Saturday, October 25, 2008
Loretta Sanchez against requiring ID at
voting booth to prove eligible to vote...
even though Supreme Court allows requiring
ID at voting booth to prove eligible to vote
...even though the Supreme Court ruled early
in 2008 States can require ID at voting booth
to prove eligible to vote.
Corrupt !
Most Absurd about Loretta Sanchez on an issue - The Supreme Court in 5/08 ruled states can rule to have voters be required to present ID to prove they are legally registered to vote. About a week after this ruling, the Sanchez office was called 5/08 and asked her position in the issue: Should voters be required to present valid ID to vote at the polling place.
5/08 , Sanchez office states Loretta Sanchez has not taken a position on requiring voter ID at the polling place ( voting place ). Can we rightly say this is a corrupt and deviant ? Yes. And Sanchez has had 10 years to decide a position on this since the House of Represntatives voter fraud investigation of her disitrict shortly after the 1998 election and win against her opponent Republican Bob Dornan. The contention was there were illegal votes by illegal aliens which allegedly gave her the election.
Sanchez has had 10 years to decide a position for or against, yet she states through her Washington D.C. office that she has not taken a position. Does anyone believe that ? Surely not after the evidence here, and shows she is the wrong person in this Congressional seat.
The Supreme Court in 5/08 ruled states can rule to have voters be required to present ID to prove they are legally registered to vote.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
To see articles here, click at the Blog Archive list at the right side of the webpage or scroll down ...
Friday, October 31, 2008
Outrageous ! Property Rights In the USA Opposed By Loretta Sanchez , but defends property rights in Communist Vietnam ...
H RES 340 Washington Post article Shows comprehensive voting record of Loretta Sanchez, and shows she voted ' present ' ( against ) H RES 340 protecting property rights from city abuse of eminent domain to sieze property from citizens to use for city commercial purposes. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s000030/votes/against-party/ David K
'Homes may be taken for private projects'See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/
GOOGLE - Case : Kilo Vs New London
Kelo v. City of New London
Docket: 04-108
Citation: 545 U.S. ___ (2005)
Petitioner: Susette Kelo, et al.
Respondent: City of New London, Connecticut, et al.
Case Media
Oral Argument
Briefs
Opinion Announcement
Docket
Written Opinion
Abstract
Granted: Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Argument: Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Decision: Thursday, June 23, 2005
Issues: Due Process, Takings Clause
Tags: Rehnquist: Miscellaneous, Rehnquist on iTunes U
Advocates
Scott G. Bullock (argued the cause for Petitioners)
Wesley W. Horton (argued the cause for Respondents)
Facts of the Case
New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause......
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/"
HOUSE BILL (Introduced in House)[H.RES.1264.IH]< SUPPORTING THE OPPOSITION
(KELO, FOR THIER PROPERTY RIGHTS) IN KELO VS NEW LONDON110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 1264
Expressing support for the private property rights protections guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution on the 3rd anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision on Kelo v. City of New London .
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 11, 2008
1 . Expressing support for the private property rights protections guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution on the 3rd anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision on Kelo v.... (Introduced in House)[H.RES.1264.IH]LINK :http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110WuiEY6::"
ALSO Beginning
January 4, 2007 Senate Bill S.48
Private Property Rights Protection Act (Introduced in Senate)
Sanchez votes against her own party in this matter, voting
' present' - not yes or no - see the vote here :strong>
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:2:./temp/~c110W1ntXI:e748:"
H RES 340 Washington Post article Shows comprehensive voting record of Loretta Sanchez, and shows she voted ' present ' ( against ) H RES 340 protecting property rights from city abuse of eminent domain to sieze property from citizens to use for city commercial purposes. LInk Below of comprehensive voting record of Loretta Sanchez, including 'present ' vote on H RES 340 :
'Homes may be taken for private projects'See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/
GOOGLE - Case : Kilo Vs New London
Kelo v. City of New London
Docket: 04-108
Citation: 545 U.S. ___ (2005)
Petitioner: Susette Kelo, et al.
Respondent: City of New London, Connecticut, et al.
Case Media
Oral Argument
Briefs
Opinion Announcement
Docket
Written Opinion
Abstract
Granted: Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Argument: Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Decision: Thursday, June 23, 2005
Issues: Due Process, Takings Clause
Tags: Rehnquist: Miscellaneous, Rehnquist on iTunes U
Advocates
Scott G. Bullock (argued the cause for Petitioners)
Wesley W. Horton (argued the cause for Respondents)
Facts of the Case
New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause......
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/"
HOUSE BILL (Introduced in House)[H.RES.1264.IH]< SUPPORTING THE OPPOSITION
(KELO, FOR THIER PROPERTY RIGHTS) IN KELO VS NEW LONDON110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 1264
Expressing support for the private property rights protections guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution on the 3rd anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision on Kelo v. City of New London .
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 11, 2008
1 . Expressing support for the private property rights protections guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution on the 3rd anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision on Kelo v.... (Introduced in House)[H.RES.1264.IH]LINK :http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110WuiEY6::"
ALSO Beginning
January 4, 2007 Senate Bill S.48
Private Property Rights Protection Act (Introduced in Senate)
Sanchez votes against her own party in this matter, voting
' present' - not yes or no - see the vote here :strong>
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:2:./temp/~c110W1ntXI:e748:"
H RES 340 Washington Post article Shows comprehensive voting record of Loretta Sanchez, and shows she voted ' present ' ( against ) H RES 340 protecting property rights from city abuse of eminent domain to sieze property from citizens to use for city commercial purposes. LInk Below of comprehensive voting record of Loretta Sanchez, including 'present ' vote on H RES 340 :
EEEEWWW ! More icky conduct by Loretta Sanchez at another parade, decribed by a Hispanic Woman...
