Judiciary to outsource jobs

This article might belong on the other blog, fepcat.blogspot.com, but since this involves letting foreigners  be in a position to undermine American law, impeachthetraitor wins.  rng----

Coming to a country, state, or municipality near you. This article could be classified under an economic title but it might also be classified under undermining sovereignty as well. We will leave it here as a warning to all who who think that sovereignty is passe and is deserving of the dustbin of history. Just wait and see what happens a decade from now. And don't forget this trend did not start in New Delhi---it's happening in the US and the trend is accelerating under the Obama  administration.   ----lee

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN, Dec 29, 2006, 12.53am IST

     NEW DELHI: At the turn of the century, when outsourcing was gaining ground in various offices, it would have been outlandish to even think that the judiciary would follow suit soon.

     But in 2007, many services which have been exclusively performed for over 50 years by court's recruited staff, be it cleaning, sweeping, transportation, running canteens, providing security or even stenographers, are proposed to be outsourced.

     Saddled with the huge staff for maintaining these services, the judiciary has realised that outsourcing will cost them much less and give better returns.

     "A number of services being rendered by court servants can be outsourced if they are found to be more economical," the registrars of the high courts decided at a recent meeting in the Supreme Court.

     What drove the senior most court officials to think of the unthinkable are the increasing salaries, provident fund contributions, provision for quarters and above all the recurring expense of pension.

To read more ....

For Obama, Mexico Comes First

from americanthinker.com
By John Bennett

October 06, 2010
 
     President Obama did more than just botch American history in his recent speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; he advanced a racial separatist agenda which undermines our cultural solidarity and insults our sovereignty. 
     In a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the president recently came very close to endorsing a radical, race-based agenda. That agenda is best described as geographic reparations -- a misguided effort to correct past wrongs against the ostensible original Americans by committing present wrongs against real Americans today. In his ethnocentric speech, the president had this incredible factual error to share:
     Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. To British and French, to Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land. [Emphasis added.]
     That statement is a falsehood. America was definitely an idea by 1776, if not sooner. There could not have been a single "Mexican" here "before America was even an idea" because Mexico was not a country until 1821. There was no Mexican nation, therefore no "Mexicans" on our land "before America was even an idea."
     So what accounts for Obama's eagerness to semantically superimpose Mexican people onto our early territory? There are convincing reasons to believe that Obama meant that today's Mexicans are descended from the rightful owners of part of this country. Allowing them to return via illegal immigration and lax enforcement is simple fairness -- geographic reparations.
     The president here is demonstrating a commitment to the precepts of leftist open borders advocates, even La Raza ideology. According to a Tucson teacher who blew the whistle on La Raza ethnic studies courses, La Raza classes cause racial hostility. La Raza literally teaches children that "white teachers" do not want Hispanics to get ahead in life and "that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee, who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization." Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. warned against this "cult of ethnicity" in his classic, The Disuniting of America. La Raza ideology espouses racial resentment and condemns our national sovereignty. Such is the ideological core of geographic reparations.
     If the president meant what he said about "Mexicans" being here "[l]ong before America was an idea," then the president shares with La Raza the belief "that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans." This historical fairy tale is no doubt intended to reinforce the notion that someone else was here first and therefore they deserve a measure of compensation. Factually, there were other peoples here first, but the conclusion that we owe Mexicans a debt does not logically follow. Truly open-minded people would compare our tolerant treatment of illegal immigrants to the frequent bloody intolerance of some the North American natives. After all, our Declaration of Independence points to "the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." King George III's support for those tribes was one of the charges listed against him in the Declaration. Warfare and ritual violence were, as scholars have noted, an integral part of pre-Columbian indigenous life.

     To read more .....

Obama's Border Patrol Chief: Give Illegals ‘Road to Citizenship,’ Let Mexicans Work Here Legally in Future

A sneaky new concept from our sneaky government.  The unenlightened people must update their thinking to that of the enlightened elites via a "paradigm shift."  In other words, if you weren't stuck in that mean old paradigm of the Constitution and patriotism you would allow a flood of illegal immigrants to steal the food out of the mouths of your children while bloating the incomes of the treasonous corpofascist elites and their flunkies in D.C.---rng

   Hmmm, I thought it was fair to let the people who immigrated here first, to apply first, and get naturalized first. Am I wrong ? I must be, because everybody from the president on down to the good commissioner, Mr. Bersin, says differently.  ------lee

Monday, October 18, 2010
By Edwin Mora


     (CNSNews.com) - U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin, who oversees both the Customs Service and the Border Patrol, says the United States needs to undertake a “paradigm shift” in how it views the U.S.-Mexico border.

     This shift, Bersin explained in a speech last Thursday at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., would include both a “road to citizenship” for illegal aliens and understanding that the “best way” to secure the border is to allow Mexicans to work in the United States legally in the future—to create what he called “a legitimate labor market between the United States and Mexico.”
     On Monday, a CBP spokesperson told CNSNews.com that what Bersin meant by this was “having a temporary worker program that is conducive to our labor needs.”
     The unemployment rate in the United States was at 9.6 percent in September and has been at 9.5 percent or higher since August 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

To read  more...

