Federal Courts and Total Disregard for the Constitution


From:

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=d9fb0980-9c95-48e8-a493-86b965c7d5ee&url=same-sex_marriage_and_the_insignificance_of_men_and_women

“Same-Sex Marriage and the Insignificance of Men and Women
Tuesday, August 17, 2010

The left passionately supports the most remarkable and radical change in modern social history—the redefinition of marriage from male-female to include male-male and female-female.

Marriage is the building block of society. Changing its nature will therefore change society. Among other things, same-sex marriage means that because sex (now called ‘gender’) no longer matters for society’s most important institution, it no longer matters in general.

Men and women as distinct entities no longer have significance. Which is exactly what the cultural left and the gay rights movement advocate—even though the vast majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage do not realize that this is what they are supporting. Most Americans who support same-sex marriage feel (and ‘feel’ is the crucial verb here, as the change to same-sex marriage is much more felt than thought through) that gays should have the right to marry a member of their own sex. It is perceived as unfair to gays that they cannot do so. And that is true. It is unfair to gays.

But the price paid for eliminating this unfairness (And the Constitution nor anything else guarantees “fairness.” The obvious question is “Who decides fairness?” Secondly, it is an impossibility to make all things “fair” even if everyone or even a majority of people could agree on what is “fair.” The whole concept of “fairness” as promoted by the libertines is absurd. Is it “fair” that some people are attractive and some people are not? Is it “fair” that some people are tall and some people are short? The list could go on for a very long time!—my addition) that is enormous: It is the end of marriage as every society has known it. And it is more than that. It is the end of any significance to gender. Men and women are now declared interchangeable. That is why, as I noted in a recent column—the ‘T’ has been added to ‘GLB:’ ‘Transgendered’ has been added to ‘Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual.’ ‘T’ does not represent transsexuals—people who choose to change their sex.

No one is arguing against such people. ‘Transgendered’ refers to people who are members of one sex and who wish to publicly act as if they are members of the other sex, e.g., men wearing women’s clothing in public. The transgendered who publicly act out are living the cultural Left’s primary agenda: rendering gender insignificant. Your sex is what you feel it is; and if you feel both, you are both. Gender doesn’t matter.

That is why Judge Walker (The inferior federal court judge who had the audacity to rule a California Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional according to the United States Constitution!—my addition) and his supporters dismiss the argument that, all things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by a married man and woman than by two men or two women. If Walker or GLBT activists and their supporters admitted that children need a mother and father, they would be affirming that there is great significance to the differences between men and women. (And there is! That is why GOD created both men and women. Could he have created two men? Of course! Could he have created two women? Of course! He made man and woman for a reason! And man does NOT have the ability or the authority to change that which GOD has created!—my addition)

They reject that. Instead, they and Walker offer studies that purport to prove that it makes no difference whether or not a child has parents of both sexes. These academic (Questionable term for the actual “studies!”—my addition) studies are as unserious as all those academic studies of a generation ago that ‘proved’ that boys do not prefer to play with trucks and soldiers but would be just as happy to play with dolls and tea sets, and that girls do not prefer dolls and tea sets but would be just as happy to play with trucks and soldiers.

These newer ‘studies’ of same-sex parents are as valid as the earlier propaganda (EXACTLY what they are!—my addition) in the guise of scientific studies. Like the boy-girl studies, these were conducted by academics with agendas: the denial of male-female differences and the promotion of same-sex marriage. That many Americans believe these studies—studies that are in any case based on a small number of same-sex couples raising a small number of children, during a short amount of time (a couple of decades), based on the researchers’ own notions of what a healthy and successful young person is—only proves how effectively colleges and graduate schools have succeeded in teaching a generation of Americans not to think critically but to accept ‘studies’ in place of common sense. (VERY TRUE!!!—my addition)

Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?

One has to assume that most people—including supporters of same-sex marriage—would respond in the affirmative. How, then, can they support same-sex marriage? The left’s trinity—compassion, fairness and equality (As THEY define compassion, fairness, and equality—my addition)—is one reason. And ‘studies’ and ‘facts’ are another.

That is exactly how so many college graduates came to believe that boys would be happy with tea sets, and girls would be happy with trucks—compassion, fairness, equality and ‘studies.’ That is also how many Americans, including a judge who overturned a state’s constitutional amendment, have come to believe that never having a mother or never having a father makes absolutely no difference to a child.

And if mothers and fathers are interchangeable, men as men and women as women lose their significance.”

The libertines have the “right” to believe what they want. The libertines have the “right” to push their agenda. The libertines have the “right” to try to change and to change the nation in their image.

They do NOT have the right to violate the Constitution of the United States and our laws to do so. We the people have allowed this to happen. As I’ve said repeatedly, one of the major methods used to advance their unholy agenda has been and is through the federal court system. They have and are accomplishing their goals through court decisions that would never have been accepted through the legislative process or even through executive orders.

Part of the reason they are successful is because we the people do not know the Constitution of the United States and therefore do not know when the Constitution of the United States is being violated. This instance of an inferior federal court judge ruling a provision of the California Constitution unconstitutional is a prime example of this lack of knowledge. And a prime example of we the people allowing a violation of our Constitution without much resistance. Even those who protest seem to accept the violate of the Constitution in the process of their resistance.

As I’ve said repeatedly, this inferior federal court judge had and has NO jurisdiction over a State. NONE! The Constitution of the United States of America clearly states in Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2: “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.” Who has jurisdiction when a State is a party to the case? The United States Supreme Court!!! And only the United States Supreme Court until and unless the Constitution is amended!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!! It’s time, it past time to be obedient to the Constitution of the United States!!! It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Nebraska, a Court Ruling, and the Constitution


From: http://www.lifenews.com/state5358.html

“Nebraska Attorney General Won’t File Appeal to Defend Abortion Screening Law
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 18, 2010

Lincoln, Nebraska (http://www.lifenews.com/) —Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning will not file an appeal to defend new state law that helps women obtain more information about abortion risks. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland filed a lawsuit against a bill supported by pro-life advocates.

The measure is designed to help women get the kind of information on abortion’s risks and alternatives that it fails to provide.

The new law tightens informed consent requirements that help women choose abortion alternatives. It helps women understand the ‘physical, psychological, emotional, demographic or situational’ risk factors associated with an abortion.

Bruning is concerned about the time and expense of defending a law he and pro-life groups say can be improved in the next legislative session to address the points raised in the lawsuit.

His spokesman confirmed today he will agree to a permanent federal injunction against enforcement of the law.

In July, U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp issued a ruling blocking the state from enforcing the law.

In her decision, Judge Smith Camp said the evidence shows her the law may make it more difficult for women to get abortions and said she is concerned abortion practitioners may be subject to crippling lawsuits.

‘The effect of LB 594 will be to place substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles in the path of women seeking abortions in Nebraska,’ AP reported the judge saying. ‘Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence that the disclosures mandated by LB 594, if applied literally, will require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients.’

In his brief he initially filed, Bruning argued Planned Parenthood is not the proper party to bring suit because only physicians are subject to liability under the Act. He also said the officials are not properly named defendants as they have no authority to enforce LB 594.

The abortion business is challenging LB 594, the ‘Women’s Health Protection Act’ and complained the bill ‘imposes requirements that are both impossible to meet and require physicians to flood their patients with false and misleading information.’

Nebraska Right to Life executive director Julie Schmit-Albin told LifeNews.com today she concurs with Bruning.

‘LB 594’s lead lobbyist, the Nebraska Catholic Conference, agrees that legal concerns raised about the statute can be addressed by going back through the legislative process,’ she said. ‘If the Nebraska Catholic Conference and the bill’s sponsor, Senator Cap Dierks, are amenable to returning to the Legislature to address the constitutionality concerns; then Nebraska Right to Life defers to their lead on this issue.’

She said pro-life advocates in the state need to know that this decision was not made because Bruning is backing down from his pro-life principles.

‘Any suggestion that Attorney General Bruning is shirking his responsibility to defend pro-life legislation is not shared by Nebraska Right to Life,’ she said.

Schmit-Albin said she fully expects the attorney general to mount a strong defense of the other new pro-life Nebraska law which informs women of the pain an unborn child will experience during the abortion procedure. The goal of that law is to persuade mothers to choose life for their unborn children.

‘If LB 1103, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is legally challenged upon its enactment on October 15th; we are confident that the Attorney General will vigorously defend any attack on that law. LB 1103 has a solid legislative history based upon medical documentation and testimony,’ she said.

Republican Gov. Dave Heineman signed the bill into law in April after the unicameral Nebraska legislature approved it 44-5.

He said the bill, and another educating women on the pain their unborn child will feel during an abortion, is ‘important legislation for Nebraska and I want to thank both senators for their thoughtful approach to this issue.’

‘Women are suffering from avoidable physical and psychological complications that may have been prevented or minimized had they received adequate pre-abortion screening and counseling,’ Sen. Cap Dierks, who introduced LB 594, said at the time of the bill signing. ‘Women deserve better. LB 594 will ensure that women receive the appropriate standard of care.’

