Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Youtube

We Win They Lose archive
Category : News: Legal & Courts

Sheriff Joe Nails Illegal Alien Identity Thieves at Popular Restaurant Chain – Activists Enraged

sheriff_joe_swa_title

If illegal alien activists thought the ruling of a liberal Federal judge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio was going to stop him from enforcing the rule of law against illegals, they can think again.

In late May, U.S. District Judge Murray Snow absurdly ruled that Arpaio had engaged in racial profiling against “Latinos” and targeted Latino drivers based on their “race” (there is no such “race” as “Latino”, but logic isn’t Snow’s strong point). Snow prohibited sheriff’s deputies from “using race as a factor” in law-enforcement decisions related to immigration. Advocates for illegals who share Snow’s far-left views rejoiced, and declared that Sheriff Joe’s workplace raids against illegal aliens were a thing of the past.

They were dead wrong.

On Wednesday, Maricopa County sheriff’s deputies and posse volunteers executed search warrants at three locations of Uncle Sam’s following a nine-month forgery and ID theft investigation.

Sheriff’s detectives say as many as 121 people hired to work for the restaurant chain since October gained employment by using falsified documents and stolen IDs. Sheriff Joe Arpaio said many of the victims are local residents.

As many as 50 deputies and posse members attempted to locate 70 suspects currently employed at two restaurant locations. At least 10 of the 70 suspects were arrested by MCSO deputies at the scene.

Detectives also searched the owner’s Scottsdale home office – and he may face state penalties for harboring illegal aliens.

Arpaio said the investigation began in October after his office received a tip from a caller. Detectives found 121 discrepancies including multiple names, addresses, no existing records and/or names not matching the Social Security numbers provided.

This was the 73rd workplace ID theft operation conducted by sheriff’s detectives in just the past 5 years.

Read More…

Military Censors Christian Chaplain, Atheists Call for Punishment (Obama’s Gay Military)

A Christian chaplain in the military is being officially censored for engaging in free speech, and anti-Christian activists are demanding he be punished.

Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes is a Christian chaplain currently serving in the U.S. Air Force. He is stationed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska. As an ordained clergyman whose duties are to provide religious instruction and spiritual counseling, he has a page on the base’s website called “Chaplain’s Corner.”

Reyes recently wrote an essay entitled, “No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II.” This common saying is attributed to a Catholic priest in World War II, made famous when President Dwight D. Eisenhower said during a 1954 speech: “I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in oåçur daily lives. In battle, they learned a great truth that there are no atheists in the foxholes.”

As reported by Fox News’s Todd Starnes, when Reyes referenced this famous line in his essay, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) contacted the base commander, Col. Brian Duffy, demanding he take action on Reyes’s “anti-secular diatribe.”

MRFF’s letter says that by Reyes’s “use of the bigoted, religious supremacist phrase, ‘no atheists in foxholes,’ he defiles the dignity of service members.” They accuse him of violating military regulations.

My legal research on this issue uncovered no regulation prohibiting Reyes’ speech, which looks like expression protected by the free speech and religious freedom provisions of the First Amendment. Military leaders did not respond to Fox’s inquiries asking the Air Force to identify any such rules.

Nonetheless, only five hours after MRFF’s complaint, the essay was removed from the website. Duffy has profusely apologized to MRFF for not stopping this religious leader from sharing religious thoughts.

But this response—which again appears to be a violation of Reyes’s First Amendment rights—is insufficient for MRFF. They said, “Faith based hate, is hate all the same,” and, “Lt. Col. Reyes must be appropriately punished.” (Emphasis added).

So MRFF is saying that the coercive power of government must be used to punish a military officer, who is also an ordained Christian minister, for making ordinary religious references consistent with his faith.

Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council—one of the leaders of a new religious liberty coalition for the military—responded, “A chaplain has been censored for expressing his beliefs about the role of faith in the lives of service members… Why do we have chaplains if they aren’t allowed to fulfill that purpose?”

Read More…

San Antonio, TX Looks to Penalize Bible Believers

Think it’s hot in Texas these days? Just wait a few weeks, until the San Antonio City Council ends its summer hiatus and resumes work on a proposed change to its nondiscrimination ordinances that apparently will discriminate against all who take the Bible at its word and follow it.

