Can’t put it any other way.
Ignore her. What can she do about it? Make her and her ruling irrelevant in Arizona.
Its about time to tell the fed where to go. People 3,000 miles away making decisions for us?
This judge just set up the Obama / Mexico lawsuit; a lawsuit with no standing in any Arizona court.
This is Arizona. Love it or leave it.
Governor Brewer, tell the judge to take a hike and use an Executive Order to put the law in place. We’ll support you!
If you support persons here illegally, then please move with them to New Mexico or California and leave Arizona. 460,000 illegal aliens is 459,999 more than we care to support.
The undocumented individual I know worked at over $18/hr taking a job away from a legal citizen and received a federal tax refund of over $4,200 last year – did you?
(no SSN but an EIN from the IRS that anyone can obtain)
*ahem* TOLD YOU SO! Can the candidates concentrate on some of the more minor stuff, like….I dunno…reducing unemployment, trying to fix our ruptured budget, providing ways to improve our health care and schools, ad infinitum.
ALL of the candidates SA supports have ONLY ONE platform….illegal immigration and SB1070. THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE.
Without this stupid law, made by stupid people, they are nothing more than empty suits. Their campaign platform has evaporated, and they can only turn now to eating their young.
It’s going to be nice to see this blog implode without it’s one and only driving engine.
This “ONLY ONE” platform is costing Arizona billions of dollars and driving men with machine guns into the deserts of Pinal County.
btw LD17, I’m not a frig’n candidate … I live with that “ONLY ONE” problem you deride.
“… reducing unemployment, trying to fix our ruptured budget, providing ways to improve our health care and schools, ad infinitum.”
Kicking out 460,000 freeloaders would go miles to addressing those minor issues you speak of.
It works like this, $4,200 IRS “refund” for Earned Income Credit and Head of Household credit. “Reported” income? About $5,000 actual income paid in cash? About $40,000.
Health care costs? ACCCHS
LD17 Says:
July 28th, 2010 at 11:32 am
*ahem* TOLD YOU SO! Can the candidates concentrate on some of the more minor stuff, like….I dunno…reducing unemployment, trying to fix our ruptured budget, providing ways to improve our health care and schools, ad infinitum.
_____
Me: Hey dummy, umm…reducing unemployment? How about more jobs for Arizonans: kick out the illegals.
Fixing our ruptured budget? How about 2.5 billion spent on medicating, incarcerating, educating and feeding illegal aliens.
Improving health care and schools? Do I really need to say it?
Veritas,
OK you got it off your chest. Now back to reality. There is no chance, zero, zip,zilch, nada, that Governor Brewer will defy Judge Bolton. Governor Brewer will appeal and will fight this ruling in court, and in the court of public opinion, but she will not do a single thing to disobey it, which is exactly as it should be under the Constitution.
And while we are at it, let’s keep it all in perspective. 1070 does nothing to secure the border, absolutely nothing, and securing the border is the highest priority to anyone concerned about the welfare of this state and her people.
You deride the feds for ignoring immigration law and the Guarantee Clause. Now you suggest that the State of Arizona ignore the law (namely Article I and Article III). Seems a little hypocritical. Whether for or against SB1070 we must honor the federal system agreed to by our forefathers.
P.S. Bolton has lived in AZ since at least 1975 (not 3,000 miles away).
Waaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!!
Yes!! U.S.A! U.S.A!
How did you people not see this coming?? You wave around the Constitution at every teabagging fest but you never bother to read it!
Haaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Ignore the ruling? Yes. Thats the patriotic way, isn’t it? Ignore the judiciary. Pure Genius. We all know illegal immigration is a problem. Lets try finding a Constitutional and legal way of fixing it, shall we?
Still Laughing,
Tucson Vice
Tucson Vice:
Get your laughs in now. This obviously is headed to the Supreme Court, and we’ll see who wins there.
Yep. Yep we will.
WAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA…
True. This will go to the 9th Circuit. And fail. It will also go the the Supreme Court. And fail.
“This “ONLY ONE” platform is costing Arizona billions of dollars and driving men with machine guns into the deserts of Pinal County.”