Abortion advocates complained about the lack of a mental health exception in the bill even though studies repeatedly show abortions cause mental health problems for women more so than women who carry their pregnancy to term.

LB 594 allows for civil lawsuits against abortion practitioners who fail to screen women for risk factors of abortion or to inform them of the potential complications of the abortion procedure.

LeRoy Carhart, who does abortions and late-term abortions at his Omaha-based abortion facility, called the bill ‘yet another piece of anti-choice legislation that does nothing but hinder a woman's access to safe, legal abortion care.’

But the Nebraska Catholic Conference says it is abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood that ‘have compromised the standard of care for counseling and screening of patients in order to reduce costs and maximize profits.’

‘In hundreds of cases each day, known risk factors for physical and psychological complications are not being detected because of negligent pre-abortion screening,’ it says.

‘Women are suffering from avoidable physical and psychological complications that may have been prevented or minimized if the proper pre-abortion screening standards had been met.’

The bill does not impose any requirements on abortion providers that are contrary to the standard of care for screening which applies to other medical procedures.”

Let’s more closely examine a section of this news story. This section reads:

“Bruning is concerned about the time and expense of defending a law he and pro-life groups say can be improved in the next legislative session to address the points raised in the lawsuit.

His spokesman confirmed today he will agree to a permanent federal injunction against enforcement of the law.

In July, U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp issued a ruling blocking the state from enforcing the law.

In her decision, Judge Smith Camp said the evidence shows her the law may make it more difficult for women to get abortions and said she is concerned abortion practitioners may be subject to crippling lawsuits.

‘The effect of LB 594 will be to place substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles in the path of women seeking abortions in Nebraska,’ AP reported the judge saying. ‘Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence that the disclosures mandated by LB 594, if applied literally, will require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients.’

In his brief he initially filed, Bruning argued Planned Parenthood is not the proper party to bring suit because only physicians are subject to liability under the Act. He also said the officials are not properly named defendants as they have no authority to enforce LB 594.”

The Attorney General of the State of Nebraska “is concerned about the time and expense of defending a law.” And he should be. As I pointed out in a previous post, the State of Arizona has already spent over 1½ million dollars to defend its law to actually enforce illegal immigration policies. The problem is, of course, that neither State should spend a dime to try to preserve their laws in an inferior federal court. The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!

“His spokesman confirmed today he will agree to a permanent federal injunction against enforcement of the law.” WHAT!!! If an inferior federal court has NO jurisdiction over a State, and it doesn’t, why is the Attorney General from the State of Nebraska agreeing to a permanent federal injunction? An inferior federal court CAN NOT issue a temporary injunction, CAN NOT issue a permanent injunction, CAN NOT issue any injunction against any State in the nation. An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!

“In July, U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp issued a ruling blocking the state from enforcing the law.

In her decision, Judge Smith Camp said the evidence shows her the law may make it more difficult for women to get abortions and said she is concerned abortion practitioners may be subject to crippling lawsuits.”

What!!! One single, unelected federal judge ordered an entire State, which has a population of almost 2 million people and which legally authorized the law, to not enforce its own law because she has some concerns about it? Where in the Constitution of the United States has she been given that authority and power? She has NOT been given that power! She does NOT have that authority! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!

“In his brief he initially filed, Bruning argued Planned Parenthood is not the proper party to bring suit because only physicians are subject to liability under the Act. He also said the officials are not properly named defendants as they have no authority to enforce LB 594” The above may be true. However, the above is also irrelevant! He should have argued that this inferior federal court has NO jurisdiction over the State of Nebraska. The law suit was filed in the wrong court!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!

Once again, the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states in Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2: “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.” Who has jurisdiction when a State is a party to the case? The United States Supreme Court!!! And only the United States Supreme Court until and unless the Constitution is amended!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!

On this Memorial Day as we remember and commemorate those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, isn’t a more meaningful commemoration one in which we return to the rule of law? One in which we uphold the Constitution of the United States? One in which we require our federal courts to obey the Constitution of the United States as each of the judges has taken an oath of office to do? Constitutionally, inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!! It’s time, it is past time to return to the rule of law!!! It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Advisory Constitutional Referendum to Protect Marriage—2011 Style


I just received this Friday so the rally scheduled for Friday has already occurred. However, we need to get involved with the petition drive to protect marriage.

This was a part of my post on November 30, 2010 when the Illinois General Assembly during a lame duck session was considering a “civil unions” bill. The bill became law because it was a lame duck session and some members had nothing to lose since they had already lost in the November elections or did not run for reelection and thus voted to pass a “civil unions” bill to legitimatize immoral homosexual behavior.

“Equality Illinois, the state’s full-time pro-homosexual lobby and political group, lists the following organizations and unions as supporters (the usual suspects—my addition) of SB 1716:

01) Access Living
02) ACLU of Illinois
03) Anti-Defamation League
04) Advocacy Council for Human Rights, Bloomington
05) Chicago Bar Association
06) Chicago Coalition of Welcoming Churches
07) Citizen Action Illinois
08) Chicago Teachers Union
09) Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights
10) Illinois Department of Human Rights (An Illinois Government agency! To them, it is a human right to engage in immoral behavior!—my addition)
11) Illinois Federation of Teachers
12) Illinois Network of Centers for Independent Living
13) Illinois Planned Parenthood Council
14) Illinois State Bar Association
15) National Association of Social Workers of Illinois
16) Northwest Suburban Now
17) People for the American Way
18) Protestants for the Common Good
19) Quad Cities for Diversity
20) Service Employees International Union
21) Unite Here, Local 1”

From: http://www.americansfortruth.com/

“Subject: New Illinois Marriage Ballot Initiative Launches Today; Rally Against ‘Civil Unions’ in Chicago!

Date: May 27, 2011 7:57 AM

Dear Readers, as you can read below, we in Illinois have a lot of work ahead of us, but defending Marriage against the radical attempt by pro-homosexuality forces to redefine it is definitely worth it! If you are in or near Chicago, come out to the rally this morning at 11:00 AM in the Loop at St. Peter's Church, 111 W. Madison Ave. And get ready to start gathering signatures so that in 2012 Illinois citizens can join those of 31 other states in making a strong STATEWIDE statement for preserving traditional Marriage. After all, Marriage cannot be recast—by liberal politicians, ‘gay’ activists or leftist judges—to be anything other than what God made it to be: a sacred union of a man and a woman. God bless you.—Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth, http://www.aftah.org/”

“Illinois Defense of Marriage Initiative Is Launched Today

http://www.aftah.org/

Rally against radical new IL ‘civil unions’ law today in Chicago

Today a coalition of Illinois pro-family and pro-life advocates launch the Illinois Defense of Marriage Initiative

(IDMI; www.DefendMarriageIllinois.org),

at a rally in Chicago’s Loop this sponsored by my friend Dick Walsh and Americans For Life

http://www.americansforlife.com/

[Rally begins at 11:00 AM at St. Peter's Church, 110 W. Madison Ave.; we will march to the Thompson Center] IDMI is a statewide effort to preserve the historic, traditional definition of marriage in the Land of Lincoln. IDMI needs to gather almost 300,000 signatures of registered Illinois voters by next April 2012—to put an Advisory Question on the 2012 ballot asking the Illinois General Assembly to pass a Constitutional Amendment stating:

“To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

To accomplish this goal—and have Illinois join the 31 other states whose citizens have stood up for real marriage at the ballot box—we aim to gather 600,000 signatures by next year. This could help us avoid an expensive legal challenge by homosexual activists and the ACLU—who will go to any extreme to deny Illinois voters an opportunity to have their voices heard on traditional marriage.

Click HERE

http://protectmarriageillinois.com/petitions/IDMI_petition_IL_blank.pdf

to download the printable citizen petition to protect marriage

Click HERE

http://protectmarriageillinois.com/petitions/IDMI_Petition_Instructions_Final%20(1).pdf

to download printable circulator instructions

Come to the Pro-Marriage Rally in Chicago Friday, May 27th at 11 a.m. in the Loop at St. Peter’s Church, 110 West Madison Ave., Chicago.”

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION AND THE STATE OF ILLINOIS!!!

State Illegal Immigration Law Upheld by the Supreme Court


This federal court case was just decided yesterday by the United States Supreme Court. It’s a important victory for the State of Arizona and we the people of the United States of American and another well deserved defeat of the Obama Administration!

From: Tea Party Nation

“HUGE E-VERIFY VICTORY IN U.S. SUPREME COURT JUST ANNOUNCED!!!
Posted by Debra Wippert on May 26, 2011 at 11:27am

The Supreme Court decided 5-to-3 that states can punish employers who violate a mandatory E-Verify law. The court challenge was led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against Arizona’s 2007 law that suspends a business’s license if they don’t use E-Verify to check the eligibility of all new hires.

‘Because we conclude that the State’s licensing provisions fall squarely within the federal statute’s savings clause and that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not preempted,’ Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-115.pdf

(The above link provides a “Syllabus” of the decision. It is 69 pages long—my addition.)

Arizona became the first state in the country to pass a mandatory E-Verify bill that requires all employers to use the employment verification system. Since then, Mississippi and South Carolina have followed suit, while many more states have passed laws requiring some businesses to use E-Verify.