Issa: 'Not a chance' of Obama impeachment under GOP House

Please, God, don't let this be true.  Obama is the most impeachable President this country has ever had.  He is sworn to defend the border and now U.S. citizens are getting caught in the crossfire, like the Texas guardsman, Ramirez.  If this President is not held accountable, no President can be held accountable.  The Republican revolution will last no longer than six months if they do not move to end off shoring, outsourcing and illegal immigration.---rng

It looks like the fix is in. Californian Rep. Darryl Issa has decided that Obama is not derelict in his duty as president to protect the US from enemies foreign and domestic and will not proceed with impeachment hearings.
-------lee     
By Jordan Fabian
10/22/10 08:14 AM ET

     If Republicans take control of the House, there is "not a chance at this point" that they will try to impeach President Obama, a top Republican lawmaker said this week.
     Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who would helm the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee if the GOP wins on Election Day, said that his party will not try to bring impeachment charges simply because it disagrees with the president.
     "Not a chance at this point. I don’t see it happening," Issa said when asked if there is a chance of impeachment on Bloomberg's "Political Capital," which airs over the weekend.
     "Look, disagreeing with the president — the president using his authority, maybe even misusing it — that’s not what impeachment’s for," he added. "Do we have disagreements? Yes. Do we want to see that the president strictly adheres to process? Yes."
     Some Republicans, such as Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and former Rep. Tom Tancredo — who is running for governor of Colorado as a third-party candidate — have raised the specter of impeaching Obama, largely over his stance on immigration policy.
     Tancredo originally proposed impeachment this year, and Bachmann said that should be left for Congress to decide.
     Democrats had to answer similar questions before they took control of the House in 2006. Some believed they could bring impeachment charges against then-President George W. Bush over his prosecution of the war in Iraq and his policy on warrantless wiretaps. Party leaders eventually ruled out the move.

to continue article
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/125333-issa-not-a-chance-of-obama-impeachment-under-gop-house?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4cc1b129f48a1ab3,0

Obama Sacrifices American Sovereignty

From townhall.com
undated
by Ken Blackwell

     President Barack Obama recently rolled out a curious foreign policy. This policy leaves American troops carrying all the risks in overseas combat, while lowering our defenses at the same time dangerous regimes are developing their means of mass destruction. It also subjects American companies to foreign control, as European leaders speak about a new, secular global order no longer led by the United States. President Obama is sacrificing our sovereignty and safety in an increasingly perilous world.
     North Korea showed the world exactly what that totalitarian regime thinks of U.N. resolutions and international opinion when it defied both in launching an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) over Japan into the Pacific Ocean. Some call this launch a failure because it didn't achieve its stated goal of putting a satellite into orbit. That's ridiculous, because North Korea's true goal had nothing to do with satellites. It was to test its new ICBM design and to see whether American and international warnings were toothless. And it was a success, as North Korean scientists will now use data from the launch to improve the ICBM design, and also in confirming that the international non-response to this provocative launch means North Korea has little to fear in continuing to pursue nuclear missile capability.
     At the same time, President Obama announced his intention to eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide. This longtime dream of the radical left is amazingly naïve, and only serves to lower America's defenses in a world where countries like North Korea are developing the means to target our shores.
     America's nuclear capability has been and for now remains a deterrent. It serves as a powerful safeguard of American lives that we have the power to annihilate from the face of the earth any country that launches a massive attack against us. Even if the countries now possessing and on the verge of possessing nukes were to give them all up, the danger of massive attacks via chemical or biologic weapons that can kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people would remain. All a denuclearized world would accomplish is to leave America with no deterrent against attacks by other types of weapons of mass destruction. And, of course, there are countries in the world that will secretly retain nukes even when they declare to the world that they have none.

to continue reading....

McCain Advisor: "Think Mexico First"

Can you say America First, Dr. Hernandez? Probably not, your tongue would break in two. It's very difficult to inculcate ideas of loyalty to one's new country into new immigrants when we have people like Dr. Hernandez confusing them with thoughts of dual loyalties. I can't put this any stronger than to say this is an extremely bad idea if not outright treason to promote such behaviour. The only thing worse is John McCain's senile's defense and collaboration with the good doctor and Obama's acquiessence. ----lee

Kevin McCullough

"We are betting that the Mexican-American population in the United States... will think Mexico FIRST! ...But now I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico FIRST'," so said Dr. Juan Hernandez on the popular broadcast Nightline, June 7, 2001.

Anyone who has seen the dual-citizened Hernandez in media interviews knows that his rhetoric is offered with forked tongue smoothness. As a former advisor to Mexico's former president Vicente Fox, his credentials for having less than 100% loyalty to America's interests is easy to point out.

He has in his own words defended Mexican bus operators bringing illegal aliens to America. He is on record as supporting driver's licenses for illegals in the U.S., in addition he has advocated vociferously for easier methods for illegals to send money earned in the U.S. via special banking agreements to Mexican citizens, as well as advocating for the implementation of mortgage programs for illegals who are working in America. Sum it up by saying that on nearly every issue in which the American interest was at odds with the interest of Mexican illegals, or Mexican nationals - Hernandez sided against America.

