Friday, June 29, 2012

Heidi Montag Plastic Surgery Regrets: Fallen Star Would Take it All Back


After she famously underwent 10 procedures in one day, Heidi Montag went on to become the poster child for terrifying, almost laughably bad plastic surgery.

At least she realizes that now. She says she regrets it every day.

“Getting lipo is my biggest regret,” Heidi told In Touch of her least favorite among dozens of body-contouring procedures. “I can’t believe I did this to myself.”

Heidi Montag, BreastsGG-iant BoobsGaunt and Plastic

While Heidi, 25, has worked hard to lessen the dimpling with a strict diet and exercise regimen ... the Heidi Montag pictures above tell you all you need to know.

“I’m so insecure,” the wife of Spencer Pratt (they're still married) says.

Heidi also strongly discourages anyone from going down that road. “Try to lose weight and eat healthily,” she says. “It’s less painful, cheaper and more beneficial.”

Exhibit A: The Hills cast photo below. Look at Heidi's real face and body!

The Hills Cast

Source: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/06/heidi-montag-plastic-surgery-regrets-fallen-star-would-take-it-a/

college football college football ncaa football brian van gorder blazing saddles lsu alabama lsu game

proactive_NA: Delphi Energy to divest Cardium assets for $23-mln http://t.co/CGWlUjah

Sorry, Readability was unable to parse this page for content.

Source: http://twitter.com/proactive_NA/statuses/218422903706894336

how the grinch stole christmas macaroni and cheese festivus festivus zeno melanie amaro new air jordans

PFT: PM kickoffs pushed back by 10 minutes

yahoo_breessidelineGetty Images

The Saints reportedly are poised to make Drew Brees the highest-paid player in NFL history, and the Saints allegedly aren?t negotiating with Brees in good faith.

We?d hate to see how much money the Saints would be offering Brees if they were acting in good faith.

Lost in the contention that Brees? role in the 2011 labor talks are being used against Brees in his contract talks is the fact that the Saints have repeatedly made very significant offers to Brees.? In 2011, they made an offer that would have put Brees in the Peyton Manning/Tom Brady ballpark.? In February 2012, they applied the exclusive version of the franchise tag, which put Brees in line for $16.371 million this season, more than $1 million per game.? In March 2012, they offered another deal that would have made him the highest paid player in the league.? In June 2012, they upped the ante once again.

So where?s the bad faith?

Not giving a guy everything he wants isn?t bad faith.? Not blowing out a team?s salary cap for one player isn?t bad faith.

If the Saints aren?t happy with their most important player because of his role in the labor talks, then the other 31 teams presumably like him even less.? So bad faith would have been, at a minimum, using the non-exclusive version of the franchise tag, since no other team would have signed him to an offer sheet and given the Saints a pair of first-round picks if the Saints hadn?t matched.

Bad faith also would have been giving him no franchise tag at all, thrusting him onto a market full of teams that would have collectively lowballed him, as their way of blackballing him.

Drew knows deep down that the Saints aren?t sticking it to him, because of his role in the CBA talks or for any other reason.? That?s why the initial report from Jason La Canfora of CBSSports.com regarding the union?s contention that the Saints are discriminating against Brees contains the ludicrous suggestion that ?The quarterback did not play a role in the decision . . . with the union moving forward of its own accord.?? Brees wants to squeeze the Saints with an unfounded claim without getting his hands dirty, so he?s hiding behind the notion that the NFLPA has decided on its own, without regard to the wishes of a member of its Executive Committee, to make an outlandish charge that the Saints, by offering consistently to make him the highest-paid player in the league, are screwing him.

Brees has built up plenty of equity in New Orleans and elsewhere over the years.? If Saints fans take the time to see through this one, it could all be gone in the blink of an eye.

None of this changes the fact that the Saints foolishly have delayed getting this deal done.? With coach Sean Payton suspended for the year and with the franchise otherwise in disarray, Brees? presence during the entire offseason program should have been regarded as critical to a successful effort in 2012 ? especially since the Saints? postseason performance hinges on home-field advantage unlike any other team in the league.

The Saints also had been leaking that Brees wants more money than he actually has demanded.? Stupid, yes.? Bad faith, no.

The Saints need Brees.? The Saints love Brees.? But his role in the CBA talks is irrelevant to the ongoing inability to work out a long-term deal, and Brees knows it.

Source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/28/nfl-bumps-late-afternoon-kickoffs-by-10-minutes/related/

yelp stock honda classic news channel 5 nashville weather jason varitek andrew breitbart dead sheriff joe arpaio

Thursday, June 28, 2012

How Are you able to Earn Revenue From Home | Liahonaroo

Millions of people today are asking the same question. I keep in mind I asked the same query myself a handful of years back. All of us hear regarding the cash being produced utilizing the internet. I should admit if you hear the stories of folks, making funds when sitting at dwelling or folks retiring early, you wonder if it is just a pipe dream. Properly I?m content to say it could come about and I can tell you from individual experience that I am sitting in the comfort of my property writing this article. It really is unbelievable. I?m in fact sitting in my bus on the Gulf of Mexico enjoying the water. My wife and I travel about enjoying this lovely country we reside in. It?s just so cool to be in a position to perform what I want when I would like to do it. This is how I live now. I devote some hours a week with my on the web business enterprise and am extremely content with how my on the internet journey has gone.

Nicely sufficient about me. I?m certain you are wondering if it could take place for you. I believe it may. The web permits everyone access to millions of persons every day. You could possibly pick out to have an internet organization like I have or you might desire to generate one of the several other types of on-line corporations. Right here are just a few with the opportunities offered to you either as an online Enterprise owner or just working from residence to create further revenue. Here are some examples:

* On line Web Business enterprise
* On-line Jewelry Shop
* On the web Dollar Retailer
* Google Business enterprise
* Ebay Business
* Information Entry
* Type At Household
* Process Rebates From Household
* On line Paid Surveys

These are just several of the quite a few forms of perform at property applications and residence based company programs. Some of you may not desire to own and on the web small business. You could just want to generate some extra earnings or you could possibly desire to operate at household, replacing your present earnings, without owning any form of small business. The net allows you to take whichever route you select. You?re the boss! It doesn?t get substantially far better than that.

How do you go about deciding upon a plan for you Properly it appears tricky, but with a number of the very simple ideas I?m going to offer you it can be carried out fairly simply. Don?t basically join the first program you see. You?ll find a lot of applications that will merely take your dollars leaving you with nothing but despair ultimately. Take your time when asking the following concerns of yourself:

* What are you currently earnings expectations?
* Do you want a web based business or basically to earn some added money
* What are your skill sets?
* What do you really feel comfy undertaking
* Just how much time do you have on a weekly basis?
* Do you may have a personal computer, access towards the Net along with a printer
* Are you currently prepared to invest concerning the expense of a night out in oneself
* Will you be willing to physical exercise some patience
* Will you take the time to place forth the effort expected

After you have the answers to the above concerns then you might be ready to start researching for the right system for you personally Numerous persons do not match up the above items together with the program they are deciding on and end up in failure. This can provide you with your life back. Surely it?s worth the time to provide you the most beneficial chance for good results. You are able to do it, just be sure it really is performed the correct way.

I suggest using a site like mine, but not necessarily mine, which has accomplished some analysis for you or be prepared to spend the hours separating the great programs from the scam artists. Answering the above queries is usually a must but just the starting. Your purpose need to be to find 2-3 programs, in the end, that meet your profile.

Following you have got identified the applications of one?s choice, join the 2-3 programs of one?s choosing, read the step-by-step guidance provided and start off earning funds.

You have to take the steps essential to fulfill your dreams. The expense to provide your self a likelihood is minimal. You?ll be able to devote less than going out to dinner plus a move one night together with your family. Surely you are able to invest that a lot on oneself. Please feel cost-free to read each this short article or certainly one of my numerous other people by going to my link within the resource box beneath. I usually enjoy receiving emails pertaining to my articles or my web-site. Your feedback is essential to me.