JT Reddy much?
‘Kicking out 460,000 freeloaders would go miles to addressing those minor issues you speak of.”
Ah. But you can’t. Even if you could, you don’t have the money to do it. Or the manpower. At least not without Federal assistance. Which isn’t going to happen.
Want to fix the problem? Security starts at the border. Stop them there. History shows us that another person wanted to use the same tactics that you and the other right wingnuts espouse. His name was Hitler. You and he would have gotten along quite nicely.
But back to my premise about all of your one platform candidates not having a leg (or plank) to now stand on. What are they going to do now?
“Me: Hey dummy, umm…reducing unemployment? How about more jobs for Arizonans: kick out the illegals.”
Okay, smart guy. How are you going to do that now without your precious SB1070? Overthrow the government like your buddies here are saying?
“Fixing our ruptured budget? How about 2.5 billion spent on medicating, incarcerating, educating and feeding illegal aliens.”
Medicating them. That’s an ACCCHS problem which the legislature continues to say they’ll address but never do.
Incarceration is done when a person is judged guilty of a crime. This applies to both legals and illegals.
State and Federal law mandates that you provide education. Guess you want to overthrow that as well.
Feeding. Sure. Shut down all the not for profits and charities. Smart move, Einstein.
Dang, Judge, now the ACA and its lobbyist Chuckie and Jan B his shrill will have to go back to the drawing board to try and fill those private prisons.
Hmm… she didn’t strike down the section that turns the Arizona drivers license into a national id.
# LD17 Says:
July 28th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
You: Okay, smart guy. How are you going to do that now without your precious SB1070? Overthrow the government like your buddies here are saying?
Me: Hey lunatic. You’re starting to sound like a stupid liberal talk host I used to not listen to on KTAR named DL. I don’t have any “buddies” advocating overthrowing the government, nor have I nor will I.
You: Medicating them. That’s an ACCCHS problem which the legislature continues to say they’ll address but never do.
Me: You’re arguing my point, dolt.
You: Incarceration is done when a person is judged guilty of a crime. This applies to both legals and illegals.
Me: 1/3 of the federal prisoners are illegal aliens. Do the math on what it takes to support these law breakers.
You: State and Federal law mandates that you provide education. Guess you want to overthrow that as well.
Me: You should do a talk show on KTAR in memory of DL, the great masquerader.
You: Feeding. Sure. Shut down all the not for profits and charities. Smart move, Einstein.
Me: No. Don’t reach into my pocket to support illegals. I can’t afford it, neither can you.
“Me: Hey lunatic. You’re starting to sound like a stupid liberal talk host I used to not listen to on KTAR named DL. I don’t have any “buddies” advocating overthrowing the government, nor have I nor will I.”
Wouldn’t know. I don’t listen to KTAR. VV is advocating overthrowing this Federal ruling. “Federal” meaning “Federal government”.
“Me: You’re arguing my point, dolt.”
No. I’m simply stating that if the Legislature and candidates spent as much time running their mouths about an unenforceable law and spent it on trying to fix ACCCHS, we would have much less of a problem in this area.
“Me: 1/3 of the federal prisoners are illegal aliens. Do the math on what it takes to support these law breakers.”
You might want to stop reading chain mail and get back to reality. The report that you are misinterpreting stated that “30% of federal prisoners are not US Citizens.” Doesn’t say “illegal immigrants”. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Prisons does not keep figures in illegal immigrants. In fact, a DOJ report stated that only 1.6% of prisoners was under ICE jurisdiction.
“Me: You should do a talk show on KTAR in memory of DL, the great masquerader.”
No clue who you’re talking about, so this is irrelevant.
“Me: No. Don’t reach into my pocket to support illegals. I can’t afford it, neither can you.”
A blanket statement with no figures. Also irrelevant.
My point, AGAIN…what are the blowhards like JD, Thomas, et al going to do now that they’ve lost their only speaking point?
Criminal aliens compose the highest share of all federal inmates, upwards of 29%+.
That’s one in three.
Next…
Guess we’ll find out in November if the Democrats have stopped this issue amongst legal citizens.