So why should anyone care?

Well for starters he has been closely related to the McCain campaign for President 2008. Which is troubling for many reasons.

In the border fence debate in 2007, McCain showed more contempt for his fellow Americans, his fellow Senators, and the voters he was even then campaigning in front of than can be recalled in recent years. Claiming to literally "know more" about the issue of border security/illegal immigration than anyone else in the room, he watched in anger as his arrogance went down to flaming defeat. Showing even more contempt for the American people he has mocked citizen border patrol who voluntarily use their time insure legal border passage of those seeking it. And with a reverberation that echoed around the nation John McCain cursed American voters by saying, "I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it."

to read entire article...

6 Reasons Obama-Care Is Bad Medicine

I know Mr. Norris won't say it but the reasons he gave are grounds for impeachment. ----lee

From humanevents.com

by Chuck Norris

07/28/2009

No one denies that in an affluent country such as our own, it borders on tragic that millions do not have some form of health care. I feel for those Americans; I really do. I agree that health care reform is needed badly in America, but I don't believe the bill of goods called "universal health care" that is being pitched presently by our president contains the solution. In fact, I believe it is bad medicine for America.

-- First, universal health care unwisely is being rushed.

Should sweeping health care reform be enacted in a world-record time? Just like the stimulus packages and bogus bailout baloney, Obama-care is being shoved downed America's throat (without explanation) and propelled like a ramrod through Congress (without examination). I call it the Obama blitzkrieg: create crisis; crunch numbers; and cram legislation. The fact is the president continues to sell the program, but there is still no single plan he or Congress is ready to sell.

-- Second, universal health care clearly would drive our country deeper into debt, which is being progressively purchased by foreign powers without any concern by Washington to stop it.

Obama said in his nationally televised news conference, "Health care reform is not going to add to that deficit; it's designed to lower it." How can he say that when they haven't even settled on a single health care plan? When he doesn't know the far-reaching implications of offering it in every community across the nation?

The president is struggling to base his rhetoric in fiscal reality. Even according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Senate version of the health care legislation "would result in a net increase in federal deficits of about $1.0 trillion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019." Is that what you call good fiscal responsibility within an economy and government that already is bordering on bankruptcy?

-- Third, universal health care would impersonalize health care and ration medical services.

Government takeover of health care also would allow Washington to use "comparative effectiveness research" to dictate to doctors which treatments they should prescribe and how much they should cost. That in turn would lead to rationing of health care services.

Canada and Europe already have proved that national health care translates into national nightmares, with a plethora of new government regulations and new systems of rationing medical attention. Under government-run services, personal health care would transform into more impersonal harassment. More government means more menacing minutiae running our lives.

-- Fourth, universal health care ultimately would limit the competitive market of health care.

And what about for the taxpayers who would pay for the program? Would having universal health care encourage their future productivity? Further taxing members of the upper class (which would mean further penalizing their productivity) certainly would not provide incentive for Americans chasing the American dream. And their added taxes obviously would trickle down to consumers, as well. Or do we just assume they would pay 47 million Americans' universal health care out of their surpluses?

You don't create competitive markets by creating monopolies, yet that is exactly what government-run universal health care would prevent: competition. If government should do anything, it should crack down on medical insurance monopolies. If government wants to regulate one more thing, it would be better to regulate the medical insurance companies, not the American people.

-- Fifth, universal health care ultimately would transform legislators into quasi health care practitioners.

With government-sanctioned universal health care, legislators would become quasi medical practitioners because they would lead and guide the government-controlled medical boards, personnel and policies that would oversee the program. That would include abortive and end-of-life counsel and services. Federal politicians would rely upon relatively few chief physicians (appointed mostly by them), who in turn would oversee and implement the medical policies and procedures that they felt were best for the country.

to continue article

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32894

"I do solemnly swear...

The president has essentially two things to do while in office. As jobs go, this is a pretty easy job. One, execute the duties of president, and two, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. The second duty, is a bit more cerebral and abstract, dealing with a document, the supreme law of the land. One thinks President Obama, an educator of constitutional law, would have a not too difficult time dealing with the second duty. But he signed into law an obviously unconstitutional piece of legislation. Obama has failed miserably in completing his second duty as president. It looks like preserving, protecting, and defending the constitution is a much more arduous task than originally thought. ----------lee

Just as he fails to protect our borders, so he also fails to protect the supreme law of the land, the basis of all our other laws and all our freedoms. ----rng

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

by Gene Healy

This article appeared in the DC Examiner on November 24, 2009.

As Harry Reid's health care bill moves to the Senate floor, the debate over Obamacare finally begins in earnest. Shouldn't the Constitution be part of that debate? By what authority, after all, could Congress force all Americans to buy health insurance?

In a recent press release, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argues that constitutional objections to the individual mandate are "nonsensical," because "the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited." We eagerly await your orders, ma'am!

