on the 1-Year Anniversary of SB 1070

The following is a statement by Governor Jan Brewer on the 1-year anniversary of SB 1070:

“One year ago Saturday, I signed into law the Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, better known as SB 1070. I said at the time — and it bears repeating now — that my signature on SB 1070 represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law, both against illegal immigration and racial profiling.

“So, where are we one year later? Federal courts have blocked some of the most critical portions of the law. But they let stand its prohibition on ‘sanctuary city’ policies, meaning local authorities can no longer turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. Just as important, the courts couldn’t sap SB 1070’s strength as a rallying point for those of us sick and tired of hearing that our nation’s border can’t be secured, illegal immigration is just too big a problem to be solved or that we all must simply accept drug smugglers on our soil and drop houses in our neighborhoods. With the signing of SB 1070, Arizona said loudly and clearly: ‘Enough.’

“Despite SB 1070 being misunderstood and erroneously portrayed by numerous initial media reports, support for the legislation spread across the entire nation. That support remains strong, whether measured by public polling or the nearly $4 million in private donations given freely by those who have contributed to the legal defense fund established last year: KeepAZSafe.com.

“The outpouring of support from all over the country has had a significant impact. Remember, it wasn’t until a month after SB 1070 was signed that President Obama agreed to send National Guard troops to the border. Arizona’s actions and the subsequent national attention that resulted has helped pressure the White House to act on border security in ways it never would have otherwise. Now, we must keep up the pressure.

“Arizona has been more than patient in waiting for Washington to take concrete steps to stem the flow of illegal immigration. After decades of federal inaction and misguided policy, I and the Legislature had no choice but to stand up for the rule of law and the citizens of this great country. Arizona is willing to do the job that the federal government won’t do.

“One year after the signing of SB1070, I’m determined to fight for this legislation – all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. But it is equally clear that the mission ahead of us is not merely to defend SB 1070. As Governor, I will continue to defend and protect the safety, health and welfare of Arizona citizens.

“Let no one doubt that, one year later, Arizona is stronger and more united than ever before in its resolve.”

Impeachement Of A Government Official In The United States

 

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.

Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, while trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial.

At the federal level, Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.

Impeachment can also occur at the state level; state legislatures can impeach state officials, including governors, according to their respective state constitutions.

At the Philadelphia Convention, Benjamin Franklin noted that, historically, the removal of “obnoxious” chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal — impeachment — would be preferable

 

The House of Representatives

 

Impeachment proceedings may be commenced by a member of the House of Representatives on their own initiative, either by presenting a listing of the charges under oath, or by asking for referral to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be triggered by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of what actions constitute grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, a state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition.

The type of impeachment resolution determines which committee it will be referred to. A resolution impeaching a particular individual is typically referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. A resolution to authorize an investigation regarding impeachable conduct is referred to the House Committee on Rules, and then referred to the Judiciary Committee. The House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, will determine whether grounds for impeachment exist. If the Committee finds grounds for impeachment they will set forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more articles of impeachment. The Impeachment Resolution, or Article(s) of Impeachment, are then reported to the full House with the committee’s recommendations.

The House debates the resolution and may at the conclusion consider the resolution as a whole or vote on each article of impeachment individually. A simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article or the resolution as a whole to pass. If the House votes to impeach, managers (typically referred to as “House managers”, with a “lead House manager”) are selected to present the case to the Senate. Recently, managers have been selected by resolution, while historically the House would occasionally elect the managers or pass a resolution allowing the appointment of managers at the discretion of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

Also, the House will adopt a resolution in order to notify the Senate of its action. After receiving the notice, the Senate will adopt an order notifying the House that it is ready to receive the managers. The House managers then appear before the bar of the Senate and exhibit the articles of impeachment. After the reading of the charges, the managers return and make a verbal report to the House.

 

Senate

 

The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence (as opposed to the House of Lords in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, who vote upon their honor). After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority.

The Senate enters judgment on its decision, whether that be to convict or acquit, and a copy of the judgment is filed with the Secretary of State.[2] Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office. The removed official is also liable to criminal prosecution. The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting criminal case.

