Immigration Group Thinks Sen. Graham’s Personal Life Might be Used to Get his support on Immigration Reform

http://www.mediaite.com/online/immigration-group-demands-lindsey-graham-admit-hes-gay-for-the-good-of-the-nation/

Even Before ObamaCare Vote, Arm-Twisting Deals Start to Emerge

     Earlier this week, Rep. Luiz Guittierez (D-Il) publicly stated that he would change from the YES column on ObamaCare to the NO column, becuase the legislation excluded access to healthcare for the millions of illegal immigrants in this country. His flip made it apparent that his allegiance does not lie with his constituency.

     His statement said that he would not vote YES unless the Obama administration made changes to ObamaCare to address his concerns for the illegal immigrants, as well as begin the necessary efforts at massive immigration policy reform, including amnesty.

      Yesterday, Rep. Guittierez announced that he had been “convinced” by the White House that his concerns were being addressed, and he would vote YES.

     Less that 24 hours later, the White House has announced that they are “in full support” of the “bipartisan” immigration reform proposal being prepared by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (RINO- SC). This would include an amnesty provision.

     They say Timing is everything!!

Sen. Graham to AG Eric Holder: Will Osama Bin Laden get Miranda Warnings?

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/11/sen-lindsey-graham-asks-eric-holder-if.html

SC Local GOP wants to censure Sen. Lindsey Graham

County Republican Party leaders censure Sen. Graham

By Robert Behre

The Post and Courier

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The Charleston County Republican Party’s executive committee took the unusual step Monday night of censuring U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham for stepping across the GOP party line.

County Chairwoman Lin Bennett said the unanimous vote “is an effort to get his attention. They (party leaders) are just fed up, and they want him to know they’re fed up.”

The full article at: http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/nov/11/county-republican-party-leaders-censure-sen-graham/

“America’s Right” to know the answers from the “Wise Latina”

     The wise Latina woman appeared on Capitol Hill, and Sen. Leahy began the “dog and pony” show that is being choreographed for the benefit of the American public. But if this process is to be truly sincere, truly honest to the Constitution, then Sen. Lindsey Graham’s statement that “elections have consequences” is false. The young Sen. from Illinois, now the President, didn’t see it that way when he voted against the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, not on his record or his qualifications, but because he did not think that Roberts would have the empathy that would be needed to affect social justice.

        From “America’s Right”:

                Voting against the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor will take a wealth of political courage. Giving Sotomayor a rough time with regard to the plethora of reasons why she should not sit on the United States Supreme Court will take even more.

It would be relatively easy for a senator to explain to his or her constituents that he or she look forward to a day when they could vote in favor of confirming a nominee who is both Hispanic and qualified. Explaining why they relentlessly pointed out overt, repeated acts of racism and judicial activism on her part—not to mention the several occasions where her decisions, rooted in a stark dearth of intelligence, were overturned by the Supreme Court—would be slightly more difficult.
 

Here are my questions for the Hon. Sonia Sotomayor:

1. Is a Hispanic female party more or less likely to bring a bona fide grievance before the Court than a white male party?
2. If you were in my shoes, and Chief Justice John Roberts were to have said, on several occasions, that he has been able to come to a better decision because of his life experiences and his being a white male judge than, say, a Hispanic or black or Native American female judge could, how fit would you consider him to be objectively adjudicating matters where the legal and constitutional issue, rather than the parties, are of the utmost importance?
3. Most of your decisions which have reached the Court at which you aspire to sit have been overturned or otherwise scrutinized for your failure to properly interpret the law. With no court to review the Supreme Court, should the American people be confident you’ll get it right?

For the full list and article: http://www.americasright.com/2009/07/law-and-wise-latina.html