THE LA RAZA INVADERS: LOOTERS, CRIMNALS, ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS AND GRINGO HATERS: do we want more on the Supreme Court?
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-are-mexicans-from-mexico-so-rude-to.html
Barack Obama AND THE MEXICAN FACIST PARTY OF LA RAZA.
HE FUNDS IT.
IT OPERATES OUT OF THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE.
Judge Who Freed The Jihadist Texas Shooter, Named As Potential Supreme Court Nominee, Linked To La Raza
Brandon Wade/AP
by ALEX SWOYER
May 2015
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge who previously dismissed terror charges against one of the Garland, Texas shooters has a connection to the controversial activist group, National Council of La Raza.
Judge Mary Murguia, appointed by President Clinton and considered a potential nominee to the Supreme Court by President Obama, was the judge who dismissed government charges against Elton Simpson for suspected terrorism in 2011. On Sunday, Simpson attacked a free speech event in Garland, Texas depicting the Prophet Muhammad in cartoons.
Daniel Greenfield cites evidence from the 2011 case:
The FBI knew that Elton Simpson, one of the Garland Jihadists, was a threat and had attempted to lock him up after amassing evidence that he intended to go to Somalia as a terrorist. They had him on tape stating “that Allah loves an individual who is “out there fighting [non-Muslims]” and “If you get shot, or you get killed, it’s [heaven] straight away.” Mr. Simpson then said “[Heaven] that’s what we here for…so why not take that route?”
Judge Murguia held then that the government was unable to prove Simpson mentioned violent jihad in his reasoning for traveling to Somalia. “That phrase is one made up by the Government, likely because it is aware that jihad in the Muslim religion does not necessarily imply violence,” she said, noted Greenfield.
However, the LA Times previously noted that Judge Murguria’s twin sister Janet Murguia leads a controversial group known as National Council of La Raza, which has been criticized as a racist hate group. It is the nation’s largest Latino civil rights activist organization. La Raza is closely linked to the Obama Administration’s amnesty efforts.
Human Events, a conservative blog, previously reported that the mainstream media views La Raza “no more than a Hispanic Rotary Club.” But La Raza collected roughly $15.2 million in federal grants in 2005. Human Events also reported that undisclosed amounts of that money were used in “get-out-the-vote efforts supporting La Raza political positions.”
La Raza has been added to congressional hearings and “an anonymous senator even gave the Council of La Raza an extra $4 million in earmarked taxpayer money, supposedly for “housing reform,” according to Human Events.
Moreover, Judge Murguria’s brother, Carlos Murguria, helped coordinate the Immigration Amnesty Program prior to Clinton nominating him also for a judgeship, according to Front Page Magazine.
los angeles times
President Obama has nominated Arizona federal trial court Judge Mary H. Murguia to serve on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court announced Friday.
Murguia, 49, has served for the last decade as a federal district judge and previously held senior positions in the U.S. attorney's office for Arizona during the Clinton administration.
During her tenure on the trial court bench, Murguia issued rulings that halted a Bush administration attempt to remove protections for desert nesting bald eagles in the state, and that doubled the damages to be paid to a New Jersey surgical supplies innovator after an Arizona company was found to have infringed its patent rights.
Murguia, a native of Kansas, is the twin sister
of Janet Murguia, a former Clinton advisor
and head of the National Council of La Raza,
the nation's largest Latino civil rights
advocacy group.
-- Carol J. Williams
NATIONAL COUNSEL OF LA RAZA – THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY IN U.S. FUNDED WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS BY BARACK OBAMA.
NCLR Funding Skyrockets After Obama Hires Its VP
06/17/2011
A Judicial Watch investigation reveals that federal funding for a Mexican La Raza group that for years has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars has skyrocketed since one of its top officials got a job in the Obama White House.
The influential and politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has long benefitted from Uncle Sam's largess but the group has made a killing since Obama hired its senior vice president (Cecilia Muñoz) in 2009 to be his director of intergovernmental affairs.
Ignored by the mainstream media, Judicial Watch covered the appointment because the president issued a special "ethics waiver" to bring Muñoz aboard since it violated his own lobbyist ban. At the pro illegal immigration NCLR, Muñoz supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels and she was heavily involved in the congressional immigration battles that took place in the George W. Bush Administration.