The ruling is a big loss for the nation’s major business groups and the Obama Administration who all opposed these types of laws.

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas joined parts of the Chief Justice’s opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Sotomayor filed a separate dissenting opinion. Justice Kagan removed herself from the case since she filed a brief in support of the U.S. Chamber’s argument while working in the Obama Administration’s Justice Department.” (TELLING!—my addition)

In one sense this decision is very encouraging. The Arizona law was a State enforcement of the federal law and it was held to be Constitutional and it should have been. States have the duty and responsibility to pass laws to protect the people of the State. The States did not surrender that responsibility to the federal government just because the federal government also has responsibility in this area. This decision bodes well for a similar decision for the illegal immigration law passed by Arizona in 2010 which was also modeled after a federal law.

What is discouraging is that the court case began after the State of Arizona passed the law in 2007. That’s four years ago! Even the 9th Appellate Court, the most liberal Appellate Court in the nation, allowed the Arizona law in its decision. And yet, three of the Supreme Court Justices, all liberals who often ignore the plain language of the Constitution, sided against the State of Arizona. A fourth Justice no doubt would have if she had not withdrawn because of her previous involvement in the case when she opposed the law for the federal government. Four of our nine Justices give little regard to the Constitution of the United States.

Further, the whole process followed is a blatant violation of the Constitution of the United States. The federal District and Appellate Courts should NOT have been involved in the case; should NOT have heard the case. The Constitution in Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2 clearly requires “In all Cases … in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Why are the federal courts continually violating the Constitution of the United States? Why aren’t we the people demanding that the federal courts stop violating the Constitution? Why isn’t Congress impeaching and convicting those judges who are violating their oath of office?

This case should NOT have taken four years. This case should have started and ended in the Supreme Court of the United States.

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!! It’s time, it past time to be obedient to the Constitution of the United States!!! It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Abortion is MURDER


I received the following Monday and you know I’m going to post it.

“A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: ‘Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I’m pregnant again. I don’t want kids so close together.’

So the doctor said: ‘Ok and what do you want me to do?’

She said: ‘I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.’

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: ‘I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.’

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: ‘You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.’

The lady was horrified and said: ‘No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!’

‘I agree’, the doctor replied. ‘But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.’

The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.

He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that’s already been born and one that’s still in the womb.

The crime is the same! (The sin is the same!—my addition)

If you agree, please SHARE. Together we can help save precious lives!

‘Love says I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person. Abortion says I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself …’

Jesus sacrificed Himself for the good of sinners! (Who are all of us!—my addition) That’s perfect love!
—unknown”

Life begins at conception. That is an undisputable scientific, biological fact. The first baby was conceived, went through the GOD created stages necessary to develop into a child, was delivered from the womb, and continued to grow as a child outside of the womb. If the second child who has already been conceived is NOT MURDERED within the womb, that second child will also go through the GOD created stages necessary to develop into a child, will be delivered from the womb, and will continue to grow as a child outside of the womb. The same process, if not interfered with, occurs every single time. EVERY SINGLE TIME! If it is MURDER to kill an innocent child outside the womb, and it is! Then, it is also MURDER to kill an innocent child within the womb. AND IT IS!!! No amount of rationalizing, no amount of distorting the truth, no amount of lying will change that truth!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Stimulus Money Goes to Businesses that Owe Back Taxes


Since I haven’t posted for a week, I have received a few items that I want to post before going back to the federal budget. I will return to the budget series soon. I actually heard about this material today while listening to Rush. Our federal government at work! And yet, the Administration wants to spend even more money. I have taken some material directly from the report and have provided a link to the PDF of the report.

From: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/23/tax-delinquents-collected-billions-obamas-economic-stimulus-plan-report-shows/

“Tax Delinquents Collected Billions From Obama’s Economic Stimulus Plan, Report Shows
Published May 23, 2011
Associated Press

WASHINGTON—Thousands of companies that cashed in on President Obama’s economic stimulus package owed the government millions in unpaid taxes, congressional investigators have found.

The Government Accountability Office, in a report being released Tuesday, said at least 3,700 government contractors and nonprofit organizations that received more than $24 billion from the stimulus effort owed $757 million in back taxes as of Sept. 30, 2009, the end of the budget year.

The report said the tax delinquents accounted for nearly 6 percent of the 63,000 contractors and grantees examined, and it cautioned that the real number might be higher because the known tax debt does not measure such factors as income underreporting.

Among the examples was an engineering firm that received a $100,000 stimulus act contract but owed $6 million in taxes. The IRS called it ‘an extreme case of noncompliance.’ A social services nonprofit that received more than $1 million in stimulus funds owed taxes of $2 million.”

“‘It is a matter of basic fairness that those who take government money should be required to pay their taxes like everyone else,’ said Sen. Tom Coburn, the panel’s top Republican. ‘That such a huge amount of the stimulus money went to known tax cheats should be a wake-up call for Congress.’

The stimulus package, enacted in February 2009, funneled some $821 billion into the recession-hit economy. Of that, about $275 billion was designated for contracts and grants, of which nearly $200 billion had been paid out as of March 25, 2011.”

From: http://www.gao.gov/

PDF of Report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11485.pdf

“At least 3,700 Recovery Act contract and grant recipients—including prime recipients, subrecipients, and vendors—are estimated to owe more than $750 million in known unpaid federal taxes as of September 30, 2009, and received over $24 billion in Recovery Act funds. This represented nearly 5 percent of the approximately 80,000 contractors and grant recipients in the data from www.recovery.gov as of July 2010 that GAO reviewed.

Federal law does not prohibit the awarding of contracts or grants to entities because they owe federal taxes and does not permit IRS to disclose taxpayer information, including unpaid federal taxes, to federal agencies unless the taxpayer consents. The estimated amount of known unpaid federal taxes is likely understated because IRS databases do not include amounts owed by recipients who have not filed tax returns or understated their taxable income and for which IRS has not assessed tax amounts due. In addition, GAO’s analysis does not include Recovery Act contract and grant recipients who are noncompliant with or not subject to Recovery Act reporting requirements.”

Among other information, the following is given: “Recovery Act Contract and Grant Recipients’ Known Unpaid Taxes by Tax Type

1) Other taxes owed—18% of total—$133 million dollars

2) Payroll taxes—27% of total—$207 million

3) Corporate income tax—55% of total—$417 million”

Total: $757 million owed in taxes from companies receiving stimulus money.

“Employers are subject to civil and criminal penalties if they do not remit payroll taxes to the federal government. When an employer withholds taxes from an employee’s wages, the employer is deemed to have a responsibility to hold these amounts ‘in trust’ for the federal government until the employer makes a federal tax deposit in that amount. When these withheld amounts are not forwarded to the federal government, the employer is liable for these amounts as well as the employer’s matching Federal Insurance Contribution Act contributions for Social Security and Medicare. Individuals within the business (e.g., corporate officers) may be held personally liable for the withheld amounts not forwarded and assessed a civil monetary penalty known as a trust fund recovery penalty (TFRP). Failure to remit payroll taxes can also be a criminal felony offense ….”

The report discussed fifteen case studies. The fifteen case studies include five construction companies, one electrical services company, two engineering services companies, two health care nonprofits, one municipality, one security company, two social services nonprofits, and one technical services company. The summary of three of those fifteen are:

“Case Study—Nature of Work—Total Recovery Act awards—Known unpaid taxes

1) Case 9———Health care———over $100,000—————over $1,000,000

Nonprofit organization owes mainly payroll taxes for over 25 periods since the late 1990s. Nonprofit organization was also delinquent in filing quarterly tax returns for most of those periods.

IRS established an installment agreement for the nonprofit organization to pay approximately $1,000 per month toward over $1 million in unpaid taxes. The agreement defaulted after the organization missed required monthly payments. However, IRS subsequently reinstated the repayment agreement.

IRS filed federal tax liens against this organization.”

Page 15 of April 2011, “Recovery Act: Thousands of Recovery Act Contract and Grant Recipients Owe Hundreds of Millions in Federal Taxes”

2) “Case 10———Health care———over $100,000—————over $4,000,000

Nonprofit organization owes payroll taxes primarily from the mid-2000s.

Nonprofit organization stated that it did not make timely federal tax deposits because state and federal agencies were slow on their payments.

IRS established an installment agreement for the nonprofit organization for monthly payments of about $100,000. The nonprofit organization subsequently defaulted.

On multiply occasions, the nonprofit organization submitted dishonored checks to IRS for payment of federal taxes.

According to IRS records, at the time the nonprofit organization was not paying its federal taxes, the president of the organization was paid an annual salary that was considered very high for the area that it serves.

Nonprofit organization proposed a long-term offer in compromise of about 2 million dollars to be paid in installments over approximately ten years. IRS denied the offer in compromise because the offered terms were not acceptable and a long-term agreement was not in the government’s best interests.

IRS assessed TFRP’s on over five individuals. Most of these individuals have appealed the assessments.

Federal government awarded the nonprofit organization hundreds of thousands of dollars in nonstimulus funds in the late 2000s.

