FDA OKs First Embryonic Stem Cell Research Trial on Humans, Despite Concerns

Well, here you go…with no scientific proof that it works, the Oblahblah Administration says go right ahead, kill them babies for stem cells.

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – The Obama administration has approved the bid by cloning company Geron to undertake the first trial involving the use of embryonic stem cells in humans. They have never been used before in people because the cells cause tumors and have been plagued by immune system rejection issues when tried in animals.

Scientists and pro-life advocates say human embryonic stem cells are not ready for trial because problems associated with the cells in animals haven’t been solved.

The Food and Drug Administration had initially placed the trial on hold but Geron indicated today that the agency is now allowing it to proceed with an early stage trial on a stem cell therapy for acute spinal cord injury.

The FDA placed a hold on the trial last August, when evidence showed Geron’s GRNOPC1 encountered safety issues when used in animal studies. Geron’s own data showed higher frequency of small cysts within the injury site in the spinal cord of animals injected with the embryonic cells.

“We are pleased with the FDA’s decision to allow our planned clinical trial of GRNOPC1 in spinal cord injury to proceed,” said Thomas B. Okarma, Geron’s president, in a public statement today. The company’s stock rose in value following the announcement.

Previously, Dr. John A. Kessler, chairman of neurology and director of the stem cell institute at Northwestern University, said the first application from Geron for the embryonic stem cell trial was flawed.

“We really want the best trial to be done for this first trial, and this might not be it,’’ he said at the time.

Responding to the news today, Dr. David Prentice, a former biology professor at Indiana State University who is now a fellow at the Family Research Council, tells LifeNews.com those concerns should still exist.

“It’s unfortunate that the FDA has released Geron from the safety hold on their embryonic stem cell trial,” he said. “Even many pro-embryonic stem cell scientists have expressed reservations about Geron’s trial, that it is not proven even in rats. The concern for many of us is that Geron is endangering patient’s health and very lives, to make a political point and increase their stock price.”

Prentice also said the trial’s approval makes it so the use of adult stem cells, which are safely helping patients battling more than 100 diseases and conditions already, continue to be ignored.

“In the meantime, adult stem cells have already shown published scientific evidence for safety and successful repair of spinal cord injury in patients. Only adult stem cells offer both an ethical and successful path to healing,” he said.

Prentice also explained that the trial isn’t precisely the first one involving embryonic stem cells — making it so media outlets need to fully explain what Geron is doing.

“They inject cells derived from embryonic stem cells; in this case a cell type called an oligodendrocyte, which is a cell that forms a sheath, like insulation, around nerve fibers,” he said. “So they don’t inject growing embryonic stem cells, but the cells are indeed directly derived from embryonic stem cells, and actually are not completely differentiated, but only part-way (“precursors”).”

“The theory is that once inside the body, the cells will finish specializing to the final cell type, and form an insulative covering over exposed nerves in the spinal cord,” he told LifeNews.com.

Last August, Evan Snyder, a neuroscientist who heads up the stem cell research center at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in San Diego, warned the research may not be ready for humans.

“There’s a lot of debate among spinal cord researchers that the pre-clinical data itself doesn’t justify the clinical trial,” Snyder, who is working on using neural stem cells himself, says.

Snyder says the mice Geron used to conduct pre-human trial research had more excessive injuries that scientists would normally prefer to see prior to trying the procedure on human patients.

He suggests that Geron should have done experiments involving larger animals before seeking FDA permission to use the controversial embryonic stem cells in humans.

Those concerns existed as early as 2005 and may not have been addressed.

Snyder said then that Geron should do more animal testing first to make sure the tests would be on the same injuries humans have.

“I’m not convinced they have done that yet,” Snyder said.

Jerry Silver, a neuroscience professor and stem-cell researcher at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, told Knight Ridder back in November 2005 that Geron was moving too fast and needed to do more tests on animals before seeking human patients.