She also brought in a steady flow of government cash that's allowed the Washington D.C.-based group to expand nationwide and promote its leftist, open-borders agenda via a network of community organizations dedicated to serving Latinos.Among them are a variety of local groups that provide social services, housing counseling and farm worker assistance as well as publicly-funded charter schools that promote radical Chicano curriculums. Judicial Watch published a special report on this a few years ago.
This week a JW probe has uncovered details of the alarming increase in federal funding that these NCLR groups have received since Muñoz joined the Obama Administration. In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million.
Not surprisingly, a big chunk of the money (60%) came from the Department of Labor, which is headed by a former California congresswoman (Hilda Solis) with close ties to the La Raza movement. Since Obama named her Labor Secretary, Solis has launched a nationwide campaign to protect illegal immigrant workers in the U.S. Just this week Solis penned declarations with Guatemala and Nicaragua to preserve the rights of their migrants.
The NCLR also received additional taxpayer dollars from other federal agencies in 2010, the JW probe found. The Department of Housing and Urban Development doled out $2.5 million for housing counseling, the Department of Education contributed nearly $800,000 and the Centers for Disease Control a quarter of a million.
Additionally, NCLR affiliates nationwide raked in tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars last year thanks to the Muñoz factor. An offshoot called Chicanos Por La Causa (CPLC) saw its federal funding nearly double to $18.3 million following Muñoz' appointment.
A social service and legal assistance organization (Ayuda Inc.) that didn't receive any federal funding between 2005 and 2008 got $600,000 in 2009 and $548,000 in 2010 from the Department of Justice. The group provides immigration law services and guarantees confidentiality to assure illegal aliens that they won't be reported to authorities.
Read More Stories About:
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR, SIMPLY OBAMA IN A SKIRT?
A WALL STREET ASS LICKING LA RAZA SUPREMACIST
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2012/12/la-raza-supremacist-judge-sonia.html
VIVA LA RAZA?
Supreme Court Nominee Member Of Mexican La Raza Group
May 28, 2009
President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee is a member of an influential extremist Mexican La Raza group that advocates open borders and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National
Council of La Raza in an American Bar Association profile
discovered by a news organization dedicated to exposing public
corruption. The appeals court judge has already ignited a firestorm for publicly saying that a jurist’s ethnicity and sex will make a difference in their judging.
The La Raza membership is a fiery compliment to the now infamous Berkeley speech in which Sotomayor said: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
The National Council of La Raza describes
itself as the largest Latino civil rights and
advocacy organization in the United States, but
it actually caters to the radical Chicano
movement that says California, Arizona,
Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado
and Texas belong to Aztlan.
The takeover plan is referred to as the "reconquista"of the Western U.S. and it features ethnic cleansing of Americans, Europeans, Africans and Asians once the area is taken back and converted to Aztlan. While this may all sound a bit crazy, this organization is quite powerful and its leaders regularly attend congressional hearings regarding immigration. The La Raza council also receives millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars each year.
Obama even violated his own lobbyist ban to
hire a top National Council of La Raza official
(Cecilia Munoz) as director of
intergovernmental affairs. Munoz supervised all
legislative and advocacy activities on the state and
local levels and was heavily involved in the
congressional immigration battles before the
president issued an “ethics waiver” to make her
part of his administration.
In return, the La Raza council has strongly supported Obama while never the less pressuring him to do more for the race. The group was quick to issue a press releaselauding the president’s “historic appointment” of Sotomayor to the nation’s highest court, calling it a “monumental day for Latinos.” No mention of the judge’s membership in the group, however.
Sonia Sotomayor opposes E-Verify requirement
True to form, she said it was illegal to make employers e-verify citizen status of new hires.
Interesting, she says a state cannot force employers to check if employees they are hiring are illegal. Thankfully the court ruled 5-3 supporting law. But now we know for sure just how extreme far left Obama's choice was. We cannot afford Obama to get another term, or you can bet this country will be overrun by illegals. I don't want this country to be poor and corrupt like Mexico, which it will if illegals overrun the country.
MILLIONS OF LA RAZA ILLEGALS IN OUR JOBS AND BILLIONS IN WELFARE IN THEIR POCKETS. Think they will keep voting DEM???
Obama Administration Challenges Arizona E-Verify Law
The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to strike down a 2007 Arizona law that punishes employers who hire illegal aliens, a law enacted by then-Governor Janet Napolitano. (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief). Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law requires all employers in Arizona to use E-Verify and provides that the business licenses of those who hire illegal workers shall be repealed. From the date of enactment, the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest groups have been trying to undo it, attacking it through a failed ballot initiative and also through a lawsuit. Now the Chamber is asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case (Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria), and the Obama Administration is weighing in against the law.