IRS filed federal tax liens against this organization.”

Page 16 of April 2011, “Recovery Act: Thousands of Recovery Act Contract and Grant Recipients Owe Hundreds of Millions in Federal Taxes”

3) “Case 13———Social services———over $1,000,000—————over $800,000

Nonprofit organization primarily owes payroll taxes from the mid to late 2000s.

The nonprofit organization’s major sources of income are Medicare and Medicaid.

Nonprofit organization submitted a request for an installment agreement of over $10,000 a month. IRS was in the process of reviewing the request to determine if it could be granted.

Federal government awarded the nonprofit organization millions of dollars in nonstimulus funds in the late 2000s.

IRS filed federal tax liens against this organization.”

Page 17 of April 2011, “Recovery Act: Thousands of Recovery Act Contract and Grant Recipients Owe Hundreds of Millions in Federal Taxes”

The basic problem with all this is that the federal government has expanded far beyond its authority and powers as provided by the Constitution. Consequently, the government is so huge and spends so much money that the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing and ultimately no one is held ACCOUNTABLE!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Federalism, Illegal Immigration, the Budget, and the United States Constitution—part 5


My mistake! This was my planned Saturday post. I thought I had posted it Saturday afternoon. Obviously, I did not! I’m posting it today. Sorry for the confusion.

I haven’t been able to get to my blogger site since last Tuesday. I did this morning, obviously. I don’t know if not having this posted a week ago Saturday was because of problems blogger had or if I just forgot to post it. Either way, I’m posting it today and this will be the last post in this series. THANKS for your patience. Hopefully everything is fixed now!

Today, I e-mailed the following letter to the Minuteman PAC. One of the things that we, the people must do is to continue to pressure the federal government in all branches to obey the Constitution of the United States.

Petition Request to the Minuteman PAC

To: http://www.minutemanpac.com/

“I write a political blog at http://christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/. The U.S. Constitution states:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

Both of the federal lawsuits against Arizona’s and Utah’s illegal immigration laws are required to begin and end in the Supreme Court. They are not to begin in an inferior federal court.

I have signed your current petition. Why don’t you start a second petition to demand that all federal court cases where a State is a party begin in the Supreme Court where they are Constitutionally required to begin? Furthermore, inferior court judges who violate this provision of the Constitution should be impeached and convicted for violating their oath of office.

Donald L. Vance”

Because of a word limitation for e-mails, I could not send the enter letter. The original letter included the following:

To: http://www.minutemanpac.com/

“I write a political blog at http://christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/. I am currently writing a series on “Federalism, Illegal Immigration, the Budget, and the United States Constitution.” I have pointed out that the U.S. Constitution states:

The United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

Both of the federal lawsuits against Arizona’s and Utah’s illegal immigration laws are required to begin and end in the Supreme Court. They are not to begin in an inferior federal court.

I have signed your current petition. Why don’t you start a second petition to demand that all federal court cases where a State is a party begin in the Supreme Court where they are Constitutionally required to begin? Furthermore, inferior court judges who violate this provision of the Constitution should be impeached and convicted for violating their oath of office.

Constitutionally, the term of office for a federal judge is not for life. The term of office is “during good Behavior.” This provision is found in Article III, Section 1. A few impeachments will make inferior federal court judges think twice about violating the Constitution! Convictions won’t be necessary for changing behavior and such impeachments will have a side benefit of making libertine Democrats look ridiculous if they vote against conviction knowing the judge has deliberately violated the Constitution.

Thank you and thank you for your constant efforts to stop this current Administration from ruining the nation. Let’s TAKE BACK THE NATION!

Sincerely,

Donald L. Vance”

Then, I also sent this additional e-mail to http://www.minutemanpac.com/

“I write a political blog at http://christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/. Earlier today I sent you an e-mail about a possible petition. Because of your word limitation, I reduced the size of the e-mail. I wanted you to know I’m posting both that e-mail and my original e-mail on my blog this afternoon.

Thank you

Donald L. Vance”

Newt Gingrich for President?


I received the following e-mail this weekend. I was planning on such a post and so am posting it today. I do plan to return to the federal budget.

From: Tea Party Nation

“Say goodbye to another RINO (Republican in Name Only—my addition)
Posted by Judson Phillips on May 15, 2011 at 1:56pm in Tea Party Nation Forum

What a weekend. We have had one major potential GOP candidate, Mike Huckabee pull out. Another major RINO has self-destructed.

The other major RINO is Newt Gingrich.

Newt has not had a good start to his campaign. He flip-flopped several times on Libya and then tried to explain previous marital infidelities as a consequence of his passion for politics. Well, if he had left the last two words off, he might have done better.

Now, Newt has appeared on Meet the Press, or as Rush Limbaugh likes to call it, ‘Meet the Depressed.’

While on the show, he slammed Paul Ryan’s ideas for Medicare reform. He said, ‘I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,’

Instead of trying to work a plan to save a program that is broke, broken, and bereft of any possibility of success, Newt simply calls for ‘a national conversation’ about how to improve Medicare mostly be eliminating ‘waste, fraud and abuse.’

Washington brain rot has set in and has claimed another casualty. It is official; Newt is now a political zombie. He is lacking consciousness, yet he continues to stroll around, trying to feast on the flesh of the GOP faithful.

What conservative refers to anything another conservative offers as ‘radical?’ We conservatives may disagree at times, but radical? Did Nancy Pelosi channel her progressive agenda into him while they cozied up on that global warming couch?

When are the nimrods in Washington, including Newt, going to realize that we do not want ‘conversations’ about problems? We have had conversations about Medicare and Social Security for the last thirty years. They have not solved the problem. Social Security and Medicare’s insolvency problems are getting worse and now the date of their insolvency is now sooner rather than later.

Perhaps most stunning of all, Newt the zombie is saying he favors a variation of the individual mandate. He said, ‘I believe all of us have a responsibility to pay for healthcare.’ (And we do! For ourselves! For our families! Not through the government! Not for people who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions! As I’ve said many times, forcing someone to do something by law is not charity. It is coercion! We can and do help people through charity. “Gifts” from the government is NOT charity! It is vote buying!—my addition)

Perhaps the obvious question is, does Newt know which party he is running for? Is Newt now just Obama-lite?

Perhaps this is all political calculus on Newt’s part. He figures he will not get the Tea Party vote and Romney has the RINO vote sewed up, so he might as well go for the liberal vote.

On May 9th, I blogged and said Newt would be the first man out. Since Huckabee never entered the race, he has not beat Newt out. Watching someone who was once a conservative self-destruct is not a pretty sight. If it were not for Newt, Republicans might have never taken over the House of Representatives.

Unfortunately for Newt, Washington brain rot has set in and he now resembles a creature from the political version of ‘Night of the Living Dead.’

In the zombie movies, the only way to get rid of them was to shoot them. Fortunately for Newt, we do not have to shoot him. All we have to do is ignore him, not contribute to his campaign and let his political aspirations collapse.

Newt, go back to Georgia. Perhaps your Washington brain rot will heal in time.”

I have not yet decided who I will support for President. In some cases, I have decided who I will not support. I will not support anyone who was a candidate in 2010. They have already lost once and I’ve already given reasons why I wouldn’t support each of them in the 2008 primary including particularly John McCain—who was the mass media’s candidate for the Republicans. Of course, they switched to Obama once John McCain won the nomination. He was the biggest RINO in the Republican field. Mit Romney was the second biggest RINO in the Republican field. Let’s NOT have a RINO This time! Sarah Palin will not receive my support as she defied the Tea Party movement by supporting John McCain in his 2010 Senate primary—supporting a RINO out of false loyalty.

I have said all along that value issues are the most important issues in this campaign. The financial problems of this nation are a symptom of the problem not the cause of our problems. The three most important issues are stopping the MURDER of unborn babies, stopping the advancement of the homosexual agenda, and returning to judicial restraint since it has been federal court decisions that are directly responsible for much of our legalized moral decay.

Even if I knew nothing about Newt Gingrich’s political positions, I would not support him.

From http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/a/gingrichn.htm

“The Marriages of Newt Gingrich
Married to Jackie Battley, Marianne Ginther, Callista Bisek
By Sheri & Bob Stritof, About.com Guide

Currently married to Callista Bisek, Newt Gingrich has been married three times. His two previous marriages ended in divorce after he had affairs with younger women and when his wives were seriously ill. Here is information about Newt Gingrich’s three marriage relationships.”

To me as a Christian, the most important vow one can take is the vow to be obedient to GOD, to serve GOD. The second is the marriage vow. Politically, it is the vow to uphold the Constitution. Newt Gingrich has violated his marriage vows not once, but twice. He lacks Biblical self-control! Who can trust him to keep his vow to uphold the constitution?

He says he has repented. And he may have. That is between him and GOD. However, his repentance does NOT mean he is an acceptable candidate for President.

Would I oppose any candidate who is divorced? No! There is a Biblical grounds for divorce which it seems both of his earlier wives had but he did NOT. If his wives had the affairs and he was innocent of any affairs and his wives divorced him, I would not hold the divorces against him.