That’s because the change creates a penalty for those who ever exhibit a “bias,” which clearly could include adopting the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, with a permanent ban on participation in city government, business or employment.

Opponents of the plan, which would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the nondiscrimination ordinances, charge it is a violation of constitutional Article VI, paragraph 3, which states, “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

The opponents explain that the ordinance would bar anyone from office who has “demonstrated a bias” against someone based on categories that include “sexual orientation.”

The proposal, however, does not define “bias,” which, according to local church leaders, could mean someone who declares homosexual behavior is sinful.

The new ordinance would state: “No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability.”

Read More…

Judge halts lawsuits seeking to block Detroit bankruptcy (Detroit Officially Bankrupt Now)

A federal bankruptcy judge on Wednesday suspended pending lawsuits in state courts that are challenging Detroit’s bankruptcy filing.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes said there is nothing in the 10th Amendment, which guides state vs. federal jurisdiction, that bars federal jurisdiction in this case. He said his court will be the exclusive venue for any legal action regarding the bankruptcy.

Detroit’s Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr—a bankruptcy expert appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder earlier this year to oversee Detroit’s finances—has said the federal bankruptcy filing is necessary to get the city out from under some $18 billion in liabilities.

But the city’s employee unions argued the bankruptcy is an end-run around the state constitution, which protects their pension benefits. The unions backed a series of lawsuits filed in Michigan courts to block the bankruptcy. Last week, Ingham County Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina ruled the bankruptcy filing unconstitutional, but a state appeals court put her ruling on hold, and Orr argued the federal court should make that stay indefinite.

The emergency manager said bankruptcy is a federal matter. A bankruptcy filing normally puts all other litigation on hold, but Orr’s office asked the judge to extend that automatic stay to cover him and state officials, including the governor. Orr’s attorneys acknowledged the request was unusual, but said “recent events”—the lawsuits in state court—made it necessary.

Read More…

Colorado Baker Faces Up to a Year in Jail for Not Baking Cake for Gay Wedding

cake protest

Gay activists protest the Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012. Owner Jack Phillips now faces charges for not baking a cake for the gay couple. (Free Republic) Gay marriage was banned by the Colorado constitution in 2006.

But this didn’t stop the Colorado Attorney General’s office from filing a discrimination complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop for not baking a cake for a gay couple.

Read More…

Gay Couple In Florida Win Green Card To Stay In The US [The Framers Weep!]

Florida reactions to same-sex marriage ruling

Gay Couple In Florida Win Green Card To Stay In The US Bulgarian who married his US partner granted residency days after supreme court ruling on same-sex marriage James Meikle guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 July 2013 A gay couple from Florida have become the first successful green card applicants for permanent US residency since the supreme court struck down a federal law against same-sex marriage.

Traian Popov, from Bulgaria, and American Julian Marsh learnt the decision from immigration officials on Friday as the government acted quickly to change its visa policies after last week’s legal decision.

“It was just kind of a shock, like winning the lottery,” said Marsh who was celebrating his 55th birthday with Popov at a restuarant when they got the news. “The amazing, overwhelming fact is that the government said yes, and my husband and I can live in the country we chose and we love and want to stay in,” he told the New York Times.

Popov, 41, who has been living in the US for 15 years as a student and is working towards a doctorate in social science, married Marsh in October last year – they met in 2011. They wed in New York because Florida does not recognise same-sex marriage. Marsh, a DJ and music producer, petitioned for Popov’s green card in February.

“We are first-class citizens in New York and in the eyes of the federal government, but second-class citizens in Florida,” Marsh said, signalling their role as activists to change the law in Florida. “We won’t stand for that.”

Read More…

The Supreme Court’s Misuse of Children to Justify Same-Sex Marriage

Reuters-children-of-gay-couple-pride-parade-photog-Jonathan-Alcorn

Of all the misconceived nonsense in the recent Windsor v. United States ruling, perhaps the most egregious was Justice Anthony Kennedy’s insinuation that “the children made me do it.” Windsor declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because it defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Why was DOMA a problem for children? Justice Kennedy said that by denying same-sex couples legitimacy, DOMA “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.” The Act “makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Thus Justice Kennedy portrays himself as riding to the children’s rescue.