“Frankly, I cannot conceive of a human trial with the use of human embryonic stem cells following immediately from experiments in rodents only,” he said then. “Many treatments that work in rodents to alleviate disease fail miserably in humans.”

Geron came under criticism earlier this year when news surfaced that the application Geron Corporation submitted to the FDA to become the first to engage in human trials of embryonic stem cells was timed with a trigger to make it so it would be considered during the Obama administration. The cloning company worried it would not be approved during the administration of President George W. Bush.

Just days after Obama took office, the FDA suddenly decided to approve Geron’s application for the controversial study.

Mark Levin: Arizona Ruling an “Abomination”

This article/audio clip and this article ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial (Against Arizona) by Publius Huldah show how this ruling show never have happened for several reasons.

Mark Levin, in his radio-program opening monologue last night, did an analysis of what he found to be the most egregious elements of U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton’s activist ruling that guts the new Arizona immigration enforcement law.

Levin points to the heart of the matter in his analysis: The court based its decision on suppositions and hypotheticals which, in a facial (preliminary) challenge, it is specifically barred from doing. His producer was kind enough to provide Human Events with the audio. So here it is, as well as the transcript:

Human Events

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial (Against Arizona)

Here’s another great article by my retired Constitutional lawyer friend Publius Huldah on what I’ve been saying recently about the verdict handed down by Judge Susan Bolton and her non-authority to do so.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

By Publius Huldah  Thursday, July 29, 2010

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

//

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

“Original” jurisdiction means the power to conduct the “trial” of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a “trial” is – you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.

The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants.

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you

See where it says, “State of Arizona”? And “Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity”?  THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court “original Jurisdiction”, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

In Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

…Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….[boldface added, caps in original]

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!

So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:

1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.

2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.

A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law “extraordinary writ”: It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:

….the fact still remains that “only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.”…(para 13)

When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. She is specifically stripped – by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 – of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.

For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20.

Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty – it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.

OK, counselors – Go for it! PH

Canada Free Press

Will Washington’s Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?

From Investors Business Daily comes this inquiring article.  Suffice it to say, if it comes to this, yes,there will be one.

By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A ROBBINS

The Internet is a large-scale version of the “Committees of Correspondence” that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington’s failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, “Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?”

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There’s no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.

Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He’s diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most “consequential” president ever.

The Wall Street Journal’s steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is “an alien in the White House.”

His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him “anti-business.” Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced “redistribution of income” in history.

Fear and uncertainty stalk the land. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says America’s financial future is “unusually uncertain.”

A Wall Street “fear gauge” based on predicted market volatility is flashing long-term panic. New data on the federal budget confirm that record-setting deficits in the $1.4 trillion range are now endemic.

Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington’s wise farewell admonition: “cherish public credit … use it as sparingly as possible … avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt … bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not … inconvenient and unpleasant … .”

Opinion polls suggest that in the November mid-term elections, voters will replace the present Democratic majority in Congress with opposition Republicans — but that will not necessarily stop Obama.

A President Obama intent on achieving his transformative goals despite the disagreement of the American people has powerful weapons within reach. In one hand, he will have a veto pen to stop a new Republican Congress from repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank takeover of banks.

In the other, he will have a fistful of executive orders, regulations and Obama-made fiats that have the force of law.

Under ObamaCare, he can issue new rules and regulations so insidiously powerful in their effect that higher-priced, lower-quality and rationed health care will quickly become ingrained, leaving a permanent stain.

Under Dodd-Frank, he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation. Credit and liquidity may be choked by bureaucracy and politics — and the economy will suffer.

He and the EPA may try to impose by “regulatory” fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation that failed in the Congress.

And by executive orders and the in terrorem effect of an industrywide “boot on the neck” policy, he can continue to diminish energy production in the United States.

By the trick of letting current-law tax rates “expire,” he can impose a $3.5 trillion 10-year tax increase that damages job-creating capital investment in an economy struggling to recover. And by failing to enforce the law and leaving America’s borders open, he can continue to repopulate America with unfortunate illegals whose skill and education levels are low and whose political attitudes are often not congenial to American-style democracy.