I hope you might have terrific success and are in a position to take pleasure in the issues in life which are crucial to you.

Buy a discounted Austin Collie Jersey from certified Customized Jersey Outlet without delay with Quick Shipment, Safeguarded Payment & Impressive Customer Support from us.

guernsey nit colcannon dystonia tourettes gonzaga rosie o donnell

Student loans weigh heavily after graduation

(Don Ryan/AP)Ah, the summer after graduation. With rented caps and gowns returned, most graduates are hitting the pavement to look for work, or trying to ace that final internship in the hopes that they'll be hired on. But even for those who find employment, there likely remains nagging bit of unfinished business: student loans.

According to figures from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 37 million Americans hold student loan debt. The total amount of student loan debt in the United States is estimated to be between $867 billion and $1 trillion dollars,?and default rates for student loans continue to rise. In 2012, the majority of unemployed Americans had at least some college education?the first time in our nation's history this has occurred. On Tuesday, Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate announced they had reached an agreement on a bill to continue subsidizing student loans, keeping interest rates at 3.4 percent rather than letting them rise to 6.8 percent.

[Related: 5 college degrees that aren't worth the cost]

We asked Yahoo News readers to tell us their experiences with student loan debt. Over 600 graduates (and not-quite graduates) of all ages emailed to share their stories. We'll be sharing more of their stories in the next week over at our Tumblr.

Overwhelmingly, Yahoo News readers told us they felt burdened by their debt. "We do not like debt," wrote Katelyn Fagan, who graduated from Brigham Young University?in 2011. She and her husband have a combined student loan debt of just under $70,000. Fagan tried to work while in college, but wanted to focus on her academics. "Maybe I could have sought out other employment options (and I sometimes did) but school was my top priority."

"Student loans have basically ruined my life," says Tanya Carter, who graduated from the University of Toledo in 2008. She went to community college for two years before transferring, and attended classes part-time so she could also work. When Carter maxed out on federal loans, she turned to private loans to finish her degree. As a result of all that debt, she writes: "I never see myself owning a home, vehicle, or maybe not even getting married."

The need to delay starting a family because of financial worries was a common concern. Lauren Dollard graduated from Fordham University in 2008 with $157,000 in debt, including interest. "My boyfriend won't marry me because of my debt," she says. "He doesn't want it attached to his name (I know, this could also be an excuse)." She said she would trade her "fancy private school education" in a heartbeat to live "as an independent adult."

April Flores graduated from San Diego State in 2008 with $80,000 in private loans and $30,000 in subsidized loans. "It is going to be hard to buy a house and start a family with our debt," she writes. "We joke and say that our baby is Sallie Mae, but it is true!?Education is invaluable, but I was not wise in my early 20s and did not make the right decisions when it came to my private loans."

Flores was far from alone in bemoaning her failure to understand the implications of those promissory notes. Salvatore Aiello graduated from the University of South Carolina in 2009 with $68,000 in debt. "I blame ignorance in my pursuit of loans; my high school did a terrible job explaining our options when it came to financial aid," he told us. "They made it seem that if I wasn't rich or beyond poverty I would not have been able to go to college." Aiello followed up with a second email?he and his girlfriend are now expecting their first child. They are, in his words, "very excited at the unexpected blessing but terrified."

[Related: Cities offering to pay student loans to lure young residents]

Logan Canale attended Queens University in Charlotte, N.C.?and started feeling the pain of loans before her graduation in 2009. One borrower came after her for nonpayment of loans while she was still enrolled and taking classes.

"My private college was way too expensive for what it was worth," Canale writes.?"I just feel like I have been beaten by the system and taken advantage of. Who is making money off my education? Because it is not me."

Amber Riffey graduated from Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College in 2005, and says she was simply too naive: "I wish that schools and student loan officers [would] sit down and actually explain how Sallie Mae works [...] I was just told how much I owe SMWC and 'sign here on the dotted line so we can get you signed up for next semester's classes.'"

"If I had the knowledge then that I do now, I would have paid as I went (yes, it would have most definitely taken longer but at least I would have graduated with my diploma and debt free)," says Riffey.

Although Bobbi Carlin left school before receiving a degree, she attended the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Southeast Community College. "Honestly, I let my parents [handle loans] for me, and when I left school, before graduating, I had no idea that I had more than one loan," says Carlin. "I paid that loan off, and discovered later there was another." She's worked to pay off all of her loans, and now has a little less than $600 in outstanding loan debt.

While students are often told that if one school isn't a good fit for them, they should transfer to another, that can add years to their education?which usually means added debt as well. Eric DeRise went to multiple universities before graduating from University of Connecticut in 2008. DeRise says he understood the details of his mounting student loan debt, but he had no grasp of what it would actually mean for his post-graduation life. "Believe me, I understood that I'd have to pay back the loans 6 months after I graduated, and I understood the strict consequences of not paying them back," he writes. "But do you think of any of that when you're 18-20 years old?" DeRise is making less than $40,000 a year at a nonprofit in Salt Point, N.Y., and he worries about how he will cover his monthly payment if interest rates rise.

[Related: Private student loans 101]

But not everybody had sympathy for graduates who complain about their debt load. Robbin S. is an older graduate?she finished her degree in business from the University of Phoenix in 2003, when she was 46. She still owes $17,500 in loans. "I'm really sick of the whiny babies complaining about their $100,000 of student loan debt and how they will never be able to pay it off," she writes. "Who in their right mind thinks that $100,000 of student loan debt (with a BS in a worthless field) is reasonable?"

For other graduates, who pursued a degree when they found themselves unable to compete in a changing workforce, the accumulated loans could be salt in the wound.

Kim Shannon of Eaton Rapids, Mich., received an associates degree in human resources management in 2010. Several years later, she is still looking for work, and the loans she placed in deferment and forbearance are entering repayment. "I am no longer optimistic about the future.?After so many rejections, I have all but given up my job search," says Shannon. "If I could go back and change things, I would. I would have gone someplace where I could learn a more marketable skill, like driving a forklift. I thought I would be?happy to?finally get a degree, but I'm not."

And then there are those parents who find themselves responsible for paying off loans they co-signed with their children. Karen DeSimone of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., is on the hook for $17,000 in loans she co-signed for her son. "We did everything we could do to get my son started," she writes. "Now we both have the loan debt."

We'll end on an optimistic note: Some Yahoo News readers felt positive about their debt, despite the challenges it posed.

Frank Mendoza of Miami, Fla., graduated from Florida International University in 2010. "I still feel that getting my degree was an achievement worthy of pride. I am, after all, the first male in my family to have a college education," writes Mendoza. "It comforts me to know that I am not the only one in this type of rough financial situation and that even this shall pass."

groundhog day did the groundhog see his shadow groundhog day 2012 serrano ground hog donald trump staten island chuck

What To Search For In Choosing For a Debt Management - Typepad

Nowadays, it cannot be denied that many people are still trapped in the cycle of debt. A single loan is easy to manage but it you have to deal with a couple of payment notices and bills week after week, it is really difficult. Getting the services of a professional debt management consultant becomes a necessity if you want to be freed from the troubles of managing several loans all at once.

Debt management consultants are expert in waiving late payments, negotiating lower interest rates, consolidating several smaller loans to a single larger one and producing a payment schedule that is favorable for both creditor and the borrower

If you having a hard time dealing with several loans, debt consolidation can be of great help in overcoming your present financial situation. You just need to talk to the right people, ome to the right place and converse to a reliable debt management consultant who would help you instead of taking advantage of your present financial instability.

Consumers should choose a debt management consultant who is capable of providing effective and sound advice. Whether you are choosing for permanent or freelance consultant, be sure to select a professional and licensed one.