This strategy is reminiscent of President Barack Obama’s misuse of the military to justify same-sex “marriage.” First, he forced the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” on the reluctant military, and then used that very same military as the excuse for endorsing homosexual “marriage,” as if it were the military asking for it. Those poor Marines in the foxholes of Afghanistan were just aching to marry each other, and Obama comes to their rescue. He shamelessly proclaimed: “When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that “don’t ask don’t tell” is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

This was completely risible, but one has to admire the audacity of his sophistical argument, as we do Justice Kennedy’s similar one. His goes like this: First, allow same-sex couples to adopt children, but then do not blame the humiliation of the children on the situation into which they have been placed, through no fault of their own, but upon the people who objected to it in the first place. Do not fault those who created the problem through the fabrication of faux “marriage”; fault those who warned that the fabrication of faux “marriage,” along with attendant adoptions, would create this problem. First, exploit children by placing them in this situation, and then exploit them again in order to justify it. Voilà! A fully formed faux family.

Read More…

Russia Passes Anti-Gay Law [How About Russia Passes "Pro-Family Law?]

Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin’s government wants to promote ‘traditional Russian values’ over what it sees as western liberalism and tolerance. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has signed into law a measure that stigmatises gay people and bans giving children any information about homosexuality.

The lower house of Russia’s parliament unanimously passed the Kremlin-backed bill on 11 June and the upper house approved it last week.

The Kremlin announced on Sunday that Putin had signed the legislation into law.

The ban on “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” is part of an effort to promote traditional Russian values over western liberalism, which the Kremlin and the Russian orthodox church see as corrupting Russian youth and contributing to the protests against Putin’s rule.

Hefty fines can now be imposed on those who provide information about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community to minors or hold gay pride rallies.

Read More…

The Attempted Extortion of Paula Deen

The real story behind the Paula Deen scandal can be summed up in a single word: greed. The American judicial system and the media are being used as formidable weapons in a brazen attempt to extort money from Ms. Deen, in my opinion.

This isn’t a story about racism. It’s all about the money.

The mainstream media have reported with glee only some of the gory details as Paula Deen’s financial empire continue to crumble. The Food Channel, Wal-Mart, Target, and the publisher of her bestselling cookbook all have abruptly terminated their relationship with Ms. Deen. The firestorm erupted after it was widely reported that Ms. Deen gave a deposition in a civil lawsuit in which she admitted using the N-word.

Rarely if ever mentioned by the national press is the context in which the word was used, or the reason the deposition became public knowledge.

No one is interested in defending the use of that particular word, including this writer.

But for the record, the specific instance in which Ms. Deen admitted to using that specific word was in the privacy of her own home, used to describe a robber who had pointed a gun at her head. The mainstream media also doesn’t seem to care that Ms. Deen could easily have lied about that specific incident, yet chose to tell the truth under oath.

Apparently there’s a zero tolerance policy when certain people use the forbidden N-word.

Never mind that the epithet was uttered in privacy, after Ms. Deen had suffered considerable duress of being robbed at gunpoint.

That the usage became public knowledge only when Jackson’s attorney began conducting a smear campaign intended to inflict irreparable harm on Ms. Deen’s businesses also seems to be irrelevant information to the drive-by media.

The motive for the lawsuit has been made abundantly clear. Plaintiff Lisa T. Jackson wanted $1.25 million dollars that didn’t belong to her, so she decided to sue Paula Deen and her brother.

Read More…

Obama Hails Senate Passage of Immigration Bill (Rubio Assured Us That Obama Would Hate This Bill)

President Barack Obama is hailing Senate passage of a historic immigration bill that he says moves the country a step closer to fixing a broken immigration system.

Now he’s calling on the House to do the same.

The president is also urging supporters to keep a, quote, “watchful eye.” With the issue moving to the House, Obama says now is the time that opponents will try their hardest to block the bill from becoming law. He’s asking supporters to tell their representatives in the House to vote for the bill.

Read More…

Morning Bell: The Supreme Court’s Marriage Decisions by the Numbers (Great Heritage Analysis)

The morning after two important—and troubling—Supreme Court decisions in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, here’s the lay of the land. The important takeaway: The marriage debate is every bit as live today as it was yesterday morning…and that means it’s time to redouble our efforts to stand for marriage across America. Some key numbers following the decisions:

50 The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions.

38 The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That includes California, where the scope of today’s Prop 8 decision beyond the specific plaintiffs will be the subject of ongoing debate and, most likely, further litigation.