Pelosi is wrong, but that doesn't mean the court can be counted on to strike down Obamacare. Legislators have an independent obligation to consider the constitutionality of the laws they're debating — and the individual mandate is flagrantly unconstitutional.

Legislators have an independent obligation to consider the constitutionality of the laws they're debating.

In answer to the question "by what authority?" Reid's bill offers the Commerce Clause — the go-to provision for friends of federal power. That clause gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce ... among the several states."

It was a modest measure designed to regularize cross-border commerce and prevent interstate trade wars — so modest, in fact, that Madison described it in the Federalist as a clause that "few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained."

The Founders would have worried more had they known that the Commerce Clause would eventually become a bottomless fount of federal power. In 1942's Wickard v. Filburn, the court held that the Commerce Power was broad enough to penalize a farmer growing wheat for his own consumption on his own farm.

That farmer, Roscoe Filburn, ran afoul of a New Deal scheme to prop up agricultural prices. The fact that he wasn't engaged in interstate commerce — or commerce of any kind — was quite beside the point. If "many others similarly situated" engaged in the same behavior, it would substantially affect interstate commerce, and frustrate Congress' designs.

In its "Findings" section, Reid's bill hits all the jurisprudential buzzwords: The individual mandate "substantially affects interstate commerce," and regulates "activity that is commercial and economic in nature." Activity like standing around without health insurance? Apparently so.

Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office noted in a 1994 evaluation of Clintoncare, an individual mandate would be "unprecedented. ... The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

Even the Supreme Court ought to recognize the "you exist, therefore you're regulated" rationale as a bridge too far. But court-watchers have learned never to underestimate the justices' creativity in inventing new rationalizations for constitutionalizing the unconstitutional.

If the court eventually has to rule on the mandate, don't be surprised if the rationalization goes something like this: "Encouraging" people to buy a product is really nothing new. Wickard shows that Congress can use the Commerce Power to force people to carry out transactions they'd rather avoid.

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.

More by Gene HealyAfter all, what the Department of Agriculture bureaucrats really wanted in that case was to get farmer Filburn, and others like him, to buy wheat on the open market.

In Gonzales v. Raich in 2005, the court reaffirmed Wickard, noting that "Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity ... if it concludes that failure to regulate" would frustrate the comprehensive regulatory scheme Congress has in mind.

to continue article

Impeachable Offense: Govt Will Investigate Obama’s IRS Records Snooping

From floydreports.com
October 6, 2010

by Ben Johnson

News has broken today that a federal agency will investigate another impeachable offense. TheU.S. Treasury Department will launch an investigation into the Obama administration’s allegedly revealing his political opponents’ private tax information to the media.

In late August, an anonymous Obama official (now assumed to be Austan Goolsbee, one of the president’s economic advisors) revealed the tax structure of Koch Industries to the media, information its lawyer, Mark Holden, said must have been gleaned from confidential IRS forms. The possibly illegal disclosure was part of the administration’s coordinated press offensiveagainst Koch Industries, whose owners, David and Charles Koch, have funded a number of libertarian enterprises that vocally oppose the president’s free-spending agenda. Most notable among these is Americans for Prosperity (AFP), whose state chapters host rallies from coast to coast.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-IA, called for action two weeks ago.

Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George said, “As the inspector general charged with ensuring, among other things, the fair implementation of our nation’s system of tax administration…I have ordered the commencement of a review into the matters alleged.” This adds more material to the snowballing avalanche of investigations into the Obama administration’s skirting of the law that could result in the president’s impeachment.

The situation is less ideal than it sounds. The Obama administration is essentially investigating itself, and Democrats may be able to hide the details of the president’s wrongdoing George discovers. The Washington Times has added, “Still, Mr. George said that, since Republicans are in the minority, there are some constraints on what he’ll be able to share with the GOP after the review is completed.”

Although the development is potentially explosive, the final report could end up providing cover for the administration against genuine examination. This has already happened with the administration’s report trying to excuse the Obama administration’s advocacy for Kenya’s newpro-abortion, pro-Sharia constitution. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) report indicated the Obama administration spent a total of $61.2 million pushing for adoption ofthe new constitution. Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, has classified this as an impeachable offenserevealing “obvious violations of U.S. law.” Yet the official USAID inquest parroted the Obama administration’s claims that it merely encouraged Kenyans to vote, not to vote yes. The evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

Smith called the report a “whitewash.”

to continue reading

Obama Outsources His War on Arizona

From floydreports.com

Posted on October 6, 2010
by Ben Johnson 

Like so many Americans before him, Barack Obama has enlisted Mexican labor to do a job for him. In this case, the president is outsourcing his legal war against the state of Arizona’s immigration law.

First, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner – undoubtedly on his boss’ orders – called Arizona’s S.B. 1070 a human rights violation during a conversation with Chinese officials. Then Obama hauled Arizona before the UN Human Rights Council in his first-ever report to the human rights abusers on its board. After Governor Jan Brewer learned about it – from us – she asked the State Department to pull the reference, but Foggy Bottom refused. Last week, the UN’s Global Migration Group, chaired by the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, issued a new report blasting opponents of Open Borders and welfare for illegal aliens as “xenophobes and racists.” Now, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed 11 foreign nations to join the Obama administration’s lawsuit against the law, United States of America v. State of Arizona. Mexico led the way, adding El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru. Mexico’s legal filing states, “Mexico seeks to ensure that its citizens present in the U.S. are accorded the human and civil rights granted under the U.S. Constitution.” Those rights include the right to remain silent, the right to a speedy trial, and right-of-way on the first southbound form of transportation. As a backup, the Mexican argument states Arizona’s law, which merely enforces existing federal law, “adversely impacts U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations, Mexican citizens and other people of Latin-American descent present in Arizona.”

Obama has hardly restricted his war to the international arena. He filed the lawsuit in question, winning a stay of certain provisions of the law from a judicial activist. However, he dismissed lawsuits against thousands of illegal immigrants awaiting their day in court. He stood by as members of his party called a boycott against the state. This summer, the Justice Department sued Sheriff Joe Arpaio yet again, as it had threatened to do, allegedly because he is not cooperating with Eric Holder’s vague, racially motivated witch hunt. Now, Obama is merging the foreign and domestic fronts of the war against Arizona.

Governor Brewer, who has been indefatigable in defending her state and its laws, weighed in yesterday. “I find it incredibly offensive that these foreign governments are using our court system to meddle in a domestic legal dispute and to oppose the rule of law,” she said. The Associated Press reports Arizona’s lawyers “told the appeals court that the opinions of foreign countries have no bearing on whether the law is constitutional.”

to continue article

Heirloom Diseases

If your daughter or granddaughter dies from some forgotten disease like typhoid or she becomes scarred with leprosy, will you face up to the fact that Obama, and former President Bush, are traitors and deserve a traitor's fate?  They laugh at you while you and your loved ones cough, scratch and bleed your way to an ugly grave.---rng

from grandrants.wordpress.com
by stoutcat (no relationship to fepcat)
Friday, August 27th, 2010


You’ve probably heard of heirloom vegetables. You know, they’re the ones that have been preserved by passing seeds down from generation to generation. Heirloom varieties are generally at least 50 years old, but many are 100 years or older.

While heirloom vegetables are actually benign–and frequently very tasty–it seems to me that we are currently witnessing an alarming wave of another type of heirloom: diseases. I started thinking about it when I read this post from Gateway Pundit earlier today, about an outbreak of typhoid (yes typhoid) in California and Nevada. Typhoid, once the scourge of many major cities, was nearly eradicated by the advent of clean water technologies in the early part of the twentieth century. Yet typhoid is back, and it’s not the only heirloom disease we’re seeing in America of late.

We’ve probably all seen the reports in the paper, on blogs, and on the nightly news of outbreaks of bedbugs in places like New York City (replete with video that’ll make you think twice before climbing into bed). But it’s not just there. Those little suckers (ha!) are appearing all over the country. 

You’re no doubt also aware that we’ve been having problems withsalmonella. According to the Food Poison Journal, there have been 12 major outbreaks of salmonella across the country this year, none of which seem to be related to the current egg recall.

Leprosy is another heirloom that was once nearly wiped out in this country. But in northwest Arkansas in 2008, there was an outbreak. Sadly, it’s not just in Arkansas, either.

“…[L]eprosy is clearly here in New York, and our clinic at Bellevue Hospital treats more than 500 identified cases of leprosy. While most are Caribbean, Hispanic and Asian immigrants, in recent years we have identified and reported endemic cases in New York City…
Based on the cases we see at the Bellevue leprosy clinic, there are many additional unidentified cases of leprosy in the tristate area and the mid-Atlantic region.”

Another oldie once thought to be under control, scarlet fever is back this year, as well, and in our nation’s capital.

Tuberculosis, another throwback to yesteryear, is also making a come-back. Once thought to be on track to be completely eradicated by this year, evidence suggests that it will not happen.

The U.S. is unlikely to meet its goal for eliminating tuberculosis (TB) by 2010, primarily because of high rates of latent (dormant) TB infection in certain population subgroups, according to a nationwide survey…
Continuing basic TB control measures, as well as targeted evaluation and appropriate treatment of individuals in high-prevalence groups — including immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities, and poor people — “are needed to further TB elimination efforts in the United States,” Navin and colleagues maintain.

to finish article

Ariz. Gov. Brewer Slams 'Foreign Interference' in immigration lawsuit

Allowing foreign governments to sue a state is another instance of giving aid and comfort the enemy.  Make this an issue in this election.   Ask the candidates, "If elected will you support the impeachment of Barack Obama for treason?" ---rng

By SCOTT WONG 10/6/10 9:57 AM EDT
Updated: 10/6/10 7:21 PM EDT


In a new twist in the fight over Arizona’s immigration law, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday asked a federal court to disallow foreign governments from joining the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit to overturn the law.

The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.

“As do many citizens, I find it incredibly offensive that these foreign governments are using our court system to meddle in a domestic legal dispute and to oppose the rule of law,” the Republican governor said in a statement shortly after the state’s motion was filed Tuesday evening.