You should search for the consultant?s accreditation and license to ensure that the best financial advice will be provided. Check their licenses and accreditations with the online services of the Better Business Bureau. You can also check them out with the Attorney General?s Office and Consumer Protection Agency.

A professional and reliable debt management consultant can offer you with great relief in fixing your financial problem easily. Choose the one who has acquired extensive knowledge in resolving debt repayment concerns easily in a legal way.

When choosing for a debt management consultant, make sure that he is capable of pulling you out of your present financial instability. He must be able to produce an effective game plan that would eliminate your debt within just a short period of time.

You should stay from consultants who would recommend the application of new Employer Identification Number or EIN to get rid of your present debt record. This process is known as file segregation and it is considered as a federal crime.

You should always be cautious about con artists who will always take advantage of you present financial instability. After promising great results, they will ask for huge upfront fees and never show up again.

It is normal to be charged with $50-$100 as upfront fees but beyond that, better think twice. Whatever you pay, better put it in writing to protect your interest. Never be tricked by companies who require application fees, enrollment fees, consultation fees and even maintenance fees. When choosing for a debt management consultant, choose the one who charges a nominal monthly fee that range from $2-$5 per creditor.

Choose a debt management consultant who is known for his ability to disburse payments to creditors on time. Many companies are notorious for their unhealthy practice of sending late payments to creditors which causes trouble between borrowers and creditors.

The experts at Abbot and Edwards are waiting to help you sort out your financial difficulties. Why not follow the link to get free advice about debt management now, you?ll feel better for taking that first step.

shame the waltons the waltons weta weta rudolph the red nosed reindeer rudolph the red nosed reindeer

bo jackson bo jackson weather houston weather houston small business saturday small business saturday hank baskett

i am a 50/50 partner in a new LLC. Can I dissolve the ... - Is It Legal To


I filed the LLC docs a few months ago and have just gotten them in the mail.

Nothing on them has been signed by anyone.

I do not wish to continue working with my partner.

We are 50/50 partners.

I have no interest in the company assets (all digital).

May I dissolve the company and walk away?

Many thanks for the advice.

dan marino passing record ipad 2 cases movie times serene branson matthew mcconaughey to catch a predator davenport

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Jim Cramer says, ?Contrarian Investing? Forget About It?

by Jason Jenkins, Investment U Research
Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Jim Cramer says, ?Contrarian Investing? Forget About It?

Contrary to Cramer's belief, contrarian investing works. Just ask the likes of Warren Buffet, George Soros, John Templeton, David Dreman, and Jim Rogers.

A couple of weeks ago Mad Money host Jim Cramer made the above declaration regarding contrarian investing. He went on to say, ?I think it?s wrong. I think it doesn?t matter? I think it?s really a treacherous way to invest.?

I was a little baffled when I saw excerpt. Then I saw the editorial written by Producer Drew Sandholm where he gave the following definition of a ?contrarian investor:?

?In the investment world, a contrarian is someone who takes a position that differs from the majority. If a particular sector is ?hated? by most investors, a contrarian might want to buy in. After all, if few investors like the sector, a contrarian thinks there are few people left to sell, making it immune to big declines.?

Sandholm went on to write that Cramer feels the strategy to be ?too hazardous? to recommend. It infers that contrarian investing is based purely on sentiment and that investors should be using fundamentals and research to decide which companies to invest in.

However, here at Investment U, we don?t feel these two things are mutually exclusive. You can still look for solid fundamentals in regions and sectors that were abandoned by ?the herd.?

For instance, Alexander Green recently wrote about finding fundamentally sound companies in the beaten-down natural gas sector.

Contrarian Investing is Based on Fundamentals

Contrarians aren?t rebellious teens, rejecting their parents? way of investing. What the piece misses is that contrarian investing is based on fundamentals. Many times popular investment sentiment is not. Do we need to remind you of the dot com and housing bubbles?

Investment U defines a contrarian investor as someone who believes in independent wealth building and profits rather than the actions of the herd. The key isn?t to go against the grain for the sake of being different, but to find opportunities based on solid fundamentals that are ignored or shunned by everyone else. And if this is done successfully, then you get in on the ground floor and watch profits rise as the rest of the investment world gets a clue.

In Cramer?s defense, I believe he?s specifically speaking about those investors who are looking at whether a sector is under or overweighted compared to the S&P 500 in an attempt to time the market. But that definition doesn?t cover the whole contrarian movement.

The Vast Spectrum of Contrarian Investing

I don?t think anyone out there would call Jim Rogers, George Soros, or Warren Buffett contrarian day traders. However, the contrarian part of that statement is true.

  • Jim Rogers loves buying undervalued assets. What he saw in gold and silver over a decade ago, he currently sees in the agricultural sector. Agriculture prices are ? on a historical basis ? extremely depressed and this is where he sees his next opportunity.
  • On September 16, 1992, Black Wednesday, Soros? fund sold short more than $10 billion in pounds, profiting from the U.K. government?s reluctance to either raise its interest rates to levels comparable to those of other European Exchange Rate Mechanism countries or to float its currency.
  • Warren Buffett is famously ?greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy.? He focuses on the quality of the business rather than the short-term or near-future share price or market moves. He takes a long-term, large scale, business value-based investment approach that concentrates on good fundamentals and intrinsic business value, rather than the share price. His recent bets on housing are a good example of his contrarian prowess.

So, I do agree with Cramer that investors should avoid investing simply on sentiment. But that?s not our brand of contrarian investing anyways. We look for fundamentally strong businesses in areas where many investors essentially threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Good Investing,

Jason Jenkins

Jim Cramer says, ?Contrarian Investing? Forget About It?, 5.0 out of 5 based on 1 rating

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

the misfits hook troy miracle andy whitfield kennedy demi moore

Auto Repair: The Key to Disassembly and Assembly

One of the biggest fears of someone just wetting their toes in the shallow end of auto repair is that the minute they take something apart, they?ll never be able to put it back together again. This is a legitimate fear. It is closely related to the reason many PC owners don?t know much about their own computers. Once you get past the Start menu, things get scary for the uneducated. Same with cars. Programming the clock is one thing; doing something underneath the hood is quite another. Here is the key to taking something apart and putting it back together again, a useful skill to have when working on your car.

Lay Down a Rag
This is an important step. Ideally, the rag will be white and clean. Each time you remove a part from your car, you?re going to lay it on this rag. There will be no exceptions. Keep it in a place where it isn?t going to get a bunch of dirt and oil on it. At the same time, it should be within easy reach. Once you?ve begun to put parts on it, try not to move it again. It is a rule of auto repair that states if something can be lost, it probably will be. Don?t take that chance.

Make Notes
These don?t have to be actual written notes, though they certainly can be if you?re concerned about your ability to remember. But mental notes will suffice otherwise. The important thing is to be in the moment, and this is the mistake many amateur auto repair beginners make. They take something apart without thinking about what they?re doing. Stay with the task. Make a note about each part you set aside. What does it do? Where does it go? How does it do what it does? You may not be fully aware of all the answers, but even getting close can help you tremendously when it comes to putting it all back together.

Start a System
Putting down a rag isn?t enough. You?ll want to lay the parts aside systematically. The easiest way to do this is in a clockwise fashion. What?s the reasoning? Because when you begin putting it back together, you can simply start from the bottom and work your way back up. Go counter-clockwise, and you won?t have to worry about getting what you thought was the end and still having a piece left over. If you go one at a time, you?ll never have to worry about your auto repair turning into a hair-pulling nightmare of frustration. Well, not from this aspect, anyway.

A st. peters auto repair?shop can help if the job is too big for you to handle personally. Look no further than:?http://www.cottmanofstpeters.com.