12 The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The Court struck Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize same-sex marriages in states that redefine marriage.

1 The number of sections of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down yesterday (Section 3). Section 2, which ensures that no state will be forced to recognize another state’s redefinition of marriage, is still law.

0 The number of states forced to recognize other states’ redefinition of marriage.

The important news you may not be hearing is that the U.S. Supreme Court did not redefine marriage across the nation. That means the debate about marriage will continue. States are free to uphold policies recognizing that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, so that children have a mother and a father.

Read More…

Can gay marriage really lead to polygamy? Polygamists seem to think so!

Can gay marriage really lead to polygamy? Polygamists seem to think so.

Immediately following the Supreme Court’s ruling this week, conservative radio host Glenn Beck warned that legalized polygamy wouldn’t be far behind. “If you change one variable — man and a woman to man and man, and woman and woman,” he said, “you cannot then tell me that you cannot logically tell me you can’t change the other variable: one man, three women. One woman, four men.”

Many gay marriage supporters scoff at the notion, declaring that no such thing could ever happen. But if that’s the case, no one apparently told the polygamists.

According to the Daily Mail, they’re pretty darned excited about the ruling:

‘I was very glad,’ polygamist Anne Wilde told Buzzfeed in the aftermath of the rulings. ‘The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore.’

She added that many people in polygamous relationships were not in fact seeking the right to marry, but wanted to ensure that they were safe from prosecution.

Read More…

Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, passes on Proposition 8

Protest_against_a_constitutional_amendment_banning_same_sex_marriage

The United States Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and rejected an appeal about Proposition 8 on Wednesday, in two significant wins for supporters of same-sex marriages.

Neither ruling established a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but they invalidated one federal law that defined marriage as only a union between a man and a woman, and ended an appeal to reinstate a California referendum that barred same-sex marriages in that state.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said in a 5-4 decision in United States v. Windsor that the federal law known as DOMA deprived the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Constitution.

“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State,” said Kennedy.

Read More…

Supreme Court leaves door open to Arizona requiring additional proof of citizenship – Wait, what?

7-2 decision practically invites Arizona to try again using proper administrative procedure.

Most of what you have heard in the media about the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona is incomplete to the point of misleading.

It is true that the Court held that Arizona’s Proposition 200 (passed in 2004) requiring documentary proof of citizenship was invalid as contrary to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requirement that states “accept and use” the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) voter registration form which merely requires that a registrant affirm citizenship.

But, this ruling essentially was procedural.

The Court held if Arizona wanted to require additional documentary proof of citizenship it needed to follow the administrative procedures under the NVRA to obtain approval to alter the instructions to the federal form. In fact, in 2005 Arizona had requested such approval, the EAC split 2-2, but Arizona failed to appeal. The Court held that nothing prevented Arizona from requesting approval again, and appealing if denied. The Court practically invited Arizona to try again.

Read More…

Was Justice Roberts Intimidated Into Voting for ‘ObamaCare’? Senator Mike Lee Presents the Evidence…

Senator Mike Lee on Why Justice John Roberts Voted to Uphold ObamaCare | Glenn Beck Radio Program

After Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “ObamaCare,” many wondered if there could be a yet-unknown reason why the Republican-nominated justice made the unexpected decision.

On the Glenn Beck radio program Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) explained why he believes Roberts was intimidated into changing his vote late in the process, as laid out in his new book Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare.

Lee’s argument is not based on the NSA or its monitoring of the nation’s communication. Rather, Lee said, there are indications that Roberts originally intended to vote against the act, but that a public “campaign of intimidation” made him change his mind.

First, the senator claimed “the opinion was written in a way to suggest he switched his vote,” and that the dissenting opinion reads like it was originally written as the majority. He added that several news outlets reported that Roberts did change his vote, based on insider information.

Not only that, he said, but the court performed an unusual feat of “legal gymnastics” in upholding the legislation, particularly with regard to whether the fines incurred are or are not taxes. They had to re-write sections of the the bill not once, but twice.

Read More…

Translate
ArabicChinese (Traditional)DanishDutchEnglishFilipinoFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanNorwegianPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedish
Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Defend Marriage and Stop President Obama's Unconstitutional Power Grab


Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!


Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Twitter Feed
Welcome , today is Tuesday, July 30, 2013