Archive for July, 2010

Legislation Reminder: Maryland Legistlators Vote To Keep Illegal Aliens on Maryland Roadways Until 2015

For those of you who need reminding which Delegates and Senators voted to keep illegals on Maryland Roadways until 2015, here is the Bill and Voting List along with a corresponding article from 2009 in the Herald-Mail:

Voting List:  House of Delegates

General Assembly Of Maryland
House of Delegates
2009 Regular Session

Third Reading Passed (76-60)
HB 387 House Bill Amended in the Senate
Del. Ivey et al (JUD)
Vehicle Laws – Lawful Status in the United States
– Material Compliance with Federal Requirements
On Third Reading and Final Passage (CCR adp)
76 Yeas 60 Nays 0 Excused 2 Not Voting 3 Excused (Absent)
Voting Yea – 76
  Speaker Busch   Doory   Holmes   McHale   Ross
  Anderson   Dumais   Howard   McIntosh   Simmons
  Barkley   Feldman   Hucker   Mizeur   Stein
  Barnes   Frick   Ivey   Montgomery   Stukes
  Barve   Frush   Jameson   Morhaim   Tarrant
  Beidle   Gaines   Jones   Murphy   Taylor
  Benson   Gilchrist   Kaiser   Nathan-Pulliam   Turner_V.
  Bobo   Glenn   Kirk   Niemann   Valderrama
  Branch   Griffith   Kramer   Olszewski   Vallario
  Bronrott   Guzzone   Krysiak   Pendergrass   Vaughn
  Cane   Hammen   Kullen   Proctor   Waldstreicher
  Cardin   Harrison   Lafferty   Ramirez   Walker
  Carr   Haynes   Levi   Reznik
  Clagett_V.   Healey   Levy   Rice
  Conaway   Heller   Love   Robinson
  Davis   Hixson   Manno   Rosenberg
Voting Nay – 60
  Ali   DeBoy   Impallaria   McConkey   Shank
  Aumann   Donoghue   James   McDonough   Shewell
  Bartlett   Dwyer   Jennings   Miller   Smigiel
  Bates   Eckardt   Kach   Minnick   Sophocleus
  Beitzel   Elliott   Kelly   Norman   Sossi
  Boteler   Elmore   King   O’Donnell   Stifler
  Braveboy   Frank   Kipke   Oaks   Stocksdale
  Bromwell   George   Krebs   Pena-Melnyk   Stull
  Burns   Gutierrez   Lee   Riley   Walkup
  Clagett_G.   Haddaway   Malone   Rudolph   Weir
  Conway   Hecht   Mathias   Schuh   Weldon
  Costa   Hubbard   McComas   Schuler   Wood
Not Voting – 2
  Bohanan   Carter
Excused From Voting – 0
Excused (Absent) – 3
  Myers   Serafini   Turner_F.

Voting List Maryland Senate:

HB 387
Del. Ivey et al
Vehicle Laws – Lawful Status in the United States
– Material Compliance with Federal Requirements
On third reading
30 Yeas 16 Nays 0 Excused 1 Not Voting 0 Excused (Absent)
Voting Yea – 30
Voting Nay – 16
Not Voting – 1
Excused From Voting – 0
Excused (Absent) – 0

Article from the Herald-Mail 2009:


Dave Wallace Candidate for House of Delegates District 5A

Dave Wallace

Candidate for House of Delegates

District 5A

DaveWallace.US    Dave@DaveWallace.US


Thursday, August 5th

7-9 p.m. at Rafael’s Restaurant

Westminster, MD

Kick-Off Fundraiser

Calling all Patriots!

If you can’t Attend, what can you do?

Contribution Requested $25

Thursday August 5

7-9 p.m.

Rafael’s Restaurant

32 W. Main Street

Westminster, MD


Please join me in restoring the American Dream; working together we can help make Carroll County the place that offers limited government, lower taxes, and less onerous regulations on small business, thus stimulating job growth. Private sector jobs create wealth and reduce the tax burden on all Americans.

Carroll County residents and small business endured government’s belief that it knows better to spend your family’s hard-earned money than you do. Stand with me, to support Common Sense Conservative solutions in our great state, to restore economic prosperity!

May God Bless America.

If you can’t Attend, what can you do?

Send Funding Support  to: Wallace for House of Delegates

2094 Trainer Drive, Finksburg MD 21048

*Request a yard sign for your Home or Business

*Request a bumper sticker

* Email your friends to let them know about Dave Wallace’s candidacy

*Call your friends, family, and neighbors to ask for their support for Dave Wallace

“Thanks for your support!” – Dave Wallace

Help Save Maryland – Keep the Faith on Arizona!