Tagged as: St. Peters auto repair

Waldo Canyon fire nba finals kate upton K Michelle roger clemens Microsoft multiple sclerosis

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Ask Bas Lansdorp About Going to Mars, One Way

NASA's been solicited ideas for exploring Mars, but Dutch entrepreneur Bas Lansdorp is already planning a different kind of trip than is likely to come from the U.S. government. Lansdorp's Mars One project has the goal of putting humans on Mars in 2022, with a twist that might dampen many people's hopes to be a Mars-exploring astronaut: the trip Lansdorp plans is one-way only. That means dramatically less fuel on board, because unlike typical Mars voyage plans, there would be no need (or ability) to carry the mechanism or the energy storage to return to Earth. If you (and three close companions) are willing to go be the first people to die on Mars, you'll also need to give up more than a pinch of privacy, because the Mars One plan to obtain the necessary funding is straightforward: create a media spectacle, and monetize it through advertising. (Note: If Elon Musk's optimistic sounding predictions are right, maybe one-way Marstronauts can get a return ticket, after all.) Many questions about the proposed journey are answered in the project's FAQ; check there before formulating questions. Ask Lansdorp about the practicalities and impracticalities of reaching Mars with as many questions as you'd like, but (lest ye be modded down) please only one question per post.

projectglass stock act new york auto show khalid sheikh mohammed masters par 3 gwen stefani overeem

Grosse Pointe Shores, Michigan Communications Specialist Job at ...

Edsel & Eleanor Ford House has a unique opportunity for a high energy, highly reliable communications professional to join a rapidly growing cultural organization that is gaining local, regional and national attention.? The communications department is responsible for creating and presenting an external face for Ford House and its programs to a variety of audiences.? Reporting to the VP of Communications and as an important member of the communications team, you'll play a critical role in helping to tell the Ford House story through a variety of vehicles, including media relations, direct mail, collateral materials, community partnerships and social media.??Specific areas of responsibility will include:

Social Media - Works with the VP of Communications to establish social media strategy?that maximizes Ford House?s full participation including Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, etc.? Stays current on new social media developments and interactive opportunities that may be advantageous to Ford House.? Initiates systems as needed and maintains communications to ensure Ford House?s social media content is accurate, interesting, up to date, and consistent with Ford House?s mission and brand as articulated by the Board of Trustees and the administration.? Monitors social media conversations, informs vice president and others of pertinent information, and makes recommendations for appropriate response by Ford House.???

Website/E-newsletter - Under general supervision by the VP of communications, creates website and e-newsletter content that is engaging to visitors and recipients and ensures accuracy, readability, and timeliness of information.? Writes articles and maintains and updates the website with current programs, hours of operation, news, etc.? Prepares schedule for the e-newsletters, writes articles, and coordinates distribution.

Media Relations - Assists the VP of Communications in ensuring that Ford House receives wide media coverage of programs, events, exhibits, etc. and is portrayed in the media in a positive manner that accurately reflects the mission and values of the organization.? Actively develops and maintains good working relationships with members of the media and handles routine media inquiries.? Fosters and maintains a wide network of contacts with marketing and public relations counterparts at cultural organizations.? Performs a variety of tasks under the direction of the VP of Communications including writing press releases, preparing media packets, and maintaining files of press clippings and other media materials related to Ford House.

Marketing - Assists in marketing efforts including writing professional, high quality copy for brochures and advertising materials and working with designers, printers and fulfillment houses to produce materials according to specifications and in a timely manner.? Coordinates the maintenance of the marketing database ensuring accuracy and completeness of information.

Community Relations and Other Responsibilities ? Identifies, proposes, and coordinates opportunities and partnerships that enhance Ford House?s presence and engagement in the community.? Coordinates outreach efforts to community groups, organizations, and individuals.? Assists as needed in Ford House-sponsored receptions, dinners and other promotional events.? May represent Ford House at meetings of cultural, non-profit, or business organizations and at a variety of community events and activities as needed.? Performs other related duties as assigned.?

A Bachelor?s Degree in Communications, Marketing, Advertising, English, or a related field?

Three to five years of paid, professional experience in advertising, public relations, online marketing or a similar field

Excellent working knowledge of Microsoft Office products including Publisher, Word, Excel, Access, and Power Point.? Familiarity with both PC and MAC programs and applications is a plus.

Demonstrated proficiency in the use of online social media including Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, etc. for marketing and outreach purposes

Outstanding written communication skills including strong proofreading skills and attention to detail

Excellent verbal communication skills and demonstrated ability to work effectively with others in a team environment

Demonstrated ability to handle multiple projects simultaneously while meeting deadlines and to prioritize and organize work effectively

Initiative, good judgment, and the ability to work well independently are required.

giants vs jets chargers seahawks jets air jordans pecan pie recipe prince philip

[WATCH]: Chicago Cosmetic Dentists Can Get More New Patients ...

Sorry, Readability was unable to parse this page for content.

bloom box brady quinn brady quinn obama sweet home chicago accenture match play fat tuesday king cake

Arizona Immigration Law Ruling: Supreme Court Delivers Split ...

  • Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R)

    <a href="http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_062512_SB107SCRuling.pdf" target="_hplink">Via her official website:</a> "Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."

  • President Barack Obama

    "I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system - it's part of the problem." "At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court's decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education - which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own." "I will work with anyone in Congress who's willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values - but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country - and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it."

  • GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney

    "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/mitt-romney-arizona-immigration-law-sb1070-scotus_n_1624618.html" target="_hplink">Today's decision</a> underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration."

  • Attorney General Eric Holder

    "I welcome the Supreme Court's decision to strike down major provisions of Arizona's S.B. 1070 on federal preemption grounds. Today's ruling appropriately bars the State of Arizona from effectively criminalizing unlawful status in the state and confirms the federal government's exclusive authority to regulate in the area of immigration. "While I am pleased the Court confirmed the serious constitutional questions the government raised regarding Section 2, I remain concerned about the impact of Section 2, which requires law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped or detained when they have reason to suspect that the person is here unlawfully. As the Court itself recognized, Section 2 is not a license to engage in racial profiling and I want to assure communities around this country that the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination. We will closely monitor the impact of S.B. 1070 to ensure compliance with federal immigration law and with applicable civil rights laws, including ensuring that law enforcement agencies and others do not implement the law in a manner that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against the Latino or any other community. "We will also work to ensure that the verification provision does not divert police officers away from traditional law enforcement efforts in order to enforce federal immigration law, potentially impairing local policing efforts and discouraging crime victims, including children of non-citizens, victims of domestic violence, and asylum seekers, from reporting abuses and crimes out of fear of detention or deportation. We will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans."

  • Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

    <a href="http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/video-sheriff-joe-arpaio-talks-sb-1070-dream-act" target="_hplink">Via ABC 15:</a> "Nothing has changed. Of course, the Justice Department is accusing me of racial profiling. Went to court, but we do the right thing, we've been doing it. We'll continue to enforce the laws."

  • Secretary Of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano

    "I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that state laws cannot dictate the federal government's immigration enforcement policies or priorities. DHS remains focused on enhancing public safety and the integrity of our border by prioritizing enforcement resources on those who are in the country unlawfully and committing crimes, those who have repeatedly violated our immigration laws, and those who recently crossed our borders illegally. The Court's decision not to strike down Section Two at this time will make DHS' work more challenging. Accordingly, DHS will implement operational enhancements to its programs in Arizona to ensure that the agency can remain focused on its priorities. Over the past three and half years, this Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border and to enforcing our nation's immigration laws in a firm and reasonable fashion. We continue to urge Congress to pass comprehensive reform because nothing short of a comprehensive solution will resolve the current patchwork of immigration laws. Finally, it is important to note that today's Supreme Court decision will not impact the memorandum I issued on June 15threlated to prosecutorial discretion eligibility for productive members of society who were brought to the United States as children."

  • Sens. Jon Kyl & John McCain (R-Ariz.)