A wounded rampaging president can do much damage — and, like Caesar, the evil he does will live long after he leaves office, whenever that may be.

The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured — Chicago-style.  (Really? My Comment.)

SEC Says New Financial Regulation Law Exempts it From Public Disclosure

Well if you don’t think we have an out of control big government, practically a criminal government attempting to cover up anything they’re doing from the public………check this out.

So much for transparency.

Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from “surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities.” Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings.”

Fox Business.com

Cities need a good Bailout…or a lesson in Budgeting…

I love a good government story, don’t you.  All warm and fuzzy about losing jobs, cutting to the core on necessary services.  Where does it say live within their means?  Where does it say cut the jobs at the top side where it’s so heavy? Where does it say eliminate benefits? Where does it say I guess we’re going to have to buckle down and live like our constituents? It won’t…it never will…until the electorate grows a set and votes fat cats out of government.  I’m tired of hearing “experience”.  What I want to see is plain, ordinary citizens who give a damn about this country to step up and send these “full time” politicians packing, get enough of us in office to set term limits and attempt to fix the cancer that is government.(My comments in Red)…this is from CNN Money:

By Hibah Yousuf, staff reporterJuly 28, 2010: 11:50 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Cash-strapped cities and counties have been cutting jobs to cope with massive budget shortfalls — and that tally could edge up to nearly 500,000 if Congress doesn’t step up to help.

Local governments are looking to eliminate 8.6% of their total full-time equivalent positions by 2012, according to a new survey released Tuesday by the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and United States Conference of Mayors.

“Local governments across the country are now facing the combined impact of decreased tax revenues, a falloff in state and federal aid and increased demand for social services, (or welfare as we all know it)” the report said. “In this current climate of fiscal distress, local governments are forced to eliminate both jobs and services.”

The depth of the recession has pushed cities to make reductions in departments that are typically shielded from cuts because they provide core services to residents, including public safety, public works, public health, social services and parks and recreation. (But where do you see cuts in management where the real problem lies?)

In fact, 63% of cities and nearly 40% of counties reported cuts in police and fire safety personnel, the survey showed.

The report called on Congress to pass the Local Jobs for America Act, which would provide $75 billion in federal funds over two years to city and county governments and community-based organizations to save and create jobs. (There you go…let’s get more money and add some more for it to crash again.)

//

“Federal investment that helps save local jobs and preserve local services will help stabilize communities across the country and ensure that all of America’s families are able to participate in the economic recovery,” the report said.

But the bill’s fate is uncertain as mounting concerns over the national deficit hinder the passage of new stimulus measures. (You betcha, and why not? You’re asking the people who you berate as semi-intelligent and don’t know how government runs to keep footing the bill.  Eventually, you will understand WHO the tea party really is.)

Massachusetts joins effort to bypass Electoral College

What the heck? How can these States get away with this? The Constitution calls for the Electoral College by the founding fathers in Article 2, Section 1, and then altered by the 12th Amendment.   It assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state (and Washington, D.C.) for the purpose of determining presidential elections.  The number of assigned electorates equals the number of congressmen where one vote is given for each House member and two votes for two Senators.

Massachusetts Moves to Circumvent the Electoral College and Constitution

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is on the verge of passing a new law that will circumvent the Electoral College system so that future elections will be determined by the national popular vote. One vote remains in the Massachusetts state senate before the National Popular Vote bill is signed into action by Governor Deval Patrick. The legislation will allow all of the state’s electoral votes to go to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally. It is part of an effort lead by a group called National Popular Vote (NPV) that is gaining momentum across the country to obliterate the Electoral College.

The Wall Street Journal explains that in order for the NPV campaign to be successful, “The plan needs to enlist just enough states to command 270 electoral votes, or a majority of the Electoral College.”

The Boston Globe addresses the implications of such a law that seems contradictory to the intent of the Founding Fathers. “[Critics] point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state’s 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.”