Beginning in the 1980s, the Senate began using “Impeachment Trial Committees” pursuant to Senate Rule XII. These committees presided over the evidentiary phase of the trials, hearing the evidence and supervising the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The committees would then compile the evidentiary record and present it to the Senate; all senators would then have the opportunity to review the evidence before the chamber voted to convict or acquit. The purpose of the committees was to streamline impeachment trials, which otherwise would have taken up a great deal of the chamber’s time. Defendants challenged the use of these committees, claiming them to be a violation of their fair trial rights as well as the Senate’s constitutional mandate, as a body, to have “sole power to try all impeachments.” Several impeached judges sought court intervention in their impeachment proceedings on these grounds, but the courts refused to become involved due to the Constitution’s granting of impeachment and removal power solely to the legislative branch, making it a political question.

 

Impeachment of a U.S. President

 

 

Two U.S. Presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson (trial) and Bill Clinton (trial). Both were acquitted at trial. Richard Nixon resigned in the face of the near certainty of his impeachment, which had already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee.

The Chief Justice of the United States presides during the Senate trial of a President.

 

History

 

In writing Article II, Section Four, George Mason had favored impeachment for “maladministration” (incompetence), but James Madison, who favored impeachment only for criminal behavior, carried the issue.[3] Hence, cases of impeachment may be undertaken only for “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” However, some scholars, such as Kevin Gutzman, have disputed this view and argue that the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” was intended to have a much more expansive meaning.

The Congress traditionally regards impeachment as a power to use only in extreme cases; the House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789. Two cases did not come to trial because the individuals had left office.

Actual impeachments of 19 federal officers have taken place. Of these, 15 were federal judges: Thirteen district court, one court of appeals (who also sat on the Commerce Court), and one Supreme Court Associate Justice. Of the other four, two were Presidents, one was a Cabinet secretary, and one was a U.S. Senator. Of the 18 impeached officials, seven were convicted. One, former judge Alcee Hastings, was elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives after being removed from office.

The 1797 impeachment of Senator William Blount of Tennessee stalled on the grounds that the Senate lacked jurisdiction over him. Because, in a separate action unrelated to the impeachment procedure, the Senate had already expelled Blount, the lack of jurisdiction may have been either because Blount was no longer a Senator, or because Senators are not civil officers of the federal government and therefore not subject to impeachment. No other member of Congress has ever been impeached, although the Constitution does give authority to either house to expel members, which each has done on occasion, removing the individual from functioning as a representative or senator for misbehavior. Expulsion, unlike impeachment, cannot bar an individual from holding future office.



House panel wants Homeland Security documents

The Obama administration is now under congressional investigation

Under Congressional Investigation

WASHINGTON – A House committee has asked the Homeland Security Department to provide documents about an agency policy that required political appointees to review many Freedom of Information Act requests, according to a letter obtained Sunday by The Associated Press.

The letter to Homeland Security was sent late Friday by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It represents an early move by House Republicans who have vowed to launch numerous probes of President Barack Obama’s administration, ranging from its implementation of the new health care law to rules curbing air pollution to spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Associated Press reported in July that for at least a year, Homeland Security had sidetracked hundreds of requests for federal records to top political advisers to the department’s secretary, Janet Napolitano. The political appointees wanted information about those requesting the materials, and in some cases the release of documents considered politically sensitive was delayed, according to numerous e-mails that were obtained by the AP.

The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to ensure the quick public release of requested government documents without political consideration. Obama has said his administration would emphasize openness in providing requested federal records.

According to Issa’s letter, Homeland Security’s chief privacy officer and FOIA official told committee staff in September that political appointees were simply made aware of “significant and potentially controversial requests.”

Mary Ellen Callahan told them that political appointees reviewed the agency’s FOIA response letters for grammatical and other errors and did not edit or delay their release, the letter states. She also told the committee that Homeland Security abandoned the practice in response to the AP’s article, according to Issa’s letter.

On Sunday, Oversight panel spokesman Frederick Hill said Issa sent the letter “because the committee has received documents that raise questions about the veracity of DHS officials” on the matter. He did not elaborate.

Issa asked the agency to provide the documents by Jan. 29.

Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last summer, officials said fewer than 500 requests were vetted by political officials. The department received about 103,000 requests for information in a recent 12-month period.

The agency’s directive said political appointees wanted to see FOIA requests for “awareness purposes,” regardless of who had filed them. The AP reported that the agency’s career employees were told to provide political appointees with information about who requested documents, where they lived, whether they were reporters and where they worked.