The Arizona legislature introduced this, debated it, passed it – representatives of the PEOPLE. One judge just took some sissors to it, parts move forward, other parts have to be reviewed by others more “knowing” than she. All she could do credibly was to defer consideration – forcing a wait on the state. A Democrat just gave the Democratic-controlled administration what they wanted.
By the time this is all said and done, this nation will either be 110% Democrat, like the Soviet Union was 110% or 100% Republican.
Either the Democrats seize total control for what Nancy Pelosi has stated she wants, a “one party” system, or the nation vomits them out.
Not much in between with the way the Democrats are ramming thru legislation designed to keep their party in power in perpetuity – that is until Americans have no money left.
# wanumba Says:
July 28th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
By the time this is all said and done, this nation will either be 110% Democrat, like the Soviet Union was 110% or 100% Republican.
Either the Democrats seize total control for what Nancy Pelosi has stated she wants, a “one party” system, or the nation vomits them out.
_____
Well said.
I just pray John McCain doesn’t get in. I pray that Arizonans get behind Hayworth.
James, where does it say in the Constitution “… which is exactly as it should be under the Constitution.”
Where specifically does it say that a Governor, of a sovereign state, *shall* obey a federal judge?
“…1070 does nothing to secure the border, absolutely nothing, and securing the border” Are you aware of how many illegal aliens have self-deported? And business will drop for the human smugglers if folks can’t get through Arizona.
1070 does a lot to curb illegal immigration.
“we must honor the federal system agreed to by our forefathers”
…yeah, exactly the way they “honored” the British Crown agreed to by their forefathers!
“That’s the patriotic way, isn’t it?” Exactly what 1/3 of the U.S. population did 234 years ago. Very patriotic. When a government becomes a burden and not a virtue then its time to re-think the contract.
“Security starts at the border. Stop them there.” You don’t have the stomach for what that takes pal.
Self-deportation is like keeping the bugs out of the picnic basket … remove the goodies and they go elsewhere. And yes, I am suggesting that those swarming over the border are an analogy to ants or other bugs. Their behavior is the same.
May God forgive all of you for your hatred
Very comfortable with let God be the judge to determine whether the accusation of “hatred” is fair or if it’s just someone’s hysterically intolerant political hyperbole.
Veritas,
Here’s your clause:
“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.”
Article 6, section 2, United States Constitution.
Your argument is not with me. It is with the Union soldiers who crushed a disgusting and traitorous rebellion with steel and blood.
Your argument is also with Chief Justice John Marshall, without whose leadership the Virginia Convention never would have ratified the Constitution in 1787. A veteran of the Revolutionary War and a participant in the Virginia ratification debate and convention, Marshall wrote the 1819 opinion of the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, and held that federal courts could declare state laws unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if they conflicted with the United States Constitution.
As Hamilton and Madison recognized, it had to be that way. The United States Constitution has to be supreme when a state law conflicts with it or we have no federal government.
As for 1070 curbing illegal immigration, read the preamble. It is enforcement through attrition. Attrition takes a long time. The law (1070) is patient.
It remains a fact that 1070 does nothing to secure the border. That does not detract from its value. It places it in perspective.
““Security starts at the border. Stop them there.” You don’t have the stomach for what that takes pal.”
Really. So I guess the 12 plus years I served in the active military, my Honorable Discharge, the numerous scars I bear and my permanent limp, not to mention all those shiny things I got that you gutless wonders call ‘medals’ means I don’t have the stomach for this?
Crawl back under your rock.
#LD17 Says:
July 28th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Really. So I guess the 12 plus years I served in the active military, my Honorable Discharge, the numerous scars I bear and my permanent limp, not to mention all those shiny things I got that you gutless wonders call ‘medals’ means I don’t have the stomach for this?
_____
LD17, as a former soldier myself, I salute your service.
However, I, nor anyone I know or associate with advocated overthrowing the government.
Where you got that from simply baffles me.
Once again you played fast and loose with the truth; hence, you seemed doltish.
Divergent opinions are welcome but we need to hash and thrash these topics out.