    "While we still want to fully review the Supreme Court's decision, today's ruling appears to validate a key component of Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070. The Arizona law was born out of the state's frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools, hospitals, criminal justice system and fragile desert environment, and an administration that chooses to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda, not the laws as written by Congress. We will continue our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Arizona to secure our southern border. We believe Arizonans are better served when state and federal officials work as partners to protect our citizens rather than as litigants in a courtroom."

  • Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

    "The Supreme Court was right to strike down the vast majority of the Arizona law. With three out of the four provisions being struck down, the ruling shows that the Obama administration was right to challenge this law, which was not just ill-advised but also unconstitutional. "I am greatly concerned that the provision putting American citizens in danger of being detained by police unless they carry their immigration papers at all times will lead to a system of racial profiling. This is a strong reminder that ultimately, the responsibility for fixing our nation's broken immigration system lies with Congress. President Obama's decision to defer deportation of young people brought here through no fault of their own was necessary precisely because Republicans have so far refused to work with Democrats on forging common-sense solutions to our immigration challenge that are fair, tough and practical. Immigration reform should continue securing our borders; punish unscrupulous employers who exploit immigrants and undercut American wages; pass the DREAM Act; and require the 11 million who are undocumented to register with the government, learn English, pay fines, pay taxes and go to the end of the line to legalize their status." "Looking ahead to the immigration debate, it is disturbing that Mitt Romney called the unconstitutional Arizona law a 'model' for immigration reform. Laws that legalize discrimination are not compatible with our nation's ideals and traditions of equal rights, and the idea that such an unconstitutional law should serve as a 'model' for national reform is far outside the American mainstream."

  • Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

    "This is as strong a repudiation of the Arizona law as one could expect given that the law has not been implemented yet. Three linchpins of the Arizona law were struck down by a convincing majority of the Court as clearly violating federal law, and a fourth is on thin legal ice. The Court is sending a stern warning to Arizona that the provision allowing local law enforcement to check people's immigration documents cannot be implemented in a discriminatory or draconian way, or it will be thrown out like the rest of the law." "This decision tells us that states cannot take the law into their own hands and makes it clear that the only real solution to immigration reform is a comprehensive federal law. The decision should importune Republicans and Democrats to work together on this issue in a bipartisan way."

  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

    "While I am pleased that the Supreme Court struck down the vast majority of Arizona's immigration law, I share the concerns of President Obama and many legal organizations over the decision to leave in place the dangerous 'show-me-your-papers' provision. This provision of the law keeps the door open to blatant discrimination against American citizens, minorities, and immigrants. The Court has said this section needs additional review, and I am hopeful that it will be struck down in the future. "The Supreme Court's ruling is a clear reminder of the urgent need to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats have always been ready to work across the aisle and pass legislation without further delay. However, Republicans have chosen a confrontational course - calling Arizona's law a 'model' for reform; refusing to pass the DREAM Act; and standing in the way of bipartisan action to pass real reform. "No state should be in the business of weakening civil rights. Moving forward, we must act to uphold our values by fighting for reform that secures our borders, upholds the rule of law, protects our workers, unites families, and provides a pathway to legalization."

  • Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

  • U.S. Congressional Candidate Andrei Cherny (D-Ariz.)

    <a href="https://twitter.com/AndreiCherny/status/217264814148431872" target="_hplink">Via Twitter:</a> "The fact remains about #SB1070 that its a bad law. Arpaio needs to be held accountable not given more powers. Congress must act on reform."

  • Senate Democratic Leader David Schapira

    Via <a href="http://azsenatedems.blogspot.com/2012/06/statements-on-sb1070-ruling.html" target="_hplink">AZ Senate Dems</a>: "The Supreme Court has sent two messages today: that states cannot pass policies that undermine federal law and that Congress must act on comprehensive reform in order to address this issue and avoid these kinds of legal conflicts. We cannot begin to honestly solve the issue of illegal immigration until those in Congress are willing to have meaningful discussions on comprehensive reform." "Recently, the President took action because of the failure of Congress to act. Predictably, the knee-jerk reaction of extremists like Jan Brewer and her Tea Party Republicans was to trash good policy in favor of their worn-out politics of the past. This is exactly the type of politics that is taking Arizona backwards." "It's time for Arizona to turn to a new chapter, to leave behind the extreme and divisive politics that have dominated this state. It's time to work together to create jobs and improve education, things that Governor Brewer and her Tea Party Republicans in the Legislature have failed to do."

  • State Sen. Steve Gallardo (D)

    Via <a href="http://azsenatedems.blogspot.com/2012/06/statements-on-sb1070-ruling.html" target="_hplink">AZ Senate Dems</a>: "After President Obama's bold move on immigration, people who for all intents and purposes are living as Americans and contributing to our society are able to step out of the shadows, live without fear of deportation and keep working and going to school here." "SB1070 has created a hostile environment for Latinos in Arizona and has done nothing but pander to the extreme political right while damaging Arizona's reputation and economy at a time we can least afford. The people of Arizona are tired of these partisan Republican games." "Americans favor President Obama's policy change by a two-to-one margin. Even the Arizona GOP spokesman admitted that it might be time for that party to reconsider its Russell Pearce approach to immigration." "The truth is, it's long past time and today's ruling doesn't change the fact that Arizona's Republican-led legislature has done nothing to create jobs or restore the devastating cuts they have made to our kids' schools." --

  • U.S. Senate Candidate Richard Carmona (D)

    "For decades, politicians in Washington have talked about this problem, but nothing ever gets done and Arizonans continue to shoulder the burden of a broken immigration system. SB 1070 is a product of the federal government's failure to act. Today's ruling does not help us secure the border, and it does not provide a solution for the 400,000 undocumented people living in Arizona." "As a deputy sheriff of a border county, I've witnessed first hand the human cost of not having a workable solution. I've seen the results of the violence and drugs, and I know the terrible toll that has taken on our community. But SB 1070 doesn't help local law enforcement fix the problem. It's a distraction that hinders our ability to build trust with the communities we serve." "Our immigration problems are complex, but the solutions are simple: secure the border, develop a pathway to earn legal status and enact the DREAM Act. Leadership on this issue takes courage, but it also requires politicians to stop using immigration as a wedge issue to score political points." "It wasn't long ago that two diametrically opposed leaders -- President George W. Bush and the late Senator Ted Kennedy -- came together to try to solve the problem. There was even a time when Senator John McCain and Congressman Jeff Flake favored a comprehensive approach that was practical and fair. It's going to take a more honest debate and the political will to get it done - and that's what's been missing in Washington."

  • Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)

  • Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)

    "I am disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision today, which limits the ability of states to protect their citizens and communities from illegal immigrants. It is the federal government's job to enforce our immigration laws, but President Obama has willfully neglected this responsibility. This dereliction of duty has left states to address the crime, job loss, and other costs of illegal immigration. "Unfortunately, under this Administration, today's ruling essentially puts an end to immigration enforcement since the states no longer can step in and fill the void created by the Obama administration. This is especially bad news for border states since they have to deal with border violence, drug trafficking and illegal immigration. "Throughout the past three years, President Obama and his administration have ignored our immigration laws and have encouraged more illegal immigration by their actions. President Obama has abused his executive branch authority to allow potentially millions of illegal immigrants to live and work in the U.S. And under this Administration, worksite enforcement has plummeted 70%, allowing illegal immigrants to hold jobs while 13 million Americans are looking for work. "According to a recent poll, two-thirds of the American people want to see our laws enforced. But President Obama puts illegal immigrants and his partisan agenda ahead of the interests of the American people. If our immigration laws are going to be enforced, we need a new President this January who will enforce immigration laws, not deliberately ignore them." (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

  • Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)

  • Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.)

