from Floyd Reports;
Video: AZ Gov Learned About UN Report from Us
Posted on August 31, 2010 by Ben Johnson
It’s not bad enough the Obama administration has hauled Arizona before the United Nations “Human Rights Council” for its overwhelmingly popular immigration law. Last night, Governor Jan Brewer told Greta Van Susteren the administration did not have the decency to tell her the state’s lawmakers had been put on the same level as Cuban jailers and North Korean torturers. Instead, Brewer said she learned about the lawsuit “on the internet.”
Since we broke the story, that means ultimately she learned about it from us. This development means two things.
First, it shows the desperation of the Obama administration. Despite intense legal harassment of the state and its law enforcement — including a new lawsuit filed against ten community colleges near Phoenix — the state has not buckled in fear. Governor Brewer, State Senator Russell Pearce, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio are defending the will of Arizona — and nearly three-quarters of all Americans — against a thuggish regime that ignores the rule of law and imposes its will by judical fiat. As even that appeal may be headed for failure, Obama threw a “Hail Mary” pass to the UN’s international socialists. All the left-wing activists, politicians, and judges are falling before the courageous people defending a simple law that merely endorses the federal government’s own standards.
Second, it shows the importance of new media: the internet, talk radio, and the few television reporters who broke the media blackout. Any of the elite media’s reporters could have read the report and documented its contents, but they didn’t. It was left to this reporter and this website.
Stay tuned for more stories the media will not report (until we force them to). Just this afternoon, Neil Cavuto hosted a segment on Fox News noting the same UN Human Rights report considers “card check” union organizing a human right.” (See below.) By now you have probably heard” the report “includes a reference to Arizona’s immigration law,” he began. “What you have not heard is that it also includes a complaint of the difficulty of forming unions right here in the U.S. of A.” But if you have read this website in the last week, you had already heard both stories. So, check in regularly and sign up for our updates, and together we will hold this out-of-control administration’s feet to the fire.
A Nation In Distress
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Obama Wants Arizona Judged By Human Rights offender
from Floyd Reports:
Obama Wants Arizona Judged by Human Rights Offender
Posted on August 31, 2010 by Ben Johnson
If the Obama administration has its way, Arizona’s immigration law will be evaluated by a nation the State Department considers a human rights abuser.
Barack Obama included a reference to the Arizona law in America’s first-ever report to the UN Human Rights Council earlier this month. On November 5, a troika of nations composed of Japan, France, and Cameroon will hear the case against the United States and suggest a plan of action for the administration to follow before its re-evaluation in four years. However, the State Department records that Cameroon is guilty of numerous human rights violations including torture, suppression of the press, child labor, and female genital mutilation.
The State Department’s 2009 Human Rights Report on Cameroon records the African nation’s violent history:
Human rights abuses included security force torture, beatings, and other abuses, particularly of detainees and prisoners. Prison conditions were harsh and life threatening. Authorities arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens advocating secession, local human rights monitors and activists, persons not carrying government-issued identity cards, and other citizens. There were incidents of prolonged and sometimes incommunicado pretrial detention and infringement on privacy rights. The government restricted freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association, and harassed journalists. The government also impeded freedom of movement. Other problems included widespread official corruption; societal violence and discrimination against women; female genital mutilation (FGM); trafficking in persons, primarily children; and discrimination against indigenous people, including pygmies, and homosexuals. The government restricted worker rights and the activities of independent labor organizations. Child labor, hereditary servitude, and forced labor, including forced child labor, were problems.
The report was drawn up by the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who learned Obama targeted her state’s law from the internet, has asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to remove Arizona’s law from the UN’s overview by striking Paragraph 95 from the report. Earlier today, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley defended the reference.
Brewer made the request in a letter last Friday. She also challenged Clinton to “compare the immigration laws and records of any United Nations Human Rights Council member commenting on S.B. 1070…to those of the United States and then publish that comparison. I am confident…Arizona will win in any such comparison.”
The State Department has not taken up her challenge. It is clear that the UN Human Rights Council must set its own house in order before condescending to the people of Arizona — and the two-thirds of Americans who support them. No right-minded president would have turned the case over to the United Nations under any circumstances, much less to an Islamic nation guilty of the worst abuses.
Obama Wants Arizona Judged by Human Rights Offender
Posted on August 31, 2010 by Ben Johnson
If the Obama administration has its way, Arizona’s immigration law will be evaluated by a nation the State Department considers a human rights abuser.
Barack Obama included a reference to the Arizona law in America’s first-ever report to the UN Human Rights Council earlier this month. On November 5, a troika of nations composed of Japan, France, and Cameroon will hear the case against the United States and suggest a plan of action for the administration to follow before its re-evaluation in four years. However, the State Department records that Cameroon is guilty of numerous human rights violations including torture, suppression of the press, child labor, and female genital mutilation.
The State Department’s 2009 Human Rights Report on Cameroon records the African nation’s violent history:
Human rights abuses included security force torture, beatings, and other abuses, particularly of detainees and prisoners. Prison conditions were harsh and life threatening. Authorities arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens advocating secession, local human rights monitors and activists, persons not carrying government-issued identity cards, and other citizens. There were incidents of prolonged and sometimes incommunicado pretrial detention and infringement on privacy rights. The government restricted freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association, and harassed journalists. The government also impeded freedom of movement. Other problems included widespread official corruption; societal violence and discrimination against women; female genital mutilation (FGM); trafficking in persons, primarily children; and discrimination against indigenous people, including pygmies, and homosexuals. The government restricted worker rights and the activities of independent labor organizations. Child labor, hereditary servitude, and forced labor, including forced child labor, were problems.
The report was drawn up by the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who learned Obama targeted her state’s law from the internet, has asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to remove Arizona’s law from the UN’s overview by striking Paragraph 95 from the report. Earlier today, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley defended the reference.
Brewer made the request in a letter last Friday. She also challenged Clinton to “compare the immigration laws and records of any United Nations Human Rights Council member commenting on S.B. 1070…to those of the United States and then publish that comparison. I am confident…Arizona will win in any such comparison.”
The State Department has not taken up her challenge. It is clear that the UN Human Rights Council must set its own house in order before condescending to the people of Arizona — and the two-thirds of Americans who support them. No right-minded president would have turned the case over to the United Nations under any circumstances, much less to an Islamic nation guilty of the worst abuses.
Obama Proves Treason With Arizona
from Liberty Defense League:
Obama Proves Treason With Arizona
Tue, Aug 31, 2010
David McElroy, Federal Gov. Tyranny, Political Action, Political Philosophy
by David McElroy,
President Obama has submitted Arizona to the United Nations on charges of crimes against humanity for enacting SB 1070. This has been reported by the Canada Free Press, Examiner.com and ResistNet.com , but not yet in the mainstream media. Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law requires state and local police officers to enforce federal immigration laws and federal statute specifically allow states to enact federal immigration law as state law. Obama refuses to allow enforcement of those laws, even though the federal government had permitted such as Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to do so.
Arpaio is now the subject of a federal investigation about his “sweeps” of illegal aliens, and SB 1070 is pending appeal of a court ruling.
Jim Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, said in a May 29th 2010 article on Examiner.com that he “has concerns about the possible applications of the law and the underlying sentiments that it seems to represent.” Racism has been charged.
Arizona Senator Jon Kyl spoke to an audience, on web-circulated video, reporting that the president told him in a private meeting that he would not secure the border until Congress enacted the carte-blanche amnesty program Obama proposed for illegal aliens, granting them citizenship with all entitlements. That is testimony of his treason, extortion, and dereliction of duty, willful negligence! Hauling Arizona to the UN Human Rights Commission is the act of a traitor rejecting America’s principles, rights, and identity, shaming America on the world stage! Obama should be removed from the Oval Office!
Mexican President Calderon openly supports illegal immigration and provides aid stations, advisory brochures, and maps to assist the trespassers going north. Obama has publicly sided with Mexico in this invasion across Arizona’s border. The US Bureau of Land Management has even posted big signs in Arizona warning the public not to go south of Interstate 8 due to dangerous illegal alien activity in the Sonoran Desert National Monument area. Mexican drug cartels are defending their drug runners, and smugglers of people, guns, cash, stolen cars, etc. They have marijuana fields, and post gunmen in the mountains as snipers. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer stood at one of these BLM warning signs for a video message about the border invasion where Obama is apparently ceding federal land to the invaders from Mexico.
Sheriff Paul Babeu says Pinal County “is not a border county with Mexico, yet we have para-military squad sized elements who are operating deep within Arizona. This is unacceptable and must be stopped.” See his website. Officers and other Arizona citizens have been shot, some killed. Mexican drug cartels have even boasted of bounties on the heads of Sheriffs Babeu and Arpaio in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, Arizona. Mexicans have impersonated police to stage brazen daylight raids to assault cartel targets in that city.
I lived in Phoenix, Arizona for about 20 years, and have lived here in Alamogordo, New Mexico, for 7 years. I know of , and have witnessed, many startling incidents with illegal activities that never get into mainstream news media. I’ve seen incidents of gun-waving chicanos screaming that we “gringos” should get out of their land. They promote Aztlan.
Aztlan is the proposed “Hispanic Homeland”, the “Republica del Norte” advocated by such as La Raza and Dr. Charles Truxillo, professor of Chicano studies at the University of New Mexico. Truxillo says Aztlan “is an inevitability” which should come about “by any means necessary.” The agitators for Aztlan were even allowed to use the city owned convention center in Phoenix some years ago, despite their stated goal of overthrowing the United States government and taking over the border states as well as parts of Colorado, Utah, and Nevada along with northern Mexican states to form their Republica del Norte as an independent Hispanic nation. Obama does not speak to this!
Wikipedia and others estimate as many as 20 million illegal aliens are in the US. In the Sept. 12, 2004 issue of TIME magazine, Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele reported that 3 million illegally entered the US annually. I have been to the border and witnessed crowds coming across an undefended wire fence near Nogales. US Border Patrol officers have their hands tied, and have voted “no confidence” in the administration. One told me feds brag of costly high-tech cameras, aerostats and such, but are apprehending few trespassers and sometimes not even watching their monitors for illegal activity. Border security is a joke. National Guard troops may be posted, but only to watch and not to stop trespassers. Remember Campos and Ramos, the Border Patrol officers who were prosecuted and imprisoned for shooting a known drug smuggler on the border? Officers are intimidated by the administration while the drug cartels put bounties on the heads of Arizona sheriffs. Calderon blasts SB 1070, and Obama supports Mexico against Arizona in the UN!
Obama’s treasonous surrender of sovereignty to the United Nations is proof positive of his International Socialist ideology. His dispute with Arizona is a matter already tendered, however dubiously, to a federal court as an internal matter of national concern. Attorney General Holder filed suit, as ordered, with Federal Court Judge Bolton in Phoenix. (The judge struck down the portions of the state’s law enforcing federal immigration law, but let stand the state’s requirement for Real ID federal data collection, to everyone’s detriment.)
Holder apparently was either ignorant of, or ignoring, the US Constitution and shopping for a judge. Article III, Sec. 2, states plainly that in “all cases…in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.” This means Obama’s lawsuit precluding enforcement of federal immigration law by Arizona should have gone directly to the US Supreme Court, not the lower court in Phoenix, and certainly not to the United Nations or the World Court!
While Arizona has understandably filed for an appeal of Judge Bolton’s ruling, Obama could not wait for the US federal courts to hear the appeal. He took a matter of national security and federal immigration law to the United Nations in a total forfeiture of national sovereignty and Arizona’s sovereignty as well. His action also denies Arizona’s right to trial in the Supreme Court and demonstrates his utter contempt for states’ rights under the US Constitution as well as his refusal to secure the border in the face of Americans suffering foreign invasion. Obama is refusing to do his constitutional duty to defend the states against foreign invaders, a primary function of the federal government.
His insistence, per Sen. Kyl, that Congress grant blanket amnesty (and citizenship) to all illegal aliens before he would secure the border, can also be seen as a conflict of interest as well as extortion due to his own status as an “undocumented worker”. Numerous sources, such as his late grandmother and other family members, cite Kenya as his place of birth. Obama has spent about $2 million keeping all of his personal records secret and repelling lawsuits aimed at exposing his birth certificate or other documents. We know almost nothing about Obama’s history. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had certified Obama as the Democrat candidate for the presidency, she omitted the usual statement of eligibility. Check it out! High crimes and misdemeanors are evident!
Some, like Wayne Madsen, researched a plethora of leads suggesting Obama and his parents were CIA operatives, which would go a long way to explaining his secret history and numerous aliases, and his travel to Pakistan when the US State Department forbade Americans to travel there. It would also explain his associations with shadowy figures of criminal syndicates, socialist organizations, known terrorists like Ayers, the Weathermen, Black Panthers and Muslim jihadists. Just look at his cabinet officers, his “czars”! It’s a bigger bunch of subversives more dangerously outrageous than we’ve ever seen together!
WAKE UP AMERICA! Obama is the Manchurian we have feared coming! He is now in the White House with a black heart plotting our destruction! He is carving up America like a Thanksgiving turkey at a Marxist feast! Obama is openly declaring his hostility to these less united states and playing the race card to “Balkanize” America like Yugoslavia. Remember “Old Glory” and “the republic for which it stands”? It is dead and long gone. Uncle Sam is an imposter. We must secede to succeed! Live free or die!
Obama Proves Treason With Arizona
Tue, Aug 31, 2010
David McElroy, Federal Gov. Tyranny, Political Action, Political Philosophy
by David McElroy,
President Obama has submitted Arizona to the United Nations on charges of crimes against humanity for enacting SB 1070. This has been reported by the Canada Free Press, Examiner.com and ResistNet.com , but not yet in the mainstream media. Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law requires state and local police officers to enforce federal immigration laws and federal statute specifically allow states to enact federal immigration law as state law. Obama refuses to allow enforcement of those laws, even though the federal government had permitted such as Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to do so.
Arpaio is now the subject of a federal investigation about his “sweeps” of illegal aliens, and SB 1070 is pending appeal of a court ruling.
Jim Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, said in a May 29th 2010 article on Examiner.com that he “has concerns about the possible applications of the law and the underlying sentiments that it seems to represent.” Racism has been charged.
Arizona Senator Jon Kyl spoke to an audience, on web-circulated video, reporting that the president told him in a private meeting that he would not secure the border until Congress enacted the carte-blanche amnesty program Obama proposed for illegal aliens, granting them citizenship with all entitlements. That is testimony of his treason, extortion, and dereliction of duty, willful negligence! Hauling Arizona to the UN Human Rights Commission is the act of a traitor rejecting America’s principles, rights, and identity, shaming America on the world stage! Obama should be removed from the Oval Office!
Mexican President Calderon openly supports illegal immigration and provides aid stations, advisory brochures, and maps to assist the trespassers going north. Obama has publicly sided with Mexico in this invasion across Arizona’s border. The US Bureau of Land Management has even posted big signs in Arizona warning the public not to go south of Interstate 8 due to dangerous illegal alien activity in the Sonoran Desert National Monument area. Mexican drug cartels are defending their drug runners, and smugglers of people, guns, cash, stolen cars, etc. They have marijuana fields, and post gunmen in the mountains as snipers. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer stood at one of these BLM warning signs for a video message about the border invasion where Obama is apparently ceding federal land to the invaders from Mexico.
Sheriff Paul Babeu says Pinal County “is not a border county with Mexico, yet we have para-military squad sized elements who are operating deep within Arizona. This is unacceptable and must be stopped.” See his website. Officers and other Arizona citizens have been shot, some killed. Mexican drug cartels have even boasted of bounties on the heads of Sheriffs Babeu and Arpaio in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, Arizona. Mexicans have impersonated police to stage brazen daylight raids to assault cartel targets in that city.
I lived in Phoenix, Arizona for about 20 years, and have lived here in Alamogordo, New Mexico, for 7 years. I know of , and have witnessed, many startling incidents with illegal activities that never get into mainstream news media. I’ve seen incidents of gun-waving chicanos screaming that we “gringos” should get out of their land. They promote Aztlan.