However, from all reports, he was the one who had the affairs. His judgment was lacking. His self-control was lacking. His vow was broken by him! Even if he has repented, that does not qualify him to be President!

Ron Paul also will not receive my support. His position on the economy is good but as a libertarian he lacks the necessary understanding of the requirements of a Commander in Chief to defend the nation. Also, many libertarians echo the nonsense that the government should not be involved in the MURDER of unborn babies one way or the other. However, if government will not protect the most helpless, innocent members of our society by preventing their wanton MURDERS, what good is the government? What purpose exists for the government? And that’s the major problem with libertarians; they are one step away from anarchists! And governments do have a GOD given purpose—to protect the people of their jurisdiction both internally and externally. Ron Paul will do neither very well if he follows his natural libertarian instincts!

I’m still waiting for the full array of candidates. At this time, the closest candidate to what I am looking for both values wise and policy wise, with the necessary political experience to lead the nation (And don’t kid yourselves, political experience IS important to lead in Washington D.C.), is Rick Santorum. He comes closest, at this point, with what I’m looking for and what the county needs.

I’m leaning in his direction but waiting for more possibilities to emerge. We conservative Christians MUST come up with one candidate to support and work for or we will end up with another unbearable choice—we don’t want another John McCain-Barack Hussein Obama contest!

Federalism, Illegal Immigration, the Budget, and the United States Constitution—part 4


From: http://investmentwatchblog.com/barack-obama-is-wrong-18-facts-which-prove-that-illegal-immigration-is-an-absolute-nightmare-for-the-u-s-economy/

“Barack Obama Is Wrong: 18 Facts Which Prove That Illegal Immigration Is An Absolute Nightmare For The U.S. Economy
May 11th, 2011

Barack Obama has declared that ‘immigration reform is an economic imperative’, and is promising to do his best to get an immigration bill pushed through Congress this year.

But will ‘legalizing’ all of the illegal immigration that has taken place over the last several decades improve the struggling U.S. economy or will it actually make our economic problems worse? One of the favorite tricks of top politicians is to promise that the economy is going to improve if we just support what it is that they are currently pushing. Hopefully the Americans people will not buy the nonsense that Obama is spewing. The truth is that Barack Obama is wrong about the economic impact of illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants don’t do jobs that Americans ‘don’t want’ to do. A million Americans recently showed up to apply for a job at McDonald’s. That is how desperate Americans are for work these days. Please don’t try to tell me that there aren’t millions of Americans out there that would not pick fruit for minimum wage. The millions upon millions of illegal immigrants in this country are stealing jobs, they are depressing wages in a whole host of industries and they are a huge factor in the erosion of the middle class. Millions of middle class American families can’t afford to provide for their families anymore and are losing their homes, drowning in debt or going bankrupt.

Rather than what Barack Obama is proposing (which is to essentially ‘legalize’ illegal immigration), we need an immigration policy that makes sense and that protects American jobs.

Before we go any further, it is important for me to make a few points. It is not a bad thing that people want to come to this nation from another country. A lot of people that want to come to the United States are really hard working and have really solid character. This nation has a long tradition of immigrants arriving to build a better life here. At different times this country will need different levels of immigration, but we will always need new immigrants. People on one side of a border are not more ‘valuable’ than people on another side of a border. There is a reason why our founding fathers believed that ‘all men are created equal’. In every nation on earth there are really wonderful people. We should love all men, women and children no matter where they were born and no matter what they look like. God created us all and He loves us all dearly.

The reason I went into all that is because of the way politics is played in America in 2011. The moment that anyone suggests that there might be a problem with illegal immigration they are immediately branded with all kinds of horrible labels. To put a horrible label on someone that is completely and totally untrue just to score political points is absolutely despicable.

The funny thing is that some of the organizations that denounce others the loudest should actually be examining themselves. For example, one of the largest pro-illegal immigration organizations is called ‘La Raza’, which literally means ‘The Race’ (as if we all couldn’t figure it out). Perhaps it is time for them to come up with a new name.

Look, we all have to start learning to love each other. If not, our society is going to continue to break down.

A majority of the American people (yes, that is what the polls show) are not against illegal immigration because they ‘hate’ another group of people. Rather, they just want all immigrants to go through the ‘front door’ and they want the government to be sensitive to changing economic conditions.

The sad truth is that the U.S. government has absolutely refused to secure the U.S. border with Mexico for decades, and this has allowed millions upon millions of criminals, drug dealers and gang members to cross freely into the United States. In addition, by refusing to secure the border we have allowed new diseases to spread unchecked into this country.

Meanwhile, the law abiding people that would like to get into this country legally are put through absolute hell. I used to practice law and I have filled out immigration forms. The process is a complete and total nightmare.

So we have been making it really easy for law breakers to sneak in the back door of our country and we have been making it really hard for law abiding people to get in the front door.

What in the world could be wrong about wanting to fix that?

Once many illegal immigrants arrive in the United States they either try to make a living legally (by directly competing with blue collar American workers for jobs and driving their wages down) or illegally by selling drugs or being involved in other kinds of criminal activity.

Apparently Barack Obama believes that this kind of behavior should be rewarded with a ‘path to citizenship’.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants pay absolutely no federal or state income taxes and they never intend to. At the same time, they seem more than happy to take advantage of the free social services and benefits offered to them. In fact, stories of how ‘good’ life in America is just encourages more and more immigrants to come to the United States illegally.

We need an immigration policy that insists that everyone come in through the front door.

Is there anyone out there that cannot agree with that? (Barack Hussein Obama! Most Democrats in Congress!—my addition)

We also need to set immigration levels that our economy can handle.

Right now our economy is struggling. Millions upon millions of Americans are out of work. 44 million Americans are on food stamps. 47 million Americans are living in poverty. We just can’t take in a whole lot of extra workers right now.

You would think that would just be common sense.

But instead, Barack Obama wants to grant amnesty to all of the illegal immigrants that are already here and put them on a path to citizenship.

Wow—do you think that might embolden millions more illegal immigrants to come flooding in? (It did when we tried this once before!—my addition)

Barack Obama is against a border fence. He says we don’t need it.

Meanwhile, thousands more illegal immigrants pour into this country every single day.

Barack Obama supports all of the ‘sanctuary cities’ that have openly declared that they are not going to enforce our immigration laws.

So where do you think illegal immigrants are going to flock to? The truth is that word about these ‘sanctuary cities’ gets around really fast. If you live in one of these cities, then you probably know all about it.

If Barack Obama gets his way, nobody will be breaking our immigration laws because essentially there will not be any more immigration laws.

Not that George W. Bush was any better. He was an absolute disaster on immigration as well.

The truth is that our immigration policy has been slowly eroding the U.S. middle class for many decades.

But according to Barack Obama, we desperately need to implement his ‘immigration reform’ plan for the good of the middle class ….

From: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/05/obama-promotes-his-version-of-comprehensive-immigration-reform/1

‘One way to strengthen the middle class in America is to reform the immigration system, so that there is no longer a massive underground economy that exploits a cheap source of labor while depressing wages for everybody else.’

What a joke. The reality is that illegal immigration hurts that U.S. middle class and it is severely damaging to the U.S. economy. Because of illegal immigration, every single day wages are lost, taxes don’t get collected, hospitals provide ‘free health care’ for which they are never paid, huge criminal gangs of foreigners are roaming our streets and the cost of providing social services to illegal aliens is slowly bankrupting state and local governments.

The following are 18 facts which prove that illegal immigration is an absolute nightmare for the U.S. economy ….

1) Illegal immigrants take jobs away from American citizens. According to a review of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data, legal and illegal immigrants gained over a million additional jobs between 2008 and 2010 even as millions of American citizens were losing their jobs during that same time period.

2) The majority of our immigrants now sneak in through the ‘back door’ that the federal government purposely leaves open. Thanks to the negligence of the federal government, far more people move into the United States illegally than come in through the legal immigration process. This has got to change. (True! Why else would both Arizona and Utah fell compelled to pass their own laws dealing with illegal immigrants!—my addition)

3) Illegal immigrants generally don’t pay taxes. The vast majority of illegal aliens would never even dream of paying income taxes, but Mexicans living in America send billions upon billions of dollars out of the United States and back to Mexico every single year.

4) Although illegal aliens pay next to nothing in taxes, they have no problem receiving tens of billions of dollars worth of free education benefits, free health care benefits, free housing assistance and free food stamp benefits. Many communities in the United States now openly advertise that they will help illegal aliens with these things.

5) The cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants is staggering. It is estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants.

6) Thanks to illegal immigration, California’s overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse. Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the last decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving. As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded. This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths. Sadly, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people.

7) It was estimated that there were approximately 7.7 million illegal aliens employed by U.S. employers during 2008. How much better would our economy look if all of those jobs were being filled by American workers?

8) The region along the U.S./Mexico border is now an open war zone. Just across the U.S. border, the city of Juarez, Mexico is considered to be one of the most dangerous cities on the entire planet because of the brutal drug war being waged there. In fact, Juarez has now become the murder capital of the western hemisphere. Much of that violence has begun to spill over into areas of the southwestern United States.