Mike Holliday #18,
I hate to disappoint you but I am afraid you’ll be left with a lesser god you are praying to.
LD17,
Bolton just handed the Tea Parties and conservatives everywhere the ticket to win in the primaries and in November. The law was in all likelihood headed to SCOTUS. The issue was who would win round one and benefit from it as it headed to SCOTUS. If AZ had “won” (no injuction, constitutional) then the left and the Dem’s would have an issue to rally their base. If Eric holder “won” (injunction and unconstititional) then the right and the Tea Parties would have their ticket to ride. I was chatting with Don Goldwater at our CG Pachy meeting on Monday and Don wanted the initial ruling to go the way it just did for the reason given above and to guarantee that it made it to SCOTUS so that when it is upheld 5-4 or 6-3 the ruling applies to the entire county and not just the 9th circuit. The SCOTUS ruling that will control the case is U.S. v. Rhode Island which dealt with state enforcement of immigration law and checking of immigration status.I suggest you read the court’s opinion before getting so cheerful.
I have no idea if any of you will read this, nor will I check back to see what any of you have to say. But let it be known that a 26 year old moderate fully supports this bill.
Everyone is up in arms because our legislators say that local law enforcement should be able to arrest someone for breaking a federal law? Is it really that stupid? The news makes it sound like a Fed vs State jurisdictional pissing match. Arizona just wants to enforce the FEDERAL immigration laws. When did that become an issue?
And the ‘extra strain and re-allocation of federal agency’s time and personnel’ that this bill would create is a load of crap. You can’t tell me that in our country it’s THAT hard for an officer to radio in a SSN or ID# and have someone at the station log-on to a site that will have access to a federal immigration database and verify the legality of a persons citizenship. This whole argument over SB 1070 reeks of BS.
“Where is all the money going to come from to supply the necessary funding to support this extra work for local law enforcement?” What ‘extra work’ needs funding? It must be the gas that the state prison system/local police will spend when they transport illegals to federal agents to have them deported. Or maybe it’s the money we’ll need to buy all the extra paper. I fail to see a point to this argument.
“Even though Arizona’s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws,” -Judge Bolton Just to make sure we’re all clear, by ‘preempted’ she means federal. That statement defies common sense.
The judge said the state measure was preempted by federal law because such checks would swamp federal immigration officials who are pursuing different priorities. What different priorities? Priorities not involving catching illegal aliens processing them for deportation? There goes that common sense alarm again.
“”Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,” said Bolton.” Come again? It burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while they’re status is checked, IF THEY’VE BEEN ARRESTED. That’s what happens when you get arrested, judge. If you don’t want to be burdened by restricted liberties then don’t BREAK THE LAW. How in the name of whatever god you believe in did this woman become a judge, much less make it to the federal level?
“Also blocked by the judge was a section of the law that made it a state crime for any foreign resident of Arizona to fail to carry federally-issued immigration documents at all times. Federal law requires that such documents be carried at all times, but federal officials do not enforce it. The state law sought to enforce it. In enjoining this part of the law, Judge Bolton said that establishing state penalties for violating a federal requirement altered the penalties established by Congress and thus stood as “an obstacle to the uniform, federal registration scheme.”” So now AZ is being told that it can’t enforce federal law. That common sense alarm just broke. And don’t you have to carry a passport with you when you travel abroad as a US citizen? Oh, yea you do. So now we have resident aliens that are complaining about needing to keep they’re visa papers on them. Really?
Screw the politicians, I do NOT support Brewer and think she’s responsible for nosediving my beloved home state into the ground financially, educationally, and just in general a bad governor. In this though, she got it right. I think this is a bill that has EVERY reason to be passed into law. I think the federal government HAS FAILED to stem the tide of illegal immigration and how dare they condemn us, its own citizens for trying to fix the problem ourselves. If something is broke you fix it. You don’t wait for the plumber to show up to your house if there’s water gushing out through the wall, you go find the main valve to your house and you turn off the damn thing. COMMON SENSE.