    "I find it unfortunate that the Supreme Court struck down some provisions of S.B. 1070. The federal government has failed spectacularly in its duty to enforce immigration laws, and Arizona's law simply sought to fill the enforcement void left by this failure. I'm glad to see the court uphold the central part of this law however. "Under this ruling, police will have the opportunity to check the legal status of individuals in the course of enforcing other laws. This is a major victory in Arizona's efforts to give law enforcement new tools to enforce the law where the Obama Administration will not. Until we obtain operational control of our southern border and fully enforce current laws, we can't have a credible, substantive conversation on immigration reform. By enhancing the enforcement of our immigration laws, this ruling puts us on that path."

  • Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.)

  • RNC Chairman Reince Priebus

    "Once again we are reminded that President Obama has failed to keep his promise on immigration reform. In the absence of presidential leadership, states have acted on their own to serve their people and enforce the law, but the issue cannot fully be resolved with a president unwilling to keep his promises. This decision makes that job even more difficult, and it leaves Americans waiting for a plan the president promised to deliver years ago."

  • Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)

    "The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the anti-immigrant movement, but also dealt a blow to Latinos and immigrants living in the United States. This threatens the safety of all Americans and undermines the fundamental relationship between police and the communities they serve, and I am proud that Chicago is not going down that road." "A central part of the law, which requires state and local law enforcement to check someone's citizenship status in the course of their duties, was upheld and will sanction pretextual stops and racial profiling. This gives a green light to Arizona sheriffs and others to use someone's clothing, accent, or appearance to take them to jail and hold them until their immigration status, if any, is sorted out." "Experience has shown us that police are highly unlikely to stop an individual with the last name of Kennedy or Roberts on suspicion of not being a legal U.S. citizen, but if you are a Gutierrez or Martinez, watch out. The express goal of the authors of Arizona's SB1070 is to target immigrants for harassment and make their lives miserable, and a key tool in that effort was upheld by the Court." "In our nation's history, the Supreme Court has been at its best when it expands freedom and demands that all Americans are treated fairly. This court fell short of that ideal today. Leaders who understand that allowing police to target anyone they choose, including American citizens, simply based on the way they look, or the sound of their voice, is wrong and has no place in our great country." "The President and Attorney General fought hard against the Arizona law and deserve praise for their leadership. Much of this decision is a victory for our community. This President is not afraid to do the right thing when faced with injustice. Now the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice and the White House have an even more important role in making sure federal immigration laws are not further undermined by and dictated by the states." "The President must stand firm because only the federal government can deport someone or turn a routine traffic stop into a lifetime of exile or a family permanently split apart." "The President's announcement last Friday is all the more important because the Supreme Court has moved to allow states to pick up thousands of low priority deportable immigrants, who could potentially flood already overtaxed deportation resources. Affirmatively protecting DREAM-eligible young immigrants from deportation will help mitigate the damage done by state legislators and the Supreme Court." "Now that leadership from our President is even more vital, it is important to note that Mitt Romney has called the Arizona law -- much of which was just deemed unconstitutional by the nation's highest court -- a "model for the nation." He counts on the main architect of this now-discredited law as a key immigration advisor. Today, the difference in leadership between President Obama and Mr. Romney could not be clearer. I urge Mr. Romney to repudiate his support for a policy now found to be largely unconstitutional."

  • Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

    "Today's decision is a victory for all Americans in that the Court correctly affirmed the power of the federal government to set immigration policy. While the Court found that the 'show me your papers' provision requires further evaluation, the Court concluded that it too may be invalidated if it is improperly applied in violation of federal law, including civil rights protections. I am deeply concerned about the welfare of Arizona residents in the meantime, particularly that the 'show me your papers' provision could lead to racial profiling. "We need an immigration system that's fair and practical, not a patchwork of policies that make our broken system worse. The federal government must create a national immigration system that provides for our national security and upholds America's values. That's why I'm working with my colleagues to pursue comprehensive immigration reform."

  • U.S. Senate Candidate Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)

    "While it's heartening that the Supreme Court rejected several parts of Arizona's radical immigration law, I am deeply disappointed they did not strike down the most discriminatory portion that will force even more people into the shadows. I have opposed this law from the beginning while my opponent, Senator Dean Heller, not only supports it, but wants to bring it here to Nevada. We cannot allow that to happen. "Today's decision is further evidence that we must pass comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, cracks down on employers that knowingly hire undocumented immigrants, and provides a pathway to legal status for those that go to the back of the line, learn English, pay a fine and back taxes, and pass a criminal background check. "Unfortunately, Washington Republicans like Senator Heller are continuing to block any progress on fixing our broken immigration system and passing commonsense legislation like the DREAM Act."

  • Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.)

  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)

  • Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.)

  • Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.)

    "The federal government can put an end to all this uncertainty by enforcing the law--at the border and in the workplace. Several provisions of the Arizona law might have been invalidated, but an important part of the law is still in place, so there will be a lot of attention on this one aspect, and how it relates to state-based enforcement. "Arizona's efforts are indicative of a much bigger problem--a problem that in large part sits with the federal government. If this Administration truly believes immigration enforcement is a federal duty, then it wouldn't try to routinely circumvent the law as it has done. Arizona had no other option and the state did what it needed to do for the protection of its citizens."

  • Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)

    "The Supreme Court's decision today regarding SB 1070 is a mixed bag at best. But one thing is certain: with its efforts suing Arizona, the Obama Administration has focused time and resources that could have been better spent securing the border."

  • Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.)

    "This decision is a mixed bag. Illegal immigration hurts our country in numerous ways and it is sad that states are doing more to enforce our immigration laws than the federal government. President Obama recently decided to impose his liberal immigration policies by fiat, ignoring the rule of law. The President and his Administration are not above the law. "Last week I introduced a bill, the VERIFI Act, which will take one small step toward addressing the problem of illegal immigration. Currently, most government benefit programs, like Medicare and Social Security, do not require a verification of citizenship. This means that illegal immigrants can access benefits that they are not legally allowed to have. This is called cheating. My bill would close this door by requiring a citizenship check before receiving benefits. It's a simple idea that we should act on quickly."

  • Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)

    "I am pleased that the decision announced by the Supreme Court struck down the bulk of Arizona's immigration law. It is a clear sign that changes to the way we approach undocumented immigrants must take place at the federal level. Democrats are committed to comprehensive immigration reform, and we will continue to propose solutions that reflect our need for secure borders and the reality that millions of people, including many children who were brought here through no fault of their own, have been living and working in our country for years. "I remain concerned by the section of the Arizona law that was upheld today, and its practical implications. Judging people on the basis of race or ethnicity goes against our nation's most fundamental values of equality and justice for all. Democrats will continue to watch with great interest as cases concerning the constitutionality of that provision make their way through the courts, and until that happens, we expect our legal system to ensure that it is applied in a completely non-discriminatory fashion. Democrats will continue standing up for the civil liberties of all Americans and for the pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform, and I call on Republicans to work with us toward both ends."

  • Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas)

    "Today's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the Arizona law, better known as SB 1070, is a move in the right direction. However, the unanimous decision to uphold the 'Show Me Your Papers' provision that allows a police officer or local law enforcement agency to ask for the legal status of a person being detained or arrested hurts communities across our country. This ruling underscores the need for Congress to take up this federal issue and work on a Comprehensive Immigration Reform package that addresses it. "I call on my colleagues - both Democrats and Republicans - to do the right thing and address Comprehensive Immigration Reform. It is unfortunate that partisan politics being played by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives does not allow us, those with common sense, to move meaningful and important immigration legislation forward. "For 26 ? years, I served as a Border Patrol agent and then sector chief and worked to uphold immigration laws in this country, and today, I know first-hand the dire need to reform these same laws. I will continue to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform that secures our country, unites families, helps our country's economic prosperity and ends a shadow world for millions of people living here."