For example, a while back NPR (National Public Radio—my addition) described one incident in the Juarez Valley that involved American citizens….

‘A couple of weeks ago, gunmen in the Juarez Valley killed the Mexican relative of a Fort Hancock high school student. When the student’s family in Fort Hancock heard about it, they crossed the border at 10 a.m. to see the body, and took the student with them.

‘By 10:30, they had stabbed the relatives that went with him, which included his grandparents, with an ice pick,’ says school superintendent Jose Franco. ‘My understanding is that the gentleman is like 90 years old, and they poked his eyes out with an ice pick. I believe those people are still in intensive care here in a hospital in the U.S.’’

9) A substantial percentage of young illegal immigrants end up in gangs. U.S. authorities say that there are now over 1 million members of criminal gangs operating inside the United States. According to federal statistics, these 1 million gang members are responsible for up to 80% of the violent crimes committed in the U.S. each year. Latino gangs made up primarily of illegal aliens are responsible for much of this violence.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, some of the most notorious gangs in the country are made up almost entirely of illegal immigrants ….

‘Gang investigators in Virginia estimate that 90% of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal immigrants.’

10) The ‘18th Street Gang’ is certainly giving MS-13 a run for their money. It is believed that the 18th Street Gang has thousands of members in the city of Los Angeles alone. In fact, the gang has become so notorious that there are even rumors that some police officers in Los Angeles simply will not venture into the areas most heavily controlled by the 18th Street gang.

The following is what Wikipedia says about the 18th Street Gang ….

‘A US Justice Department report from 2009 estimates that the 18th Street gang has a membership of some 30,000 to 50,000 with 80% of them being illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America and is active in 44 cities in 20 states. Its main source of income is street-level distribution of cocaine and marijuana and, to a lesser extent, heroin and methamphetamine. Gang members also commit assault, auto theft, carjacking, drive-by shootings, extortion, homicide, identification fraud, and robbery.’

11) The ‘drug war’ in northern Mexico is one gigantic bloodbath. The Mexican government says that as many as 28,000 people have been slaughtered by the drug cartels since 2007. A very significant percentage of those deaths have happened in areas right along the U.S. border, and yet our federal government still sees no reason to get serious about border security.

12) It is an open secret that Mexican drug cartels are openly conducting military operations inside the United States. The handful of border patrol agents that we have guarding the border are massively outgunned and outmanned.

One agent who patrols the border and who asked to remain anonymous told Fox News the following ….

‘To say that this area is out of control is an understatement.’

A different federal agent put it this way in an email to Fox News ….

‘Every night we’re getting beaten like a piñata at a birthday party by drug, alien smugglers.’

13) Federal border officials say that Mexican drug cartels have not only set up shop on U.S. soil, but they are actually maintaining lookout bases in strategic locations in the hills of southern Arizona. If you go to Arizona today, there are actually signs that have been put up by the federal government warning American citizens not to venture into certain wilderness routes that are used by Mexican drug cartels to bring in drugs.

14) The drug war being waged on both sides of the border is so violent that it is almost unimaginable. For example, one very prominent Mexican assassin known as ‘the soupmaker’ has confessed that he made approximately 300 bodies disappear by dissolving them in acid baths. But right now there is essentially nothing that is preventing the next ‘soupmaker’ from crossing the U.S. border and moving into your neighborhood.

15) Arizona police are being openly warned by the Mexican drug cartels that if they try to interfere with the drug traffic in their area that they will be ‘taken out’ by drug cartel snipers.

16) While the U.S. military endlessly hunts for ‘members of al-Qaeda’ in the caves of Afghanistan and on the streets of Iraqi cities, a very real threat has been building just south of the border. Over the past 15 to 20 years, Hezbollah has set up operations all over Mexico, Central America and South America. Hezbollah is reportedly making a lot of money in the drug trade and in trafficking illegal aliens. Sadly, our government is largely ignoring this.

17) Each year, it costs the states billions of dollars to incarcerate illegal immigrant criminals that should have never been allowed into the country in the first place. It is estimated that illegal aliens make up approximately 30 percent of the population in federal, state and local prisons and that the total cost of incarcerating them is more than $1.6 billion annually.

18) The drug cartels and the gangs always seem to be a couple steps ahead of our agents along the border. Approximately 75 tunnels along the U.S. border with Mexico have been discovered by law enforcement authorities in the last four years alone.

How much do you think all of this crime, gang violence and drug cartel activity is costing our economy?

Why won’t the federal government do what the Constitution requires and secure the border? (Instead of Unconstitutionally suing States that are attempting to do what the federal government refuses to do!—my addition)

Oh, but Barack Obama says that he has a plan.

He says that he is going to save the day. (It would be the first time!—my addition)

The following is how Barack Obama describes his plan …

‘We are not going to ship back 12 million people, we’re not going to do it as a practical matter. We would have to take all our law enforcement that we have available and we would have to use it and put people on buses, and rip families apart, and that’s not who we are, that’s not what America is about. So what I’ve proposed … is you say we’re going to bring these folks out of the shadows. We’re going to make them pay a fine, they are going to have to learn English, they are going to have to go to the back of the line … but they will have a pathway to citizenship over the course of 10 years.’ (We never had to ship back that many illegal immigrants. It is a FALSE premise! If we cut off the jobs, if we cut off the benefits, if we cut off the access to the United States, they will have no reason to stay in the United States and will leave seeking opportunity elsewhere. Maybe even in their own countries!—my addition)

So how many illegal immigrants do you think are going to step forward to pay a fine?

One percent?

How many of them do you think are going to show up for English classes?

Who is going to make them do it? (Very GOOD question! Certainly NOT this Administration!—my addition)

Obama?

Are we going to have law enforcement officials running around trying to collect fines from illegal immigrants and trying to get them to attend their English lessons?

According to Obama, the millions upon millions of illegal immigrants that are in this country are going to be glad to willingly do the following ….

1) Admit they broke the law
2) Pay back taxes and a fine
3) Learn English
4) Be willing to undergo background checks before starting the legalization process

Those four points are taken directly from Obama’s plan.

So what are illegal immigrants going to do when this plan is passed?

99 percent of them are going to laugh and they are just going to keep on doing what they have been doing.

Large numbers of illegal immigrants are already enjoying the ‘high life’ in the dozens of ‘sanctuary cities’ across the United States.

The following is how the Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC defines sanctuary cities ….

‘Generally, sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens—so illegal aliens often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and programs too.’

Sounds like a good deal to me.

Can I sign up for that plan?

After all, who wouldn’t want to earn all income tax-free and yet enjoy unlimited government services?

Today we are being told that we need to make life as comfortable as possible for the waves of illegal immigrants that are coming in. In fact, Barack Obama says that all of us need to make sure that our kids are learning how to speak Spanish ….

‘I don’t understand when people are going around worrying about, we need to have English only. They want to pass a law, we just, we want English only … Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English, I agree with this. But understand this, instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English, they’ll learn English, you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.’

All of this is utter insanity.

The cold, hard reality of the matter is that we have tightly secured the border between South Korea and North Korea for over 50 years and we could secure our own borders if we really wanted to.

But instead, we continue to leave our border with Mexico completely wide open. Thousands of criminals, gang members and drug pushers continue to come in completely unchecked every single day.

Meanwhile, the rest of us have to subject ourselves to some of the most humiliating ‘security measures’ imaginable before we are even allowed to get on to an airplane.

It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, does it?

Original source: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/barack-obama-is-wrong-18-facts-which-prove-that-illegal-immigration-is-an-absolute-nightmare-for-the-u-s-economy”

The above material had numerous links to other material including at least one link for each of the eighteen points. However, I couldn’t transfer them. The website article, of course, provides the links if you want to check them out.

It is time, it is past time, that the Constitution of the United States be obeyed as written!!! It is time, it is past time, to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

T.A.: If you really mean it, “Good-bye.” That was clever! GOD bless you and family!

Federalism, Illegal Immigration, the Budget, and the United States Constitution—part 3


I thought this posted Thursday as planned, but the system was being serviced and didn’t post.

From: The Tea Party Nation

“Obama and the moat
Posted by Judson Phillips on May 11, 2011 at 11:26am in Tea Party Nation Forum

It’s back, just in case you have not heard. Amnesty is back.

Obama is pushing ‘comprehensive immigration reform,’ or as we all know, that means Amnesty.

Obama went to El Paso yesterday where he did what he does best. He lied. He claims he has been enforcing border security. His definition of border security must include telling Border Patrol Agents to engage heavily armed drug traffickers will bean bag guns, trying to turn illegals south, rather than arresting them, creating a virtual halt to deportations of non-violent criminals and sending Arizona signs to warn Americans that because of drug traffickers from Mexico, crossing into the United States illegally, parts of the United States are now too dangerous for them.

If Obama had really wanted to peg the irony meter, he could have done this speech in Arizona, but perhaps that would have been too much for even him. Instead, he mocked conservatives by saying Republicans wanted to build a moat and then put alligators in it.