Likewise, the Boston Globe adds, “Once states possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.”

These notions are diametrically opposed to the system of government created by the Founding Fathers that rested the greatest control and authority to the individual first and foremost, the state second, and finally the least control to the central government.

Despite this, Massachusetts state House Speaker Robert DeLeo issued a statement on the bill. “The National Popular Vote measure will ensure that our presidential elections reflect the true will of the people.”

Little does DeLeo know that the intention of the Electoral College was created to guarantee the rights of the people. It is a uniquely American system that was intended to be one of the many protections against a too-powerful federal government.

The New American

Why the Electoral College?

To understand the need for the Electoral College, you have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place.  Notice that the country is named the “United States”, not the “United People”.  Independent sovereign states (nations) once inhabited this land.  They had their own independent governments.  They had militaries which defended their borders.  They had foreign ambassadors sent to other countries to establish regular treaties, just as independent nations do today.

Shouldn’t a presidential election be determined by a popular vote in a democracy?

Yes.  But we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a federation/republic. The best example of this is the U.S. Congress.  The Congress is divided into two houses.  The House of Representatives was created as a representation of the will of the people, giving each equally populated block of citizens a single representation with equal power.  The Senate, on the other hand, which is more powerful, is not a representation of the people, but a representation of the states (state governments, if you will).  In the Senate, each state has exactly two representatives, giving EVERY state equal power.  The Senate was created to encourage those very small states to enter the Union.  Otherwise, it would not be logical for states with tiny populations (relative to the U.S. population) to enter into a true representative Union as they would be relinquishing their own sovereign power over themselves by doing so.
When thinking about government decisions, it sometimes helps to relate them to your own personal situation.  Think about moving into a new apartment versus living alone.   Let’s assume that you have lived alone for several years and have somewhat enjoyed the freedom with running your apartment the way you see fit.  Now let’s assume that you have agreed to move into a 5-bedroom apartment with four of your friends.  Is the new apartment going to be run exactly the way you see fit?  Are you going to get the shower for as long as you want anytime you wanted as you did when living alone?  Of course not.  But there is the security factor.  Most of us feel much more secure when living with others than living alone.  This is very similar to a state’s decision to enter the United States.  They have much more power as an independent nation that they would relinquish when joining the Union, but the Union offers a certain level of security that they could not have had otherwise.  But that security could also be emulated by simple alliances with the United States (i.e. Puerto Rico, Guam), and if such security could be achieved without acceding the United States, it would be very foolish to join.  This is exactly why Puerto Rico and Guam are not U.S. states.   They CHOOSE not to be.  This is very confusing to those American citizens who’ve been brainwashed into believing that the United States is a perfect union that no sensible nation could resist.  Puerto Ricans aren’t stupid.  They like their independence.  Now they have managed to do the genius thing of maintaining independence while creating an alliance with the most powerful nation on Earth that would certainly defend you if you have run into any problems.  In Puerto Rico’s case, they are having their cake and eating it too.
So then the question arises as to why any state would ever join the United States in the first place.  The answer is in the Senate and Electoral College.  A state with 1/100 of the population of the United States would actually have a voice greater than 1/100 of Congress.  The two equal-power Senators are the ONLY way to encourage newcomers into joining the U.S.  Similarly, the Electoral College which is framed exactly the same as the U.S. Congress gives that necessary extra voice to the small states.
How do states determine which candidate(s) get their Electoral College votes?
This is determined by the individual state.  Remember the whole purpose of the Electoral College in the first place was to let the states cast their votes for the presidency.  Therefore the states must be allowed to cast the votes in any way they see fit to any candidate they wish.  In 48 states and Washington, D.C. all electoral votes are cast for the candidate who wins the popular vote.  Maine and Nebraska allow their electoral votes to be given to the candidate who wins each of their districts (Maine 2, Nebraska 3).  Then the other two votes are given to the candidate who wins the popular vote.  This system seems to work remarkably well, and even the anti-Electoral College liberals find very little to argue against this arrangement.