Subject: Help Save Maryland – Keep the Faith on Arizona!

EDITORIAL: Judicial activism against Arizona

Judge bucks precedent to keep immigration floodgates open

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES – The Washington Times

7:25 p.m., Wednesday, July 28, 2010

U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton miscalculated when she blocked critical aspects of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law. Her decision will further intensify efforts by states to find solutions to problems posed by the Obama administration‘s unwillingness to take command of this pressing issue.

The decision is certain to inflame the illegal immigration debate, and it doesn’t bode well for the president or his party. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, 55 percent of Americans back the Arizona law and 58 percent disapprove of Obama immigration policies. A Pew Research Center poll shows 63 percent think immigration reform is very important, and only 36 percent back the Justice Department‘s suit against Arizona. The presumed political benefits of the administration‘s stance are not materializing. According to Gallup, President Obama’s approval ratings among Hispanics have dropped from 68 percent in April to 55 percent in the latest weekly poll.

Judge Bolton ruled, "It is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws," but this is a deceptive statement. If Arizona had passed a law that defined U.S. citizenship, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has disingenuously suggested, federal supremacy would apply. However, the case at hand doesn’t deal with pre-emptive law but with parallel enforcement. Arizona’s law does not define who has broken immigration laws; it deals with what to do when police apprehend these criminals.

The relevant precedent is in Gonzales v. City of Peoria (1983), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit – which includes Arizona – held that "although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens." The court stated flatly that "federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions" of federal immigration law, and that "concurrent enforcement is authorized" when they "do not impair federal regulatory interests."

In the same case, the court noted that federal injunctions against state law enforcement actions should be undertaken only in the most extreme circumstances and should generally exercise restraint "based on principles of equity, comity and federalism" and "consistent with these principles, federal courts may not intervene in state enforcement activities absent extraordinary circumstances that threaten immediate and irreparable injury." The notion that the federal government would be immediately and irreparably harmed by Arizona identifying previously detained illegals is unsustainable.

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat, hailed Judge Bolton‘s decision, saying, "Arresting people based on their appearance and holding them until you can investigate their immigration status is patently un-American and unconstitutional." This is a willful misrepresentation of the Arizona law but typical of the race-baiting politics of the left.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Muehler v. Mena that police could question suspects detained for other crimes about their immigration status even if they had no reason to believe they were illegals. In this, the court specifically overturned a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court that such questioning constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The high court rejected as a "faulty" premise that police even needed reasonable suspicion to ask questions about immigration status, and countered citing previous precedent that "even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual." Under the logic in Mena, Arizona doesn’t even need a special law for state and local police to make inquiries regarding immigration status.

Judge Bolton‘s judicial activism is out of step with the law, out of step with politics and out of step with the good of the country.



By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of "The Rise of Tyranny"
July 29, 2010

Judge Bolton’s Decision Invalidating Parts of New Arizona Immigration Law Should Be Overturned

The central premise of Judge Bolton’s decision enjoining four parts of Arizona’s immigration law rests on the faulty premise that the state law violates the doctrine of federal pre-emption. The law, however, is in aid of federal immigration law and neither obstructs nor increases penalties for immigration law violations. Moreover, it does not attempt to alter the standards used by the federal government in determining who is legally resident in this country. Indeed, the Arizona law is in aid of domestic law affected by illegals in Arizona who are contributing to drug and human trafficking and other serious crimes within the state.

The Judge held the following four parts of the statute unlawful encroachments on federal immigration law, based on the doctrine of pre-emption:

(1) the requirement that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained, or arrested on other grounds if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the U.S. and that a person arrested be required to show proof of lawful immigration status prior to being released (Part of Section 2 of SB 1070);

(2) the creation of a new state crime in support of federal law that requires application for and carriage of alien registration papers (Section 3 of SB 1070);

(3) the creation of a new state crime in support of federal law that prohibits an unauthorized alien from soliciting, applying for, or performing work (Part of Section 5 of SB 1070); and

(4) the authorization of warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States under federal immigration law (Section 6 of SB 1070).

The Judge operates on two assumptions, that the Arizona law (1) will impose substantial burdens on lawful immigrants, exposing them to inquisitorial practices and police surveillance and (2) will impose a significant increase in costs on federal authorities contacted concerning suspected illegals detained, thus distracting the federal government from pursuing other immigration law enforcement priorities. She had no specific proof in the record to support either of these hypothetical propositions and yet throughout the decision presumes them to be true.