I’m sorry, but if you’ve actually read SB 1070 and you don’t support it then you don’t support the people of this country. People who come into this country are called illegal aliens/immigrants because what they are doing is ILLEGAL. They are breaking the law and they should be punished to the full extent of the law just as a citizen would be when they break a law. And what is the punishment for entering a country illegally? THEY SEND YOUR BUTT BACK HOME. As it should be. Don’t steal my taxes, don’t steal my schools, don’t steal my medicine and don’t steal my job.
#Horst Kraus Says:
July 28th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Mike Holliday #18,
I hate to disappoint you but I am afraid you’ll be left with a lesser god you are praying to.
_____
Mr. Kraut, or, should I say Mr. sour Kraut, I’m glad you pray to a greater gawd than me. You seem very proud.
Pride goeth…my son. Pride goeth…
I found this picture of you from your humbler days: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://critteristic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/sugar-glider-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://critteristic.com/marsupials/how-cute-is-this-little-sugar-glider/&usg=__cSyvJzV4lCoK2RNFvzJot92gxzg=&h=400&w=500&sz=23&hl=en&start=33&tbnid=u_7H-zLHJ4FoQM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsugar%2Bglider%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D800%26bih%3D408%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C1148&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=438&vpy=108&dur=282&hovh=116&hovw=145&tx=159&ty=134&ei=qaRRTN2SDIT0swPe6ZEk&page=5&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:33&biw=800&bih=408
Mr. Kraut that is a wonderful picture of your happy true self. Be happy once again!
Okay. Show of hands for anyone who will answer my original question, that being “What will the candidates who only had a single platform…SB1070…now do since their one speaking point was struck down?”
Yeah, yeah. The appeal….blah, blah, blah. See you in a couple of years on that. It’s not going to save the fear mongering “vote for me to enforce SB1070″ candidates in August or November.
LD 17,
Try seeing the forest instead of a single tree. What will happen to pro-1070 candidates? They will get elected. Judge Bolton handed them a huge and winning campaign issue. She cut the legs off an already crippled Terry Goddard. She got Mitchell, Giffords, and Kirkpatrick whipped. She has handed the winning margin to Republican congressional candidates in battleground districts all around the United States. And at least part of her decision will be reversed by SCOTUS.
Savor your victory, enjoy it, roll around in it — just as Pyhrrus did at Heraclea. 2010 cometh, and 2012 is not far behind.
James,
I was okay with the ancient Greek history. You’re the only one who alluded to a Pyrrhic Victory…bonus points for that.
However, you haven’t given me any real indication on how these candidates are going to react now. Most of the speeches I’ve heard continually harp on the “vote for me or the brown boogy man will get you.” They had some substance when SB1070 was alive and well, but now that it’s practically dead in the water, what other speaking points do they have? I’m thinking…none. Reduce taxes, fix [insert problem du jour here], and a plethora of other promises that are never kept…these are what we usually get and, I think, the only thing they’ll be able to fall back on.
Do I think we should stop illegal immigration? Absolutely! Do I think it should be done in a knee jerk, inept fashion that panders to the 18% of the ultra right in our State? Hell no!
I say find a solid, long lasting solution. Not a political solution that only scores election points and nothing else.
LD 17,
You make some good points. The answer to your question comes from Judge Bolton’s opinion — specifically, that the calls from Arizona law enforcement will be too much for the government to handle (poor babies.) So here’s the theme: Obama has enough resources to sue us but not enough to protect us. So who does he stand for? Not Arizona.
You know, and I know, he won’t secure the border until he gets amnesty. Congress will never approve amnesty or anything like it. It came close in 2006 with the McCain-Kennedy “comprehensive” immigration bill, but the public revolted over it and the Republicans and moderate Democrats melted away from it. So we are left in the current stalemate.
Anyone with sense can tell the real point of SB 1070 was to put the issue on the front burner. In that it succeeded, and it will get a lot of Democrats beaten, in Arizona (Goddard, Mitchell, Giffords, and Kirkpatrick) and nationally. Boehener should get ready to take over.
1070 never was intended to secure the border, which Arizona alone cannot accomplish given Congress’s plenary power over immigration.