  • SB 1070 Co-Author Kris Kobach

    On Monday's edition of <a href="http://jstsay.in/0006an" target="_hplink">The Huckabee Report</a> "The great news is that the central provision of the Arizona law has been upheld by the Supreme Court. And, you know, that's great. It's the provision that allows Arizona state and local police to have a state-wide policy of acting whoever they have reasonable suspicion that a person is unlawfully present in the country and calling the Feds and getting an answer -- a 24/7 hotline the federal government has. So that is upheld. But the other provisions of the Arizona law that were at issue before the court were struck down. The issue is it's a decision written by Justice Kennedy, and it's kind of classic Kennedy. You know, really splitting hairs and going one way on one part of the law and one way on the other part of the law. I was hoping for a more principled or across-the-board decision written by maybe somebody like Chief Justice Roberts or solid conservatives."

  • Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)

    "I supported the Obama Administration's decision to question the constitutionality of this law, and I'm pleased that the Supreme Court struck down most of the ill-conceived provisions within this law. However, I am concerned that the "show me your papers" provision was upheld. We must pursue a comprehensive immigration policy so that no American has to live in fear because of their heritage, their last name, or the color of their skin. "This ruling underscores the need for a comprehensive immigration policy that works for all states and all Americans, without compromising our values or undermining the basic civil rights and freedoms we have as Americans. As a Member of Congress, representing a diverse and vibrant population in South Florida, I know that our country deserves better. I look forward to working with my fellow Members of Congress and the President toward comprehensive immigration reform so that all Americans can prosper in a free and secure nation."

  • Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.)

    "I am pleased that the Court struck down three of the four provisions at stake in this divisive law. While our nation's immigration system is in desperate need of reform, enacting patchwork policies that conflict with existing federal laws and Constitutional rights is not the solution. "I was disappointed, however, to see the Court uphold one of the law's most controversial provisions, requiring law enforcement officials to check the status of persons that they arrest if they suspect them of being in the country illegally. This provision sets a dangerous precedent for profiling and discrimination throughout the nation. While we do need to address the illegal immigration problems in our country, directing law enforcement officials to become involved in immigration issues may lead to a rift between legal immigrant populations and communities and local and state law enforcement. This rift could hinder their ability to investigate dangerous criminal activity. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers are already properly trained and in a better position than local and state officers when it comes to involvement in these complex immigration matters. "As such, I will continue to work in Congress to address our nation's immigration issues in a comprehensive manner, which does not promote discriminatory policies."

  • Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.)

    "It's great to see the 'show me your papers' provision of the Arizona immigration law has been upheld. The federal government continues to fail the states with its refusal to actually enforce immigration laws, forcing states like Arizona and Georgia to step in and figure out a way to fix their own illegal immigration problems. While it was disappointing to have the Supreme Court strike down some of the teethier provisions of the law, allowing the 'show me your papers' provision to remain sets a precedent to allow states to implement immigration laws when the federal government fails to do so. "We don't know what this might mean for the Georgia law. The Obama Administration has not filed suit against Georgia yet - although they have filed suit against South Carolina, Alabama, and Utah for similar immigration laws - and we don't know if they plan to in the future. But at least the Court's decision does at least leave the door open for states to take care of what Washington has continued to fail to do. This gives Georgia a good argument in favor of our law if the president ever does sue to block it."

  • Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.)

    "The Supreme Court today reaffirmed Georgia's right to enforce its immigration law and protect our taxpayers. Illegal immigration is one of the biggest crises facing our nation, and I am hopeful this victory stands once it returns to the lower courts. Given the Obama administration's refusal to secure our borders, it is of paramount importance that states be able address the issue in their local communities."

  • Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)

    "I am pleased that the Supreme Court struck down three out of the four key provisions of Arizona's dangerous immigration law. The ruling shows that the Obama Administration was right to challenge the law's constitutionality and reaffirms the notion that the federal government should frame immigration law, not states. However, I share President Obama's deep concern that the Supreme Court left in place the discriminatory 'stop and check' provision, or the ability for state and local law enforcement to require documentation based on how people look or how they speak. These practices promote racial profiling, compromise equal protection under the law and have already led to credible allegations of wrongful arrests and harassment. I support President Obama's call for the full protection of civil rights for all. Our immigration system is broken, and today's decision underscores the need for national comprehensive immigration reform. We made a major step forward last week, when President Obama announced a policy to halt the deportation of young undocumented individuals, the so-called DREAMERs. Yet Republicans continue to stand in the way of long-term solutions like the DREAM Act, which would allow young undocumented individuals to join the military or go to college and have a path to citizenship. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has also called Arizona's unconstitutional immigration policies, a "model" for the nation. Our country is at its best when its sticks to core founding principles - equality, fairness, opportunity for all. Congress must reform our immigration policies in a commonsense way that reflects our values and moves us forward."

  • Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)

    "I applaud the Court for making a balanced and positive ruling today. The most important thing to be determined was whether state and local law enforcement officers can play a role and assist the federal government in enforcing immigration law and the answer is yes. This is a significant victory for those on a state level who are trying to gain control of the massive flow of illegal immigrants into our country. It is clear the problem will never be solved without cooperation from the very top of the federal government and the very bottom of local jurisdictions. The Supreme Court decided that cooperation is constitutionally proper. "This ruling further highlights the long overdue necessity for statutory change to the status quo of lax immigration enforcement, half-hearted border security measures and the elimination of the economic incentives and public benefits that encourage the massive flow of illegal immigration into this country. Thankfully, we have a Court that will give issues like this the honest consideration it deserves."

  • Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-NM)

    "I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law, but I'm concerned that the 'show me your papers' provision that is still intact casts a wide net over all people of Hispanic descent, and will undoubtedly snare honest, hardworking Americans in a misguided attempt to deport undocumented immigrants. "Arizona's legislation was the wrong reaction to a very real issue. Passing laws that institutionalize racial profiling is no solution. "I am proud that here in New Mexico we value our diverse heritage. Congress must rise to the challenge and fix this broken system at the federal level once and for all."

  • Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)

    "In their immigration decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the enforcement of immigration laws is a federal responsibility and that no state has the right to discriminate against its own people. "I was disappointed that one provision was upheld, but the Supreme Court sent a clear message that if the measure is not implemented narrowly - to help federal officials enforce immigration law - it will not stand."

  • Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-Texas)

    "When three out of four provisions of a state's law are struck down, it obviously can't be viewed as a victory for the state. Nor can an unconstitutional law be used a model for the nation, as Governor Romney suggested. The fact the Romney has said that as president he would not even challenge Arizona's law, shows what a sad direction our country's immigration laws would go under his administration. "The 'show me your papers' provision, that institutionalizes racial profiling, remains a very important element that needs to be addressed. The CHC will coordinate with civil rights groups and immigration law organizations to follow up on a challenge to this provision, which is still an open legal question. We will be watching very closely how Arizona exercises this part of the law and will continue to fight against instances of racial and ethnic profiling."

  • Rep. Ed Pastor (D-Ariz.)

    "In recognizing that federal immigration laws preempt SB 1070, the Supreme Court rightly found three of four harmful provisions unconstitutional, but I'm greatly disappointed that it erroneously upheld the discriminatory 'show me your papers' provision. I'm fearful this troublesome provision will lead to discrimination and racial profiling in Arizona and throughout the country, and I remain supportive of related civil rights suits currently challenging SB 1070 as discriminatory, which was not considered in this most recent Supreme Court case. Further, I ask the U.S. Department of Justice to be aware of efforts to restrict the civil rights of citizens and immigrants alike and increase civil rights enforcement. "Arizona's SB 1070, Section 2(B), the "show me your papers" provision, requires local law enforcement to check the immigration status during any lawful stop, detention or arrest anytime law enforcement officials have "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is unlawfully present. Upholding Section 2(B) will result in the harassment of those here legally, including tourists, legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens and place significant burdens on federal agencies by diverting resources away from dangerous criminals and other high-priority individuals."

  • Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.)