The suit brought by the Obama Administration against the law is a pre-enforcement or facial challenge. Because the challenge occurs before the law is implemented, the Supreme Court has required that “the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). In particular, the Court is not to base its decision on hypothetical or presumed cases.

We certainly can conceive of instances in which each of the four provisions would be validly enforced and, so, the pre-enforcement challenge standard has not been satisfied. It is counterintuitive to assume that a person detained on probable cause of the commission of a crime, like, for example, murder, who is found not to be in this country lawfully would through his arrest either unduly burden lawful immigrants or impose undue burdens on federal authorities, particularly because just such a person is removable from this country under federal law. Rather, legal immigrants, like all Americans, are best protected when such individuals are prosecuted.

It is counterintuitive to assume that a law focused on enforcing the federal requirement that alien residents file applications for, and carry proof of, alien registration is somehow burdensome to lawful immigrants or to federal law enforcers who are supposed to be implementing that very legal requirement. Indeed, we have to stretch our imaginations in a mighty way to presume that such a law would be wrongly applied to a legal immigrant or would generate such an enormous quantity of referrals to the feds that they would be overwhelmed by them (particularly because the feds now routinely ignore state referrals on all manner of illegal immigration issues; there is nothing requiring them to take the new referrals any more seriously).

It is counterintuitive to assume that a state law that supports federal law prohibiting employment of illegal aliens would harm lawful immigrants or burden federal law enforcers. The state law on its face aims at illegal aliens, thus only a wrongful application of it would reach a lawful immigrant. Moreover, the feds are burdened only if they choose to implement federal law (but that is their pre-existing duty and should not be considered cognizable as a new or added burden).

It is counterintuitive also to assume that a law that makes it a crime to commit an offense that makes a person removable from the United States under federal immigration law either burdens lawful immigrants or federal law enforcers. It is in aid of federal law enforcement, and the feds have the final say so under this state law concerning whether the person is removable. It is entirely within federal discretion to deem a person not removable, or to ignore the state request for a determination.

The decision tacitly presumes that states do not presently aid federal law enforcement through referrals of suspected illegal immigrants and in support of federal government actions against illegal aliens involved in drug trafficking, human trafficking, or smuggling of illegal goods. They do, every day. In this environment, the Arizona law is neither new nor exceptionally burdensome. It certainly does not obstruct federal immigration law.

Finally, nothing in the law authorizes or condones racial profiling or discrimination against legal immigrants. This new law is comparable to many others that aid federal law enforcement, only now due to political pressure from President Obama has the Department of Justice chosen to single out the Arizona law for strained arguments that it obstructs or modifies federal immigration law. It was a mistake to buy into those arguments without either a basis in fact or logic to support them and with ample examples of enforcement that would not be unlawful.

In the end, whether this law exists or not, the ultimate test of discriminatory enforcement of the law lies not in a facial challenge but in proof in an individual case that police have abused their discretion and violated an individual’s rights. Undoubtedly there will be, as there have been in the past, instances where local police will violate the rights of the innocent, abuse them, and do so based on motives that are reprehensible in any civilized society. The law must punish such police severely and provide ways to compensate victims for the harms, recognizing that compensation can never restore fully the respect for autonomy and the dignity they deserve. Nevertheless, we cannot presume in the middle of a crisis where innocent victims of crimes spawn by alien drug traffickers and murderers have become daily headlines that law enforcement will violate the rights of innocents in their pursuit of those who threaten lives and property.

Faced with a monumental emergency, Arizona has taken prudent steps to equip its law enforcement officers with authority to help stem the tide of illegal immigration into the state. It has done so where that illegal immigration involves additional illegal acts—the area of greatest threat to the lawful inhabitants of Arizona, legal immigrants and people born in the United States. By enjoining four key provisions of the Arizona law, Judge Bolton has hampered reasonable efforts to protect the lawful residents of Arizona from crime and abuse.

We should hope that on appeal the Ninth Circuit overturns this decision. If it does not, however, you can be sure that Governor Jan Brewer will push for new laws to enable state law enforcement to protect Arizona’s citizens against crimes spawn by illegal immigrants and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio will continue his efforts to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

© 2010 Jonathan W. Emord – All Rights Reserved


"Comprehensive Immigration Reform is a classic example of the cure being far worse than the disease!

Any politician who supports Comprehensive Immigration Reform is working against the security of our nation and the well being of our citizens.

Any politician who refuses to work to secure our borders and create an immigration system that has integrity is either corrupt or too dumb to keep his (her) job.

