Posts Tagged ‘Lawsuit’
Praying for Rep. Beutler and her husband, especially since she is now the target of hate mail from Lefty trolls who are reveling in her pain.
Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler, a pro-life Republican from Washington state, recently shared the sad news about her unborn baby and a potentially fatal diagnosis.
Beutler posted a message on Facebook saying her unborn child has been diagnosed with Potter’s Syndrome, a condition which prevents the child’s kidneys from developing properly and is typically fatal for the baby.
On May 1, Beutler, 34, announced that she and her husband, Daniel Beutler, were expecting their first baby this fall.
“We don’t know what the future holds for our family, but we ask for your prayers and appreciate the privacy a family needs in such circumstances,” Herrera Beutler wrote. “According to the medical information and advice we’ve received, I will be able to continue to balance the responsibilities of an expectant mother with serving as your representative in Congress.”
“Our baby has a serious medical condition called Potter’s Syndrome,” Herrera Beutler announced Monday on Facebook. “We have had a second opinion and the medical diagnosis was consistent with the initial news: there is no medical solution available to us. We are praying for a miracle.”
Unfortunately, “tolerant” leftist hatemongers have decided to unleash their venom on a suffering pregnant woman:
While many offered Beutler love and support, others took it as an opportunity to gloat or proclaim that the child should be aborted. Matthew Archbold, a writer for the National Catholic Register, collected some of the comments left at the Huffington Post and elsewhere. A few gems:
– Oh goody… and she’s GOP…. let’s all watch this one develop. Let’s see if she follows the party line ….
–Abort the baby. Wait a few months. Get pregnant again. This is not a big deal.
– Why not be proactive and get an abortion?
– Sorry, prayers won’t do a damn thing.
– She should just go to a Planned Parenthood and be done with “it”, after all, it’s not a human yet.
–I laugh at her in that her political ideology has her in a corner I would wish nobody in.
This sickening behavior – gloating over a baby’s illness and her mother’s pain – is more common than you might think.
[...] What motivates these people to abuse women who have chosen to carry to term despite a poor prenatal diagnosis? I strongly suspect that many of them have been involved in an abortion – or know they would want one in a similar situation. It angers them to see someone make a choice they didn’t have the courage to make themselves. But it’s impossible for any normal-thinking person to really know what motivates them.
Like all good sociopaths, the bullies try to shift blame on to the victims, saying they were “asking for” such treatment because of their political views. Since a pro-lifer would “force” women in her situation to give birth, she deserves to be shamed and harassed throughout her difficult pregnancy.
But anyone with a normal sense of compassion and empathy would say that’s not just irrational. It’s evil. Few things are more sociopathic than abusing a pregnant woman carrying a terminally ill child – no matter what her political affiliation.
In the last four years, Oregon has dropped 15 places to 28th in the nation for litigation and business climate.
But until we’re in the bottom 10, don’t expect tort reform to be on the state Democrat majority’s radar.
A state’s litigation environment is an increasingly important factor in key business decisions, according to a survey conducted for the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) by Harris Interactive. The survey was based on interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1,125 in-house general counsel; senior litigators; and other senior executives who are knowledgeable about litigation matters at public and private companies with annual revenues of at least $100 million. Respondents were asked to give states a grade (A through F) in several areas: overall treatment of tort and contract litigation; having and enforcing meaningful venue requirements; treatment of class action and mass consolidation suits; damages; timeliness of summary judgment or dismissal; discovery; scientific and technical evidence; judges’ impartiality; judges’ competence; and juries’ fairness.
[...] The 2012 State Liability Systems Ranking Study found that Oregon’s overall ranking has slipped from 13th place in 2002 to 28th place in 2012. Oregon’s specific scores are as follows:
Overall treatment of tort and contract litigation: 30th
Having and enforcing meaningful venue requirements: 20th
Treatment of class action and mass consolidation suits: 35th
Timeliness of summary judgment or dismissal: 28th
Scientific and technical evidence: 28th
Judges’ impartiality: 27th
Judges’ competence: 24th
Juries’ fairness: 29th
With legal restrictions on the GOP trying to investigate or stop voter fraud, and no end in sight, the only solution may be to abandon the party altogether and start a new one.