Aztlan is the proposed “Hispanic Homeland”, the “Republica del Norte” advocated by such as La Raza and Dr. Charles Truxillo, professor of Chicano studies at the University of New Mexico. Truxillo says Aztlan “is an inevitability” which should come about “by any means necessary.” The agitators for Aztlan were even allowed to use the city owned convention center in Phoenix some years ago, despite their stated goal of overthrowing the United States government and taking over the border states as well as parts of Colorado, Utah, and Nevada along with northern Mexican states to form their Republica del Norte as an independent Hispanic nation. Obama does not speak to this!
Wikipedia and others estimate as many as 20 million illegal aliens are in the US. In the Sept. 12, 2004 issue of TIME magazine, Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele reported that 3 million illegally entered the US annually. I have been to the border and witnessed crowds coming across an undefended wire fence near Nogales. US Border Patrol officers have their hands tied, and have voted “no confidence” in the administration. One told me feds brag of costly high-tech cameras, aerostats and such, but are apprehending few trespassers and sometimes not even watching their monitors for illegal activity. Border security is a joke. National Guard troops may be posted, but only to watch and not to stop trespassers. Remember Campos and Ramos, the Border Patrol officers who were prosecuted and imprisoned for shooting a known drug smuggler on the border? Officers are intimidated by the administration while the drug cartels put bounties on the heads of Arizona sheriffs. Calderon blasts SB 1070, and Obama supports Mexico against Arizona in the UN!
Obama’s treasonous surrender of sovereignty to the United Nations is proof positive of his International Socialist ideology. His dispute with Arizona is a matter already tendered, however dubiously, to a federal court as an internal matter of national concern. Attorney General Holder filed suit, as ordered, with Federal Court Judge Bolton in Phoenix. (The judge struck down the portions of the state’s law enforcing federal immigration law, but let stand the state’s requirement for Real ID federal data collection, to everyone’s detriment.)
Holder apparently was either ignorant of, or ignoring, the US Constitution and shopping for a judge. Article III, Sec. 2, states plainly that in “all cases…in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.” This means Obama’s lawsuit precluding enforcement of federal immigration law by Arizona should have gone directly to the US Supreme Court, not the lower court in Phoenix, and certainly not to the United Nations or the World Court!
While Arizona has understandably filed for an appeal of Judge Bolton’s ruling, Obama could not wait for the US federal courts to hear the appeal. He took a matter of national security and federal immigration law to the United Nations in a total forfeiture of national sovereignty and Arizona’s sovereignty as well. His action also denies Arizona’s right to trial in the Supreme Court and demonstrates his utter contempt for states’ rights under the US Constitution as well as his refusal to secure the border in the face of Americans suffering foreign invasion. Obama is refusing to do his constitutional duty to defend the states against foreign invaders, a primary function of the federal government.
His insistence, per Sen. Kyl, that Congress grant blanket amnesty (and citizenship) to all illegal aliens before he would secure the border, can also be seen as a conflict of interest as well as extortion due to his own status as an “undocumented worker”. Numerous sources, such as his late grandmother and other family members, cite Kenya as his place of birth. Obama has spent about $2 million keeping all of his personal records secret and repelling lawsuits aimed at exposing his birth certificate or other documents. We know almost nothing about Obama’s history. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had certified Obama as the Democrat candidate for the presidency, she omitted the usual statement of eligibility. Check it out! High crimes and misdemeanors are evident!
Some, like Wayne Madsen, researched a plethora of leads suggesting Obama and his parents were CIA operatives, which would go a long way to explaining his secret history and numerous aliases, and his travel to Pakistan when the US State Department forbade Americans to travel there. It would also explain his associations with shadowy figures of criminal syndicates, socialist organizations, known terrorists like Ayers, the Weathermen, Black Panthers and Muslim jihadists. Just look at his cabinet officers, his “czars”! It’s a bigger bunch of subversives more dangerously outrageous than we’ve ever seen together!
WAKE UP AMERICA! Obama is the Manchurian we have feared coming! He is now in the White House with a black heart plotting our destruction! He is carving up America like a Thanksgiving turkey at a Marxist feast! Obama is openly declaring his hostility to these less united states and playing the race card to “Balkanize” America like Yugoslavia. Remember “Old Glory” and “the republic for which it stands”? It is dead and long gone. Uncle Sam is an imposter. We must secede to succeed! Live free or die!
Monday, August 30, 2010
Supreme Court Committing Federal Crime When Using "Incorporation"
from The Patriot Word:
Monday, August 30, 2010SCOTUS Committing Federal Crime When They Use "Incorporation"
“Incorporation” Practiced by the Supreme Court is a Federal Crime:
The SCOTUS has incorporated the 1st Amendment onto the states, and recently used incorporation to justify overturning Chicago's and Washington DC's handgun bans.
It would be laughable that the United States Supreme Court thinks that they need to or have the power to incorporate any clause of the Constitution onto the states, if it weren’t such a serious violation of federal criminal law. In addition to be a pointless exercise it is also a criminal activity.
Incorporation is the extension of laws beyond their legal scope, and is not a power granted to our judiciary. The effect of incorporating any part of the Constitution or Federal Law onto the states is to either usurp the Legislative Power of Congress, or to circumvent the Article V procedure for amending the constitution.
Exercising such illegal authority is an oath of office violation, punishable under federal criminal statutes. Overturning laws that contravene the Constitution does not require Incorporation, and is provided for by the Supremacy Clause (Article 6).
Members of the Supreme Court are required to take an oath before assuming office, in which, the member swears to uphold, protect, or defend the constitution and do equal justice under it.
They also sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331, stating that they have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office. 5 U.S.C. 7311 explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”
Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
The Supreme Court doesn’t need “incorporation” to do their job, it’s unconstitutional, illegal and a violation of federal criminal law. When they encounter laws that are unconstitutional, they have the authority to strike them down, they have no authority whatsoever to “incorporate” or force any government to accept a law they favor.
Posted by Walter L. Brown Jr. at 9:53 PM
Monday, August 30, 2010SCOTUS Committing Federal Crime When They Use "Incorporation"
“Incorporation” Practiced by the Supreme Court is a Federal Crime:
The SCOTUS has incorporated the 1st Amendment onto the states, and recently used incorporation to justify overturning Chicago's and Washington DC's handgun bans.
It would be laughable that the United States Supreme Court thinks that they need to or have the power to incorporate any clause of the Constitution onto the states, if it weren’t such a serious violation of federal criminal law. In addition to be a pointless exercise it is also a criminal activity.
Incorporation is the extension of laws beyond their legal scope, and is not a power granted to our judiciary. The effect of incorporating any part of the Constitution or Federal Law onto the states is to either usurp the Legislative Power of Congress, or to circumvent the Article V procedure for amending the constitution.
Exercising such illegal authority is an oath of office violation, punishable under federal criminal statutes. Overturning laws that contravene the Constitution does not require Incorporation, and is provided for by the Supremacy Clause (Article 6).
Members of the Supreme Court are required to take an oath before assuming office, in which, the member swears to uphold, protect, or defend the constitution and do equal justice under it.
They also sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331, stating that they have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office. 5 U.S.C. 7311 explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”
Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
The Supreme Court doesn’t need “incorporation” to do their job, it’s unconstitutional, illegal and a violation of federal criminal law. When they encounter laws that are unconstitutional, they have the authority to strike them down, they have no authority whatsoever to “incorporate” or force any government to accept a law they favor.
Posted by Walter L. Brown Jr. at 9:53 PM
Sebelius: Time For "Re-Education" On Health Care Reform
from Rebellion:
Monday, August 30, 2010
Sebelius: Time for 'Reeducation' on Obama Health Care Law
What an interesting choice of words Madam Secretary used. But she's right -- sometimes the government has to knock a little sense into the skulls of its peasants.
posted by Old Rebel @ Monday, August 30, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Sebelius: Time for 'Reeducation' on Obama Health Care Law
What an interesting choice of words Madam Secretary used. But she's right -- sometimes the government has to knock a little sense into the skulls of its peasants.
posted by Old Rebel @ Monday, August 30, 2010
Illegal Aliens Want Sanctuary City Policies In Writing
From Corruption Chronicles and Floyd Reports:
Illegal Aliens Want Sanctuary Policies In Writing
ViewDiscussion.Last Updated: Fri, 08/27/2010 - 3:34pm
Lawmakers and police in a major U.S. city have reassured illegal immigrants that they’re protected under longtime sanctuary policies amid demands from open borders advocates that the measures be formalized in writing.
A group of Latino activists, clergy and civil rights leaders took to the street this week to command Baltimore officials to further solidify the city’s measures to shield illegal aliens from federal authorities. Like many law enforcement agencies across the nation, Baltimore Police bans its officers from inquiring about suspects’ immigration status.
Now emboldened illegal immigrants want the policy in writing to reduce crime and help bridge the gap between officers and immigrants after the recent murders of three Hispanic men in the area. The most recent victim, a Honduran, was clubbed and beaten with a wooden stake by a mentally disturbed teen who professed to hate “Mexicans.” Illegal immigrants are more prone to cooperate in these sorts of police investigations if the department has a written don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policy, their advocates say.
But Baltimore Police Chief Frederick Bealefeld asserts that a written policy is unnecessary because his officers never ask about immigration status as per the citywide sanctuary measures. In the three years he’s served as department head, Bealefeld says he hasn’t heard “one utterance on enforcement of immigration laws.” For their part, city officials assure residents that they should trust police to focus on fighting violent crime, not enforcing immigration laws.
This week a Maryland legislator threw a wrench in Baltimore’s sanctuary public relations campaign by announcing a proposed bill that will give citizens the power to sue public officials who violate federal immigration laws. If the measure passes, citizens can file complaints against public officials in circuit court and, if convicted, the official could be booted from office or face criminal charges.
Illegal Aliens Want Sanctuary Policies In Writing
ViewDiscussion.Last Updated: Fri, 08/27/2010 - 3:34pm
Lawmakers and police in a major U.S. city have reassured illegal immigrants that they’re protected under longtime sanctuary policies amid demands from open borders advocates that the measures be formalized in writing.
A group of Latino activists, clergy and civil rights leaders took to the street this week to command Baltimore officials to further solidify the city’s measures to shield illegal aliens from federal authorities. Like many law enforcement agencies across the nation, Baltimore Police bans its officers from inquiring about suspects’ immigration status.
Now emboldened illegal immigrants want the policy in writing to reduce crime and help bridge the gap between officers and immigrants after the recent murders of three Hispanic men in the area. The most recent victim, a Honduran, was clubbed and beaten with a wooden stake by a mentally disturbed teen who professed to hate “Mexicans.” Illegal immigrants are more prone to cooperate in these sorts of police investigations if the department has a written don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policy, their advocates say.
But Baltimore Police Chief Frederick Bealefeld asserts that a written policy is unnecessary because his officers never ask about immigration status as per the citywide sanctuary measures. In the three years he’s served as department head, Bealefeld says he hasn’t heard “one utterance on enforcement of immigration laws.” For their part, city officials assure residents that they should trust police to focus on fighting violent crime, not enforcing immigration laws.
This week a Maryland legislator threw a wrench in Baltimore’s sanctuary public relations campaign by announcing a proposed bill that will give citizens the power to sue public officials who violate federal immigration laws. If the measure passes, citizens can file complaints against public officials in circuit court and, if convicted, the official could be booted from office or face criminal charges.
Disagree With The Obama Regime? Get Ready For An IRS Probe
from World Net Daily and The Patriot Update:
THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY
Don't agree with Obama? Get ready for IRS probe
Private group told review under way since work may 'contradict' president
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 29, 2010
7:22 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The Internal Revenue Service has delayed approval of tax-exempt status for a private organization and is reviewing its educational work, telling a lawyer for the foundation that it must be examined by Washington because its activities may "contradict the administration's public policies."
The allegation is contained in a federal lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Z STREET, a Merion Station, Pa., group that educates on the statehood and status of Israel.
"Not only is it patently un-American but it is also a clear violation of the First Amendment for a government agency to penalize an organization because of its political position on Israel or anything else," said Z STREET president Lori Lowenthal Marcus, a former First Amendment lawyer.
Read the outline for putting America back on track, in "The Tea Party Manifesto" and "Taking America Back"
"This situation is the same as if the government denied a driver's license to people because they were Republicans or Democrats. It goes against everything for which our country stands."
Contacted by WND, IRS officials declined to comment on the publicly filed lawsuit or even say whether they would respond.
(Story continues below)
The complaint states that the organization was working with IRS Agent Diane Gentry, who had delayed a decision on its routine application for tax-exempt status for the educational organization.
"Agent Gentry further stated to counsel for Z STREET, 'these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the administration's public policies,'" the lawsuit reports.
Tax-exempt status routinely is granted to many types of organizations in addition to churches. Charitable, scientific, literary and education purposes all qualify under the IRS code's Section 501(c)(3) and Marcus pointed out that the Council on American-Islamic Relations – which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing case and lobbies heavily in Congress for its agenda – is granted the status.
Organizations not allowed to use the IRS code section are harmed because, donors are unable to deduct contributions from their taxable income, Z STREET argues in its complaint.
"The IRS's refusal to grant tax-exempt status to Z STREET has inhibited the organization's fundraising efforts, and therefore impeded its ability to speak and to educate the public regarding the issues that are the focus and purpose of Z STREET," according to the lawsuit.
The organization submitted its application Dec. 29, 2009.
Marcus told WND that Z STREET is working to educate the mainstream media and other outlets and present accurate information about the status of Israel as a nation.
She said she would like to know about the special policy of reviewing applications of organizations concerning Israel to see whether they align with the Obama policy.
"We want to know who approved it, what's the substance. Obviously we want to have it disappear," she said. "It's completely un-American."
She said the organization has met all of the requirements to be granted tax-exempt status. But the approval was delayed because of a "Special Israel Policy that requires greater scrutiny of organizations which have to do with Israel, in part to determine whether they espouse positions on Israel contrary to those of the current administration."
The organization affirms it is "a Zionist organization that proudly supports Israel's right to refuse to negotiate with, make concessions to, or appease terrorists."
"Z STREET's positions on Israel and, in particular, on the Middle East 'peace process' differ significantly from those espoused by the Obama administration," the organization said in a statement about the case.
The action names IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman as defendant.
The group "was informed explicitly by an IRS agent on July 19, 2010, that approval of Z STREET's application for tax-exempt status has been at least delayed, and may be denied because of a special IRS policy in place regarding organizations in any way connected with Israel, and further that the applications of many such Israel-related organizations have been assigned to 'a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's public policies.'"
"These statements … constitute an explicit admission of the crudest form of viewpoint discrimination, and one which is both totally un-American and flatly unconstitutional under the First Amendment," the complaint explains.
In an earlier commentary on American Thinker, Marcus explained the group is based on "these ironclad positions: The right of the Jewish people to a state, and the right of Jews to live freely anywhere, including inhaling oxygen in areas the world insists are reserved for Arab Palestinians."
It also "relish[es]" the terms "Jewish State" and "Zionism" and intends to circulate facts – "not deceptive 'Palestinian' narratives" – about the Middle East and Israel.
The organization reports members in more than 20 states and on five continents.
That "rising groundswell," she wrote, "is in part a response to organizations whispering into the ear of this U.S. administration that pervert the meaning of 'pro-Israel.' Their ultimate loyalty is to left-wing principles including a secular Israel and tolerance of terrorism only when directed at Jews. They are ashamed of an avowedly Jewish state, yet completely comfortable with 22 Muslim ones, and are actively seeking the creation of a 23rd, based in Jerusalem, whose governing documents call for the destruction of Israel.
"The idea that weakening Israel, either because of ideological conviction, animosity towards a strong Jewish state, cowardice, or the grossly misguided belief that compromise or dialoging with committed terrorists will lead to Middle East or global peace, is obscene," she wrote.
The lawsuit explains the website's positions "are supported by research, original documents, facts, and opinions from recognized academic and other knowledgeable sources, which sources are provided in its materials and on its website, and therefore, Z STREET’s activities are educational and charitable in nature."