According to the directive, political aides were to review requests related to Obama policy priorities, or anything related to controversial or sensitive subjects. Requests from journalists, lawmakers and activist groups were to also to be examined.

Under a new policy last summer, documents are given to agency political advisers three days before they are released, but they can be distributed without those officials’ approval.

Outrages to Remember Before Voting on November 2

By John W. Lillpop

Before voting for any Democrat on November 2, voters who really care about the future of America need to reflect on the old adage which holds that, “Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.”

That truth has never been more in evidence than over the past two years, during which time America has been in the hands of an ultra-liberal Democrat in the White House and equally far left Democrats presiding over majorities in both chambers of Congress.

The results of the Obama, Reid, and Pelosi deadly stranglehold on our precious nation are ugly, indeed.

The Ugliest of the ugly include:

( ) Refusal to protect all U.S. citizens, regardless of race.

( ) Out of control federal spending, soaring deficits, record unemployment, and an economy that has grown steadily worse since Democrats took charge in 2009;

( ) Lack of commitment to winning the war in Afghanistan, even while American soldiers continue to die there;

( ) Legal actions taken against the sovereign state of Arizona for protecting its citizens from foreign criminals; siding with Mexico in its rhetoric against the rule of law in Arizona;

( ) Refusal to accept the fact that Islam is the major source of terrorism in the world and that America is indeed at war with Islam.

All of the calamities identified could have been averted, or their impact at least minimized, had the U.S. Congress fulfilled it constitutional obligation to provide oversight of the Executive Branch.

Under the partisan leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, oversight was a forgotten (ignored!) virtue.

As a result, Executive incompetence, overreaching, and blatantly anti-American misbehavior were never challenged, except when Pelosi or Reid sought even greater liberal excesses.

Again, “Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.”

Although the list of atrocities committed by the unholy trifecta of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi is nearly endless, there are a few that are particularly outrageous and should serve as a wake-up call to anyone considering a vote for any Democrat.

The list of particularly grievous atrocities follows:

Refusal to Provide Equal Protection for All

This outrage is so unbelievable that it continues to stun and amaze.

On November 4, 2008, voters in Philadelphia were intimidated by members of the New Black Panther Party while attempting to cast ballots.

Before President Bush left office in January of 2009, his Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the New Black Panthers Party.

However, once Obama appointees to the DOJ took over, charges against the New Black Panther members were dropped.

On September 24, 2010, former Justice Department prosecutor Christopher Coates, in testimony at a U.S. Civil Rights Commission Hearing, shocked the nation when he revealed that the voter intimidation case was dropped because the suspects were black and their alleged victims were white.

“They have not pursued the goal of equal protection of the law for all people,” Coates reportedly said.

Repeat: According to a former Justice Department prosecutor, our federal government refused to prosecute claims when the plaintiffs were white.

People of color: Take no solace in this injustice. In this case, the victims of government bias are white people.

But what about next time? Will it be YOUR race or nationality or cause that the Obama administration arbitrarily refuses to protect?

Abandoning American Citizens in Favor of Foreign Invaders

The Democrat party has been the “illegal alien” party for a number of years. This is so because liberals can no longer rely on reasonable Americans for votes and power.

Thus, the need for advocating on behalf of millions of uneducated, poor illegal invaders who are easily persuaded provided the free benefits (health care, education, welfare, etc.) are doled out in sufficient quantities.

True to their sinister disregards for the rule of law, American sovereignty, and preservation of American culture and language, Democrats consider invading criminals to be “Newly Arrived Refugees,” and, more importantly, future Democrats.

This betrayal of America and American citizens reached a new low in 2010 as President Obama ordered his administration to file suit against Arizona because of SB 1070, the state’s attempt to protect citizens from the ravages of foreign invaders.

Unbelievable! The United States government suing an American state for resisting invasions from foreign criminals!

Even more outrageous was the betrayal of America by Congressional Democrats on May 19, 2010, when all Democrats in the House and Senate gave Mexican President Felipe Calderon a standing ovation for his condemnation of Arizona and law SB 1070!

Remember: On May 19, all Democrats in the U.S. Congress stood to cheer a foreign leader who had just condemned Arizona law makers for protecting American citizens.

How can any reasonably-patriotic American vote for any Democrat after such vile and treasonous behavior?