Any politician, irrespective of party affiliation who favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform should be shown the door at the next election!" MC

Montgomery County Council Continues to Support Illegal Alien Funding for Casa De Maryland

A  few week’s ago, I contacted the Montgomery County Council on there continued Funding and Support for Casa De Maryland and requested them to stop because Casa De Maryland blatantly breaks our Laws by assisting Illegal Aliens to receive Social Services, Driver’s License’s, and other funding.  Here is their response:

Montgomery County Council

to me

show details 6:41 PM (15 minutes ago)

Dear Mr. XXXXXX:

Thank you for your correspondence regarding immigration and Casa de Maryland.  I distributed your correspondence to Councilmembers when I received it. I apologize in the delay in getting back to you.

As you know, immigration is a federal responsibility. In Montgomery County, our intent is to take the situations that exist and work to make conditions the best possible for all residents of our County.

In regard to Casa de Maryland: This group provides a wide variety of functions that benefit the County and its residents, and we believe Casa de Maryland can provide these services more efficiently than can general County government. Provision of these services is why the County elects to help fund this organization.

Thanks for making your views known.


Nancy Floreen

Council President

Hillary Clinton Was Right

Subject: Hillary Clinton Was Right


Hillary Clinton Was Right.

Dear jeffrey, This is a hard thing for us to do. We hate to say it, but… Hillary Clinton was right. She was right about Barack Obama. She was right when she said that he wasn’t ready to act in a time of crisis; that he didn’t have what it took to do the job; that he wasn’t ready to be President. It hurts to say it, but Hillary Clinton was right, and if we’re going to acknowledge that, then we also have to understand that to stop this part-time president from doing further harm to our country, we can’t wait until November. We have to start now.

Are you ready? Then go to and pledge your name to victory in November. If you make that commitment, then we’ll make sure that you have the opportunity to do your part. And after you’ve signed up, forward this email to your friends, and tell them how important it is to make a stand against the Obama Administration. Don’t hesitate: take action today at

Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee

The Arizona Bill – A message from Bay Buchanan

Subject: The Arizona Bill – A message from Bay Buchanan

United Patriots of America

The following E- mail is from Bay Buchanan at Team America

The Arizona Bill – A message from Bay Buchanan
Dear Friends,

A liberal activist judge issued an injunction against the key aspect of Arizona’s SB 1070. Officers will not be allowed to check for the legal status of people they encounter during lawful contact, legal immigrants will not be required to carry their immigration papers, and illegal aliens will be allowed to solicit work in public.

According to Judge Susan Bolton: “There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law).” This is in spite of many safeguards to protect legal residents and against racial profiling in the law.

Obama and his cronies know that if the law were enacted, none of these “potential” violations will occur, so they decided to block the democratic will of the people of Arizona before the public sees that the law will work.

Let’s be honest.. Obama doesn’t want immigration laws enforced–not by the feds and not by the states. It is his open-border policy that he is imposing on this country against the law and against the will of the people.

But judges are supposed to uphold our laws, not prevent them from being enforced. It is outrageous that Arizona is not allowed to protect its citizens!

I can promise you that those of us at Team America will not rest until our laws are enforced and borders are secured. We will be working with Russell Pearce and our other friends in Arizona to fight this travesty–all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Keep the faith, and I will keep you up to date as this develops.
Bay Buchanan

Ron Bass
E-mail –

Good News

Sent to me by a friend of mine in the Tea Party. I thought this picture was awesome!!!!

We win another one…HOW SWEET IT IS!!!!!!!
Tea Party Information Alert


The DISCLOSE Act did not pass (vote was 57-41). The POWER OF THE Tea Party’s voice was heard.

Senate Republicans narrowly blocked Democratic campaign finance disclosure legislation in the Senate yesterday after raising concerns the bill would curb freedom of speech and tilt campaign spending in favor of the Democrats.

The bill would require organizations paying for political advertising to disclose the names of their top donors in the ads, similar to what now is required of political candidates for federal office.

Republicans accused Democrats of trying to preserve their majorities in the House and Senate by skewing the rules in the favor of labor unions, trial lawyers, and other Democratic-leaning groups.

Democrats "fear the righteous judgment of the American TEA PARTY in this coming election," warned Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who spearheads the Senate Republicans’ election effort. "So they’re trying to change the rules in the middle of the game to suppress the speech of those who might disagree" with them.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, slammed the bill as a "partisan effort, pure and simple .. This bill is about protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of this November’s election," he said. It’s an "all-out assault on the First Amendment."

A GREAT day for Democracy!