U.S. Senate votes to fund federal lawsuit against Arizona !!!

[Bohemian]

What a CROCK of B.S. !


From: Roy Beck, President, NumbersUSA Date: Thursday 22JUL2010 2 p.m. EDT

PHONE & FAX YOUR SENATORS WHO VOTED TO STOP STATES FROM HELPING THE FEDS MOVE OUT ILLEGAL ALIENS

Thanks to all of you who have been phoning and faxing Senators to force a vote. You succeeded and surprised most of us.

(See the vote tally below.)

The vote was on an amendment by Sen. DeMint to forbid the use of funds to press the Obama Administration's suit to block the Arizona enforcement law.

A vote against the amendment was a vote against states doing something about the illegal populations taking jobs from legal residents and driving up the taxpayer burden.

ACTION: Call the pro-illegal-alien Senators at 202-224-3121 and protest their vote.

Please go to your Action Board over the next few hours as we put up phone talking-point notes and faxes for you.

This roll call vote was very important so we could put these Senators on public record.

Now we have a roll call record of those U.S. Senators who oppose the Arizona enforcement law that polls show is one of the most popular public policies in America now.

While most Americans of all types like the idea of states acting to help enforce existing federal immigration laws and policies, 55 U.S. Senators voted to protect funding of federal lawsuits to handcuff states.

"Our federal government should be doing its job securing the borders, rather than trying to bully and intimidate the people of Arizona," DeMint said in support of his amendment.

The vote was 55-43 against the DeMint amendment.

5 Democrats voted FOR consideration of the amendment and for state enforcement:

Max Baucus (D-MT)
John Tester (D-MT)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Those of you in Arkansa, Montana and Nebraska will see ways to thank these Senators on your Action Board.

And all the rest of us in the country thank the NumbersUSA activists in those three states for doing such a good job of helping these Senators understand what their constituents want on this issue and then doing it.

All other Democrats (except Bayh of Indiana who didn't vote) voted NO on the amendment, taking the pro-illegal-alien position.

2 Republicans voted AGAINST consideration of the amendment and against state enforcement:

George Voinovich (R-OH)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)

Voinovich is a lame duck Senator who has always been a problem for us. We really are depending on you members in Ohio to put more pressure on both the Republican and Democratic candidates to promise a more pro-worker immigration position than Voinovich has provided. None of your candidates at this moment is particularly promising. The time to make any difference with them is now while they are running.

All other Republicans (except Vitter of Lousiana who didn't vote) voted YES on the amendment, taking the pro-state-enforcement position.

It is very important than all NO voters feel some constituent pain for what they did on this. Be sure to check your Action Board for opportunities for action.

THANKS,

ROY BECK

http://www.numbersusa.com/

[wuzfuz]

Our senior Senator, Patty 'snaggletooth' Murray, and her partner in crime, maria Cantwell, voted no when the Senate considered the National Reciprocity Bill. First off, the Democrats decided that instead of a simple majority, the bill would have to have a supermajority of 60 votes to pass. The bill got 58 votes. Both Washington Senators voted no. Think about it. Had they voted yes, the bill would have passed. But no, they decided to go with Barbara Boxer's fairy tale about lawful gun owners bring burlap bags of illegal weapons into California. I confronted Murray about this matter, and her response to me was, "We don't want people in other states telling us what gun laws to have." I told her that the Concealed Pistol License in Washingto was strictly a revenue device. If you pay your $58.00 (in Thuirston County) and have a clean record, you have your license. There is no requirement to even know how to load the weapon you carry. As a former LEO and well-trained firearms user, it scares me that 250,000 Washingtonians are running around armed with weapons that no one can prove they know how to use. I did tell Ms. Murray, however, that the vast majority of us gun owners do vote, and that November is coming. The 58 vote defeat of the National Carry Bill was not a resounding message. The bill will be revisited, and I predict next time it will pass.
I only have one question about Washington, DC. What part of 'shall not be infringed' is so difficult to understand?

[Bohemian]

Our senior Senator, Patty 'snaggletooth' Murray, and her partner in crime, maria Cantwell, voted no when the Senate considered the National Reciprocity Bill. First off, the Democrats decided that instead of a simple majority, the bill would have to have a supermajority of 60 votes to pass. The bill got 58 votes. Both Washington Senators voted no. Think about it. Had they voted yes, the bill would have passed. But no, they decided to go with Barbara Boxer's fairy tale about lawful gun owners bring burlap bags of illegal weapons into California. I confronted Murray about this matter, and her response to me was, "We don't want people in other states telling us what gun laws to have." I told her that the Concealed Pistol License in Washingto was strictly a revenue device. If you pay your $58.00 (in Thuirston County) and have a clean record, you have your license. There is no requirement to even know how to load the weapon you carry. As a former LEO and well-trained firearms user, it scares me that 250,000 Washingtonians are running around armed with weapons that no one can prove they know how to use. I did tell Ms. Murray, however, that the vast majority of us gun owners do vote, and that November is coming. The 58 vote defeat of the National Carry Bill was not a resounding message. The bill will be revisited, and I predict next time it will pass.
I only have one question about Washington, DC. What part of 'shall not be infringed' is so difficult to understand?

Here's a couple of things to be mindful of...
1. I do not want anybody legislating requirements of any kind to exercise my Second Amendment rights, regardless of the peace of mind it may give myself & others...
2. The Second Amendment does not state "Shall Not Be Infringed" Except...
IF your zip code is x, your standing or sitting at y or the type or class of weapon you have or desire to have is z...
OR if said weapon is carried openly or concealed...
OR if you have successfully completed whatever draconian registration/training requirements have been legislated this week to exercise your Second Amendment rights...

The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

Remember, Remember, The Second of November, 2010 (Early Voting In Process Now)...

Take Back The Republic...

Fire Congress...

No Liberals...
No Democraps...
No RINOS...
No Socialists, Progressives, Communists, Marxists, etc...

"The Second Amendment IS my Concealed (And Open) Carry Permit" - Ted Nugent

[fuhr52]

Just remember if we keep re-electing the same people how can we expect a different outcome. If we want change we have to vote change. Keep the same people in power and we will continue down the same road.