The complaint explains the IRS agent "stated further that the method is not educational if it fails to provide: (a) a factual foundation for the viewpoint being advocated; or (b) a developed presentation of the relevant facts that would materially aid a listener or reader in a learning process. "
THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY
Don't agree with Obama? Get ready for IRS probe
Private group told review under way since work may 'contradict' president
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 29, 2010
7:22 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The Internal Revenue Service has delayed approval of tax-exempt status for a private organization and is reviewing its educational work, telling a lawyer for the foundation that it must be examined by Washington because its activities may "contradict the administration's public policies."
The allegation is contained in a federal lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Z STREET, a Merion Station, Pa., group that educates on the statehood and status of Israel.
"Not only is it patently un-American but it is also a clear violation of the First Amendment for a government agency to penalize an organization because of its political position on Israel or anything else," said Z STREET president Lori Lowenthal Marcus, a former First Amendment lawyer.
Read the outline for putting America back on track, in "The Tea Party Manifesto" and "Taking America Back"
"This situation is the same as if the government denied a driver's license to people because they were Republicans or Democrats. It goes against everything for which our country stands."
Contacted by WND, IRS officials declined to comment on the publicly filed lawsuit or even say whether they would respond.
(Story continues below)
The complaint states that the organization was working with IRS Agent Diane Gentry, who had delayed a decision on its routine application for tax-exempt status for the educational organization.
"Agent Gentry further stated to counsel for Z STREET, 'these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the administration's public policies,'" the lawsuit reports.
Tax-exempt status routinely is granted to many types of organizations in addition to churches. Charitable, scientific, literary and education purposes all qualify under the IRS code's Section 501(c)(3) and Marcus pointed out that the Council on American-Islamic Relations – which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing case and lobbies heavily in Congress for its agenda – is granted the status.
Organizations not allowed to use the IRS code section are harmed because, donors are unable to deduct contributions from their taxable income, Z STREET argues in its complaint.
"The IRS's refusal to grant tax-exempt status to Z STREET has inhibited the organization's fundraising efforts, and therefore impeded its ability to speak and to educate the public regarding the issues that are the focus and purpose of Z STREET," according to the lawsuit.
The organization submitted its application Dec. 29, 2009.
Marcus told WND that Z STREET is working to educate the mainstream media and other outlets and present accurate information about the status of Israel as a nation.
She said she would like to know about the special policy of reviewing applications of organizations concerning Israel to see whether they align with the Obama policy.
"We want to know who approved it, what's the substance. Obviously we want to have it disappear," she said. "It's completely un-American."
She said the organization has met all of the requirements to be granted tax-exempt status. But the approval was delayed because of a "Special Israel Policy that requires greater scrutiny of organizations which have to do with Israel, in part to determine whether they espouse positions on Israel contrary to those of the current administration."
The organization affirms it is "a Zionist organization that proudly supports Israel's right to refuse to negotiate with, make concessions to, or appease terrorists."
"Z STREET's positions on Israel and, in particular, on the Middle East 'peace process' differ significantly from those espoused by the Obama administration," the organization said in a statement about the case.
The action names IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman as defendant.
The group "was informed explicitly by an IRS agent on July 19, 2010, that approval of Z STREET's application for tax-exempt status has been at least delayed, and may be denied because of a special IRS policy in place regarding organizations in any way connected with Israel, and further that the applications of many such Israel-related organizations have been assigned to 'a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's public policies.'"
"These statements … constitute an explicit admission of the crudest form of viewpoint discrimination, and one which is both totally un-American and flatly unconstitutional under the First Amendment," the complaint explains.
In an earlier commentary on American Thinker, Marcus explained the group is based on "these ironclad positions: The right of the Jewish people to a state, and the right of Jews to live freely anywhere, including inhaling oxygen in areas the world insists are reserved for Arab Palestinians."
It also "relish[es]" the terms "Jewish State" and "Zionism" and intends to circulate facts – "not deceptive 'Palestinian' narratives" – about the Middle East and Israel.
The organization reports members in more than 20 states and on five continents.
That "rising groundswell," she wrote, "is in part a response to organizations whispering into the ear of this U.S. administration that pervert the meaning of 'pro-Israel.' Their ultimate loyalty is to left-wing principles including a secular Israel and tolerance of terrorism only when directed at Jews. They are ashamed of an avowedly Jewish state, yet completely comfortable with 22 Muslim ones, and are actively seeking the creation of a 23rd, based in Jerusalem, whose governing documents call for the destruction of Israel.
"The idea that weakening Israel, either because of ideological conviction, animosity towards a strong Jewish state, cowardice, or the grossly misguided belief that compromise or dialoging with committed terrorists will lead to Middle East or global peace, is obscene," she wrote.
The lawsuit explains the website's positions "are supported by research, original documents, facts, and opinions from recognized academic and other knowledgeable sources, which sources are provided in its materials and on its website, and therefore, Z STREET’s activities are educational and charitable in nature."
The complaint explains the IRS agent "stated further that the method is not educational if it fails to provide: (a) a factual foundation for the viewpoint being advocated; or (b) a developed presentation of the relevant facts that would materially aid a listener or reader in a learning process. "
Sunday, August 29, 2010
The Oath Keeper: Villain Or Valiant?
From The American Thinker:
August 29, 2010
The Oath Keeper -- Villain or Valiant?
By Jon Watts
It has been proposed by various groups and individuals that an organization known as "Oath Keepers" is racist, seditious, hateful, and pernicious.
I'm here to tell you the real story.
I have been a member of Oath Keepers since August 2009. My member number is under 500. There are currently over 10,000 dues-paying members, and tens of thousands on their Facebook site. I have seen the inner workings since the early days as the acting Alaska State Chapter President -- truly a view from the inside.
Let's set aside the controversy for a moment and examine the term "Oath Keeper." What does it really mean?
Webster's dictionary defines an "oath" as "a solemn, usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says." We might therefore infer that an oath "keeper" sincerely intends to keep his word from the moment of an initial oath forward.
For example, each newly elected member of Congress recites this oath:
I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
One can compare this to the military oath of office.
Oath Keepers use a modified officer's oath for several reasons: because veterans, even if they were once enlisted, are no longer under any orders, because civilians are not under orders, and because officers have always sworn only to defend the Constitution. Even when it comes to enlisted military, the oath is first and foremost to defend the Constitution; they are duty-bound to disobey any order that is not lawful. Further, it allows all participants, of whatever status, to join in together and reaffirm their official oath. If an enlisted man or officer wants to state the exact official oath that he swore upon entry into service, he can.
The sincere intent of any oath is contained within the words recited, as well as within the heart of the individual making the oath. To diverge from that specified intent would naturally put the person in the category of oath "breaker" rather than "keeper."
The term "oath breaker" has been around since Old English was spoken. The term used in those times was "waerloga," which also meant "damned soul," "wicked person," and even "Satan." Suffice to say, an oath breaker was about the worst thing one could be back in the day. Punishments for oath breaking were of the spearing, hacking, or crushing variety -- decidedly unpleasant. Interestingly, the word waerloga is also the origin of the word "warlock" in use today. History had fitting names and biblical consequences for those who broke an oath to the Almighty. Such oaths have long since faded in value to mere formalities today.
When it comes to our leaders' constitutional oaths, how many of them are acting less like oath keepers, and more like those ancient, oath-breaking "warlocks"? Given the unrelenting torrent of legislative blasphemies, the answer is clear.
Another question begs asking. Who would these oath breakers and their media homunculi find offensive? The answer is likewise obvious: their polar opposites, those who are truly loyal in oath and deed to our dear Republic and its Constitution.
Enter the Tea Party in general and the Oath Keepers in particular.
I first approached Oath Keepers with some circumspection, considering the defiant tone of their mission and the media's slavering rabidity toward them. I leavened my apprehension with the knowledge that most news people were servants of progressive masters and therefore illusive. Words like "lethal and dangerous," "treasonous," and "ready to revolt" are enough to dissuade many. Let's not forget to mention the teeming hordes of racists passing themselves off as patriots. As Socrates said, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." Rest assured that those wielding these falsehoods have already lost the American debate through the sheer bankruptcy of their own ideologies. Therefore, caution is in order, as Janet Napolitano's "list" grows long. The order to include "Constitutionalist" in the DHS lexicon of "extremists" is intimidating, like waking up in 1930s Berlin to find the word "Jude" being painted on your shop's front window. Law-abiding Americans shouldn't have to feel that. No citizen should be so assaulted for fidelity to their country's founding contract.
Through all of the hyperbole, whom do Americans trust? A recent GfK Group study showed a stark contrast. Constituent Oath Keeper groups, mainly firefighters, military, and police, were rated at 93%, 85%, and 77%, respectively. On the other hand, Oath Keeper opponent groups -- mainly journalists, lawyers, and politicians -- held threadbare trust ratings of 42%, 35%, and 17%.
"I was only following orders" has been heard in courts across the world as justification for various crimes, in war and peace, throughout history. This defense has failed in hundreds of cases, and rightly so. It is a recurring problem at home and abroad. Most know of the National Socialists (Nazis), Japanese-American internment, My Lai, Abu Ghraib, and the officials confiscating guns during the Katrina disaster. Each person who follows an illegal order can and should be held to account for his decision to follow such an order. For example, in United States v. Keenan, the accused was found guilty, as the Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." Therefore, it is clearly expected that each person be aware of the legality of each order he is given, using "ordinary sense" to find that conclusion. It is not up to a judge; it is not up to some higher authority. Each person must be aware and take the appropriate action (or inaction.)
The Manual for Courts-Martial also states, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime." Depriving an otherwise law-abiding citizen of their Constitutional rights is in fact, a crime.
As one observes the chronic, institutionalized contempt for the Constitution and individual rights, it becomes understandable that these Oath Keepers have drawn their line in the sand with the "10 Orders They Will Not Obey." Simply put, they will not obey orders to commit crimes in betrayal of the American people -- strong medicine, but passive in nature.
Leaders like "Rex," the South Carolina chapter president, feel that false portrayals by the media has led some people to think Oath Keepers is something it is not -- such as thinking it is some kind of militia. However, the Oath Keepers' focus is on encouraging the currently serving to simply refuse to follow unlawful orders. Section 8 of the membership bylaws is enforced, and media-styled extremism, racism, and talk of violence are not welcome. As a retired Special Forces officer and southern gentleman, Rex also disdained the generalization that Oath Keepers south of the Mason-Dixon Line must invariably be racist.
The Ohio state chapter husband-and-wife team Eddie and Ada also find the negative behaviors trumpeted by the media incompatible with membership.
A website moderator by the name of "Zeb" even had the opportunity to speak with FBI agents in his area investigating potential unlawful conduct by another local group. He shared with them the true mission of Oath Keepers: gaining a positive response and willingness to pass brochures to their supervisors.
The organization's founder, Stewart Rhodes, is himself of mixed Hispanic descent. He doesn't wear it on his sleeve, but he won't tolerate bigotry in his organization, either. The one racist found in the membership to date was promptly asked to leave. On the militia question, Stewart states, "I don't consider guys who want to start militias to be anti-constitutional. They just want to concentrate on preparing for physical battle, and that is not our focus. We are not standing on the outside of government, warning them to behave. Instead, we are on the inside of government, using the law, the oath, and a sense of honor to get the current serving to do what is right by refusing unconstitutional orders."
Despite the shrouds of evil cast upon these freedom-loving citizens, they will not shrink from the Constitution no matter how deep the shadows grow. Many have survived combat, arrested violent criminals, or voluntarily entered burning buildings, all in the defense of others. They are not intimidated by enemies of the Constitution; they will stand fast. Further, tens of thousands of fellow citizens have felt the call to join them, along with millions more in support of Tea Party constitutionalism. As much as our self-appointed rulers arcanely attempt to spin it otherwise, the righteous rejection of their anti-freedom agenda has become a mainstream trend. Banishment for oath breakers may be back in style this Fall.
Jon Watts is a 25-year U.S. Air Force veteran and the founder of Free Range Patriots, a Constitutional study forum.
August 29, 2010
The Oath Keeper -- Villain or Valiant?
By Jon Watts
It has been proposed by various groups and individuals that an organization known as "Oath Keepers" is racist, seditious, hateful, and pernicious.
I'm here to tell you the real story.
I have been a member of Oath Keepers since August 2009. My member number is under 500. There are currently over 10,000 dues-paying members, and tens of thousands on their Facebook site. I have seen the inner workings since the early days as the acting Alaska State Chapter President -- truly a view from the inside.
Let's set aside the controversy for a moment and examine the term "Oath Keeper." What does it really mean?
Webster's dictionary defines an "oath" as "a solemn, usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says." We might therefore infer that an oath "keeper" sincerely intends to keep his word from the moment of an initial oath forward.
For example, each newly elected member of Congress recites this oath:
I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
One can compare this to the military oath of office.
Oath Keepers use a modified officer's oath for several reasons: because veterans, even if they were once enlisted, are no longer under any orders, because civilians are not under orders, and because officers have always sworn only to defend the Constitution. Even when it comes to enlisted military, the oath is first and foremost to defend the Constitution; they are duty-bound to disobey any order that is not lawful. Further, it allows all participants, of whatever status, to join in together and reaffirm their official oath. If an enlisted man or officer wants to state the exact official oath that he swore upon entry into service, he can.
The sincere intent of any oath is contained within the words recited, as well as within the heart of the individual making the oath. To diverge from that specified intent would naturally put the person in the category of oath "breaker" rather than "keeper."
The term "oath breaker" has been around since Old English was spoken. The term used in those times was "waerloga," which also meant "damned soul," "wicked person," and even "Satan." Suffice to say, an oath breaker was about the worst thing one could be back in the day. Punishments for oath breaking were of the spearing, hacking, or crushing variety -- decidedly unpleasant. Interestingly, the word waerloga is also the origin of the word "warlock" in use today. History had fitting names and biblical consequences for those who broke an oath to the Almighty. Such oaths have long since faded in value to mere formalities today.
When it comes to our leaders' constitutional oaths, how many of them are acting less like oath keepers, and more like those ancient, oath-breaking "warlocks"? Given the unrelenting torrent of legislative blasphemies, the answer is clear.
Another question begs asking. Who would these oath breakers and their media homunculi find offensive? The answer is likewise obvious: their polar opposites, those who are truly loyal in oath and deed to our dear Republic and its Constitution.
Enter the Tea Party in general and the Oath Keepers in particular.
I first approached Oath Keepers with some circumspection, considering the defiant tone of their mission and the media's slavering rabidity toward them. I leavened my apprehension with the knowledge that most news people were servants of progressive masters and therefore illusive. Words like "lethal and dangerous," "treasonous," and "ready to revolt" are enough to dissuade many. Let's not forget to mention the teeming hordes of racists passing themselves off as patriots. As Socrates said, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." Rest assured that those wielding these falsehoods have already lost the American debate through the sheer bankruptcy of their own ideologies. Therefore, caution is in order, as Janet Napolitano's "list" grows long. The order to include "Constitutionalist" in the DHS lexicon of "extremists" is intimidating, like waking up in 1930s Berlin to find the word "Jude" being painted on your shop's front window. Law-abiding Americans shouldn't have to feel that. No citizen should be so assaulted for fidelity to their country's founding contract.
Through all of the hyperbole, whom do Americans trust? A recent GfK Group study showed a stark contrast. Constituent Oath Keeper groups, mainly firefighters, military, and police, were rated at 93%, 85%, and 77%, respectively. On the other hand, Oath Keeper opponent groups -- mainly journalists, lawyers, and politicians -- held threadbare trust ratings of 42%, 35%, and 17%.
"I was only following orders" has been heard in courts across the world as justification for various crimes, in war and peace, throughout history. This defense has failed in hundreds of cases, and rightly so. It is a recurring problem at home and abroad. Most know of the National Socialists (Nazis), Japanese-American internment, My Lai, Abu Ghraib, and the officials confiscating guns during the Katrina disaster. Each person who follows an illegal order can and should be held to account for his decision to follow such an order. For example, in United States v. Keenan, the accused was found guilty, as the Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." Therefore, it is clearly expected that each person be aware of the legality of each order he is given, using "ordinary sense" to find that conclusion. It is not up to a judge; it is not up to some higher authority. Each person must be aware and take the appropriate action (or inaction.)