Voting machines suspiciously defaulting to Barack Obama? Buses loaded with strangers appearing at polling stations? Even ballots turning out 100 percent for one candidate in precinct reports?
In short, suspicions of vote fraud?
That’s too bad, because a race-based consent decree negotiated by Democrats against the Republican National Committee a generation ago still has tied the RNC’s hands, and GOP officials could be cited for contempt – or worse – if they try to make sure American elections are clean.
Democrats alleged Republicans were trying intimidate minority voters in New Jersey and brought the legal action. The RNC, inexplicably, decided to agree to a consent decree before a Democrat-appointed judge rather than fight the claims.
The judge, Dickinson Debevoise, appointed by Jimmy Carter, later retired but decided he would continue to control the case. The decision requires the RNC – but not the DNC – to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose.”
The rest of the agreement essentially requires the RNC to follow applicable state and federal election laws.
But the section cited above has been used for decades to warn off Republicans from any challenge to evidence of voter fraud in districts with “racial or ethnic populations.”
The law has remained, even though the RNC recently challenged it at the appellate level only to be turned down by Judges Joseph Greenaway Jr., appointed by Bill Clinton; Dolores Sloviter, appointed by Carter; and Walter Stapleton, appointed by Ronald Reagan, in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
It now is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
But two election veterans both told WND it still is hurting the fight against voter fraud in the United States.
Attorney James Bopp of the James Madison Center said the threat that the RNC has faced is that someone will allege a violation of the decree, and party officials will be standing in a courtroom on Election Day.
Bopp’s organization was founded to protect the First Amendment right of all citizens of free expression and “to support litigation and public education activities in order to defend the rights of political expression and association by citizens and citizen groups as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Bopp himself has taken part in more than 60 election-related cases, including recounts, redistricting and constitutional law challenges to state and federal election laws.
He said the agreement even today, amid reports of fraud across the country, prevents the RNC from doing any anti-voter fraud activity on Election Day.
“It is way too restrictive,” he said. “It prevents the RNC from working with state parties in conducting voter integrity activities. It has been used by the DNC to harass the leadership of the RNC with false allegations of violations of the consent decree.”
Our family has been without health insurance for three years. We simply couldn’t afford it. We’ve been paying out of pocket to see our naturopath or a private urgent care instead. Now we’re going to be forced into a government exchange, waiting on long waiting lists to see hurried doctors and receive substandard care. So much for “quality” and “choice.”
Tuesday night’s win in the presidential contest for President Obama was a win for ObamaCare, the president’s signature legislation from his first term. ObamaCare will now continue to be implemented.
This future means that we will continue to be faced with rising insurance premiums, as our current insurance expands to cover all patients regardless of pre-existing condition, age, or how many times they’ve already used the policy.
Insurance will continue to follow a one-size-fits all model, where it is easy to overuse but may not cover our latest expensive technology which offer more personalized solutions.
Federal regulations in the form of Medicare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board as well as ObamaCare’s many other committees will restrict my choices for my patients. I will have more patients with more red tape and less time to spend with them.
[...] Medical care will be shifted more and more to the hospital and medical center, which are more equipped to preserve their bottom line profits despite increasing federal regulations.
[...] Doctors will cherry-pick their patients, staying away from those who are too sick to allow them to apply for financial incentives.
[...] If the current economic climate continues, small businesses will be reluctant to add more employees and large businesses will prefer to pay the ObamaCare penalty than pay the increasing premiums.
More and more people will get their health insurances at the state exchanges, where taxes pay for federal stipends in states which have created their own exchanges.
There is no more justice in America, when the law abused in such a way!
An Amish-Mennonite pastor who helped a woman flee the country with her daughter in order to keep the little girl from being handed over by court order to her lesbian former partner has been convicted by a Vermont jury of “aiding and abetting a parental kidnapping.”
In 2009, pastor Kenneth L. Miller of Virginia helped former lesbian Lisa Miller (no relation) leave the country with her daughter Isabella, after a court granted custody of the child to Miller’s lesbian former partner, Janet Jenkins. Jenkins is not biologically related to the girl, and never went through legal proceedings to adopt her.
