Homeland Security Cancels ‘Virtual Fence’ After $1 Billion Is Spent

Comments Off on Homeland Security Cancels ‘Virtual Fence’ After $1 Billion Is Spent

I thought that “virtual fence” was the best thing since sliced bread? Now they’re discontinuing it?

Homeland Security Cancels ‘Virtual Fence’ After $1 Billion Is Spent

The Department of Homeland Security on Friday canceled a project to build a technology-based “virtual fence” across the Southwest border, saying that the effort — on which $1 billion has already been spent — was ineffective and too costly.

Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, said she had decided to end the five-year-old project, known as SBI-Net, because it “does not meet current standards for viability and cost effectiveness.” In a statement, Ms. Napolitano said border agents would instead use less expensive technology that is already part of their surveillance equipment, tailoring it to the specific terrain where they will be scouting for illegal border crossers and drug traffickers.

New York Times

Tennessee Considers Arizona-style Illegal Immigration Law

Comments Off on Tennessee Considers Arizona-style Illegal Immigration Law

This one is sure to be debated quite a bit in the near future,but according to the Nashville news a majority of folks want it passed.

 

Tennessee Considers Arizona-style Law

Tennessee’s legislators plan to consider a bill next year styled after Arizona’s SB 1070, even though the state already has strict laws targeting illegal immigrants.

State Sen. Bill Ketron and Rep. Joe Carr, both Republicans, are preparing a bill that criminalizes illegal immigrants and authorizes local law enforcement authorities to detain “any person” suspected of being in the country unlawfully.

“You can’t deny how [illegal immigration] is affecting us, from education to healthcare to the judicial system to incarceration, and more importantly the number of jobs it’s taken away,” Ketron said.

Like Tennessee, other nearby states, including North Carolina and South Carolina, have expressed an interest in starting out the new legislative session in 2011 reviewing measures similar to the law in Arizona, the first in the nation to criminalize being in the country unlawfully.

Tennessee, where foreign-born people account for roughly four percent of the total population, already has restrictive measures that will take effect on Jan. 1.

The most controversial is SB 1141/HB 670, which requires local jails — despite no training, funds, supervision or access to federal immigration databases — to verify the immigration status of all those detained. There is also a measure that allows businesses to insist that employees speak only English for “security and efficiency.”

During the vehement debate over the implementation of SB 1070 in Arizona, a group of Tennessee legislators sent a letter to that state’s governor, Jan Brewer, praising her for signing the bill into law.

Translated by Fox News Latino.

UPDATE: Obama to Latinos-Punish Our Enemies

2 Comments

And who are their enemies? Barack Obama will hug Hugo Chavez, meet with Ahmadinejad, bow to the King of Saudi Arabia but freedom loving Americans who are against Amnesty, non-citizens voting  and Illegal Immigration are his enemies, that’s who. Shame on Obama playing the ‘race’ card like that and saying those against this type thing are the enemy.

Yesterday we saw Obama pull away from his “enemies” remark!

Obama pulls back on ‘enemies’ remark to Latinos

A day before the pivotal midterm elections, President Barack Obama pulled back from remarks he made last month when he called on Latino voters to punish their “enemies” on Election Day. In an interview Monday with radio host Michael Baisden, Obama said he should have used the word “opponents” instead of enemies.

AP News

Justice Department to Send Election Observers to Arizona as Concern Rises About Illegal Voters

2 Comments

I’m just wondering when is Arizona going to say “enough of the Federal government” poking it’s nose in State business? We’re talking about people being in the country “illegally” , that Arizona wants to stop from voting and the Federal government wants to protect their rights?

Justice Department to Send Election Observers to Arizona as Concern Rises About Illegal Voters

The Justice Department is sending a small pack of election observers to Arizona as Hispanic groups sound the alarm over an anti-illegal immigration group’s mass e-mail seeking to recruit Election Day volunteers to help block illegal immigrants from voting. (Duh!…the key word here is “ILLEGAL”.)

Hispanic voting rights groups say the e-mail is just an attempt to intimidate minority voters. But election fraud monitors say that there are hundreds of examples of duplicate registrations, wrong information and past unregistered voters getting ballots.