The Manual for Courts-Martial also states, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime." Depriving an otherwise law-abiding citizen of their Constitutional rights is in fact, a crime.
As one observes the chronic, institutionalized contempt for the Constitution and individual rights, it becomes understandable that these Oath Keepers have drawn their line in the sand with the "10 Orders They Will Not Obey." Simply put, they will not obey orders to commit crimes in betrayal of the American people -- strong medicine, but passive in nature.
Leaders like "Rex," the South Carolina chapter president, feel that false portrayals by the media has led some people to think Oath Keepers is something it is not -- such as thinking it is some kind of militia. However, the Oath Keepers' focus is on encouraging the currently serving to simply refuse to follow unlawful orders. Section 8 of the membership bylaws is enforced, and media-styled extremism, racism, and talk of violence are not welcome. As a retired Special Forces officer and southern gentleman, Rex also disdained the generalization that Oath Keepers south of the Mason-Dixon Line must invariably be racist.
The Ohio state chapter husband-and-wife team Eddie and Ada also find the negative behaviors trumpeted by the media incompatible with membership.
A website moderator by the name of "Zeb" even had the opportunity to speak with FBI agents in his area investigating potential unlawful conduct by another local group. He shared with them the true mission of Oath Keepers: gaining a positive response and willingness to pass brochures to their supervisors.
The organization's founder, Stewart Rhodes, is himself of mixed Hispanic descent. He doesn't wear it on his sleeve, but he won't tolerate bigotry in his organization, either. The one racist found in the membership to date was promptly asked to leave. On the militia question, Stewart states, "I don't consider guys who want to start militias to be anti-constitutional. They just want to concentrate on preparing for physical battle, and that is not our focus. We are not standing on the outside of government, warning them to behave. Instead, we are on the inside of government, using the law, the oath, and a sense of honor to get the current serving to do what is right by refusing unconstitutional orders."
Despite the shrouds of evil cast upon these freedom-loving citizens, they will not shrink from the Constitution no matter how deep the shadows grow. Many have survived combat, arrested violent criminals, or voluntarily entered burning buildings, all in the defense of others. They are not intimidated by enemies of the Constitution; they will stand fast. Further, tens of thousands of fellow citizens have felt the call to join them, along with millions more in support of Tea Party constitutionalism. As much as our self-appointed rulers arcanely attempt to spin it otherwise, the righteous rejection of their anti-freedom agenda has become a mainstream trend. Banishment for oath breakers may be back in style this Fall.
Jon Watts is a 25-year U.S. Air Force veteran and the founder of Free Range Patriots, a Constitutional study forum.
Obama Regime's Land Seizure Proposal Is A Bad Idea
From Newsmax:
Obama’s Land Grab Is a ‘Bad Idea’
The Obama administration plans to have the federal government acquire millions of acres of private land even though it can’t afford to maintain the land it already owns.
H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), points out that the federal government already owns about one-third of the land in the United States, and in some states it owns more than half. But millions of acres of government-owned land are lost to wildfires largely due to federal mismanagement.
The country’s national parks suffer from a $9 billion-plus backlog for repairs, maintenance and improvements, Burnett notes. “Our country was never meant to be a crown colony or federal estate, and in this economy, it hardly seems right to increase funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which will be used to purchase private lands,” Burnett says.
Acquiring more land is a “bad idea,” and instead federal lands could be sold to the states, nonprofit groups or private companies, which could use them to generate revenue and help reduce the deficit, the NCPA suggests.
And rather than have the Land and Water Conservation Fund spend money to buy new lands, the federal government could use the funds to improve and maintain the lands it already owns.
Said Burnett: “This would be a win-win for the public, the environment, and the federal Treasury.”
Obama’s Land Grab Is a ‘Bad Idea’
The Obama administration plans to have the federal government acquire millions of acres of private land even though it can’t afford to maintain the land it already owns.
H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), points out that the federal government already owns about one-third of the land in the United States, and in some states it owns more than half. But millions of acres of government-owned land are lost to wildfires largely due to federal mismanagement.
The country’s national parks suffer from a $9 billion-plus backlog for repairs, maintenance and improvements, Burnett notes. “Our country was never meant to be a crown colony or federal estate, and in this economy, it hardly seems right to increase funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which will be used to purchase private lands,” Burnett says.
Acquiring more land is a “bad idea,” and instead federal lands could be sold to the states, nonprofit groups or private companies, which could use them to generate revenue and help reduce the deficit, the NCPA suggests.
And rather than have the Land and Water Conservation Fund spend money to buy new lands, the federal government could use the funds to improve and maintain the lands it already owns.
Said Burnett: “This would be a win-win for the public, the environment, and the federal Treasury.”
Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally Signals Trouble Ahead For The Democrats
from Newsmax:
Beck Rally Signals Election Trouble for Democrats
Sunday, 29 Aug 2010 07:07 AM Article Font Size
If Democrats had doubts about the voter unrest that threatens to rob them of their majority in Congress, they needed only look from the Capitol this weekend to the opposite end of the National Mall.
It's where Ken Ratliff joined tens of thousands of other anti-government activists at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial for conservative commentator Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally.
"There's gotta' be a change, man," said Ratliff, a 55-year-old Marine veteran from Rochester, N.Y.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans can afford to ignore the antiestablishment fervor displayed Saturday during Beck's rally that took on the tone of an evangelical revival.
Billed as a nonpolitical event, it nevertheless was a clarifying moment for those curious as to what clout an anti-Washington sentiment could have on midterm congressional elections in November. The gathering was advertised as an opportunity to honor American troops. But it also illustrated voters' exasperation — and provided additional evidence that Democrats in power — as well as some incumbent Republicans — may pay the price when voters go to the polls.
The tea party is essentially a loosely organized band of anti-tax, libertarian-leaning political newcomers who are fed up with Washington and take some of their cues from Beck. While the movement drew early skepticism from establishment Republicans, these same GOP powerbrokers now watch it with a wary eye as activists have mounted successful primary campaigns against incumbents.
The Beck rally further demonstrated the tea party activists' growing political clout.
If the GOP is able to contain and cooperate with the tea party, and recharge its evangelical wing with Beck-style talk of faith, it spells the kind of change Ratliff and others like him are searching for.
The promise of change helped President Barack Obama win the White House in 2008, but could turn against his fellow Democrats this year. Americans' dim view of the economy has grown even more pessimistic this summer as the nation's unemployment rate stubbornly hovered near 10 percent and other troubling economic statistics have emerged on everything from housing to the economy's growth.
That's been a drag on both congressional Democrats and the president. While Obama has shelved his soaring campaign rhetoric on change, Beck has adopted it.
At Saturday's rally, the Fox News Channel personality borrowed Obama's rhetoric of individual empowerment from one of the then-candidate's favorite themes on the 2008 campaign trail.
"One man can change the world," Beck told the crowd. "That man or woman is you. You make the difference."
Or change Washington. And while Beck didn't say so, that means change the party in power.
His followers got the message.
"A lot of people want our country back," said Janice Cantor. She was raised a Massachusetts Democrat and is now a North Carolina tea party activist.
Beck's religion-laden message was a departure from most tea party events, which tend to focus on economic issues.
Beck, who speaks openly about his Christian faith on his radio and cable news shows, relied heavily on religion during his speech, perhaps offering up a playbook for tea party activists and Republicans this November.
Earlier, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin urged the gathering to change the course of the nation, although she said "sometimes our challenges seem insurmountable."
"Look around you," she told the crowd. "You're not alone."
© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beck Rally Signals Election Trouble for Democrats
Sunday, 29 Aug 2010 07:07 AM Article Font Size
If Democrats had doubts about the voter unrest that threatens to rob them of their majority in Congress, they needed only look from the Capitol this weekend to the opposite end of the National Mall.
It's where Ken Ratliff joined tens of thousands of other anti-government activists at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial for conservative commentator Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally.
"There's gotta' be a change, man," said Ratliff, a 55-year-old Marine veteran from Rochester, N.Y.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans can afford to ignore the antiestablishment fervor displayed Saturday during Beck's rally that took on the tone of an evangelical revival.
Billed as a nonpolitical event, it nevertheless was a clarifying moment for those curious as to what clout an anti-Washington sentiment could have on midterm congressional elections in November. The gathering was advertised as an opportunity to honor American troops. But it also illustrated voters' exasperation — and provided additional evidence that Democrats in power — as well as some incumbent Republicans — may pay the price when voters go to the polls.
The tea party is essentially a loosely organized band of anti-tax, libertarian-leaning political newcomers who are fed up with Washington and take some of their cues from Beck. While the movement drew early skepticism from establishment Republicans, these same GOP powerbrokers now watch it with a wary eye as activists have mounted successful primary campaigns against incumbents.
The Beck rally further demonstrated the tea party activists' growing political clout.
If the GOP is able to contain and cooperate with the tea party, and recharge its evangelical wing with Beck-style talk of faith, it spells the kind of change Ratliff and others like him are searching for.
The promise of change helped President Barack Obama win the White House in 2008, but could turn against his fellow Democrats this year. Americans' dim view of the economy has grown even more pessimistic this summer as the nation's unemployment rate stubbornly hovered near 10 percent and other troubling economic statistics have emerged on everything from housing to the economy's growth.
That's been a drag on both congressional Democrats and the president. While Obama has shelved his soaring campaign rhetoric on change, Beck has adopted it.
At Saturday's rally, the Fox News Channel personality borrowed Obama's rhetoric of individual empowerment from one of the then-candidate's favorite themes on the 2008 campaign trail.
"One man can change the world," Beck told the crowd. "That man or woman is you. You make the difference."
Or change Washington. And while Beck didn't say so, that means change the party in power.
His followers got the message.
"A lot of people want our country back," said Janice Cantor. She was raised a Massachusetts Democrat and is now a North Carolina tea party activist.
Beck's religion-laden message was a departure from most tea party events, which tend to focus on economic issues.
Beck, who speaks openly about his Christian faith on his radio and cable news shows, relied heavily on religion during his speech, perhaps offering up a playbook for tea party activists and Republicans this November.
Earlier, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin urged the gathering to change the course of the nation, although she said "sometimes our challenges seem insurmountable."
"Look around you," she told the crowd. "You're not alone."
© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The Government's War On Us
from Personal Liberty Digest:
The Government’s War on Us
August 27, 2010 by Chip Wood
In my Straight Talk column two weeks ago I gave you a baker’s dozen of websites I read every week. In response, a whole bunch of you gave me and our readers a long list of other websites that are worth checking out. Thanks! I’ve already added several of them to my “favorites” file. (If for some reason you missed that column, click here to read it. I think you’ll enjoy it — including a lot of the fireworks in the comments section.)
Yesterday I realized something I said in that piece wasn’t quite accurate. No, no, don’t get ahead of me. I’m not about to retract anything I said about any of my favorite columns or columnists. But in reading the last item on my recommended list I realized I wasn’t entirely fair in my description.
I said that Daily Wealth gives more genuinely valuable contrarian investment advice than any other website I know of. And they do it for free (if you don’t count all the ads you’ll receive) six times a week.
That’s still true. But what I should have added is that every once in a while you’ll get some political commentary that is so right-on-the-mark you’ll wish you had said it first. At least that’s how I felt last week, when I read “This Is Why There Are No Jobs in America” by my good friend Porter Stansberry.
I liked it so much that I got the publisher’s permission to share it with you today. Read it and see if you don’t agree. If you do, then check out www.dailywealth.com on your own. I think you’ll enjoy what you find. Now, here’s the piece that impressed me so much:
I’d like to make you a business offer…
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can’t turn me down, as you’ll come to understand in a moment.
Here’s the deal. You’re going to start a business or expand the one you’ve got now. It doesn’t really matter what you do or what you’re going to do. I’ll partner with you no matter what business you’re in — as long as it’s legal.
But I can’t give you any capital — you have to come up with that on your own. I won’t give you any labor — that’s definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you’re allowed to operate your business. That’s my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I’m going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn’t it? I think so. Of course, that’s half of your profits.
You’re also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees, because you’ve got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you’re my partner. It’s only "fair."
Now… after you’ve put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you’ve worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you’d like to cash out — to finally live the good life.
Whether or not this is "fair" — some people never can afford to retire — is a different argument. As your partner, I’m happy for you to sell whenever you’d like… because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20 percent of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.
I know… I know… you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That’s all true. But I’ve done my part, too. I’ve collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I’ve always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.
Oh… and one more thing…
Even after you’ve sold the business and paid all of my fees, I’d recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you’ve been retired for years, when you die, you’ll have to pay me 50 percent of whatever your estate is worth.
After all, I’ve got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don’t think it’s “fair” for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.
All in all, if you’re a very successful entrepreneur … if you’re one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public … you’ll end up paying me more than 75 percent of your income over your life. Thanks so much.
I’m sure you’ll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me … but it doesn’t really matter how you feel about it, because if you ever try to stiff me — or cheat me on any of my fees or rules — I’ll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.
That’s how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn’t it?
That’s the offer America gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington wonder why there are no new jobs.
And your editor returns. Well, that was something, wasn’t it? If any of you disagree with Porter’s arguments, I know you’ll be happy to tell me so below. I’ll be interested to see how some of my fervid critics (and I’m glad there are some of you out there, I really am) respond to his arguments.
In conclusion, let me mention two things. One, I saw an item in the news a few days ago that said Americans are fleeing the stock market in droves. In the first six months of this year, more than $33 billion was pulled out of stock mutual funds. That is, investors pulled $33 billion more dollars out of the market than they put in. That is a heck of a vote of “no confidence” in the Obama Administration’s efforts to fix our economy.
The second thing is that I promised the folks at Stansberry & Associates I’d give Porter’s monthly newsletter a plug, in return for them letting me reprint his rant. So here it is: To read more from Porter, sign up for his outstanding Investment Advisory. His latest issue — which covers the coming crisis brought on by the United States government — details exactly what he sees ahead and how to profit (and protect yourself). For details on how to gain immediate access to his report, click here.
If you think I ended this week on a downer I’m sorry, but next week will be worse. The working title of that column is “The Conspiracy that Is the Federal Reserve.” Stay tuned.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
— Chip Wood
The Government’s War on Us
August 27, 2010 by Chip Wood
In my Straight Talk column two weeks ago I gave you a baker’s dozen of websites I read every week. In response, a whole bunch of you gave me and our readers a long list of other websites that are worth checking out. Thanks! I’ve already added several of them to my “favorites” file. (If for some reason you missed that column, click here to read it. I think you’ll enjoy it — including a lot of the fireworks in the comments section.)
Yesterday I realized something I said in that piece wasn’t quite accurate. No, no, don’t get ahead of me. I’m not about to retract anything I said about any of my favorite columns or columnists. But in reading the last item on my recommended list I realized I wasn’t entirely fair in my description.
I said that Daily Wealth gives more genuinely valuable contrarian investment advice than any other website I know of. And they do it for free (if you don’t count all the ads you’ll receive) six times a week.
That’s still true. But what I should have added is that every once in a while you’ll get some political commentary that is so right-on-the-mark you’ll wish you had said it first. At least that’s how I felt last week, when I read “This Is Why There Are No Jobs in America” by my good friend Porter Stansberry.
I liked it so much that I got the publisher’s permission to share it with you today. Read it and see if you don’t agree. If you do, then check out www.dailywealth.com on your own. I think you’ll enjoy what you find. Now, here’s the piece that impressed me so much:
I’d like to make you a business offer…
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can’t turn me down, as you’ll come to understand in a moment.
Here’s the deal. You’re going to start a business or expand the one you’ve got now. It doesn’t really matter what you do or what you’re going to do. I’ll partner with you no matter what business you’re in — as long as it’s legal.