According to one Hispanic woman, Loretta Sanchez was a participant in the Anahein California 2007 Halloween parade.
According to thsi woman's account, Loretta Sanchez, as in another parade, got off the vehicle she was in (or on) and walked up to the crowd on the sidelines, and allowes a drunk and slobbering man coddle her. EEEEWWWW !
According to thsi woman's account, Loretta Sanchez, as in another parade, got off the vehicle she was in (or on) and walked up to the crowd on the sidelines, and allowes a drunk and slobbering man coddle her. EEEEWWWW !
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Loretta Sanchez loosy goose on parade in parade, Huntington Beach Ca.
Two Democrat medical workers described to the author Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez's conduct in the 2007 4th of July parade in Huntington Beach, Calif.These Democrat women said do not like Loretta Sanchez being their Congresswoman because of the following story related by these two Democrat women, who witnessed Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez's conduct as a participant in the parade.
This is a very popular parade attended by a large crowd every 4th of July. These ladies described how Loretta Sanchez, dressed in a " Weird dress " got out of the vehicle she was riding in and started dancing a weird , inaproppriate dance to the crowd.The women described it as unbecoming of a Congresswoman.
This is a very popular parade attended by a large crowd every 4th of July. These ladies described how Loretta Sanchez, dressed in a " Weird dress " got out of the vehicle she was riding in and started dancing a weird , inaproppriate dance to the crowd.The women described it as unbecoming of a Congresswoman.
Monday, October 27, 2008
de·praved (d-prvd) adj. Morally corrupt; perverted.
de·praved·ly (-prvd-l, -prvdl) adv.
- depraved Adjective morally bad; corrupt [Latin depravare to distort, corrupt]
- de·praved (d-prvd) adj. Morally corrupt; perverted.
- Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj. 1. depraved - deviating from what is considered moral or right or proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a gambling aristocrat"
reprobate, perverse, perverted
corrupt - lacking in integrity; "humanity they knew to be corrupt...from the day of Adam's creation"; "a corrupt and incompetent city government"
- depraved
adjective corrupt, abandoned, perverted, evil, vicious, degraded, vile, degenerate, immoral, wicked, shameless, sinful, lewd, debased, profligate, debauched, lascivious, dissolute, licentious, pervy (slang) << OPPOSITE moral
- depraved Adjective morally bad; corrupt [Latin depravare to distort, corrupt]
- de·praved (d-prvd) adj. Morally corrupt; perverted.
- Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj. 1. depraved - deviating from what is considered moral or right or proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a gambling aristocrat"
reprobate, perverse, perverted
corrupt - lacking in integrity; "humanity they knew to be corrupt...from the day of Adam's creation"; "a corrupt and incompetent city government"
- depraved
adjective corrupt, abandoned, perverted, evil, vicious, degraded, vile, degenerate, immoral, wicked, shameless, sinful, lewd, debased, profligate, debauched, lascivious, dissolute, licentious, pervy (slang) << OPPOSITE moral
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Loretta Sanchez against requiring ID at voting booth to prove eligible to vote...
...even though the Supreme Court ruled early in 2008 States can require ID at voting booth to prove eligible to vote.
Corrupt !
Most Absurd about Loretta Sanchez on an issue - The Supreme Court in 5/08 ruled states can rule to have voters be required to present ID to prove they are legally registered to vote. About a week after this ruling, the Sanchez office was called 5/08 and asked her position in the issue: Should voters be required to present valid ID to vote at the polling place.
5/08 , Sanchez office states Loretta Sanchez has not taken a position on requiring voter ID at the polling place ( voting place ). Can we rightly say this is a corrupt and deviant ? Yes. And Sanchez has had 10 years to decide a position on this since the House of Represntatives voter fraud investigation of her disitrict shortly after the 1998 election and win against her opponent Republican Bob Dornan. The contention was there were illegal votes by illegal aliens which allegedly gave her the election.
Sanchez has had 10 years to decide a position for or against, yet she states through her Washington D.C. office that she has not taken a position. Does anyone believe that ? Surely not after the evidence here, and shows she is the wrong person in this Congressional seat.
The Supreme Court in 5/08 ruled states can rule to have voters be required to present ID to prove they are legally registered to vote.
Corrupt !
Most Absurd about Loretta Sanchez on an issue - The Supreme Court in 5/08 ruled states can rule to have voters be required to present ID to prove they are legally registered to vote. About a week after this ruling, the Sanchez office was called 5/08 and asked her position in the issue: Should voters be required to present valid ID to vote at the polling place.
5/08 , Sanchez office states Loretta Sanchez has not taken a position on requiring voter ID at the polling place ( voting place ). Can we rightly say this is a corrupt and deviant ? Yes. And Sanchez has had 10 years to decide a position on this since the House of Represntatives voter fraud investigation of her disitrict shortly after the 1998 election and win against her opponent Republican Bob Dornan. The contention was there were illegal votes by illegal aliens which allegedly gave her the election.
Sanchez has had 10 years to decide a position for or against, yet she states through her Washington D.C. office that she has not taken a position. Does anyone believe that ? Surely not after the evidence here, and shows she is the wrong person in this Congressional seat.
The Supreme Court in 5/08 ruled states can rule to have voters be required to present ID to prove they are legally registered to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