Voter fraud allegations have emerged just days before the midterm in many crucial battleground states across the country, including Nevada, Pennsylvania and Florida.

The Justice Department announced Friday it would deploy more than 400 federal observers to 30 jurisdictions in 18 states ahead of Tuesday’s election. But Arizona officials say the department had already committed to sending observers to their state.

But William Gheen, executive director of Americans for Legal Immigration, said he knows why they’re coming.

“They’re sending them out because the Obama administration is doing everything it can to make sure as many illegal aliens vote in 2010 although that is a violation of federal law,” he told FoxNews.com.

Benson noted that the Justice Department sends election observers to at least one Arizona county every election. In 2006, the department sent around 30 election observers to Maricopa County, he said.

Benson said the plan had nothing to do with the firestorm elicited by Ban Amnesty Now, or B.A.N., the group that sent an e-mail entitled “6 Days to STOP Illegals from Stealing the Election!”

The e-mail said “open-border criminals” in the unions, the White House and Hispanic groups are “determined to undermine” the election.

Part of the concern for voter fraud monitors is a result of a ruling this week by a federal appeals court that stripped the state of its ability to request proof of citizenship when residents register to vote. State officials say the ruling could increase the likelihood of voter fraud but not in next week’s midterms because the deadline for registration passed before the decision.

At Arizona polls, voters must show one piece of identification that includes their name, address and photograph, such as a driver’s license. They also can provide two forms of ID with their names and address, such as a utility bill or bank statement. Voters can also provide one form a acceptable photo ID with another form of non-photo ID that includes their name and address, such as a passport and a utility bill.

Monterroso said he’s happy the Justice Department is sending poll watchers, even if it’s not in response to his group’s letter.

“I think it’s the right thing to do,” he said. “It’s better to be safe than sorry. If they have people out there, we want to make sure people vote without fear of intimidation or harassment by anyone else. ( You mean “intimidation or harassment like this? The kind the government declined to prosecute?-MD)

http://helpmejoseph.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c8ed053ef01156fbd6f63970c-pi

Fox News

 


UPDATED: 9th Circuit Unconstitutionally overturns AZ proof-of-citizenship voting rule

Comments Off on UPDATED: 9th Circuit Unconstitutionally overturns AZ proof-of-citizenship voting rule

Here we have another example of why the Founding Fathers didn’t intend for the Federal Judges to rule on State issues. The will of the people has been once again struck down by one Federal Judge. Clearly the Constitution only allows for CITZENS to vote. The ninth circuit has more cases overturned than any other circuit. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.

Let’s see what the Constitution says about who votes according to my Constitutional Lawyer friend:

Art. 1, Sec. 4, U.S. Constitution, re: the “time, place and manner” of elections. Note that Congress may by law alter such regulations as the States make. However, this clause has to do with the “time, place & manner” of elections – NOT “qualifications” of electors.

Clearly only “citizens” may vote! See 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th amendments!

15th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude…”

19th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

24th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President,……”

26th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

9th Circuit overturns AZ proof-of-citizenship voting rule

Yes, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes again.

And yes, Sandra Day O’Connor played a role in helping the liberal majority.

Facepalm:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.

The court did uphold Arizona’s photo ID requirement.

But as you know from reading this blog, the Obama Department of Social Justice has also been actively sabotaging state efforts to ensure that only U.S. citizens vote in U.S. elections.

More details on the 9th Circuit ruling:

A three-judge panel of the court said the proof-of- citizenship requirement conflicted with the intent of the federal law aiming to increase voter registration by streamlining the process with a single form and removing state- imposed obstacles to registration. (Again for the Federal law to supersede State law it must fall into the category of one of the “enumerated powers” described in the Constitution-MD)

The federal law requires applicants to “attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury” without requiring documentary proof, the panel said.

“Proposition 200 creates an additional state hurdle to registration,” the judges said.

The law was challenged by voting rights and Hispanic advocacy groups.

The decision is “a warning to anyone who seeks to deter or prevent voter participation” that the Constitution “will protect our democratic process,” Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a San Antonio-based group that argued the case, said in a statement.