Playing Politics with American Lives in Afghanistan

In his book titled, “Obama’s Wars” journalist Bob Woodward exposes the fact that winning the war in Afghanistan has never been much of a priority to Obama or the Democrats.

Which is why Obama insisted on a time table for withdrawal, a carefully crafted commitment that would bring the troops home in time for the 2012 presidential election.

How can any thinking American vote for any Democrat when the Democrat Commander-in-chief uses American troops as pawns in a deadly game of political chess?

Use of Bribery & Political Sleight of Hand to Pass ObamaCare

The notion that the United States Congress provides “Honest, Open Government” to legislate and govern was blown all to hell by the political chicanery, cheating, and behind the scenes bribery used by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with considerable help from Obama, to pass a Marxist form of health care called ObamaCare.

ObamaCare was, and is, opposed by most Americans, and for good reasons.

To begin with, ObamaCare mandates that American citizens purchase health care or face the travails of dealing with the IRS for non-compliance.

In addition, the assumptions and projections behind ObamaCare have already proven to be faulty at best, criminal at worst.

How can any thinking American vote for any Democrat knowing that this party has taken away freedom of choice from Americans when it comes to health care, and has used bribery and sleight-of-hand to pass legislation that America does not need or want?

These four outrages are the most irritating and anger-provoking to me. There are hundreds more.

The bottom line is that the Democrat Party no longer operates with the best interests of the American people in mind. A lust for power and an obsession with socialism makes Democrats completely out of mainstream America.

Please carefully consider these outrages before voting for any Democrat!

Again, “Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.”

Contributor’s website: http://voiceoflillpop.blogspot.com/

The Obama Administration Is A Criminal Enterprize

The video you are about to view is factual and truthful!
What Barack Obama and Eric Holder are allowing to take place in this country is criminal in absolute violation of the United States Constitution and borderlines treasonous!

Please spread this video every place you can..It is very important that people know what is going on!

Democrats in Congress deflect blame with red herrings

Some of the longest-serving members of Congress, whose party has overwhelming majorities in both houses, are having far closer election races than they are used to. These include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, not to mention 18-year veteran Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Despite their long records, they seem to want to talk about everything except their records. They could tell us why they voted for ObamaCare and huge stimulus bills, without time enough to read them. Instead, they have come up with enough red herrings to stock an aquarium.

One of the big distracting talking points is that the Republicans in Congress have been “the party of No.” Given the overwhelming majorities of the Democrats in both houses, in addition to their control of the White House, whether the Republicans said “yes,” “no” or “maybe” could not stop the Democrats from doing anything they wanted to do.

It should also be noted that the Democrats were in power in Congress before President Obama got to the White House. So “the mess” that he constantly reminds us he “inherited” includes runaway spending by Congressional Democrats, of whom Sen. Barack Obama was one of the more prominent big spenders.

Deception?

Usually, the incumbents can talk about their “experience.” But experience at what? Deception? Earmarks? Reckless spending?

Sen. Harry Reid is playing the race card, saying that he can’t see how any Hispanic can vote for Republicans. But this is the same Harry Reid who in 1993, rejected “those who ask us to wink at illegal immigration” and warned against having “the social and cultural makeup” of the country “radically altered” by these immigrants.

In 1993, Sen. Reid introduced a bill — the Immigration Stabilization Act — to cut back on all immigration, both legal and illegal.

Sen. Reid said: “Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits, often without paying taxes.” He said, “Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance,” and added: “These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world.”

Today, of course, Sen. Reid is singing an entirely different tune. He has what Thorstein Veblen once called a “versatility of convictions.” So do a lot of “experienced” politicians.

Scent of red herrings

Instead of talking about the track records of people who have been wielding power in Washington for years, much of the mainstream follows the scent of the red herrings that have been dragged across their trail and focuses on the personal lives of the candidates who are challenging the incumbents.

Whether it is Meg Whitman’s housekeeper or remarks that Christine O’Donnell made when she was a teenager, or how much money Carly Fiorina made when she was a corporate CEO, the media are right on it — and right off the serious issues about what the incumbents have been doing to this country.

If everyone who made silly remarks when they were teenagers were prevented from being elected, at least half the elective offices in the country would be vacant. And since when is earning a high income in private industry a disqualification for holding public office?

The Obama administration has fewer people with real world experience in the private sector than any other administration in years. Maybe if they had more people with practical experience in the economy, we wouldn’t be in the mess that politicians created.