To date, Arizona’s E-Verify law has been upheld by all lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, viewed it as an exercise of a state’s traditional power to regulate businesses. (San Francisco Chronicle, June 2, 2010). Obama’s Justice Department, however, disagrees. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in his filing with the Supreme Court that the lower courts were wrong to uphold the statute because federal immigration law expressly preempts any state law imposing sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants. Mr. Katyal argues that this is not a licensing law, but “a statute that prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens and uses suspension and revocation of all state-issued licenses as its ultimate sanction.” (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief, p. 10). This is the administration’s first court challenge to a state’s authority to act against illegal immigration, and could be a preview of the battle brewing over Arizona’s recent illegal immigration crackdown through SB 1070.
Napolitano has made no comment on the Department of Justice’s decision to challenge the 2007 law, but federal officials said that she has taken an active part in the debate over whether to do so. (Politico, May 28, 2010). As Governor of Arizona, Napolitano said she believed the state law was valid and became a defendant in the many lawsuits against it. (Id.).
Sotomayor’s record: A judicial pragmatist and defender of corporate interests … WHICH MAKES HER AN OBAMA IN A SKIRT
By Don Knowland
17 July 2009
As a nominee to the US Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor is reliable defender of corporate interests, siding with big business, government authority and the police far more than with the poor, the arrested or the oppressed. With 17 years on the federal courts, the most of any Supreme Court nominee in more than half a century, she is anything but an unknown quantity.
In her five years as a federal district court trial judge, Sotomayor issued hundreds of written decisions. In 12 years on the appellate court, she has been the principal author of over 150 opinions. She joined in the majority opinion in over 350 cases.
A survey of her written decisions reveals a jurist firmly wedded to the bourgeois mainstream, particularly when business interests are at stake, and not given to sweeping formulations. The New York Times legal correspondent assigned to cover the Supreme Court wrote that Sotomayor’s opinions “reveal no larger vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language.”
A Congressional Research Service analysis found that Sotomayor’s rulings could not be easily categorized in ideological terms, and “showed an adherence to precedent, an emphasis on the facts of a case, and an avoidance of overstepping the court’s judicial role.”
According to one of Sotomayor’s former law clerks, “She is a rule-bound pragmatist-very geared toward determining what the right answer is and what the law dictates...” Sotomayor herself has professed to follow a narrow “just the facts” approach to judicial decision-making, a style described by some as judicial minimalism.
However, when important issues arise that affect more fundamental interests of the ruling elite, such as national security matters or big economic questions, Sotomayor comes down invariably on the side of the establishment, at the expense of the majority of society.
A law-and-order judge
As with most former prosecutors, Sotomayor has a negative if not hostile view of the rights of those accused of crimes. Encomiums from her former associates at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and various New York and national police organizations were read into the record of her confirmation hearing.
According to Leroy Frazer Jr., first assistant district attorney in Manhattan and a former colleague of Sotomayor, she “has contributed greatly to law enforcement in New York” as a judge. John Siffert, an attorney who taught appellate advocacy with Sotomayor at New York University School of Law for ten years, confirms that she is loath to overturn criminal convictions. “She was not viewed as a pro-defense judge” while she sat as a trial judge, Siffert told the press.
One decision Sotomayor authored as an appellate judge upheld the use of evidence police seized mistakenly, thinking they had a warrant. The Supreme Court’s five-justice conservative bloc came to the same conclusion this year, over the dissent of the court’s four moderate justices. Jeffrey Fisher, a Stanford Law School professor who was on the losing side of the January Supreme Court decision, said Judge Sotomayor’s ruling displayed her “willingness to give police the benefit of the doubt.”
One case decided by Sotomayor as an appellate judge involved the timeliness of the habeas corpus petition filed by a prisoner convicted of murder and rape. Congress had only recently passed President Bill Clinton’s Anti-Terrorism-Effective Death Penalty Act, which imposed a one-year time limit on such petitions. Confusion existed in the federal courts regarding how the new law would be applied to pending cases. Following the advice of a court clerk, the defendant’s attorney mailed in rather than filed the appeal the day it was due.
Sotomayor and her colleagues on the case refused to consider the petition, ruling that it was untimely and that its lateness was not excusable. They also summarily brushed off the defendant’s claim to innocence, even though guilt was based on a confession the police coerced when the defendant was 17. The defendant then spent six more years in jail before DNA testing conclusively established his innocence.