But I can’t give you any capital — you have to come up with that on your own. I won’t give you any labor — that’s definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you’re allowed to operate your business. That’s my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I’m going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn’t it? I think so. Of course, that’s half of your profits.
You’re also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees, because you’ve got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you’re my partner. It’s only "fair."
Now… after you’ve put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you’ve worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you’d like to cash out — to finally live the good life.
Whether or not this is "fair" — some people never can afford to retire — is a different argument. As your partner, I’m happy for you to sell whenever you’d like… because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20 percent of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.
I know… I know… you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That’s all true. But I’ve done my part, too. I’ve collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I’ve always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.
Oh… and one more thing…
Even after you’ve sold the business and paid all of my fees, I’d recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you’ve been retired for years, when you die, you’ll have to pay me 50 percent of whatever your estate is worth.
After all, I’ve got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don’t think it’s “fair” for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.
All in all, if you’re a very successful entrepreneur … if you’re one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public … you’ll end up paying me more than 75 percent of your income over your life. Thanks so much.
I’m sure you’ll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me … but it doesn’t really matter how you feel about it, because if you ever try to stiff me — or cheat me on any of my fees or rules — I’ll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.
That’s how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn’t it?
That’s the offer America gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington wonder why there are no new jobs.
And your editor returns. Well, that was something, wasn’t it? If any of you disagree with Porter’s arguments, I know you’ll be happy to tell me so below. I’ll be interested to see how some of my fervid critics (and I’m glad there are some of you out there, I really am) respond to his arguments.
In conclusion, let me mention two things. One, I saw an item in the news a few days ago that said Americans are fleeing the stock market in droves. In the first six months of this year, more than $33 billion was pulled out of stock mutual funds. That is, investors pulled $33 billion more dollars out of the market than they put in. That is a heck of a vote of “no confidence” in the Obama Administration’s efforts to fix our economy.
The second thing is that I promised the folks at Stansberry & Associates I’d give Porter’s monthly newsletter a plug, in return for them letting me reprint his rant. So here it is: To read more from Porter, sign up for his outstanding Investment Advisory. His latest issue — which covers the coming crisis brought on by the United States government — details exactly what he sees ahead and how to profit (and protect yourself). For details on how to gain immediate access to his report, click here.
If you think I ended this week on a downer I’m sorry, but next week will be worse. The working title of that column is “The Conspiracy that Is the Federal Reserve.” Stay tuned.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
— Chip Wood
Friday, August 27, 2010
Conservative Leaders Accuse Obama Regime Of Trying To Circumvent Congress And Grant Amnesty To Illegals
From CNN and FAIR:
Share this on:Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn Conservatives accuse White House of circumventing immigration lawsFrom Paul Courson, CNNAugust 23, 2010 3:58 p.m. EDT
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Conservative leaders accuse the administration of trying to enact reform without Congress
Some conservatives believe executive branch changes would be an abuse of power
A Homeland Security memo outlines multiple administrative reform options
Executive branch officials say the memo was merely brainstorming
Washington (CNN) -- A group of conservative activists slammed the Obama administration Monday for allegedly planning to use its administrative authority to undercut immigration restrictions in the wake of congressional inaction on a comprehensive reform bill.
In a letter sent to the White House, leaders of 17 conservative grass-roots organizations cited reports that the administration is considering using its executive power "to effectively legalize significant numbers of illegal aliens."
"We strongly urge that you refrain pursuing that tactic," they wrote. "We believe that such an abuse of power would further polarize the immigration issue, which already is so controversial that reasonable discussion is confounded."
Only Congress, they argued, "possesses plenary power over making our immigration policy. The administrative branch has limited discretion for dealing with aliens and quite limited policymaking authority."
The letter, which also cites "abuses of the legislative process" during the health care debate, was signed by members of the Eagle Forum, Judicial Watch, the Family Research Council and a Washington-area segment of the Tea Party movement, among others.
The White House has "come up with a back door plan to bypass the Congress and the American people," Colin Hanna, head of the group Let Freedom Ring, said at a news conference Monday.
"The administration is terrified that the illegal immigrant population is going to go down further because they want to keep them here in order to give them the amnesty and turn them into voters," alleged Roy Beck, head of NumbersUSA, which favors tighter immigration restrictions.
At issue is an internal Department of Homeland Security memo outlining multiple options for assisting illegal immigrants in the absence of new legislation.
The 11-page document, titled "Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform," describes how to reduce the threat of removal for some undocumented immigrants through various administrative and regulatory changes. It characterizes one potential change as "a non-legislative version of amnesty."
Among other things, the document describes a draft proposal to "extend benefits and/or protections" to individuals currently "present in the United States without authorization."
It also mentions the possibility of "deferred action," defined as "an exercise of prosecutorial discretion."
The document, initially obtained by GOP Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, indicates the suggestions have the "potential to result in meaningful immigration reform" without congressional action. It acknowledges, however, a broad price tag if the ideas are adopted without restraint.
"While it is theoretically possible to grant deferred action to an unrestricted number of unlawfully present individuals, doing so would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive," the document says.
Representatives of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services -- the Homeland Security agency responsible for drafting the memo -- indicated in a statement last month that the document was merely brainstorming.
"Internal memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy," the statement noted. The Homeland Security Department "will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population."
CNN's Alan Silverleib contributed to this report
Share this on:Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn Conservatives accuse White House of circumventing immigration lawsFrom Paul Courson, CNNAugust 23, 2010 3:58 p.m. EDT
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Conservative leaders accuse the administration of trying to enact reform without Congress
Some conservatives believe executive branch changes would be an abuse of power
A Homeland Security memo outlines multiple administrative reform options
Executive branch officials say the memo was merely brainstorming
Washington (CNN) -- A group of conservative activists slammed the Obama administration Monday for allegedly planning to use its administrative authority to undercut immigration restrictions in the wake of congressional inaction on a comprehensive reform bill.
In a letter sent to the White House, leaders of 17 conservative grass-roots organizations cited reports that the administration is considering using its executive power "to effectively legalize significant numbers of illegal aliens."
"We strongly urge that you refrain pursuing that tactic," they wrote. "We believe that such an abuse of power would further polarize the immigration issue, which already is so controversial that reasonable discussion is confounded."
Only Congress, they argued, "possesses plenary power over making our immigration policy. The administrative branch has limited discretion for dealing with aliens and quite limited policymaking authority."
The letter, which also cites "abuses of the legislative process" during the health care debate, was signed by members of the Eagle Forum, Judicial Watch, the Family Research Council and a Washington-area segment of the Tea Party movement, among others.
The White House has "come up with a back door plan to bypass the Congress and the American people," Colin Hanna, head of the group Let Freedom Ring, said at a news conference Monday.
"The administration is terrified that the illegal immigrant population is going to go down further because they want to keep them here in order to give them the amnesty and turn them into voters," alleged Roy Beck, head of NumbersUSA, which favors tighter immigration restrictions.
At issue is an internal Department of Homeland Security memo outlining multiple options for assisting illegal immigrants in the absence of new legislation.
The 11-page document, titled "Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform," describes how to reduce the threat of removal for some undocumented immigrants through various administrative and regulatory changes. It characterizes one potential change as "a non-legislative version of amnesty."
Among other things, the document describes a draft proposal to "extend benefits and/or protections" to individuals currently "present in the United States without authorization."
It also mentions the possibility of "deferred action," defined as "an exercise of prosecutorial discretion."
The document, initially obtained by GOP Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, indicates the suggestions have the "potential to result in meaningful immigration reform" without congressional action. It acknowledges, however, a broad price tag if the ideas are adopted without restraint.
"While it is theoretically possible to grant deferred action to an unrestricted number of unlawfully present individuals, doing so would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive," the document says.
Representatives of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services -- the Homeland Security agency responsible for drafting the memo -- indicated in a statement last month that the document was merely brainstorming.
"Internal memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy," the statement noted. The Homeland Security Department "will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population."
CNN's Alan Silverleib contributed to this report
McCain: Mexico Drug Violence Will Spill Over Into Arizona
From The AP:
McCain: Mexico violence could spill into Arizona
Associated Press - August 26, 2010 5:04 PM ET
PHOENIX (AP) - Citing the killing of 72 migrants in northern Mexico, Senator John McCain says he's worried that border-region violence will spill into Arizona.
The Arizona Republican said the level of violence in Mexico is, in his words, "incredible. It is out of control and it will sooner or later spill to our side of the border unless we get the border secure."
McCain commented Thursday to hundreds of municipal officials attending the annual meeting of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. He later told reporters that the activities of crime syndicates and smuggling cartels are a concern.
McCain on Tuesday won the Republican primary election. He'll face Democrat Rodney Glassman in the Nov. 2 general election.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
McCain: Mexico violence could spill into Arizona
Associated Press - August 26, 2010 5:04 PM ET
PHOENIX (AP) - Citing the killing of 72 migrants in northern Mexico, Senator John McCain says he's worried that border-region violence will spill into Arizona.
The Arizona Republican said the level of violence in Mexico is, in his words, "incredible. It is out of control and it will sooner or later spill to our side of the border unless we get the border secure."
McCain commented Thursday to hundreds of municipal officials attending the annual meeting of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. He later told reporters that the activities of crime syndicates and smuggling cartels are a concern.
McCain on Tuesday won the Republican primary election. He'll face Democrat Rodney Glassman in the Nov. 2 general election.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
Drug War Sending Bullets Whizzing Across Border
from the AP and FAIR:
Drug war sends bullets whizzing across the border
Buzz up!123 votes Share
retweet
EmailPrint.. AP – FILE - In this Aug. 21, 2010 file photo, federal police officers stand next to one of their vehicles … .By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press Writer Alicia A. Caldwell, Associated Press Writer – Tue Aug 24, 8:37 pm ET
EL PASO, Texas – The first bullets struck El Paso's city hall at the end of a work day. The next ones hit a university building and closed a major highway. Shootouts in the drug war along the U.S.-Mexico border are sending bullets whizzing across the Rio Grande into one of the nation's safest cities, where authorities worry it's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed.
At least eight bullets have been fired into El Paso in the last few weeks from the rising violence in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, one of the world's most dangerous places. And all American police can do is shrug because they cannot legally intervene in a war in another country. The best they can do is warn people to stay inside.
"There's really not a lot you can do right now," El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles said. "Those gun battles are breaking out everywhere, and some are breaking out right along the border."
Police say the rounds were not intentionally fired into the U.S. But wildly aimed gunfire has become common in Juarez, a sprawling city of shanty neighborhoods that once boomed with manufacturing plants. It's ground zero in Mexico's relentless drug war.
More than 6,000 people have been killed there since 2008, when the Sinaloa and Juarez cartels started battling each other and Mexican authorities for control of the city and smuggling routes into the U.S. Nationwide, more than 28,000 people have been killed since President Felipe Calderon launched his offensive against the cartels shortly after taking office in December 2006.
Until now, communities on the U.S. side of the border have been largely shielded from the violence raging just across the river. But the recent incidents are the first time that live ammunition has landed in American territory.
On Saturday, as gunmen and Mexican authorities exchanged gunfire in Juarez, police in El Paso shut down several miles of border highway. Border Patrol spokesman Doug Mosier said his agency asked for the closure — a first since the drug war erupted — "in the interest of public safety."
No one was injured on the U.S. side, but one bullet came across the Rio Grande, crashed through a window and lodged in an office door frame at the University of Texas at El Paso. Police are also investigating reports that another errant round shattered a window in a passing car. Witnesses at a nearby charity said at least one bullet hit their building, too.
El Paso police spokesman Darrel Petry said authorities have only confirmed the single bullet found at the university, but it is possible that several other shots flew across the border.
"As a local municipality, we are doing everything we can," Petry said. "Looking where we're at, the community we live in, that's all we've got. It's the reality of life here in El Paso for right now."
Officers say the types of bullets used in the drug war can travel more than a mile before falling to the ground.
In Saturday's shooting, the bullet that hit the campus building may have flown just under a mile before lodging in a door jam. Back in June, at least seven shots fired from Juarez flew more than half a mile before hitting City Hall.
In some places, El Paso is separated from Juarez by little more than a few yards of riverbed.
Andrew Kunert was napping Saturday when police started banging on his door at an apartment building just feet from the border. He said officers with high-powered rifles slung across their chests warned him to stay inside and away from windows until the shooting stopped.
The rat-a-tat-tat of gunfire to the south is nothing new, but bullets coming north is a worrisome new development, Kunert said.
"About once a week, you can hear gunfire," he said. He worries about the children who live at the Old Fort Bliss apartment building and routinely play outside when gunmen are trading shots across the river.
At the Rescue Mission of El Paso, kitchen manager Bill Cox said several bullets hit a pair of old silos on the charity's property, which is down a hillside from the university campus. Volunteers and homeless people coming to the mission for food or other help could easily be in the line of fire, he said.
"Someone can be walking down the street out here and be hit," Cox said.
In a letter to President Barack Obama after the City Hall shooting, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said it was "good fortune" that no one was injured and insisted the shooting was evidence of the need for more border security.
"Luck and good fortune are not effective border enforcement policies," Abbott wrote. "The shocking reality of cross-border gunfire proves the cold reality: American lives are at risk."
And Monday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry issued a statement demanding more security.
"It's time for Washington to stop the rhetoric and immediately deploy a significant force of personnel and resources to the border to protect our homeland," Perry said.
Katherine Cesinger, a Perry spokeswoman, said the governor believes that more security — in the form of federal agents and even troops — could all but shut down the border to smuggling and help put Mexico's warring cartels out of business.
The only way cartels "are being successful is by being able to operate on both sides of the border," Cesinger said. "If you shut down that border, they are out of business. They are not able to continue."
Obama has ordered about 1,200 National Guard troops to the border in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to help the Border Patrol and officials from Customs and Border Protection.
But the federal government has insisted that the troops will only help federal agents with intelligence, surveillance and other duties that do not involve actually arresting anyone.
Sheriff Wiles says more security in El Paso won't solve the problem because the war is in another country.
"Juarez is experiencing a major wave of violence, and we are feeling some of that," Wiles said. "I don't know of any way around that. Until that issue is resolved in Juarez, we are going to be dealing these kinds of things."
Drug war sends bullets whizzing across the border
Buzz up!123 votes Share
retweet
EmailPrint.. AP – FILE - In this Aug. 21, 2010 file photo, federal police officers stand next to one of their vehicles … .By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press Writer Alicia A. Caldwell, Associated Press Writer – Tue Aug 24, 8:37 pm ET
EL PASO, Texas – The first bullets struck El Paso's city hall at the end of a work day. The next ones hit a university building and closed a major highway. Shootouts in the drug war along the U.S.-Mexico border are sending bullets whizzing across the Rio Grande into one of the nation's safest cities, where authorities worry it's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed.
At least eight bullets have been fired into El Paso in the last few weeks from the rising violence in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, one of the world's most dangerous places. And all American police can do is shrug because they cannot legally intervene in a war in another country. The best they can do is warn people to stay inside.
"There's really not a lot you can do right now," El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles said. "Those gun battles are breaking out everywhere, and some are breaking out right along the border."
Police say the rounds were not intentionally fired into the U.S. But wildly aimed gunfire has become common in Juarez, a sprawling city of shanty neighborhoods that once boomed with manufacturing plants. It's ground zero in Mexico's relentless drug war.
More than 6,000 people have been killed there since 2008, when the Sinaloa and Juarez cartels started battling each other and Mexican authorities for control of the city and smuggling routes into the U.S. Nationwide, more than 28,000 people have been killed since President Felipe Calderon launched his offensive against the cartels shortly after taking office in December 2006.
Until now, communities on the U.S. side of the border have been largely shielded from the violence raging just across the river. But the recent incidents are the first time that live ammunition has landed in American territory.
On Saturday, as gunmen and Mexican authorities exchanged gunfire in Juarez, police in El Paso shut down several miles of border highway. Border Patrol spokesman Doug Mosier said his agency asked for the closure — a first since the drug war erupted — "in the interest of public safety."