    "While I am pleased that the Supreme Court has wisely decided to strike down several of the most egregious portions of SB 1070, I am disheartened that the law's infamous "show me your papers" provision will remain intact. Not only is this an affront to the American ideal of equal justice under law, it will open the door to rampant racial profiling. Thankfully, in striking down three other key elements of SB 1070, the justices have once again reaffirmed the primacy of the federal government in enforcing our immigration laws. Most Americans understand that a patchwork of state laws in the mold of SB 1070 won't get us any closer to solving this national challenge. What we need now more than ever is for the leaders of both parties to work together with President Obama to finally fix our broken immigration system."

  • Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)

    Rep. Nydia M. Vel?zquez (NY-12): "While I am pleased the Court struck down several of the constitutionally questionable provisions in this law, I remain concerned that it upheld elements that could still allow for racial profiling. Regardless, this issue is not going away. We must continue working for an immigration reform law that addresses these issues in a comprehensive manner."

  • Rep. Rub?n Hinojosa (D-Texas)

    "The ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the Arizona anti-immigration law does not go far enough in preventing the unjust harassment of anyone who looks Latino or sounds 'foreign.' Letting stand a provision that requires police to check someone's status because they "suspect" them of coming into the country illegally is preposterous. Your grandmother or little brother can be walking to the corner grocery story and be stopped and detained if they look "suspicious." Our Constitution must guarantee that all people - no matter where they were born or what color skin they have are afforded the same basic rights and treated equally. While I am pleased that some of this unconstitutional law was defeated, it still leaves the door open for bigotry and harassment to prevail."

  • Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.)

    "The Supreme Court's decision to reject most aspects of Arizona's SB 1070 upholds the Constitution of the United States, and makes it clear that immigration should be exclusively the jurisdiction of the federal government. But I am disappointed that the Court upheld the discriminatory 'show me your papers' provision of the law. If implemented, this misguided provision will inevitably lead to racial profiling. Some Americans will be forced to prove their citizenship based on the color of their skin while others will stand little or no chance of being affected. This is wrong. The CHC will continue to fight to overturn this immoral and unjust provision, and pass a comprehensive immigration that respects the law of the land and our history as a nation of immigrants."

  • Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ)

    "Today the U.S. Supreme Court struck down key parts of Arizona's SB 1070 that would have gone beyond federal law to criminalize currently civil violations. Unfortunately, the Court upheld the discriminatory provision in the state law that promotes unjustified questioning based on stereotypes of what an undocumented immigrant looks like or sounds like. With similar laws pending in several states, it is critical that the full impact of SB 1070 be understood. Allowing SB 1070's 'show me your papers' provision to go into effect will have devastating consequences on Latino communities throughout the country. "It is now more important than ever that Congress gets serious about passing comprehensive immigration reform to address our broken immigration system. The U.S. Government must also continue to exercise its authority to shape and enforce just and humane immigration policies."

  • Rep. Ben Ray Luj?n (D-NM)

    "While the Supreme Court decision struck down a number of the provisions of SB 1070 and reaffirmed that immigration requires a solution at the federal level, I do have concerns with the part of the law that was left in place," Congressman Ben Ray Luj?n said. "This decision serves as yet another reminder of the importance of passing comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level that fixes our broken system."

  • Rep. Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR)

    "I think the Court's decision--striking down three of four sections in the Arizona law and suggesting the fourth section will also be struck down if it is interpreted by Arizona courts as giving too much discretion to state officers--is thoughtful and comprehensive. It indicates that Arizona's legislature overstepped its authority in key respects, and reinforces the federal government's primacy with respect to establishing and enforcing our nation's immigration laws."

  • Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)

    "Today the Supreme Court preserved the most important component of the Arizona law- the provision that allows law enforcement, when reasonable suspicion standards are met, to request that an individual produce identification and verify their immigration status," said King. "This is a significant win when it comes to efforts to increase enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. However, I have serious concerns about the other side of today's ruling, which struck down three other provisions of SB 1070. The three provisions were written to mirror and support federal immigration law. Today's decision makes it harder for states to protect their citizens from the crime wave of illegal immigration driven by drug smuggling. I will now look for a statutory fix that will empower the states. The President refuses to enforce immigration law himself, and he doesn't want anyone else to enforce the laws either."

  • Sen. David Vitter (R-La.)

    "All the Arizona law tried to do was fill the void that the federal government has created by neglecting its duty and letting illegal immigration get completely out of control," Vitter said. "The federal government should be working with Arizona to solve the problem, not taking it to court. But for those of us who believe our focus should be actively enforcing the federal laws already on the books, the court's decision to uphold Arizona's ability to check immigration status is a step forward."

  • Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

    "I am pleased that the Supreme Court struck down most provisions of Arizona's immigration law today. SB 1070 law was discriminatory and would have encouraged police officers to engage in racial profiling and make warrantless arrests by creating new state criminal offenses for undocumented immigrants. I am disappointed, however, that the Court upheld the 'show me your papers' part of the Arizona law which authorizes law enforcement officers to stop an individual if there is 'reasonable suspicion' they are undocumented immigrants. This provision will encourage racial profiling and discriminatory enforcement by law enforcement officers, wasting valuable time and resources that would be better used for legitimate law enforcement activity. I expect this provision to continue to be challenged in court once it actually takes effect and is used by Arizona law enforcement officers. "In light of this decision, I would encourage the Justice Department to continue protecting the civil rights of all Americans. Congress also now has to take action. First, we must pass the <a href="http://www.cardin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/-cardin-introduces-bill-to-end-racial-profiling-by-law-enforcement" target="_hplink">End Racial Profiling Act, S. 1670</a>, legislation I introduced that would prohibit racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement officers. The bill also requires training of law enforcement officers on the issue of racial profiling. Second, Congress must finally break the gridlock that is holding back comprehensive immigration reform. We must work together to find a balanced approach that reforms our current immigration laws, secures our borders and creates a fair process to bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows and into compliance with our laws."

  • Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.)

    "The Court's decision today is another reminder that the federal government needs to deal with our broken immigration system. I believe the first step is securing the border and turning off the magnets that encourage people to come into country illegally. We are a nation of immigrants and should fix the system to make it easier for people seeking to enter our country legally, but we are also a nation of laws that have to be respected and observed. Elizabeth Warren has the wrong approach. She supports amnesty and taxpayer funded benefits, including in-state college tuition, for those in the country illegally. She wants to make illegal immigration more attractive. I want to strengthen our legal immigration system and provide more opportunities for those who have played by the rules."

  • Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

    "While the court ruled that portions of Arizona's immigration law are preempted by federal law, the ability for state law enforcement officials to verify a person's immigration status was upheld. Today's ruling highlights the fact that President Obama has not provided leadership in working with Congress to adequately secure our nation's borders and provide comprehensive immigration reform that is beyond amnesty for those who have broken our laws. It is precisely because the federal government has failed to do its job of securing the border, protecting citizens, and deporting those who are here illegally that states like Arizona have sought to take matters into their own hand. For four years, our nation has needed leadership from the President to tackle this issue. Unfortunately, Americans are still waiting."

  • Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)

  • Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

  • Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

    "The Supreme Court reaffirmed what the Constitution makes clear: Congress has the authority to make laws setting our national immigration policy. By striking down three of the four provisions at issue in the case, the Court sent anti-immigrant activists a strong message. A patchwork of conflicting immigration laws is not a sustainable result, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that in striking down a number of overreaching provisions in the Arizona law. "Although the Court did not strike down a section of the Arizona law that would require police officers to check an individual's immigration status upon a stop or an arrest, the majority made clear that its application could raise serious constitutional questions. I share those concerns. "The reluctance of some in Congress to work to meet our immigration challenges recently led the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security to act under their authority to devise an immigration enforcement policy that is consistent with America's values, history and traditions. I applauded the President and Secretary Napolitano for their actions, but Congress must act to make the lasting improvements our system needs. I hope today's decision will encourage congressional Republicans to join with us to enact comprehensive immigration reform."

  • dallas fort worth dfw 1930 census nike new nfl uniforms nfl uniforms andrew bailey the village