Eye on the ball

The big question for the election next month is whether the voters keep their eye on the ball and judge candidates by what policies they advocate or whether they can be thrown off the track by red herrings.

We have already seen in 2008 what can happen when voters fail to pay attention to a presidential candidate’s track record, and let themselves be dazzled by rhetoric, symbolism and media hype. We are losing not only our jobs but our country — and this could be our last chance to stop the Obama-Pelosi-Reid juggernaut.

http://www.vindy.com/news/2010/oct/08/democrats-in-congress-deflect-blame-with/?newswatch

Border Patrol joins ICE agents in condemning Obama administration


By Jim Kouri ⋅ August 19, 2010

On the heels of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents’ 258-0 “vote of no confidence” against their superiors, U.S. Border Patrol agents are slamming President Barack Obama’s administration especially Attorney General Eric Holder.

“We are receiving reports… that Eric Holder and DOJ have signaled that they [will continue to] challenge SB1070. If this development wasn’t so sad, it would be funny,” according to the membership of the National Border Patrol Council Local 2544, which represents U.S. Border Patrol agents in Tucson, Arizona.

While lamenting the disinterest in the Obama Administration for border security and immigration enforcement, Local 2544 officials said in a statement,”Now, [Attorney General Eric] Holder and DOJ [Department of Justice] apparently have found resources to challenge SB1070. This is an obvious political ploy, and Americans should be outraged [that] they actually go after a state for trying to do something about the out-of-control illegal immigration mess.”

“How many times have Americans heard lawmakers, mayors, governors, and immigration advocates when asked about Arizona enforcing immigration law, claim that their police officers aren’t authorized or trained to enforce immigration laws?” asks a career law enforcement officer from New York.

“Well, either these government leaders are too ignorant to to hold office or they’re out-and-out lying to the American people,” said former NYPD detective Sid Franes.

The Immigration and Nationality Act includes section 287(g), added in 1996, that grants local and state jurisdictions the ability to enforce immigration law with proper training and supervision by federal authorities. In 2003, Alabama became the second state in the nation to participate in the program by signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of Homeland Security. Florida was the first state to participate, in 2002, and later Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio sent his deputies for training.

While many politicians claim their police officers are not allowed to enforce immigration laws, their excuse for ignoring illegal aliens is a canard. Too few police agencies are taking advantage of the training offered by ICE and DHS.

“Partnerships with our state and local law enforcement colleagues have always been essential to our fight against illegal immigration,” said Paul Kilcoyne, Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deputy director for investigations.

“This innovative and cooperative effort allows our state troopers to become force multipliers for America’s border security mission. We always welcome those who enter our country legally, but we won’t stand idly by and do nothing when we catch illegal aliens, some who have committed crimes like armed robbery, rape and drug smuggling, in our state,” he said.

The 287(g) program, one of ICE’s top partnership initiatives, allows a state and local law enforcement entity to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in order to receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions. The 287(g) program has emerged as one of the agency’s most successful and popular partnership initiatives as more state and local leaders have come to understand how a shared approach to immigration enforcement can benefit their communities.

The 287(g) program allows a state and local law enforcement entity to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in order to receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions. The 287(g) program has emerged as one of the Agency’s most successful and popular partnership initiatives as more state and local leaders have come to understand how a shared approach to immigration enforcement can benefit their communities.

The 287(g) program is one component of the ICE ACCESS (Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security) program, which provides local law enforcement agencies an opportunity to team with ICE to combat specific challenges in their communities.

ICE developed the ACCESS program in response to the widespread interest from local law enforcement agencies who have requested ICE assistance through the 287(g) program, which trains local officers to enforce immigration law as authorized through section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Terrorism and criminal activity are most effectively combated through a multi-agency/multi-authority approach that encompasses federal, state and local resources, skills and expertise. State and local law enforcement play a critical role in protecting our homeland because they are often the first responders on the scene when there is an incident or attack against the United States. During the course of daily duties, they will often encounter foreign-born criminals and immigration violators who pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The cross-designation between ICE and state and local patrol officers, detectives, investigators and correctional officers allows these local and state officers necessary resources and latitude to pursue investigations relating to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering. In addition, participating entities are eligible for increased resources and support in more remote geographical locations.
About the Author
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.