No one was injured on the U.S. side, but one bullet came across the Rio Grande, crashed through a window and lodged in an office door frame at the University of Texas at El Paso. Police are also investigating reports that another errant round shattered a window in a passing car. Witnesses at a nearby charity said at least one bullet hit their building, too.
El Paso police spokesman Darrel Petry said authorities have only confirmed the single bullet found at the university, but it is possible that several other shots flew across the border.
"As a local municipality, we are doing everything we can," Petry said. "Looking where we're at, the community we live in, that's all we've got. It's the reality of life here in El Paso for right now."
Officers say the types of bullets used in the drug war can travel more than a mile before falling to the ground.
In Saturday's shooting, the bullet that hit the campus building may have flown just under a mile before lodging in a door jam. Back in June, at least seven shots fired from Juarez flew more than half a mile before hitting City Hall.
In some places, El Paso is separated from Juarez by little more than a few yards of riverbed.
Andrew Kunert was napping Saturday when police started banging on his door at an apartment building just feet from the border. He said officers with high-powered rifles slung across their chests warned him to stay inside and away from windows until the shooting stopped.
The rat-a-tat-tat of gunfire to the south is nothing new, but bullets coming north is a worrisome new development, Kunert said.
"About once a week, you can hear gunfire," he said. He worries about the children who live at the Old Fort Bliss apartment building and routinely play outside when gunmen are trading shots across the river.
At the Rescue Mission of El Paso, kitchen manager Bill Cox said several bullets hit a pair of old silos on the charity's property, which is down a hillside from the university campus. Volunteers and homeless people coming to the mission for food or other help could easily be in the line of fire, he said.
"Someone can be walking down the street out here and be hit," Cox said.
In a letter to President Barack Obama after the City Hall shooting, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said it was "good fortune" that no one was injured and insisted the shooting was evidence of the need for more border security.
"Luck and good fortune are not effective border enforcement policies," Abbott wrote. "The shocking reality of cross-border gunfire proves the cold reality: American lives are at risk."
And Monday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry issued a statement demanding more security.
"It's time for Washington to stop the rhetoric and immediately deploy a significant force of personnel and resources to the border to protect our homeland," Perry said.
Katherine Cesinger, a Perry spokeswoman, said the governor believes that more security — in the form of federal agents and even troops — could all but shut down the border to smuggling and help put Mexico's warring cartels out of business.
The only way cartels "are being successful is by being able to operate on both sides of the border," Cesinger said. "If you shut down that border, they are out of business. They are not able to continue."
Obama has ordered about 1,200 National Guard troops to the border in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to help the Border Patrol and officials from Customs and Border Protection.
But the federal government has insisted that the troops will only help federal agents with intelligence, surveillance and other duties that do not involve actually arresting anyone.
Sheriff Wiles says more security in El Paso won't solve the problem because the war is in another country.
"Juarez is experiencing a major wave of violence, and we are feeling some of that," Wiles said. "I don't know of any way around that. Until that issue is resolved in Juarez, we are going to be dealing these kinds of things."
Company Audits Up, But Illegal Alien Arrests Down Since 2008
From FOX News and FAIR:
Company Audits Up, Illegal Worker Arrests Way Down Since 2008
Published August 23, 2010
FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments (446) Text Size
Agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, stand guard at the entrance of the Swift & Company meat processing plant in Greeley, Colo., during a December 2006 immigration raid.
The Obama administration said it would focus its enforcement of illegal immigration laws by targeting workplace activities, but a recent report shows that while audits of employers are slightly up over the Bush administration, worker arrests are down drastically since the end of 2008.
Under Obama, employer audits are up 50 percent, fines have tripled to almost $3 million and the number of executives arrested is slightly up over the Bush administration.
But under President Obama, the numbers of arrests and deportations of illegals taken into custody at work sites plummeted by more than 80 percent from the last year of the Bush administration. In the current fiscal year 2010, which ends Sept. 30, ICE has arrested 900 workers.
That compares to immigration agents under Bush raiding hundreds of businesses from factory to farm -- and arresting and deporting more than 6,000 illegal immigrants in raids in 2008 -- more than 5,000 simply for being in the country illegally.
Current Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton reinforced claims of a tough stand by the Obama administration against illegal workers, telling Fox News recently that his agency has deported more illegal aliens -- and criminal illegals -- than at any other time.
June 25: People look on as authorities raid an Arizona business as part of an identity theft investigation.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Analyst: Citigroup Is Cooking the BooksTen Worst Places to LiveBernanke?s Message: We Can Get Out of This HoleHow to Transform a Good Credit Score to GreatDow Dips Below 10000 as Gloom Persists"No administration in the history of this nation removed more illegal immigrants from the country than we did last year and I expect the records to continue. We're serious about enforcement. We're going to go out and we're just going to do it," he said.
But while both administrations agree that jobs are the magnet that attracts illegal immigrants to the United States, critics say it makes no sense to allow employees known to use fake or stolen identification to go free to duplicate the fraud again.
"When ICE is not following up on those aliens you have them going down the street to obtain another job and that is just moving the problem," said Julie Myers, an ICE director under Bush
Myers said while she agrees with the Obama administration's approach of targeting employers, "when I was at ICE, we didn't think we could ignore the aliens we encountered."
"It is tough when you have law enforcement turning a blind eye to entire categories of aliens -- and that is what is happening here -- it is a de facto amnesty," she said.
Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, defended the administration's policy, saying that "rather than high-profile raids that target workers and let employers off the hook this administration has decided to focus on criminal and bad actor employers."
"No one is talking about giving a free pass for fraud, or ID theft is to be taken lightly, but we know the vast majority of the workforce did not commit any crime," Fitz said.
Employment is the driving force behind illegal immigration, which is why experts say work site enforcement is important. Bush aides say their high profile raids acted as a deterrent to both employer and employee, and punished both for breaking the law.
But others say the raids did little more than upset Latino communities, and advocates of Obama's approach say paper audits of employers -- not raids -- does more to turn off the job magnet.
Fox News' Nicole Busch contributed to this report.
Company Audits Up, Illegal Worker Arrests Way Down Since 2008
Published August 23, 2010
FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments (446) Text Size
Agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, stand guard at the entrance of the Swift & Company meat processing plant in Greeley, Colo., during a December 2006 immigration raid.
The Obama administration said it would focus its enforcement of illegal immigration laws by targeting workplace activities, but a recent report shows that while audits of employers are slightly up over the Bush administration, worker arrests are down drastically since the end of 2008.
Under Obama, employer audits are up 50 percent, fines have tripled to almost $3 million and the number of executives arrested is slightly up over the Bush administration.
But under President Obama, the numbers of arrests and deportations of illegals taken into custody at work sites plummeted by more than 80 percent from the last year of the Bush administration. In the current fiscal year 2010, which ends Sept. 30, ICE has arrested 900 workers.
That compares to immigration agents under Bush raiding hundreds of businesses from factory to farm -- and arresting and deporting more than 6,000 illegal immigrants in raids in 2008 -- more than 5,000 simply for being in the country illegally.
Current Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton reinforced claims of a tough stand by the Obama administration against illegal workers, telling Fox News recently that his agency has deported more illegal aliens -- and criminal illegals -- than at any other time.
June 25: People look on as authorities raid an Arizona business as part of an identity theft investigation.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Analyst: Citigroup Is Cooking the BooksTen Worst Places to LiveBernanke?s Message: We Can Get Out of This HoleHow to Transform a Good Credit Score to GreatDow Dips Below 10000 as Gloom Persists"No administration in the history of this nation removed more illegal immigrants from the country than we did last year and I expect the records to continue. We're serious about enforcement. We're going to go out and we're just going to do it," he said.
But while both administrations agree that jobs are the magnet that attracts illegal immigrants to the United States, critics say it makes no sense to allow employees known to use fake or stolen identification to go free to duplicate the fraud again.
"When ICE is not following up on those aliens you have them going down the street to obtain another job and that is just moving the problem," said Julie Myers, an ICE director under Bush
Myers said while she agrees with the Obama administration's approach of targeting employers, "when I was at ICE, we didn't think we could ignore the aliens we encountered."
"It is tough when you have law enforcement turning a blind eye to entire categories of aliens -- and that is what is happening here -- it is a de facto amnesty," she said.
Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, defended the administration's policy, saying that "rather than high-profile raids that target workers and let employers off the hook this administration has decided to focus on criminal and bad actor employers."
"No one is talking about giving a free pass for fraud, or ID theft is to be taken lightly, but we know the vast majority of the workforce did not commit any crime," Fitz said.
Employment is the driving force behind illegal immigration, which is why experts say work site enforcement is important. Bush aides say their high profile raids acted as a deterrent to both employer and employee, and punished both for breaking the law.
But others say the raids did little more than upset Latino communities, and advocates of Obama's approach say paper audits of employers -- not raids -- does more to turn off the job magnet.
Fox News' Nicole Busch contributed to this report.
Feds Dismissing Many Deportation Cases
From The Houston Chronicle and FAIR:
Feds moving to dismiss some deportation cases
Critics assail the plan as a bid to create a kind of backdoor 'amnesty'
By SUSAN CARROLL
Copyright 2010, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Aug. 24, 2010, 9:00PM
.
Billy Smith II Houston Chronicle
The scene at the Harris County lockup last summer. Culling the immigration court system dockets of noncriminals started in earnest in Houston about a month ago and has stunned immigration attorneys.
Share Del.icio.usDiggTwitterYahoo! BuzzFacebookStumbleUponEmail Close [X]Resources Immigration blog: Deaths on border in Arizona reach record levels Immigration blog: McCain's do-over on issue works just fine Immigration blog: the cost of illegal immigration The Department of Homeland Security is systematically reviewing thousands of pending immigration cases and moving to dismiss those filed against suspected illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal records, according to several sources familiar with the efforts.
Culling the immigration court system dockets of noncriminals started in earnest in Houston about a month ago and has stunned local immigration attorneys, who have reported coming to court anticipating clients' deportations only to learn that the government was dismissing their cases.
Richard Rocha, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman, said Tuesday that the review is part of the agency's broader, nationwide strategy to prioritize the deportations of illegal immigrants who pose a threat to national security and public safety. Rocha declined to provide further details.
Critics assailed the plan as another sign that the Obama administration is trying to create a kind of backdoor "amnesty" program.
Raed Gonzalez, an immigration attorney who was briefed on the effort by Homeland Security's deputy chief counsel in Houston, said DHS confirmed that it's reviewing cases nationwide, though not yet to the pace of the local office. He said the others are expected to follow suit soon.
Gonzalez, the liaison between the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which administers the immigration court system, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said DHS now has five attorneys assigned full time to reviewing all active cases in Houston's immigration court.
Gonzalez said DHS attorneys are conducting the reviews on a case-by-case basis. However, he said they are following general guidelines that allow for the dismissal of cases for defendants who have been in the country for two or more years and have no felony convictions.
In some instances, defendants can have one misdemeanor conviction, but it cannot involve a DWI, family violence or sexual crime, Gonzalez said.
Massive backlog of cases
Opponents of illegal immigration were critical of the dismissals.
"They've made clear that they have no interest in enforcing immigration laws against people who are not convicted criminals," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for strict controls.
"This situation is just another side effect of President Obama's failure to deliver on his campaign promise to make immigration reform a priority in his first year," said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "Until he does, state and local authorities are left with no choice but to pick up the slack for prosecuting and detaining criminal aliens."
Gonzalez called the dismissals a necessary step in unclogging a massive backlog in the immigration court system. In June, there were more than 248,000 cases pending in immigration courts across the country, including about 23,000 in Texas, according to data compiled by researchers at Syracuse University.
'Absolutely fantastic'
Gonzalez said he went into immigration court downtown on Monday and was given a court date in October 2011 for one client. But, he said, the government's attorney requested the dismissal of that case and those of two more of his clients, and the cases were dispatched by the judge.
The court "was terminating all of the cases that came up," Gonzalez said. "It was absolutely fantastic."
"We're all calling each other saying, 'Can you believe this?' " said John Nechman, another Houston immigration attorney, who had two cases dismissed.
Attorney Elizabeth Mendoza Macias, who has practiced in Houston for 17 years, said she had cases for several clients dismissed during the past month and eventually called DHS to find out what was going on. She said she was told by a DHS trial attorney that 2,500 cases were under review in Houston.
"I had five (dismissed) in one week, and two more that I just received," Mendoza said. "And I am expecting many more, many more, in the next month."
Her clients, all previously charged with being in the country illegally, included:
An El Salvadoran man married to a U.S. citizen who has two U.S.-born children. The client had a pending asylum case in the court system, but the case was not particularly strong. Now that his case is terminated, he will be eligible to obtain permanent residency through his wife, Mendoza said.
A woman from Cameroon, who was in removal proceedings after being caught by the U.S. Border Patrol, had her case terminated by the government. She meets the criteria of a trafficking victim, Mendoza said, and can now apply for a visa.
Memo outlines priorities
Immigrants who have had their cases terminated are frequently left in limbo, immigration attorneys said, and are not granted any form of legal status.
"It's very, very key to understand that these aliens are not being granted anything in court. They are still here illegally. They don't have work permits. They don't have Social Security numbers," Mendoza said. "ICE is just saying, 'At this particular moment, we are not going to proceed with trying to remove you from the United States.' "
In a June 30 memo, ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton outlined the agency's priorities, saying it had the capacity to remove about 400,000 illegal immigrants annually — about 4 percent of the estimated illegal immigrant population in the country. The memo outlines priorities for the detention and removal system, putting criminals and threats to national security at the top of the list.
Up to 17,000 cases
On Tuesday, ICE officials provided a copy of a new policy memo from Morton dated Aug. 20 that instructs government attorneys to review the court cases of people with pending applications to adjust status based on their relation to a U.S. citizen. Morton estimates in the memo that the effort could affect up to 17,000 cases.
Tre Rebsock, the ICE union representative in Houston, said even if the efforts involve only a fraction of the pending immigration cases, "that's going to make our officers feel even more powerless to enforce the laws."
susan.carroll@chron.com
Feds moving to dismiss some deportation cases
Critics assail the plan as a bid to create a kind of backdoor 'amnesty'
By SUSAN CARROLL
Copyright 2010, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Aug. 24, 2010, 9:00PM
.
Billy Smith II Houston Chronicle
The scene at the Harris County lockup last summer. Culling the immigration court system dockets of noncriminals started in earnest in Houston about a month ago and has stunned immigration attorneys.
Share Del.icio.usDiggTwitterYahoo! BuzzFacebookStumbleUponEmail Close [X]Resources Immigration blog: Deaths on border in Arizona reach record levels Immigration blog: McCain's do-over on issue works just fine Immigration blog: the cost of illegal immigration The Department of Homeland Security is systematically reviewing thousands of pending immigration cases and moving to dismiss those filed against suspected illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal records, according to several sources familiar with the efforts.
Culling the immigration court system dockets of noncriminals started in earnest in Houston about a month ago and has stunned local immigration attorneys, who have reported coming to court anticipating clients' deportations only to learn that the government was dismissing their cases.
Richard Rocha, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman, said Tuesday that the review is part of the agency's broader, nationwide strategy to prioritize the deportations of illegal immigrants who pose a threat to national security and public safety. Rocha declined to provide further details.
Critics assailed the plan as another sign that the Obama administration is trying to create a kind of backdoor "amnesty" program.
Raed Gonzalez, an immigration attorney who was briefed on the effort by Homeland Security's deputy chief counsel in Houston, said DHS confirmed that it's reviewing cases nationwide, though not yet to the pace of the local office. He said the others are expected to follow suit soon.
Gonzalez, the liaison between the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which administers the immigration court system, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said DHS now has five attorneys assigned full time to reviewing all active cases in Houston's immigration court.
Gonzalez said DHS attorneys are conducting the reviews on a case-by-case basis. However, he said they are following general guidelines that allow for the dismissal of cases for defendants who have been in the country for two or more years and have no felony convictions.
In some instances, defendants can have one misdemeanor conviction, but it cannot involve a DWI, family violence or sexual crime, Gonzalez said.