It should be known that the most popular argument against the Electoral College system in this country is against casting all state electoral votes for the candidate who wins by the slightest of margins in the state.  Those that consider this a flaw in the system should not blame this on the Electoral College but on the individual states.  If you would like for this to be changed in your state, you should contact your state government representatives.  Keep in mind that the smaller states tend to favor a “winner-take-all” system because it maximizes the state’s voice in the electorate.  When a state divides its votes among two or more candidates, its voice is also divided and it loses power.
How many electoral votes does a presidential candidate have to receive to win the presidency?
An absolute majority.  Technically, it is 50% + 1.  Since there are currently 538 electoral votes (in 2000), a presidential candidate must receive 270 to win the presidency.  In rare cases, no candidate has received an absolute majority.  In this situation, the new Vice President would be chosen by the Senate with the winner receiving the most votes.   The President, however, would be chosen by a unique election in the House of Representatives.  Each state would get exactly one vote toward a single candidate.   States that are divided equally along party lines may not conclude a winner for the state.  So they may abstain from the voting entirely.  But in this House election, the winner must receive an absolute majority (26) of the House votes.  If no candidate was able to receive the required number of votes in the House, the Vice President (chosen by the Senate) would officially become the President.  The selection of the new Vice President at this point is unclear and may be appointed by the new President.
The Presidential election has been sent to the House once before.  In 1824, four different candidates received electoral votes, and none of them received an absolute majority.  The vote then went to the House and John Quincy Adams was elected as the president.
What would happen if we abolished the Electoral College?
This is basically common sense.  What would happen when you decrease the power of government representation for a group of states?  What if we abolished the U.S. Senate?  This is exactly the same thing.  Abolishing the Electoral College or Senate would reduce the government representation of the smallest states to make it illogical to remain in the Union.  This has happened before, in 1860.  I shouldn’t need to remind you of the 620,000 deaths over the next five years after that.   You think that was bloody?  Try abolishing the Electoral College or Senate in the 21st Century.  You’ll see division in this country not seen since the War for Southern Independence.  Only this time, the two sides are not geographically separated.  Our decades of racial, religious, and political integration in this country will come to haunt us in the future.  It will be then when the nation’s integrity and peace are ultimately challenged.  Can we divide into two nations peacefully with few problems or will the liberals insist that we fight another war?  Is 10 million deaths worth a segment of the country retaining domination over the rest?  Only time will tell.  I hope and pray that future leaders will foresee the blood-shedding and prevent it before it’s too late.
So who would want to abolish the Electoral College if it tears the country apart?
The same people who want to do away with ALL states’ rights.  They don’t understand the purpose of having states in the first place.  These people would prefer living under an omnipotent centralized government.   They believe that their lives will be much more secure under such rule.  Those of us who oppose such government power recognize that a strong centralized government that can deliver perfect security from invading and interior forces then itself becomes the primary enemy as it controls its own power limits.  If you let anyone or anything determine its own limit of power, then it will choose not to limit itself.  A “secure” nation is one with a perfect balance of limited government and national/domestic defense.  Any shift in either direction leaves the population at serious risk to domestic and/or foreign opposition.

maitreg.com

Article 2, Section 1, and then altered by the 12th Amendment.   It assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state (and Washington, D.C.) for the purpose of determining presidential elections.  The number of assigned electorates equals the number of congressmen where one vote is given for each House member and two votes for two Senators.

Why the Electoral College?

To understand the need for the Electoral College, you have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place.  Notice that the country is named the “United States”, not the “United People”.  Independent sovereign states (nations) once inhabited this land.  They had their own independent governments.  They had militaries which defended their borders.  They had foreign ambassadors sent to other countries to establish regular treaties, just as independent nations do today.

The Arizona Immigration Law Ruling:An Abominable Decision

Hey if you guys don’t listen to Mark Levin or never heard of him, your missing something. Here’s his website where you can listen to his show from 5pm-8pm CDT or it is streamed 24/7 in between live shows.