Capital and labor
While frequently dissenting against reactionary rulings on issues involving democratic rights, the four-justice moderate bloc on the Supreme Court has increasingly tended to join the court’s right wing in favoring big business over workers and consumers where their economic interests are explicitly counterposed, as in cases involving punitive damage awards against giant corporations.
Sotomayor is unlikely to buck that trend. She currently sits in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears the most important appeals affecting Wall Street and the financial industry.That court’s 2006 decision strongly favored Wall Street in a group of cases involving thousands of investors suing dozens of the largest banks and investment houses, including Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and the now defunct Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. The plaintiffs charged massive fraud involving manipulation of the market for initial public offerings of company shares. Such schemes played a major role in inflating the dot.com and telecom bubbles.
As a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case could proceed only if they could band together for class actions. The appellate ruling dismissed the cases on the basis that questions as to what information and assurances individual plaintiffs relied on in purchasing shares precluded finding sufficient commonality to permit the cases to proceed on a class action basis. This amounted to an extremely strained reading of the rules regarding class action suits and reduced the value of the plaintiffs’ recovery by many billions of dollars.
Sotomayor’s most well known decision as a district court judge involved her issuing an injunction in 1995 against baseball team owners during the longest strike in baseball history, which followed an owner lock-out of players. Sotomayor ruled that the National Relations Labor Board had cause to believe that baseball owners committed unfair labor practices by eliminating free agency and salary arbitration provisions of the expired collective bargaining agreement. She ordered the owners to bargain in good faith on those issues. The strike then ended.
As an appellate judge, Sotomayor has favored working class plaintiffs mainly in disability cases. In one case, Sotomayor ruled that New York did not sufficiently accommodate a dyslexic applicant taking the bar examination.
Sotomayor dissented in a 2003 case brought by the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission against a major trucking company relating to discrimination against drivers who took medication that the company believed impaired driving. Federal regulations provide that discrimination occurs if a company perceives that a worker or workers have an impairment as to a “class of jobs” compared to average persons of comparable skill, as opposed to single jobs. The majority dismissed the case, saying that the evidence showed only that the employer perceived the drivers as incapable of long-distance, stressful driving jobs. Sotomayor argued that there was sufficient evidence that the employer perceived the impairment to extend to any truck driving jobs, an entire “class of jobs,” such that the case should proceed to trial.
Constitutional rights
Outside of the criminal case context, Sotomayor has shown some favor toward suits challenging violation of the Fourth Amendment probable cause and warrant requirements and due process rights.
In a 2002 case, Sotomayor wrote that New York City’s policy of seizing and then keeping for an extended period of time, sometimes for years, vehicles used by alleged drunk drivers or in other misdemeanor crimes violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The City’s ordinance permitted it to file a civil case seeking the forfeiture of vehicles of those found guilty. But the forfeiture cases were often deferred for many months or even years, while the underlying criminal cases were resolved. Sotomayor’s ruling required a meaningful hearing at a meaningful time as to whether the vehicle’s owner could recover it. Her decision reversed the trial court ruling of then-District Judge Michael Mukasey, who later became George Bush’s last attorney general.
In a case seeking damages for a house search based on a flawed warrant, Sotomayor dissented in order to challenge the formulation used by the majority to define when a police officer is entitled to “qualified immunity” from suit for such a violation. The Supreme Court excuses an officer from such constitutional violations unless the law is so clear that an objectively reasonable officer could not believe his conduct is lawful. Sotomayor objected to her circuit’s formulation of this defense that gave police officers extra latitude in meeting that standard.
Sotomayor wrote a 2006 opinion approving suspicionless searches of passenger carry-on luggage and car trunks before boarding a ferry, based on the government’s purported interest in deterring terrorist attacks on large vessels engaged in mass transportation. She joined another decision that struck down a portion of the Patriot Act relating to disclosure of National Security Letters on First Amendment grounds.
In a 2002 case, Sotomayor authored an opinion that gave prison officials wide latitude to infringe prisoner First Amendment rights by withholding incoming mail if they could articulate some security justification for such action. In other cases, Sotomayor has granted latitude to prisoners in exercising religious rights.