Massive backlog of cases
Opponents of illegal immigration were critical of the dismissals.
"They've made clear that they have no interest in enforcing immigration laws against people who are not convicted criminals," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for strict controls.
"This situation is just another side effect of President Obama's failure to deliver on his campaign promise to make immigration reform a priority in his first year," said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "Until he does, state and local authorities are left with no choice but to pick up the slack for prosecuting and detaining criminal aliens."
Gonzalez called the dismissals a necessary step in unclogging a massive backlog in the immigration court system. In June, there were more than 248,000 cases pending in immigration courts across the country, including about 23,000 in Texas, according to data compiled by researchers at Syracuse University.
'Absolutely fantastic'
Gonzalez said he went into immigration court downtown on Monday and was given a court date in October 2011 for one client. But, he said, the government's attorney requested the dismissal of that case and those of two more of his clients, and the cases were dispatched by the judge.
The court "was terminating all of the cases that came up," Gonzalez said. "It was absolutely fantastic."
"We're all calling each other saying, 'Can you believe this?' " said John Nechman, another Houston immigration attorney, who had two cases dismissed.
Attorney Elizabeth Mendoza Macias, who has practiced in Houston for 17 years, said she had cases for several clients dismissed during the past month and eventually called DHS to find out what was going on. She said she was told by a DHS trial attorney that 2,500 cases were under review in Houston.
"I had five (dismissed) in one week, and two more that I just received," Mendoza said. "And I am expecting many more, many more, in the next month."
Her clients, all previously charged with being in the country illegally, included:
An El Salvadoran man married to a U.S. citizen who has two U.S.-born children. The client had a pending asylum case in the court system, but the case was not particularly strong. Now that his case is terminated, he will be eligible to obtain permanent residency through his wife, Mendoza said.
A woman from Cameroon, who was in removal proceedings after being caught by the U.S. Border Patrol, had her case terminated by the government. She meets the criteria of a trafficking victim, Mendoza said, and can now apply for a visa.
Memo outlines priorities
Immigrants who have had their cases terminated are frequently left in limbo, immigration attorneys said, and are not granted any form of legal status.
"It's very, very key to understand that these aliens are not being granted anything in court. They are still here illegally. They don't have work permits. They don't have Social Security numbers," Mendoza said. "ICE is just saying, 'At this particular moment, we are not going to proceed with trying to remove you from the United States.' "
In a June 30 memo, ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton outlined the agency's priorities, saying it had the capacity to remove about 400,000 illegal immigrants annually — about 4 percent of the estimated illegal immigrant population in the country. The memo outlines priorities for the detention and removal system, putting criminals and threats to national security at the top of the list.
Up to 17,000 cases
On Tuesday, ICE officials provided a copy of a new policy memo from Morton dated Aug. 20 that instructs government attorneys to review the court cases of people with pending applications to adjust status based on their relation to a U.S. citizen. Morton estimates in the memo that the effort could affect up to 17,000 cases.
Tre Rebsock, the ICE union representative in Houston, said even if the efforts involve only a fraction of the pending immigration cases, "that's going to make our officers feel even more powerless to enforce the laws."
susan.carroll@chron.com
ICE Canceling Many Deportations
From The New York Times and FAIR:
Immigration Agency Ends Some DeportationsBy JULIA PRESTON
Published: August 26, 2010
Facebook
Twitter
Recommend
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
Share
Close
LinkedinDiggMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink. Immigration enforcement officials have started to cancel the deportations of thousands of immigrants they have detained, a policy they said would pare huge case backlogs in the immigration courts.
Multimedia
Interactive Immigration Conversations
Post a Comment
.Related
Immigration Agency Ends Some Deportations (August 27, 2010) Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said the new approach was part of a broad shift in priorities at the agency, to focus its efforts on catching and deporting immigrants who have been convicted of crimes or pose a national security threat. The policy — announced in an Aug. 20 memorandum from John Morton, the head of the agency — drew praise from immigrant advocates, who called it a common-sense strategy, and was denounced by several Republicans as evidence that the Obama administration was weakening enforcement and making it easier for illegal immigrants to remain in the country.
The change in emphasis at the immigration agency, which represents a significant break with longstanding practices, has awakened resistance among agents and detention officers on the ground, according to officials of the agency, which is known as ICE, and of the union representing those employees.
Mr. Morton’s memorandum refers to a particular group of illegal immigrants: those who have been detained in ICE operations because they did not have legal status, but who have active applications in the system to become legal residents. The memo encourages ICE officers and lawyers to use their authority to dismiss those cases, canceling the deportation proceedings, if they determine that the immigrants have no criminal records and stand a strong chance of having their residence applications approved.
The policy is intended to address a “major inefficiency” that has led to an unnecessary pileup of cases in the immigration courts, Mr. Morton said. The courts have reported at least 17,000 cases that could be eliminated from their docket if ICE dismissed deportations of immigrants, like those married to United States citizens, who were very likely to win legal status, the memo says.
To resolve that number of deportation cases, officials will have to fix persistent breakdowns in coordination between two federal agencies that oversee the nation’s overburdened and troubled immigration system, ICE officials acknowledged. On one hand, ICE enforces immigration law. Another agency, Citizenship and Immigration Services, is in charge of approving applications for immigration documents. When ICE opens a deportation case against an immigrant, it is heard in immigration court.
The courts are swamped under a backlog that reached a record in June of 247,922 cases, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group at Syracuse University that analyzes federal data. The average waiting time for cases in those courts was 459 days.
But immigration lawyers said they are currently waiting as long as two years to get a hearing date in some especially crowded immigration courts.
The new policy “is a pretty basic, common-sense thing to do,” said Helen Harnett, policy director for the National Immigrant Justice Center, a legal assistance group in Chicago. She said that if an immigrant’s application for legal residence was ultimately denied, ICE could reinstate the deportation.
“This is for people who do have a path to legalize their status,” said Mary Meg McCarthy, director of the justice center. “This does not create a new path to legalization for anyone.”
But Republican lawmakers said the Obama administration was moving toward a de facto legalization program by allowing some illegal immigrants to remain here despite their violations of the law.
“Actions like this demoralize ICE agents who are trying to do their job and enforce the law,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. “Unfortunately, it appears this is more evidence that the Obama administration would rather circumvent Congress and give a free pass to illegal immigrants who have already broken our law.”
Mr. Morton’s memorandum was first reported this week in The Houston Chronicle, which found that some immigrants in Texas had already seen their deportations canceled.
ICE officials said they arrived at the policy after conferring with immigration court officials. “This is not a backdoor amnesty,” said Beth Gibson, assistant deputy director of ICE. “It is really about efficient use of docket space and smart use of everybody’s scarce resources.”
The agency has deported a record number of 167,000 immigrants with criminal convictions in the past year, ICE officials said, an increase of about 43 percent over the previous year.
However, dissension in the ranks at ICE surfaced on June 25, when a local of the American Federation of Government Employees representing some enforcement and detention officers announced that it had taken a vote of no confidence in Mr. Morton.
The director and other senior ICE officials had “abandoned the agency’s core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws,” the local said in a news release, undertaking “reckless and misguided initiatives” while failing to alert Congress to the need for more manpower and funds for ICE.
Chris Crane, the president of the local, did not respond to an e-mail message on Thursday.
The national president of the federation, John Gage, said the union had not yet taken a position on the issues raised by the local. Mr. Gage said after several ICE locals had complained, he called a meeting next week of representatives of all of the federation’s locals that represent ICE employees.
“I really would like to get some facts,” Mr. Gage said Thursday. “Our ICE officers have real concerns, but there is conflicting information. If there is any increased risk to our people, we will be all over it,” he said.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 27, 2010, on page A14 of the New York edition..
Immigration Agency Ends Some DeportationsBy JULIA PRESTON
Published: August 26, 2010
Recommend
Sign In to E-Mail
Reprints
Share
Close
LinkedinDiggMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink. Immigration enforcement officials have started to cancel the deportations of thousands of immigrants they have detained, a policy they said would pare huge case backlogs in the immigration courts.
Multimedia
Interactive Immigration Conversations
Post a Comment
.Related
Immigration Agency Ends Some Deportations (August 27, 2010) Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said the new approach was part of a broad shift in priorities at the agency, to focus its efforts on catching and deporting immigrants who have been convicted of crimes or pose a national security threat. The policy — announced in an Aug. 20 memorandum from John Morton, the head of the agency — drew praise from immigrant advocates, who called it a common-sense strategy, and was denounced by several Republicans as evidence that the Obama administration was weakening enforcement and making it easier for illegal immigrants to remain in the country.
The change in emphasis at the immigration agency, which represents a significant break with longstanding practices, has awakened resistance among agents and detention officers on the ground, according to officials of the agency, which is known as ICE, and of the union representing those employees.
Mr. Morton’s memorandum refers to a particular group of illegal immigrants: those who have been detained in ICE operations because they did not have legal status, but who have active applications in the system to become legal residents. The memo encourages ICE officers and lawyers to use their authority to dismiss those cases, canceling the deportation proceedings, if they determine that the immigrants have no criminal records and stand a strong chance of having their residence applications approved.
The policy is intended to address a “major inefficiency” that has led to an unnecessary pileup of cases in the immigration courts, Mr. Morton said. The courts have reported at least 17,000 cases that could be eliminated from their docket if ICE dismissed deportations of immigrants, like those married to United States citizens, who were very likely to win legal status, the memo says.
To resolve that number of deportation cases, officials will have to fix persistent breakdowns in coordination between two federal agencies that oversee the nation’s overburdened and troubled immigration system, ICE officials acknowledged. On one hand, ICE enforces immigration law. Another agency, Citizenship and Immigration Services, is in charge of approving applications for immigration documents. When ICE opens a deportation case against an immigrant, it is heard in immigration court.
The courts are swamped under a backlog that reached a record in June of 247,922 cases, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group at Syracuse University that analyzes federal data. The average waiting time for cases in those courts was 459 days.
But immigration lawyers said they are currently waiting as long as two years to get a hearing date in some especially crowded immigration courts.
The new policy “is a pretty basic, common-sense thing to do,” said Helen Harnett, policy director for the National Immigrant Justice Center, a legal assistance group in Chicago. She said that if an immigrant’s application for legal residence was ultimately denied, ICE could reinstate the deportation.
“This is for people who do have a path to legalize their status,” said Mary Meg McCarthy, director of the justice center. “This does not create a new path to legalization for anyone.”
But Republican lawmakers said the Obama administration was moving toward a de facto legalization program by allowing some illegal immigrants to remain here despite their violations of the law.
“Actions like this demoralize ICE agents who are trying to do their job and enforce the law,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. “Unfortunately, it appears this is more evidence that the Obama administration would rather circumvent Congress and give a free pass to illegal immigrants who have already broken our law.”
Mr. Morton’s memorandum was first reported this week in The Houston Chronicle, which found that some immigrants in Texas had already seen their deportations canceled.
ICE officials said they arrived at the policy after conferring with immigration court officials. “This is not a backdoor amnesty,” said Beth Gibson, assistant deputy director of ICE. “It is really about efficient use of docket space and smart use of everybody’s scarce resources.”
The agency has deported a record number of 167,000 immigrants with criminal convictions in the past year, ICE officials said, an increase of about 43 percent over the previous year.
However, dissension in the ranks at ICE surfaced on June 25, when a local of the American Federation of Government Employees representing some enforcement and detention officers announced that it had taken a vote of no confidence in Mr. Morton.
The director and other senior ICE officials had “abandoned the agency’s core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws,” the local said in a news release, undertaking “reckless and misguided initiatives” while failing to alert Congress to the need for more manpower and funds for ICE.
Chris Crane, the president of the local, did not respond to an e-mail message on Thursday.
The national president of the federation, John Gage, said the union had not yet taken a position on the issues raised by the local. Mr. Gage said after several ICE locals had complained, he called a meeting next week of representatives of all of the federation’s locals that represent ICE employees.
“I really would like to get some facts,” Mr. Gage said Thursday. “Our ICE officers have real concerns, but there is conflicting information. If there is any increased risk to our people, we will be all over it,” he said.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 27, 2010, on page A14 of the New York edition..
GOP Will Hopefully Investigate Obama Regime's Crimes After Election
from Floyd Reports (Impeach Obama Campaign):
GOP Will Investigate Obama Crimes After Midterms
Posted by Ben on August 27, 2010 · Comments (25)
Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports
In the past, conservative uprisings have been put out when Republicans came to power. Bill Clinton’s first term — loaded with a broken promise to cut taxes, a tax increase, gays in the military, HillaryCare, Jocelyn Elders, Lani Guinier, Paula Jones, and Whitewater (to name a few scandals) — enraged most of the country. But after Republicans came to power in 1994, the nation simmered down — even when the Republican leadership backed down on Clinton’s well-deserved impeachment.
Politico has a revealing new story that, if Republicans retake Congress after the midterm elections, they intend to investigate a wide variety of Obama’s misdeeds, some of them grounds for impeachment. The story lists a few of the cases under investigation:
Jobgate. The most serious allegations on the list were raised by two Democrats: Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff. Both have said the Obama administration offered them jobs or other incentives to drop out of hotly contested U.S. Senate races in Pennsylvania and Colorado, respectively. The White House believed their primary opponents stood a better chance of winning, so they attempted to bribe these two, according to the candidates. If the allegations are true, they likely meet the definition of “impeachable offenses.” Former President Bill Clinton has contradicted the Obama administration’s story on the Sestak offer already. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA, has responded to the denials with calls for further investigation.
Bailouts. Republicans want to look into Obama’s endless bailouts. Investigators should pay close attention to the administration’s tactics in taking over General Motors on behalf of Big Labor, a move certainly unconstitutional, as his Chicago-style, backdoor arm-twisting could easily have crossed the line. Despite his promises to have the most transparent administration in history, much of Obama’s dealings remain hidden. As Obama said on the campaign trail, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
The New Black Panthers Case. Politico calls this scandal “microscopic”; readers outside the Beltway know it is anything but. It is perhaps the most explosive issue facing the Obama administration. In addition to letting off a pair of radical activists who threatened Republican voters with clubs, there is the broader allegation raised by J. Christian Adams that Barack Obama and Eric Holder have decided to drop all cases against minorities. That kind of blanket discrimination makes a mockery of the idea of “blind justice” and undermines one of the key pillars of our government.
ACORN. Despite its defunding, ACORN continues its dubious voter registration schemes under another name. In addition to presidential funding, the committee should investigate ACORN’s role in the Obama ’08 campaign to determine the extent of coordination the president had with this often-indicted organization.
The article lists a few other, in some cases local scandals. May I suggest a few more to Rep. Issa, et. al.?
Government Propaganda. Darrell Issa has led the way on the Obama administration’s funding of covert propaganda. His committee drafted a 36-page report of Obama’s potential crimes, many of which your tax dollars finance. He made a compelling case at least some of these cross the line into illegality. Now, let him prosecute it.
Invasion of Privacy. The Fourth Amendment forbids the government from searching Americans without a warrant. However, a recent court case has found the government does not need a warrant to attach a GPS to your car while it is parked in your driveway. Forbes has reported full-body-scanning vans now prowl the streets, as well. Does the administration obtain a warrant to scan (and thus see naked) everyone monitored? If not, does it retain the images of people not covered by warrant? Does it act on information it finds without a warrant?
Politico quotes some Republicans who want to curtail all talk of silly things like upholding the Constitution or following the rule of law. Let’s hope this time any potential investigations are not short-circuited from within.
GOP Will Investigate Obama Crimes After Midterms
Posted by Ben on August 27, 2010 · Comments (25)
Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports
In the past, conservative uprisings have been put out when Republicans came to power. Bill Clinton’s first term — loaded with a broken promise to cut taxes, a tax increase, gays in the military, HillaryCare, Jocelyn Elders, Lani Guinier, Paula Jones, and Whitewater (to name a few scandals) — enraged most of the country. But after Republicans came to power in 1994, the nation simmered down — even when the Republican leadership backed down on Clinton’s well-deserved impeachment.