“What’s even more offensive is that this effort has been supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. American sovereignty begins in the U.S. Constitution and at the border,” she added. “I am confident the 9th Circuit will do the right thing and recognize foreign interference in U.S. legal proceedings and allow the State of Arizona to respond to their brief.”

Brewer and her supporters have said the state law is necessary because the federal government has failed to protect the border and enforce immigration laws. But the Justice Department — with strong backing from President Barack Obama — sued to block the Arizona law on constitutional grounds.

Responding to the suit, a federal judge in July put some of the most contested parts of the law on hold, including a provision that requires police officers to check the immigration status of individuals they stop for other offenses if there is “reasonable suspicion” they are in the country illegally.

Brewer, who has vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court, appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court, which will begin hearing arguments in San Francisco on Nov. 1, one day before the midterm elections.

The Arizona law is a top political issue nationally. Cities from San Francisco and Seattle to Baltimore have joined a friend of the court brief opposing the Arizona law, while 11 states — including Texas, Florida and Nebraska — filed an amicus brief backing the law.

In July, more than 80 Republican members of Congress signed their names to an amicus brief filed by the conservative Immigration Reform Caucus. They included Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, David Vitter of Louisiana and John Barrasso of Wyoming, and Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas, Steve King of Iowa and Trent Franks of Arizona.

Read more:

Obamacare Is Unconstitutional

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The president has essentially two things to do while in office. As jobs go, this is a pretty easy job. One, execute the duties of president, and two, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. The second duty, is a bit more cerebral and abstract, dealing with a document, the supreme law of the land. One thinks President Obama, an educator of constitutional law, would have a not too difficult time dealing with the second duty. But he signed into law an obviously unconstitutional piece of legislation. Obama has failed miserably in completing his second duty as president. It looks like preserving, protecting, and defending the constitution is a much more arduous task than originally thought. ----------lee
Now that the legislation is becoming practical law we learn the risk of delaying discussions about the constitutionality of the law.---rng

by Gene Healy

This article appeared in the DC Examiner on November 24, 2009.

As Harry Reid's health care bill moves to the Senate floor, the debate over Obamacare finally begins in earnest. Shouldn't the Constitution be part of that debate? By what authority, after all, could Congress force all Americans to buy health insurance?

In a recent press release, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argues that constitutional objections to the individual mandate are "nonsensical," because "the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited." We eagerly await your orders, ma'am!

Pelosi is wrong, but that doesn't mean the court can be counted on to strike down Obamacare. Legislators have an independent obligation to consider the constitutionality of the laws they're debating — and the individual mandate is flagrantly unconstitutional.

Legislators have an independent obligation to consider the constitutionality of the laws they're debating.

In answer to the question "by what authority?" Reid's bill offers the Commerce Clause — the go-to provision for friends of federal power. That clause gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce ... among the several states."

It was a modest measure designed to regularize cross-border commerce and prevent interstate trade wars — so modest, in fact, that Madison described it in the Federalist as a clause that "few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained."

The Founders would have worried more had they known that the Commerce Clause would eventually become a bottomless fount of federal power. In 1942's Wickard v. Filburn, the court held that the Commerce Power was broad enough to penalize a farmer growing wheat for his own consumption on his own farm.

That farmer, Roscoe Filburn, ran afoul of a New Deal scheme to prop up agricultural prices. The fact that he wasn't engaged in interstate commerce — or commerce of any kind — was quite beside the point. If "many others similarly situated" engaged in the same behavior, it would substantially affect interstate commerce, and frustrate Congress' designs.

In its "Findings" section, Reid's bill hits all the jurisprudential buzzwords: The individual mandate "substantially affects interstate commerce," and regulates "activity that is commercial and economic in nature." Activity like standing around without health insurance? Apparently so.

Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office noted in a 1994 evaluation of Clintoncare, an individual mandate would be "unprecedented. ... The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

Even the Supreme Court ought to recognize the "you exist, therefore you're regulated" rationale as a bridge too far. But court-watchers have learned never to underestimate the justices' creativity in inventing new rationalizations for constitutionalizing the unconstitutional.

If the court eventually has to rule on the mandate, don't be surprised if the rationalization goes something like this: "Encouraging" people to buy a product is really nothing new. Wickard shows that Congress can use the Commerce Power to force people to carry out transactions they'd rather avoid.

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.

to continue reading

Obama's 2011 Budget Curbs Border Security Programs

We have news of the Obama administration cutting back on border security. Folks, I don't think this guy is serious about the borders or border security. Is Obama waiting for the drug and human smugglers to build a 8-lane highway through to Phoenix to get motivated to do something to defend our borders. At this point, I've given up trying to figure out what he is thinking and now I watch what he does. And what he is doing currently regarding the borders is---amazing. ----lee
The primary function of government is to secure the borders of the country.  Obama's blatant refusal to do so clearly rises to the standard of treason, high crimes and misdemeanors necessary for impeachment. In the face of the overwhelming evidence against him it would be a fatal blow to Constitutional government not to impeach, convict and remove from office. The first order of business after the elections must be to impeach Obama.---rng

By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

The Obama administration is proposing to scale back some border security programs set up after the 9/11 attacks and ramp up aviation security following the attempted Christmas bombing, in what some conservative lawmakers say is a dangerous priority shift.

Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., the top Republican on the House panel overseeing the Department of Homeland Security's budget, says the border security funding in President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2011 is "woefully inadequate" and "as dangerous as it is indefensible."

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says her department's $56.3 billion budget for next year, up 2% over this year, enhances security "across the board." Department spokesman Bobby Whithorne says the budget "continues to support smart, effective programs to strengthen border and interior security" while making "significant investments in aviation security."

Related

Border Fence Plagued by Glitches, Long DelaysObama: 2011 Budget Enough to Lift EconomyWATCH: $200M for 9/11 Terror TrialsIf Congress approves Obama's proposals:

•The Border Patrol, which doubled to 20,000 agents during the Bush administration, would lose 180 agents through attrition. Border staffing would stay the same.

•A "virtual" fence of pole cameras and sensors aimed at stopping illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and terrorists on the U.S.-Mexican border, faces a $225 million cut from $800 million last year. That would delay implementation while a review of the fence, plagued by technical problems, is done.

•Five of the Coast Guard's 13 elite Maritime Security and Safety Teams (MSST), created since 2001 to protect waterfront cities, would be eliminated. Obama is proposing cuts in New York City, San Francisco, Anchorage and King's Bay, Ga.

•The existing 643 miles of concrete-and-steel border fence would be maintained but no new barriers would be built.

In the wake of the failed attempt to blow up an airplane bound for Detroit on Dec. 25, Obama's budget for next year calls for $371 million for 500 more body scanners, 275 more canine teams and an unspecified number of new air marshals.

for more...

Obama’s War Against the U.S. Military

from humanevents.com
by Buzz Patterson
09/10/2010

This is the fourth installment of a five-part series on how Barack Obama is America’s number one threat to national security.

“There are ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army by attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army.”—Sun Tzu, The Art of War


When presidential candidate Barack Obama proudly announced in the fall of 2007 that, if elected, he was going to “fundamentally change the United States of America” it was a warning shot across the bow of the U.S. military, its culture, and the men and women who bravely serve every day.

More to the point, while our armed forces take fire from enemies in the sands and mountains of the Middle East, they are also taking fire from a much more lethal source: their commander-in-chief. Yes, America’s military is at war with radical Islamists around the world and, more problematic, with their President at home.

Barack Obama’s war with the U.S. military is one with several fronts: social engineering of the military culture at the expense of readiness and capability; dictating the rules of engagement (ROE) that hinder our troops’ ability to fight an enemy that doesn’t wear traditional military uniforms and hides behind women’s burqas while operating from schools and mosques; and, slashing the necessary funding for force modernization and sustainability. And finally, morale—successful military operations always come down to morale.

Former President and World War II hero Dwight D. Eisenhower once said “Morale is the greatest single factor in successful wars.” It’s also a concept that Barack Obama seems incapable of grasping.

It is hauntingly familiar to those of us who served in uniform during the 1990s, and, I would imagine, also familiar for those who served in the armed forces during the 1970s under the feeble leadership of President Jimmy Carter as well. My personal experience comes from having served for the pro-military, principled leadership of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush during the 1980s and the experience of serving on the front lines, and then at the side during the 1990s, of a man with no character or principles, Bill Clinton.

Only three days into his infant presidency, in 1993, Clinton announced that he was going to lift the 50-year ban on homosexuals in the military. The original policy had been developed out of necessity during World War II and was reaffirmed by Congress in 1982 when it declared that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it undermines discipline, good order and morale.”

Bill Clinton’s first order in office was directing then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin to stop enforcing the ban on recruiting homosexuals and to halt prosecutions of homosexuals already in the services. He did so without consulting the military leadership in the Pentagon only to run headlong into the protestations of then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in Staff Gen. Colin Powell.

The result was the Department of Defense’s policy we now know to be “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The policy, however, is often confused with the law passed by Congress in 1993 which expressly forbids open homosexuality in the ranks. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is actually the implementing D.O.D. regulation. The law itself, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., otherwise known as The Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993, was passed by Congress in 1993 with veto-proof majorities and the federal courts have upheld the law as constitutional several times since.

Among the findings and provisions in the law, Congress dictated, and the courts have upheld, that “there is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces,” “success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion,” “military life is fundamentally different from civilian life,” “military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society,” and, “the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often Spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.” Ultimately, open homosexuality, they concluded, would present an “unacceptable risk” to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion.

Just as Clinton attempted to socially engineer the military to fit his ideological palate and placate the gay and lesbian voting bloc in 1993, Barack Obama is attempting to do precisely the same thing 17 years later with his announced intent to lift the ban and make good on his quid pro quo with the LGBT Left (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered).

“I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve,” Obama said in his 2010 State of the Union address. Just a week later, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified, “We have received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly.”