As I’ve noted before: No illegal alien left behind. That’s the progs’ plan.

Mechelle Malkin

Our Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble With SCOTUS One Way or the Other

Comments Off on Our Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble With SCOTUS One Way or the Other

Finally the Constitution may be finally upheld in the near future instead of being constantly stepped on and trampled by this administration. I might add G.W. Bush was no angel as far as following the Constitution either. This would be great news if just some things on this list are addressed Constitutionally in the VERY near future by SCOTUS and they have the guts to rule according to the “original intent” of the Constitution by the Founders.

Our Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevit…

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.  Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s no… when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government.  Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.

Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.  And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.  The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’

Second,  sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue.  This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.  And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.  Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the….

A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling–that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Resist Net

U.S. Judge Delivers Setback to ObamaCare Foes

3 Comments

To those of us who understand the Constitution and the Founding Fathers “original intent”, this ruling means nothing, except that the Judge doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Actually a Federal Judge anywhere has no Constitutional authority to rule on such a case against any State, only the Supreme Court has this Constitutional Authority. Just think about it, for a Federal Judge to rule in such a case is a ‘conflict of interest’ since he is ruling on a Federal law vs. States Rights and Sovereignty …. Here’s an article that explains the “original intent” of the Founders using a case from Arizona, but the same principle applies to ALL States.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial of the Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer.

“The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers.” —Thomas Jefferson

U.S. Judge Delivers Setback to ObamaCare Foes

A federal judge in Detroit has delivered a setback to opponents of the national health care reform law passed in March, ruling that the individual insurance mandate and other aspects are constitutional.

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh ruled Thursday that Congress has the authority to mandate that individuals carry health insurance by 2014 in the Affordable Care Act.

Steeh said the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to not only regulate economic activity, but also the decisions of individuals that impact a “broader regulatory scheme.”

Robert Muise, senior lead counsel for the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center, which filed the suit on behalf of four individuals in March, said the ruling was “troubling.”

He told LifeSiteNews.com Thursday that Steeh “essentially ruled that the commerce clause authority is not limited to just economic activity, but that Congress can also regulate decisions related to economic activity.”

However, the judge cited two U.S. Supreme Court cases which broadly expanded the power of Congress to regulate economic activity as key precedent for the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

Steeh invoked the New Deal era case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942), which substantially broadened the authority of Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause. The high court agreed with the federal government that Roscoe Filburn’s decision to grow excess wheat for himself would affect interstate commerce, because the farmer would not be forced to buy extra wheat under a New Deal regulatory scheme designed to increase wheat prices during the Great Depression.

He also referred to Gonzales v. Raich (2005) in which the high court upheld Congress’s efforts to fight marijuana consumption on the basis that the “Commerce Clause affords Congress broad power to regulate even purely local matters that have substantial economic effects.”

But Muise disagreed with Steeh’s conclusions, saying that under his reading of the commerce clause “there is virtually no limit to what Congress can regulate.”

“Our founding fathers created a federal government with limited enumerated powers. If the commerce clause can be read so broadly, then that whole fundamental concept of our constitutional republic no longer exists,” said Muise.

The case was the first lawsuit filed against the national health care law, President Barack Obama’s signature legislation, in the United States.

Steeh, however, did recognize that the plaintiffs had legal standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act – a critical victory for the Thomas More Law Center, which allows them to appeal the case on its merits.

He said the plaintiff’s claim of present and future economic injury was “entirely reasonable” as they would have to start saving today in order to buy more than $8,000 in insurance per year, starting in 2014.

Additionally, Steeh denied the U.S. Justice Department’s claim that the Anti-Injunction Act prevented the plaintiffs from requesting an injunction on the law since the facts of the case “have nothing to do with the assessment or collection of taxes.”

“The case is set up nicely for an appeal, which we intend to do,” said Muise.

Thomas More Law Center plans to appeal Steeh’s decision to the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Twenty other state attorneys general have filed a separate lawsuit which is pending in Florida.

The Attorney General of Virginia has also filed a challenge to the health care law, which is pending in a federal court in Richmond.

Legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act are expected to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. (Which is where they should begin and end in the first place)

Life Site News

 

Older Entries