Politico has a revealing new story that, if Republicans retake Congress after the midterm elections, they intend to investigate a wide variety of Obama’s misdeeds, some of them grounds for impeachment. The story lists a few of the cases under investigation:
Jobgate. The most serious allegations on the list were raised by two Democrats: Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff. Both have said the Obama administration offered them jobs or other incentives to drop out of hotly contested U.S. Senate races in Pennsylvania and Colorado, respectively. The White House believed their primary opponents stood a better chance of winning, so they attempted to bribe these two, according to the candidates. If the allegations are true, they likely meet the definition of “impeachable offenses.” Former President Bill Clinton has contradicted the Obama administration’s story on the Sestak offer already. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA, has responded to the denials with calls for further investigation.
Bailouts. Republicans want to look into Obama’s endless bailouts. Investigators should pay close attention to the administration’s tactics in taking over General Motors on behalf of Big Labor, a move certainly unconstitutional, as his Chicago-style, backdoor arm-twisting could easily have crossed the line. Despite his promises to have the most transparent administration in history, much of Obama’s dealings remain hidden. As Obama said on the campaign trail, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
The New Black Panthers Case. Politico calls this scandal “microscopic”; readers outside the Beltway know it is anything but. It is perhaps the most explosive issue facing the Obama administration. In addition to letting off a pair of radical activists who threatened Republican voters with clubs, there is the broader allegation raised by J. Christian Adams that Barack Obama and Eric Holder have decided to drop all cases against minorities. That kind of blanket discrimination makes a mockery of the idea of “blind justice” and undermines one of the key pillars of our government.
ACORN. Despite its defunding, ACORN continues its dubious voter registration schemes under another name. In addition to presidential funding, the committee should investigate ACORN’s role in the Obama ’08 campaign to determine the extent of coordination the president had with this often-indicted organization.
The article lists a few other, in some cases local scandals. May I suggest a few more to Rep. Issa, et. al.?
Government Propaganda. Darrell Issa has led the way on the Obama administration’s funding of covert propaganda. His committee drafted a 36-page report of Obama’s potential crimes, many of which your tax dollars finance. He made a compelling case at least some of these cross the line into illegality. Now, let him prosecute it.
Invasion of Privacy. The Fourth Amendment forbids the government from searching Americans without a warrant. However, a recent court case has found the government does not need a warrant to attach a GPS to your car while it is parked in your driveway. Forbes has reported full-body-scanning vans now prowl the streets, as well. Does the administration obtain a warrant to scan (and thus see naked) everyone monitored? If not, does it retain the images of people not covered by warrant? Does it act on information it finds without a warrant?
Politico quotes some Republicans who want to curtail all talk of silly things like upholding the Constitution or following the rule of law. Let’s hope this time any potential investigations are not short-circuited from within.
How Many Deaths Must There Be Before Obama Takes Border Security Seriously?
from Floyd Reports (Impeach Obama Campaign):
How Many Deaths Before Obama Takes Border Security Seriously?
Posted by Ben on August 27, 2010 · 201548 Commentshttp://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/how-many-deaths-before-obama-takes-border-security-seriously/How+Many+Deaths+Before+Obama+Takes+Border+Security+Seriously%3F2010-08-27+21%3A11%3A42Ben
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Floyd Reports
The shocking discovery of 72 murdered Hispanic migrants on a ranch just south of the U.S. border should be a wakeup call to all Americans that the security of our beloved nation begins at home.
Here in Arizona we have seen firsthand the bloody consequences of the crime and violence being imported by criminal aliens across our borders. Peaceful Phoenix has been transformed into the kidnapping capital of America.
A cadre of dedicated state and local officials has attempted to quell the violence. The result has been to watch these local leaders be sued, investigated, and harassed by the police powers of the Obama administration.
When will this insanity end?
The migration of farm workers in the 1950s and 60s was transformed into a migration of construction workers, maids and restaurant workers in the 1970s and 80s. But the character of the immigration has changed again, and we ignore these changes at our peril.
Criminal gangs now control the border. Drugs, human trafficking, robbery, extortion and smuggling are profitable motivators escalating violence on both sides of the border.
Until the borderlands of the American Southwest are policed and under the control of authorities, these inexplicably brutal conditions will persist. The drug cartels must be destroyed, and the only way to accomplish this is with serious intervention, manpower and high-tech weaponry.
Obama and his minions ignore the brutality, the pain, the suffering, and the long-term consequences of allowing these gangs safe haven in the hopes of scoring political points with immigrant voters.
This issue isn’t about the civil rights of migrants — this issue is about keeping all Americans safe regardless of nation of origin.
This massacre only came to light because a wounded Ecuadorean escaped. With a bullet wound in his neck he struggled to a nearby highway to find a Mexican military roadblock. He told authorities that the migrants’ abductors identified themselves as Zetas. Zetas are a drug gang whose control of parts of Mexico is so brutal even many Mexicans avoid traveling on public highways near their territory.
Amnesty International has called the plight of the migrants crossing from Mexico to the U.S. a major world crisis. Their report called our border “one of the most dangerous in the world,” and said every year an untold number of migrants disappear without a trace.
Mass unmarked graves near the border hold the key to a complete accounting of these horrors.
Now Mexican authorities are trying to determine whether the 72 victims in Tamaulipas were killed at the same time — and why. We may never know.
The future is becoming clear. If the United States doesn’t reverse course and begin to take border security seriously then these gangs will slowly increase their power in the U.S. They are already said to control several U.S. prisons, and neighborhoods in Phoenix and Los Angeles.
The Obama administration’s harassment of local and state officials attempting to secure the border must end immediately. Instead, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security should be assisting these duly-elected local officials in the difficult task. Everyone must work together.
Violence must be met with the swift hand of justice. If we use fences, armed drones, and patrols to secure the border of Iraq, we need to use that same technology and knowhow on our own border.
The primary objective of the United States government is to protect our citizens from foreign enemies. These criminal gangs are foreign enemies in every sense.
How Many Deaths Before Obama Takes Border Security Seriously?
Posted by Ben on August 27, 2010 · 201548 Commentshttp://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/how-many-deaths-before-obama-takes-border-security-seriously/How+Many+Deaths+Before+Obama+Takes+Border+Security+Seriously%3F2010-08-27+21%3A11%3A42Ben
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Floyd Reports
The shocking discovery of 72 murdered Hispanic migrants on a ranch just south of the U.S. border should be a wakeup call to all Americans that the security of our beloved nation begins at home.
Here in Arizona we have seen firsthand the bloody consequences of the crime and violence being imported by criminal aliens across our borders. Peaceful Phoenix has been transformed into the kidnapping capital of America.
A cadre of dedicated state and local officials has attempted to quell the violence. The result has been to watch these local leaders be sued, investigated, and harassed by the police powers of the Obama administration.
When will this insanity end?
The migration of farm workers in the 1950s and 60s was transformed into a migration of construction workers, maids and restaurant workers in the 1970s and 80s. But the character of the immigration has changed again, and we ignore these changes at our peril.
Criminal gangs now control the border. Drugs, human trafficking, robbery, extortion and smuggling are profitable motivators escalating violence on both sides of the border.
Until the borderlands of the American Southwest are policed and under the control of authorities, these inexplicably brutal conditions will persist. The drug cartels must be destroyed, and the only way to accomplish this is with serious intervention, manpower and high-tech weaponry.
Obama and his minions ignore the brutality, the pain, the suffering, and the long-term consequences of allowing these gangs safe haven in the hopes of scoring political points with immigrant voters.
This issue isn’t about the civil rights of migrants — this issue is about keeping all Americans safe regardless of nation of origin.
This massacre only came to light because a wounded Ecuadorean escaped. With a bullet wound in his neck he struggled to a nearby highway to find a Mexican military roadblock. He told authorities that the migrants’ abductors identified themselves as Zetas. Zetas are a drug gang whose control of parts of Mexico is so brutal even many Mexicans avoid traveling on public highways near their territory.
Amnesty International has called the plight of the migrants crossing from Mexico to the U.S. a major world crisis. Their report called our border “one of the most dangerous in the world,” and said every year an untold number of migrants disappear without a trace.
Mass unmarked graves near the border hold the key to a complete accounting of these horrors.
Now Mexican authorities are trying to determine whether the 72 victims in Tamaulipas were killed at the same time — and why. We may never know.
The future is becoming clear. If the United States doesn’t reverse course and begin to take border security seriously then these gangs will slowly increase their power in the U.S. They are already said to control several U.S. prisons, and neighborhoods in Phoenix and Los Angeles.
The Obama administration’s harassment of local and state officials attempting to secure the border must end immediately. Instead, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security should be assisting these duly-elected local officials in the difficult task. Everyone must work together.
Violence must be met with the swift hand of justice. If we use fences, armed drones, and patrols to secure the border of Iraq, we need to use that same technology and knowhow on our own border.
The primary objective of the United States government is to protect our citizens from foreign enemies. These criminal gangs are foreign enemies in every sense.
Texas Fights Obama Regime/EPA Global Warming Power Grab
from The Washington Times and Alliance Defense Fund:
VENABLE: Texas fights global-warming power grab
Lone Star state won't participate in Obama's lawless policy
By Peggy Venable
-
The Washington Times
6:08 p.m., Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Illustration: Texas and the EPA by Linas Garsys for The Washington TimesPrintEmailView 135Comment(s)Enlarge Text
ShrinkClick-2-Listen
Social NetworksFacebookTwitterQuestion of the DayIs it appropriate for Glenn Beck to stage his "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech?
Yes, the event aims to unify.
No, that site is sensitive, and the rally is divisive.
Undecided
Other
Login to Vote
View results
The state's slogan is "Don't mess with Texas." But the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing just that, and at stake is whether the Obama administration can impose its global-warming agenda without a vote of Congress.
President Obama's EPA is already well down the path to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the act was not designed to do. It has a problem, however, because shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt, and the likely backlash would doom the whole scheme.
The EPA, determined to move forward anyway, is attempting to rewrite the Clean Air Act administratively via a "tailoring rule," which would reduce the number of regulated sources. The problem with that approach? It's illegal. The EPA has no authority to rewrite the law. To pull it off, the EPA needs every state with a State Implementation Plan to rewrite all of its statutory thresholds as well.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan W. Shaw saw the tailoring rule for what it really is: a massive power grab and centralization of authority. They are fighting back, writing to the EPA:
"In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized control of industrial development through the issuance of permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental Protection Agency's recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations - regulations that are plainly contrary to U.S. laws. ... To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to the Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions."
Texas leaders are doing what Congress so far has been unable to do (a Senate vote to stop the EPA's global-warming power grab got just 47 votes on June 10): take on the EPA. Good thing, because Texas would be hit especially hard by these regulations.
Federalist principles have allowed Texas to become the strongest state in the union. The Lone Star State leads the nation in job creation, is the top state for business relocation and has more Fortune 500 companies than any other state and is the top state for wind generation. President Obama said he wants to double U.S. exports in five years; he could look to Texas, as we are the top exporting state in the country. The Obama administration could learn a lot from Texas.
Instead, it is attempting to ride roughshod over Texas, and it goes beyond the greenhouse-gas issue.
For 16 years, the EPA allowed Texas to run its own permitting program to meet federal air-quality standards. But in May, the agency announced- out of nowhere - that the state is not in compliance with federal regulations. Even though Texas had met its clean-air obligations, the EPA announced it was taking over permitting.
Texas is the nation's energy-production capital, but the air we breathe is cleaner today than it was in 2000, even though the state's population has grown by nearly 3.5 million people. Between 2000 and 2008, Texas' nitrogen oxide levels decreased by 46 percent and ozone levels dropped by 22 percent, compared with national reductions of 27 percent and 8 percent, respectively. All major Texas metropolitan areas meet the 1997 federal eight-hour ozone standard, with the exception of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, which is within 1 part per billion of meeting the standard.
Story Continues →
According to Department of Energy and EPA data, since 2000, Texas' carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel usage have fallen more than those of almost any other state and every country except Germany as a result of our policies to foster renewable energy, make the electricity market more competitive and efficient, and improve our environment.
When the EPA issued rules to reduce nitrogen oxide and ozone, we complied, but we did it the Texas way.
Now Washington is trying to federalize the air-permitting process and force Texas to ignore our state laws and the plain language of the Clean Air Act in order to allow an illegal rewriting of the federal statute. But Texas has neither "the authority nor the intention" of doing so. The Lone Star State is strong, and so are our leaders - and the law is on our side.
Peggy Venable is Texas state director of Americans for Prosperity.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
VENABLE: Texas fights global-warming power grab
Lone Star state won't participate in Obama's lawless policy
By Peggy Venable
-
The Washington Times
6:08 p.m., Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Illustration: Texas and the EPA by Linas Garsys for The Washington TimesPrintEmailView 135Comment(s)Enlarge Text
ShrinkClick-2-Listen
Social NetworksFacebookTwitterQuestion of the DayIs it appropriate for Glenn Beck to stage his "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech?
Yes, the event aims to unify.
No, that site is sensitive, and the rally is divisive.
Undecided
Other
Login to Vote
View results
The state's slogan is "Don't mess with Texas." But the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing just that, and at stake is whether the Obama administration can impose its global-warming agenda without a vote of Congress.
President Obama's EPA is already well down the path to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the act was not designed to do. It has a problem, however, because shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt, and the likely backlash would doom the whole scheme.
The EPA, determined to move forward anyway, is attempting to rewrite the Clean Air Act administratively via a "tailoring rule," which would reduce the number of regulated sources. The problem with that approach? It's illegal. The EPA has no authority to rewrite the law. To pull it off, the EPA needs every state with a State Implementation Plan to rewrite all of its statutory thresholds as well.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan W. Shaw saw the tailoring rule for what it really is: a massive power grab and centralization of authority. They are fighting back, writing to the EPA:
"In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized control of industrial development through the issuance of permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental Protection Agency's recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations - regulations that are plainly contrary to U.S. laws. ... To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to the Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions."
Texas leaders are doing what Congress so far has been unable to do (a Senate vote to stop the EPA's global-warming power grab got just 47 votes on June 10): take on the EPA. Good thing, because Texas would be hit especially hard by these regulations.
Federalist principles have allowed Texas to become the strongest state in the union. The Lone Star State leads the nation in job creation, is the top state for business relocation and has more Fortune 500 companies than any other state and is the top state for wind generation. President Obama said he wants to double U.S. exports in five years; he could look to Texas, as we are the top exporting state in the country. The Obama administration could learn a lot from Texas.
Instead, it is attempting to ride roughshod over Texas, and it goes beyond the greenhouse-gas issue.
For 16 years, the EPA allowed Texas to run its own permitting program to meet federal air-quality standards. But in May, the agency announced- out of nowhere - that the state is not in compliance with federal regulations. Even though Texas had met its clean-air obligations, the EPA announced it was taking over permitting.
Texas is the nation's energy-production capital, but the air we breathe is cleaner today than it was in 2000, even though the state's population has grown by nearly 3.5 million people. Between 2000 and 2008, Texas' nitrogen oxide levels decreased by 46 percent and ozone levels dropped by 22 percent, compared with national reductions of 27 percent and 8 percent, respectively. All major Texas metropolitan areas meet the 1997 federal eight-hour ozone standard, with the exception of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, which is within 1 part per billion of meeting the standard.
Story Continues →
According to Department of Energy and EPA data, since 2000, Texas' carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel usage have fallen more than those of almost any other state and every country except Germany as a result of our policies to foster renewable energy, make the electricity market more competitive and efficient, and improve our environment.
When the EPA issued rules to reduce nitrogen oxide and ozone, we complied, but we did it the Texas way.
Now Washington is trying to federalize the air-permitting process and force Texas to ignore our state laws and the plain language of the Clean Air Act in order to allow an illegal rewriting of the federal statute. But Texas has neither "the authority nor the intention" of doing so. The Lone Star State is strong, and so are our leaders - and the law is on our side.
Peggy Venable is Texas state director of Americans for Prosperity.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)