An Abominable Decision

[Mark R. Levin]

This is a typical example of a judge stating the correct legal standard, but then ignoring it and applying the test in a fashion completely divorced from the facts of the case in order to reach a predetermined decision.

First, the court states correctly that the sort of constitutional challenge brought here — a facial challenge — is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully. It requires that the plaintiff (here the federal government) must demonstrate that the law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical arguments — yet that is exactly what the court relies on in its ruling: the assertion that the AZ law will impose an impermissible burden on law enforcement, which is to determine the legal status of a person detained pursuant to the AZ law on the reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. The court does not provide any empirical basis to support its conclusion. It’s pure supposition.

As the court notes, the burden a party must meet when engaging in a facial challenge of a given statute is established in United States v. Salerno. The court pays lip service to Salerno at the beginning of its analysis on the “likelihood of success on the merits,” but then proceeds to ignore the Salerno principles.

The court cites Salerno when it notes: “A facial challenge must fail where a statute has a ‘plainly legitimate sweep.’” In deciding a facial challenge, courts “must be careful not to go beyond the statute’s facial requirements and speculate about ‘hypothetical’ or imaginary cases.” Then the court doesn’t even attempt to actually analyze the provisions it overturns within the Salerno context, except in one instance — in fn. 18 — where it upholds a provision of SB 1070.

Distinguish the facial challenge from an as-applied challenge. At one point the court engages in a hypothetical example, when it talks about a potential unfair burden on a legal alien failing to have a dog on a leash, wondering whether he could be detained and subject to an impermissible burden for not carrying his papers under that circumstance. (The court talks about John Doe, a legal alien from Chile who was walking his dog without a leash and was stopped by Sheriff Smith and detained at the local jail for eight hours while his status was checked. It didn’t actually happen.)

The judge also worries that increasing the time a person is detained while his immigration status is being determined might be unconstitutional. Again, pure speculation. (Moreover, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has already found that such a delay is permissible where there is reasonable suspicion to check a person’s status.)

In the bulk of its legal analysis, the court applies a selective reading of the case to an incomplete reading of the statute. In particular, respecting the provision related to confirming a person’s legal status, the court largely ignores the requirement that law-enforcement officers are able to confirm a person’s legal status only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally. The judge essentially omits the reasonable-suspicion component of the law and concludes that the act implements a new set of immigration rules particular to Arizona, in violation of a case called Hines v. Davidowitz.

Hines is an old case dealing with a vastly different Pennsylvania law. Here’s what the Hines court correctly concluded: “The question whether a state law is invalid as conflicting with Federal laws touching the same subject is not to be determined according to any rigid formula or rule, but depends upon whether, under the circumstances of the particular case, the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

The Pennsylvania act required every alien 18 years or over, with certain exceptions, to register once each year; provide such information as is required by the statute, plus any “other information and details” that the Department of Labor and Industry may direct; pay $1 as an annual registration fee; receive an alien identification card and carry it at all times; show the card whenever it may be demanded by any police officer or agent of the Department of Labor and Industry, and exhibit the card as a condition precedent to registering a motor vehicle in his name or obtaining a license to operate one. The Department of Labor and Industry is charged with the duties of classifying the registrations for “the purpose of ready reference,” and furnishing a copy of the classification to the Pennsylvania Motor Police. Nonexempt aliens who fail to register are subject to a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment for not more than 60 days, or both. For failure to carry an identification card or for failure to show it upon proper demand, the punishment is a fine of not more than $10, or imprisonment for not more than 10 days, or both.

“Our conclusion,” said the court, “is that [the challenger of the PA law] is correct in his contention that the power to restrict, limit, regulate, and register aliens as a distinct group is not an equal and continuously existing concurrent power of state and nation, but that whatever power a state may have is subordinate to supreme national law.” Hines does not support the court’s conclusion respecting the AZ statute. That case clearly deals with an entirely new legal regime. AZ’s statute merely complements the federal statutory scheme.