Outraged by the Obama Administrations attempt to reengineer the military culture into one in which the openly gay, bisexual and even transgendered could serve, 1,167 retired flag and general officers personally signed a statement calling for the current law to be retained.

Among the critical findings they voiced: 1) the findings in the 1993 law remain valid, 2) the proposed legislation would require acceptance of professed (not just discreet) sexual minorities, with retroactive affect, 3) the LGBT law would affect all military branches and communities, to include Army and Marine infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, surface ships and submarines, on a constant (24/7) basis, and, 4) unit commanders would be burdened with personnel turmoil, accusations of bias, and potential career penalties that will weaken trust and team cohesion. In the end, there is no value added by overturning the ban. Quite to the contrary, recent polls of U.S. military personnel indicate that 10% of those in uniform will leave the service or “vote with their feet,” if such a law is changed. Another 15% say that they will seriously consider doing so.

In time of war, can we accept that sort of devastating impact? Social engineering should not be the priority of Barack Obama, or any President for that matter; fighting and doing what it takes to win wars should be.

www.humanevents.com

Senators say DHS allows backdoor amnesty

Wow, they really really, want this badly don't they? It's bad enough politicians are trying to ram this amnesty down our throats, now they want to sneak it through by bureaucratic fiat. Add Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to the list of officials to be impeached. Every day the list seems to get larger with this administration. ----lee

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times

Updated: 3:49 p.m. on Tuesday, September 21, 2010

A series of new internal rules has effectively created a possible backdoor amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, Senate Republicans charged on Tuesday in a letter demanding that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano explain the new policies.

Ms. Napolitano has said her department is trying to focus resources on illegal immigrants with long criminal records, but the letter, signed by all seven Republicans on the committee that oversees immigration, said it appears the administration instead is trying to carve out categories of illegal immigrants that won't be deported at all.

Indeed, the latest statistics show deportations are, in fact, down slightly compared with the similar period last year. The administration has dramatically stepped up removals of convicted criminal immigrants, deporting 51,981 more than last year, an increase of 42 percent. But deportation of other immigrants is down even more, dropping by 53,934 through August.

"It is increasingly clear that this administration is following the spirit of these proposals by dramatically narrowing its efforts to remove whole classes of illegal immigrants," the senators said.

President Obama has faced pressure from immigrant-rights groups who have called for him to halt all deportations and instead work on a bill to legalize most illegal immigrants.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas RepublicanMr. Obama has called for Congress to act on legislation but has rejected the idea of halting all deportations, saying in his major immigration speech earlier this year that that "would be both unwise and unfair."

"It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally," he said.

But the administration has refocused its efforts to concentrate on immigrants with criminal records, arguing that's a better use of limited resources. And they point to the dramatic increase in deportations of immigrants with criminal records as evidence they've succeeded.

Matt Chandler, a spokesman for Ms. Napolitano, said the department will respond directly to the senators, but he said officials have ruled out using their administrative powers to grant parole or defer deportations for broad swaths of immigrants.

Mr. Chandler also said the figures showing increased removals of criminal immigrants indicate the department is serious about enforcement.

To continue reading...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/21/senators-say-dhs-allows-backdoor-amnest

Arizona Governor can force Obama to prove he’s eligible

A new campaign should begin demanding Obama turnover his OTHER citizenship papers. Forgot about finding his US citizenship papers, especially since he won't turn them over anyway. I believe there is a better chance of him turning over his OTHER citizenship papers. Happy hunting. -----lee

Posted by admin on July 14, 2010

Abigail Adams, The Post and E-mail

Dear Editor: The following email was sent to psenseman@az.gov, Governor Brewer’s press secretary:

July 11, 2010

The Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxation without representation. But is our representation today by the U.S. Congress any better than the colonists’ representation by the British Parliament in 1773?

Dear Mr. Senseman,

As you know, there are many unanswered questions about Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional qualifications to act as President of the United States. Governor Brewer, or any sitting governor, for that matter, has unique standing to challenge Obama on this issue and resolve the constitutional crisis he has perpetrated on the nation by his refusal to prove that he is a “natural born Citizen” by filing a Writ of Quo Warranto.

The American people are looking to Governor Brewer to defend her state as she is doing, but also to challenge a man who has most likely assumed the office of President through dissembling and deceit, wire fraud, election fraud, and document fraud.

There is a tremendous amount of circumstantial and other evidence which points to a foreign birth for Obama, and by his own admission, he was born a dual citizen. He has also carefully described himself as “a native citizen of the United States of America” but not a “natural born Citizen.”

Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It is impossible for Obama to be a “natural born Citizen” if he was born with dual citizenship, and “native born” is not the same as “natural born.” Since he has never shown his original birth certificate, we also do not know his actual age.

Congress refused to check on Obama’s qualifications for office, despite thousands of requests to do so by concerned constituents before the certification of electoral votes in January 2009.

It makes no sense to mount an expensive legal defense when Governor Brewer could simply ask Obama “By what authority” his Department of Justice is suing her state and naming her as a defendant.

to read original article and comments...