No, Obama. We simply want the laws enforced and American lives protected.

The good news is it appears Obama is not that serious about pushing this issue. In a meeting a few days ago at the White House, illegal immigration enablers and activists were pushing Obama to use the powers of the Executive Branch to create a de facto Amnesty, which is something, so far, Obama seems unwilling to do.

Obama did seek to demonize the GOP and shore up his base among the left wing groups that support Amnesty and hate America. Unfortunately for those of us who support America and not Amnesty, there is a danger. We are relying on the GOP to protect us against Amnesty.

John Boehner, at least on this issue, has a pretty decent track record. The problem we have is that many in the GOP are squishy on this issue and do favor Amnesty. While the chances of Amnesty happening, particularly as we run up to an election are slim, we do need to remember how one Senator, Tennessee’s ‘Bail Out’ Bob Corker single handedly brought the Chris Dodd/Barney Frank Financial Regulation bill back to life and that monstrosity ended up being signed by Obama.

No discussion of the failure of the Obama regime to enforce the border laws, nor the Bush administration’s failure before, would be complete without mentioning the terrorist threat.

At least five of the 9/11 hijackers had overstayed visas. Drug smugglers bring in not only narcotics to this country and illegal aliens, but it almost strains belief to think that among those coming through the southern border there have not been jihadists and even weapons of mass destruction. While it would be difficult to bring a nuke in, there are biological and chemical precursors to WMD’s that could easily be smuggled in. Unfortunately, no one in Washington seems to care.

For decades, politicians in Washington have said, let’s have Amnesty and then we will fix the border. In 1986, they even got Reagan to sign off on an Amnesty in exchange for sealing the border. That was 25 years ago and we all know how that one worked out.

This time, our elected officials need to hear us loud. Before we discuss any type of ‘immigration reform,’ first the borders are sealed and those who are here illegally go back to their homes and apply the right way.

Then we talk.”

We may talk. However, here is my position on the matter. NO illegal immigrant, who violated our laws to enter the United States, is considered for legal entrance into the United States ahead of ANY immigrant who has NOT entered the U.S. illegally. In other words, ALL illegal immigrants go to the back of the legal immigration line. ALL of them! The federal government should not, MUST not reward illegal behavior in ANY way!!!

Meanwhile this news story demonstrates that the federal courts continue in violating the U.S. Constitution.

From: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/west/view/20110511utahs_immigration_law_joins_arizonas_-_in_court/

“Utah’s immigration law joins Arizona’s—in court

By Associated Press
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Added 19 hours ago

SALT LAKE CITY—Utah insists its new immigration law is different than Arizona’s, but the 1-day-old statute is similarly stuck before a federal judge who will hear arguments in two months about its constitutionality.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups issued his ruling Tuesday in Salt Lake City just 14 hours after the Utah law went into effect. The legislation would have allowed police to check the citizenship status of anyone they arrest, and Waddoups said there is sufficient evidence that at least some portions of the law will be found unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union and National Immigration Law Center last week sued to stop the implementation of House Bill 497, saying it could lead to racial profiling. (Couldn’t just about any law lead to some type of profiling? Profiling is NOT unconstitutional! Profiling is smart and necessary and a basic law enforcement tool!!!—my addition)

The civil rights groups submitted hundreds of pages of evidence and affidavits to prove their claims ahead of a hearing Tuesday.”

Another inferior federal court violates the United States Constitution! Only the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction in cases in which the State is a Party!!! ONLY the Supreme Court!!!

The United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2:

“In ALL (my capitalization—my addition) Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

When are WE, the people going to DEMAND that the federal courts OBEY the very Constitution that they have sworn to uphold!!!

It is time, it is past time, that the Constitution of the United States be obeyed as written!!! It is time, it is past time, to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Federalism, Illegal Immigration, the Budget, and the United States Constitution—part 2


Two different, recent news stories. Two very different perspectives. Both deal with federalism, illegal immigration, the budget, and the United States Constitution.

From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20110510/c581edd2-05fa-4148-9883-dc24915e989e

“Obama mocks Republican position on immigration

DARLENE SUPERVILLE
From Associated Press
May 10, 2011 4:05 PM EDT

EL PASO, Texas (AP)—Delving anew into an explosive issue, President Barack Obama stood near the border with Mexico on Tuesday and declared it more secure than ever, trying to build pressure on Republicans to take on a comprehensive immigration overhaul—and eagerly working to show vital Hispanic voters that he is not the one standing in the way. (Is the question whether the border is “more secure than ever” which seems to be a very low standard considering that in the past the border has never been secure in relation to preventing illegals from crossing the border or is the question one of the border not being nearly as secure as it needs to be to keep out terrorists and illegal immigrants?—my addition)

Countering Republican calls to focus on border security before moving to a comprehensive overhaul, Obama said their demands have been more than met by his administration but ‘they’ll never be satisfied.’ (This is an old and outdated argument. A small minority of Republicans called for this before the 2010 election when there were two separate pushes by Democrats to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants. The Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate and yet failed to pass a bill to grant citizenship for illegal immigrants. The House of Representatives is now controlled by Republicans and many of those Republicans are more conservative. A significant majority of the American voters DO NOT want citizenship for illegal immigrants, including me as I’ve written about upon several occasions. Does the President really believe there is any call for granting citizenship to illegal immigrants outside of his leftist, Democratic supporters?—my addition)

On his first trip to the U.S.-Mexico border since becoming president, Obama boasted of increasing border patrol agents, nearing completion of a border fence, and screening more cargo. (Nearing completion of a border fence? Consider the facts in the next quoted news story!—my addition)

‘We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement,’ Obama said.

‘But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I gotta say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time.’ (As I wrote above, the situation has changed. Even if every Republican who wanted this voted to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants, there would not be enough votes in the House to pass such a bill. His best and no doubt last hope for passing such a bill was in the lame duck session of Congress after the 2010 election when the Democrats still overwhelmingly controlled the House. It did not pass. Doesn’t he know this?—my addition)

‘Maybe they'll need a moat,’ Obama said mockingly to laughter from the crowd. ‘Maybe they’ll want alligators in the moat.’” (If it keeps out terrorists and illegals!—my addition)

“Republicans disputed Obama’s contention that the border has been effectively secured and accused him of playing politics in pursuit of the ever-growing Hispanic electorate ahead of the 2012 election. With Republicans in control of the House there’s no longer any appetite on Capitol Hill for the comprehensive legislation Obama wants that would offer a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.”

The second news story which was a May 8, 2011 is from a very different perspective. This story is From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20110508/6fd6f91a-24d5-4424-a9a9-3eb3a50fe43c

“Arizona seeks online donations to build border fence
PAUL DAVENPORT
From Associated Press
May 08, 2011 6:09 PM EDT

PHOENIX (AP)—Arizona lawmakers want more fence along the border with Mexico—whether the federal government thinks it’s necessary or not.

They’ve got a plan that could get a project started using online donations and prison labor. If they get enough money, all they would have to do is get cooperation from landowners and construction could begin as soon as this year.

Gov. Jan Brewer recently signed a bill that sets the state on a course that begins with launching a website to raise money for the work, said state Sen. Steve Smith, the bill’s sponsor.

‘We’re going to build this site as fast as we can, and promote it, and market the heck out of it,’ said Smith, a first-term Republican senator.

Arizona—strapped for cash and mired in a budget crisis—is already using public donations to pay for its legal defense of the controversial get-tough illegal immigration law, known as SB1070. The state is appealing a federal judge’s ruling blocking key provisions of the law, including a requirement that immigrants get or carry immigration registration papers.

Part of the marketing pitch for donations could include providing certificates declaring that individual contributors ‘helped build the Arizona wall,’ Smith said. ‘I think it’s going to be a really, really neat thing.’

Construction would start ‘after we’ve raised a significant amount of money first’ but possibly as soon as later this year, Smith said.”

(What! The State of Arizona which is a southern-border State doesn’t believe the federal government has done enough to secure the border with Mexico? The State of Arizona believes that too many illegal immigrants and possible terrorists are still flooding across the border? The State of Arizona believes that the federal government has reneged on their Constitutional responsibility to secure the border? The State of Arizona believes that if the federal government has failed that the State must take up the mantle and do what the federal government has failed to do—secure the border between Arizona and Mexico?

Do you think the federal government will once gain sue the State of Arizona for trying to do what the federal government has failed to do? Do you believe, if the government sues, that the federal government will once again Unconstitutionally sue in an inferior federal Court instead of in the Supreme Court as required by the Constitution?)

“The nearly 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) U.S.-Mexico border already has about 650 miles (1,050 kilometers) of fence of one type or another, nearly half of it in Arizona. The state’s border is the busiest gateway for both illegal immigrants and marijuana smuggling.

(If the above figures are correct, there is fencing of one type or another covering about one-third of the border with Mexico. Nearly half of it in Arizona would be about 325 miles. The article does not say how many more miles of fencing within Arizona would be needed to fence the entire Arizona southern border with Mexico. The article does state that Arizona is the busiest gateway for illegal immigrants which means it most probably is also a busy gateway for possible terrorists.