P.S. I never have heard a single Republican ever say that the “brown boogy man will get you.” All true Republicans, and all true Americans, cherish and honor our Latino compatriots, who have served this country nobly in every war and who have won more medals of honor percentage-wise than any other part of our society. That doesn’t mean our laws should be ignored.
Attrition takes a long time? You obviously don’t know many undocumented migrants do you? The several families I know left Arizona for the mid-west the week before 1070 was signed.
There has been a steady decline in illegal aliens remaining in Arizona due to several factors; Prop. 200 that denied state sponsored benefits to those who cannot show they’re here legally, Employer Sanctions that make it harder to remain here in a comfortable manner, and now 1070 that makes being here without permission a crime of trespass. Self Deportation works.
And James? The Constitution specifically states that the Federal government *shall* protect our borders from invasion. Further more it states that failing prompt action by the Federal government, states may take what actions necessary to protect their borders.
1070 simply enforces Federal law. Something the Fed has a problem doing and don’t want us to do.
And your right James, POTUS won’t secure the border till he gets amnesty and Congress will *never* pass anything close. So in the meantime; self-deportation is the best means of addressing the economic burden that illegal immigration poses to Arizona.
And for the record, ethnicity or race has *nothing* to do with my position on this issue. Our southwest has a long and rich heritage of Anglo-Mexican history – and we celebrate it.
btw consider this armchair analysts: Back in 1998 the “estimates” of peoples here illegally was “9 to 12 million” … now fast forward to 2010 and the estimate is only “12 to 15 million”? What’s wrong with that picture?
Consider that since the late 1990s, migrants have been crossing the southern border at the rate of about 2,000 to 5,000 per week. The Border Patrol officially reports they intercept 1 in 4 but unofficially the boots on the ground report its more like 1 in 8.
Do the math on how many are here and how many have had how many children since the late 1990s. 12 to 15 million? 20 to 30 million? How about much higher numbers?
Klute, posting #10; that story ends with the surrender of the British troops and separate independence being granted by the Crown for 13 ragged former colonies who decided that being dictated to by a government far away and out of touch just wasn’t sustainable.
Tucson Vice; you deserve an answer. Mack has a very confused relationship with several gods and even thinks that in the next lifetime he’ll be one too.
…………………..
LD17 Says:
July 29th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Most of the speeches I’ve heard continually harp on the “vote for me or the brown boogy man will get you.”
………………….
Really? Link, please, names please. Verbatim quotes from said speeches, video,audio.
Democrats just spew racist and mysongynist nomenclature, just SPEW and SPEW and SPEW. Then they turn on a dime and say they are quoting Republicans.
So, some proof. Or is that your peculiar re-interpretation?
………………..
“that story ends with the surrender of the British troops and separate independence being granted by the Crown for 13 ragged former colonies who decided that being dictated to by a government far away and out of touch just wasn’t sustainable.”
…………
Don’t forget the unsustainability of the huge tax burden that was making America not an extention of Britain, but a true second-class, subjugated colony meant solely for total wealth-extraction to benefit England alone.
It wasn’t just the tea. Americans were being told they needed “marriage stamps” for their marriage to be recognized. In many cases, that meant a 200 mile roundtrip or more to get a few cents stamp, or no legal marriage. It was impossible for many. Tiny England had no concept of the vastness of America, and refused to listen.
Crushing taxation with a loss of status as British citizens with a concurrent loss of rights and freedoms drove Americans to revolt.
Suddenly relevent again today.
E*X*A*C*T*L*Y
Mammoth government, both state and federal is non-sustainable and the weight of it crushes the people (into second class citizens) And creates a supra-class that’s above the others. A hallmark of a socialist state.
Veritas,
You write: “Further more it states that failing prompt action by the Federal government, states may take what actions necessary to protect their borders.” Where on earth did you get that? No clause of the United States Constitution says this.
You write, “Attrition takes a long time? You obviously don’t know many undocumented migrants do you?” You still have a half million to go.
Mike Holliday 29′
You miss read my earlier post. I don’t pray; I am over and beyond prayer. I am a pragmatic conservative.
…And the R’s SPEW and SPEW, but claim it as their own. The epitome of racism.