Amazingly, today’s decision does not provide any substantive analysis of the very high standards required for mounting a successful facial challenge. The judge thinks certain events or difficulties will occur, and then uses her thoughts as a substitute for empirical evidence. The fact is that the AZ law does not create any new or additional federal responsibilities. It does not establish any new or inconsistent obligations for aliens legally or illegally residing in or otherwise found in Arizona. And, unlike the Hines case so prominent in the court’s ruling, Arizona’s law does not establish any new or extra forms, registration procedures, or other obligations for aliens, legal or illegal.

Respecting preemption, which is the substantive core of the federal government’s case, once again the court presents no evidence in support of its conclusion that AZ is likely to impermissibly interfere with federal law on multiple fronts, including the requirement that aliens carry papers or that state and local law enforcement may undertake constitutionally proper inquiries into the legal status of those they stop. AZ isn’t requiring the federal government to do anything. The federal government can choose not to take AZ’s calls and not cooperate. The court has essentially parroted the federal government’s claims about burdens.

Moreover, the federal government does not “occupy the field” in any event. Indeed, as a matter of federal law and long-standing practice, it encourages states to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law — both in practice and law. In fact, it relies heavily on them.

Federal preemption can be either express or implied: express where the Constitution says so (declaration of war), implied by conflict with federal law. In the immigration context, implied preemption exists only 1) if a statute falls into the narrow category of a “regulation of immigration”; 2) if Congress expressed “the clear and manifest purpose” of completely occupying the field and displacing all state activity; or 3) if the state regulation conflicts with federal laws such that it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” (De Canas v. Bica). Federal immigration law does not preempt AZ law, and the authors of the AZ law were well acquainted with the pitfalls they needed to avoid — and avoided them.

I think the word “abomination” does not overstate this court’s decision.

— Mark Levin is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, which has filed an amicus brief in this case.

Just in Case you can’t Remember…

Ahh, the Clintons, the one’s who had the economy rolling, the ones who were ahem, “fiscally conservative”.  The ones who worried about the middle class, who felt their pain, are really hitting you with pain now! …. How come the Brits are writing this?  Would it be because people still worship these immoral, lying, drinking fools?  Sure, we all want the best for OUR daughters, but you, the people who they say they were fighting for are STILL spending for their largess.  Read on…

When your father is a former U.S. President and your mother is the Secretary of State, having your wedding reception in the local pub isn’t an option.

Chelsea Clinton’s big day in a country mansion on Saturday could cost up to £3.2million.

No expense will be spared at what will be the American society event of the year, with the equivalent of £6,400 being spent on each of the 500 guests.

Last-minute shopping trip: Chelsea Clinton stocks up on books ahead of her wedding this weekend

Snack time: She was later spotted tucking into some frozen yoghurt

Tents costing £400,000 have been set up, £70,000 is going on tables and crockery and a staggering £320,000 is being spent on flowers, thought to be Casablanca lillies and orchids.

Miss Clinton’s dress, designed by Oscar de la Renta or Vera Wang, is rumoured to be a cool £16,000, and the jewellery she wears on the day is worth £160,000. The cake alone will cost £7,000 and security a further £130,000.

Guests are even being treated to porcelain portable toilets that flush, play music and have hot running water.

Miss Clinton is expected to hire between four and six Portaloo trailers – at a total cost of about £10,000.

The union of Miss Clinton, 30, and Marc Mezvinsky, 32, will take place at Astor Courts, the former estate of millionaire John Jacob Astor IV in Rhinebeck, New York.

Height of luxury: Miss Clinton is expected to hire porcelain Portaloos at a total cost of about £10,000

Estimates put the cost at between £1.9million and £3.2million, far more than most celebrity weddings.

When Liza Minnelli and David Gest tied the knot, it cost £1.6million, while Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes spent £1.2million.

‘This will definitely be the biggest wedding of the year,’ said Donnie Brown, a celebrity wedding planner.