If the State is willing to finance and build more fence without federal assistance, it seems the State believes it is an important project. Will the federal government help or hinder the project? Who really is concerned with border security—the federal government or the State of Arizona?—my addition)

Department of Homeland Security spokesman Matthew Chandler said federal officials declined to comment on the Arizona legislation.”

If the State procedures with this project, what will be the reaction of the Obama Administration. Will it be cooperation with a State within the Union or will it be another Unconstitutional lawsuit? Will the federal government increase the costs when neither budgets can afford more expenses or will it help to SECURE the border? Will this Democrat Administration pander to its constituency or act in the best interests of the United States of America?

It is time, it is past time, that the Constitution of the United States be obeyed as written!!! It is time, it is past time, to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Federalism, Illegal Immigration, the Budget, and the United States Constitution


I received the following e-mail April 15th. I’m posting it today because this morning I read a related news story and both fit in with the ridiculous, debt increasing spending that is presently occurring at the federal level. The April 15th e-mail:

From: http://www.minutemanpac.com/

“Fellow Patriot,

Earlier this week, we reported that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the enforcement of key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070, considered one of the toughest (and most copied) in the nation.

Last July, the Department of Justice was pushed by the Obama Administration to sue the State of Arizona for passing the law cracking down on illegal immigration.

The legal costs for the State of Arizona have been enormous and are only going to get bigger as Gov. Brewer plans to appeal Arizona’s case to the Supreme Court.

Patriots, we are doing everything in our power to make sure this is not one more outrageous bill shoved onto the backs of taxpayers around the nation. Instead, we’re asking for your help on behalf of Arizona’s legal defense of SB 1070.

Defending Arizona’s hardline immigration law, SB 1070, from the onslaught of legal challenges pushed by the federal government and Pro-Amnesty activists around the nation has cost the state more than $1.5 million in donated funds.

Between August and November alone, legal fees totaled $470,322.24.

In July alone, Brewer’s law firm charged $621,846.16 for defending SB 1070. In May and June, it was another $440,520.45.

The greatest expenditures were for work related to the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit spurred by President Obama which continues to work itself through the legal system.

Thanks to the generosity of Patriots around the country, Gov. Brewer has been paying the astronomical legal fees with money in her Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund and trying not to put this burden on the back of taxpayers already overburdened by other expenses related to supporting the healthcare and welfare of the illegal immigrant population.

To date, more than 43,000 individuals in all 50 states have contributed to Gov. Brewer’s crackdown on illegal immigration with donations totaling more than $3.7 million to combat the Obama Administrations attack on anti-illegal immigration efforts.

HELP MINUTEMAN PAC SUPPORT SB 1070! SELECT HERE!

https://www.fundraisingbynet.net/fbn/ContributePac.asp?guidRegistration=595F5D56

It may seem like a large amount, but President Obama has all your tax dollars on his side as well as generous contributions from pro-Amnesty lobbyists all the way from Washington to Hollywood at his disposal to carry out his Amnesty agenda this year.

Fighting for the enforcement of immigration law is going to be an uphill battle with the open borders extremists fighting us tooth and nail especially as the 2012 election approaches.

And the Obama Administration is particularly determined to push through its Amnesty agenda once and for all in 2011.

Why?

President Obama is depending on 12 million new ‘citizens’ for his re-election. He is sacrificing the safety and security of America out of sheer, selfish desperation to cling to power for another four years.

HELP MMPAC DEFEAT THE AMNESTY AGENDA! SELECT HERE TODAY!

https://www.fundraisingbynet.net/fbn/ContributePac.asp?guidRegistration=595F5D56

YOUR tax dollars are being wasted by the federal government to wage legal warfare on the states taking illegal immigration policy into their own hands because the current Administration has failed to control our borders.

But, with your help and support, Minuteman PAC can help Arizona, and every other state combating illegal immigration, continue the fight against illegal immigration and the tolerance policy pushed by the Obama Administration and every leftwing loon in Washington.

Will you help us?

As you well know, Minuteman PAC is an independent Political Action Committee of the Minuteman civilian border security movement, supported by many volunteers of the nation’s oldest, largest and most-effective citizen’s border vigilance group, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.

Our mission is clear: Help elect candidates who carry out their constitutional duty to defend our borders and oust those who do not.

Meanwhile, your special gift of $35, $60, $100, or more will give us the financial ammunition we need to:

1) fund a massive anti-amnesty effort with a phone, TV, radio, newspaper, and Internet campaign;
2) mobilize Minuteman PAC activists from all over the nation to protest any legislative action that will reward illegal aliens with “amnesty”;
3) print and distribute literally million copies of our ‘WARNINGS TO WASHINGTON’ nationwide; and
4) provide direct financial support for debt retirement to our endorsed border security candidates.

So please, help us defend America from President Obama’s Open Borders-Amnesty agenda by electing Anti-Amnesty Patriots in 2012 and supporting Patriot states like AZ!

Click HERE

https://www.fundraisingbynet.net/fbn/ContributePac.asp?guidRegistration=595F5D56

to help Minuteman’s efforts TODAY!

Thank you for reading our message, and for taking the time to forward our message to family and friends.

For America,
Minuteman PAC

P.S. Fellow Patriot, please help us fight alongside the Patriots in Congress as they wage war to SECURE OUR BORDERS in 2011! Your much-needed gift will help us rally patriot Americans do the job that Washington WON’T DO. So please, act now—TODAY! This much-needed gift of $35, $60, $100 or even $250 will help us rally patriot Americans to hold Congress—both establishment RINOs and pro-‘illegal alien’ leftists—accountable for SECURING THE BORDERS!”

https://www.fundraisingbynet.net/fbn/ContributePac.asp?guidRegistration=595F5D56

One key point in the above e-mail is this: “YOUR tax dollars are being wasted by the federal government to wage legal warfare on the states taking illegal immigration policy into their own hands because the current Administration has failed to control our borders.”

If the State of Arizona has already spent 1.5 million dollars to defense itself from the federal law suit, you can be relatively sure that the federal government has spent a similar amount to prevent the State of Arizona from enforcing its own legally passed law. That’s a total cost of about 3 million dollars to deal with a law legally passed by the State of Arizona and patterned after the federal law. And the costs are not yet over since the case has not yet reached the Supreme Court. This seems to be spending on the part of the federal government not to fulfill the Constitutional duties of the federal government but rather to punish a State for trying to do what the federal government refuses to do. And as a corollary, to increase the voting ranks of one political party through federal government policy or lack thereof.

This morning the following headline was on the internet:

From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20110509/d296a479-06e2-43f4-be28-630cba6439a8

“Arizona wants speedy ruling on immigration law

PAUL DAVENPORT
From Associated Press
May 10, 2011 3:27 AM EDT”

From the news story: “PHOENIX (AP)—Arizona officials would like the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in sooner rather than later on a trial judge’s decision to put the most controversial parts of the state’s immigration enforcement law on hold.

Gov. Jan Brewer, Attorney General Tom Horne and Senate President Russell Pearce said Monday the decision to skip a possible second appeal to an intermediate appellate court could save time (and money on both sides!—my addition) in resolving the case.

‘It seems like this is a big enough national issue that it will ultimately be determined by the United States Supreme Court,’ Horne said.”

“While Brewer said she is confident Arizona will prevail, several legal experts said the Supreme Court might be reluctant to take up the case at this relatively early stage.

‘This is a hot potato that it doesn’t have to grab hold of at this point,’ said Peter Spiro, a Tempe University law professor who specializes in immigration law.

University of Arizona law professor Gabriel ‘Jack’ Chin said the justices likely will refuse to grant Arizona’s request to review the trial judge’s injunction unless the federal government urges it to do so.”

Now here is the rub! The federal government originally either ignored the Constitution of the United States or doesn’t know what the Constitution of the United States requires! These so called “legal experts” who are quoted have either ignored the Constitution of the United States or don’t know what the Constitution of the United States requires! If the Supreme Court refuses to take the case immediately, the Court will have either ignored the Constitution of the United States or doesn’t know what the Constitution of the United States requires!

What you say! All these legal authorities are violating the Constitution of the United States? Sadly, the answer is yes. We have been ignoring a Constitutionally required procedure for years! Read the Constitution! The following are the plain words of the Constitution:

The United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2:

“In ALL (my capitalization—my addition) Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

To the federal government, the State of Arizona which had no control of the process, district federal court judges, legal “scholars,” federal appellate court judges, and Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States; read and OBEY the Constitution of the United States! This case and ALL cases in which a State is a party MUST begin and end in the United States Supreme Court! MUST!!! That is what the Constitution requires!

If the parties involved would have obeyed the Constitution of the United States in the first place, this case, if even accepted by the Supreme Court, would be in the Supreme Court NOW and may have even been settled by now. Instead probably 3 million dollars of our money has been spent, no resolution has occurred, and the State of Arizona is just now trying to get the case to the Supreme Court “early!” But, it NOT early! It’s late in the process. And the whole process has been a VIOLATED!!!

It is time, it is past time, that the Constitution of the United States be obeyed as written!!! It is time, it is past time, to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!