Wsws.org… get on their free daily emails for updates on corporate rape and pillage
From the Los Angeles Times
SOTOMAYOR… LA RAZA SUPREMACIST
She said the nation is "deeply confused" about the proper role of race and ethnic identity, and she maintained that her identity as a Latina shaped her life and her work in court. She hoped "a wise Latina" would reach a "better conclusion" than a white male, she said on several occasions.
Speeches reveal more about Sotomayor's thoughts on race
The Senate Judiciary Committee receives a file on the Supreme Court nominee's life from Princeton onward. She has spoken on other occasions of ethnic identity and her hopes about 'wise Latina' judges.
By David G. Savage
June 5, 2009
Reporting from Washington — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, already facing controversy for a 2001 speech on the virtue of having "a wise Latina" as a judge, made similar comments in a series of speeches released Thursday.
She said the nation is "deeply confused" about the proper role of race and ethnic identity, and she maintained that her identity as a Latina shaped her life and her work in court. She hoped "a wise Latina" would reach a "better conclusion" than a white male, she said on several occasions.
Since her nomination, conservative activists have cited the comment as evidence that she would rule based on her ethnic identity.
President Obama sought to defuse the criticism last week. "I'm sure she would have restated it," he said, adding that she was "simply saying that her life experience will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through."
The speeches were among a thick file, including court opinions and financial documents, that the White House sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. They cover 35 years of Sotomayor's life, from her days as a Princeton student through her time as a prosecutor, corporate lawyer, trial judge and appeals court judge.
She reported a net worth of $740,000, consisting mostly of her $1.1-million condominium in New York City. She has a $381,000 mortgage and about $31,000 in the bank. She reported owning no stocks, bonds or mutual funds.
She said that White House Counsel Gregory Craig first contacted her about the Supreme Court vacancy on April 27 -- five days before Justice David H. Souter publicly announced he was retiring.
In a speech at Princeton in 1996, she said: "I began a lifelong commitment to identifying myself as a Latina" while at Princeton, "taking pride in being Hispanic, and in recognizing my obligation to help my community reach its fullest potential in this society."
She added: "I underscore that in saying this I am not promoting ethnic segregation. I am promoting just the opposite: an ethnic identity and pride which impels us to work with others in the larger society to achieve advancement for the people of our cultures."
"America has a deeply confused image of itself that is a perpetual source of tension," she said at a 2006 gathering of Latino students at Yale Law School. "We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race- and colorblind way that ignores those very differences that in other contexts we laud."
She said that the Supreme Court was "just as fractured" as society over the role of race in public decisions, such as college affirmative action.
"This tension leads many of us to struggle with maintaining and promoting our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about to how to deal with its differences," she said.
Sotomayor repeated that she disagreed with a comment attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that "a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion" in deciding cases. "I'm not so sure that I agree with the statement," she said at Seton Hall Law in 2003. "I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
Two years earlier, at the UC Berkeley law school, she said she hoped the "wise Latina" would reach "a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
She said the nation is "deeply confused" about the proper role of race and ethnic identity, and she maintained that her identity as a Latina shaped her life and her work in court. She hoped "a wise Latina" would reach a "better conclusion" than a white male, she said on several occasions.
THE FASTEST GROWING POLITICAL POWER IN AMERICA IS THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA and M.E.Ch.A.
OBAMA’S LOS ANGLES MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA, ELECTED BY ILLEGALS, IS A M.E.Ch.A. PARTY MEMBER!
MORE:
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2012/09/mexican-racism-rise-of-la-raza.html
TAKEN FROM TRANSCRIPTS DATED 1995. MANY OF THESE LA RAZA POLITICIANS HAVE WON HIGHER OFFICES WITH THE VOTES OF ILLEGALS.
“WE WILL TAKE CONTROL OF OUR COUNTRY (U.S.) BY VOTE IF POSSIBLE AND VIOLENCE IF NECESSARY!”
Agendas of MEChA, La Raza, MALDEF, and Southwest Voter Registration Projects These are transcripts of live, recorded statements by elected U.S. politicians, college professors, and pro-illegal alien activists whose objective is to take control of our country "by vote if possible and violence if necessary!" 1. Armando Navarro, Prof. Ethnic Studies, UC Riverside at Latino Summit Response to Prop 187, UC Riverside, 1/1995
*
“Obviously, MEChA scorns assimilation to American culture and identity, promoting instead a Mexican identity called “Chicanismo,” which “involves a personal decision to reject assimilation and work towards the preservation of our cultural heritage” and the recovery of a “bronze culture for a bronze people.”
<b style="ms