Businesses in Rhinebeck have been getting into the swing of things, with banners bearing messages of congratulations hung inside cafe windows and outside shops.

And as the big day draws near, it seems Miss Clinton has been hitting the gym to look and feel her best.

The wedding will take palce at Astor Courts in Rhinebeck, New York: 500 guests are expected to attend

Spacious: The estate is the former home of millionaire John Jacob Astor IV

Wedding tents? Canopies in the grounds of Astor Courts suggest preparations are well under way

The bride-to-be was spotted in New York yesterday leaving the gym after a work out.

After a quick change of clothes, Miss Clinton was snapped tucking into a tub of frozen yoghurt, but not before a spot of book shopping.

The rings will cost £3,500 each, alcohol and food for the main event and after party will come to £100,000, the equivalent of £200 per person, although the cake will cost £7,000 on its own with sugar flowers and fondants increasing the price.

Even mundane items like the stationery – invites, programmes and menus – will push the budget up, and are expected to come to a total of £32,000.

No expense has been spared with organisational matters either, and the rehearsal dinner alone cost £16,000 and a huge £320,000 has been earmarked for transporting guests to the event.

Hilary Clinton looked relaxed as she arrived outside Chelsea’s apartment (left): She was accompanied by an assistant carrying a large dress bag

As for the toilets, they will be equipped with sinks with hot water, vanities for the ladies, marble interior and skylights with a male and female attendant in each trailer.

Wedding planner Claudia Hanlin said the final bill would be pushed up by the high quality demanded across the board.

‘Food and booze are already expensive, but the Clintons are reportedly hiring multiple vendors, which is one reason the food estimate gets so high,’ she said.

On the plus side, it looks like both sets of parents can afford it.

Mezvinsky is an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and the child of two politician parents, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky and Edward M. Mezvinsky, both former members of Congress.

Marc and Chelsea were teenage friends in Washington DC and they became closer as undergraduates at Stanford University, California.

Big day: Chelsea Clinton’s wedding to Marc Mezvinsky in a country mansion on Saturday could cost up to £3.2million

Bill and Hillary Clinton are also not shy of a dollar – since leaving office as president he has made a fortune from the lecture circuit and she is US Secretary of State, which carries an annual salary of £120,000.

Between 2000 and 2007 they earned a reported £70million.

The Clintons have have done their best to keep the guest list at a manageable number, forcing them to exclude many longstanding Democratic supporters.

A seat will doubtless be saved for President Obama should he attend – currently there are no plans for him to do so – but apart from that only those with a personal connection to the bride and groom have been invited.

Among the celebrities expected to attend, according to reports, are Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand, as well as former prime minister John Major.

Major donors to the party and dozens of acquaintances have been snubbed as the family tried to keep the list under 500 people.

‘We love you all but this is her wedding,’ Hillary Clinton said
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1298221/7k-cake-Chelsea-Clintons-3-2m-wedding-year.html#ixzz0v06JKx3w

Barney’s PO’ed Over a Dollar

Never thought I’d see either in the press…an arrogant politican making a scene about a dollar discount…or the fact that it was going into his favorite gay hangout…to quote the Joker…this town needs an enema!

Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank caused a scene when he demanded a $1 senior discount on his ferry fare to Fire Island’s popular gay haunt, The Pines, last Friday. Frank was turned down by ticket clerks at the dock in Sayville because he didn’t have the required Suffolk County Senior Citizens ID. A witness reports, “Frank made such a drama over the senior rate that I contemplated offering him the dollar to cool down the situation.” Frank made news last year when he was spotted looking uncomfortable around a bevy of topless, well-built men at the Pines Annual Ascension Beach Party. Frank’s spokesperson confirmed to Page Six that his partner, James Ready, asked the ticket office for a regular ticket for himself and a senior ticket for Frank, “but was turned down because Frank didn’t have a resident ID.”

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/sorry_barney_no_discount_BSco6dW9b1VTgrL7GcCFrN#ixzz0v04iSNIR