LifeSiteNews.com reported that “Isabella was conceived by artificial insemination while Jenkins and Miller were in a Vermont ‘civil union,’ which was dissolved in 2003. Following the end of her relationship, Miller returned to the Baptist religion of her youth and consequently disavowed homosexual behavior. She has raised Isabella with the same values.”
LifeSite previously reported that in sworn affidavits, two experts testified that the little girl suffered from emotional trauma following court-ordered visits to Jenkins. “The documents illustrate the concerns that presumably led Miller, who had repudiated the lesbian lifestyle and converted to Evangelical Christianity, to flee the United States to avoid further contact between her daughter and Jenkins,” reported LifeSite.
In 2007, one of the experts, clinical therapist Sylvia Haydash, concluded after interviewing and observing Isabella that her visits with Jenkins were causing the child serious psychological and emotional harm. “Isabella appears to have been traumatized by the limited visitation thus far,” wrote Haydash, “a serious consequence, taking Isabella in a negative direction as compared to Isabella’s condition before the recent visitations where she was a child that was well-adjusted, flourishing, above-the-curve developmentally, verbally gifted, and readily able to separate from Lisa and meet with other people.”
Haydash concluded that “leaving Isabella unsupervised with Janet for visitations would needlessly exacerbate Isabella’s trauma…. I further believe that unsupervised visits would be detrimental to Isabella at this time and could cause permanent damage to normal development.”
The Mennonite World Review, which identified the Rev. Miller as a “Beachy Amish minister,” reported that in late 2009 a Vermont family court judge gave Jenkins custody of the child, “but by the time the transfer date arrived, Lisa Miller and the child were in Nicaragua,” the country to which Miller escaped with her daughter.
The Mennonite publication reported that the Rev. Miller “knew a Vermont judge was threatening to transfer custody to Jenkins. The judge had indicated this about a month before Lisa Miller was due to appear in court. However, the defense claimed he did not know Jenkins had court-mandated visitation rights and did not believe it was illegal for Lisa Miller and her daughter to travel out of the country because he thought she had full custody throughout the journey.”
The prosecution in the trial worked to prove that Miller’s actions, as well as his comments to others, revealed that he was consciously trying to aid Lisa Miller to avoid court orders to relinquish her daughter to Jenkins. “Assistant U.S. attorney Eugenia Cowles said Ken Miller told others that Nicaragua was chosen because it lacks an extradition treaty with the U.S.,” reported theMennonite World Review. “She said Ken Miller dressed the two females in Beachy Amish dresses and head scarves as a disguise. She said Miller also directed them not to fly through an American airport.”
Among the issues Federal Judge William K. Sessions III had to rule on in the case was the extent to which Miller’s defense attorneys could use his faith in the case they built for him. “Though Mennonite faith could be used as part of character testimony, Sessions did not allow Miller’s religion to be used as basis for his motivation,” reported the Mennonite publication.
Following only four hours of deliberation August 14, the jury convicted the Rev. Miller of aiding in the removal of a child from the United States with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of Jenkins’ parental rights. While Miller remains free pending sentencing, he could serve up to three years in prison.
Following the verdict Miller said that he was “willing to accept the consequences of my actions. I am at peace with God. I am at peace with my conscience and I give it over to God, and at the same time I respect the decision of the court.”
Good for Wheaton and these other universities for standing up against this assault on human life and religious freedom!
Wheaton College, an evangelical institution, joined forces Wednesday with Catholic University of America to sue the government for requiring that it provide health insurance coverage for some abortifacient drugs to its employees and students.
Wheaton’s main reason for filing suit, Dr. Philip Ryken, president of Wheaton College, explained in a Wednesday conference call with reporters, is that the pro-life institution opposes the use of abortifacient drugs and would be forced to violate its religious beliefs.
“This insurance mandate is against our conscience and against our Christian convictions. We have no recourse now but to file suit,” Ryken said.
Ryken added that Wheaton and Catholic University also wanted to demonstrate cross-denominational solidarity on the issue of religious freedom.
“We have a respect for Roman Catholic institutions and in this case we recognize we have common cause with Catholic University of America and other Catholic institutions in defending religious liberty. We’re, in effect, co-belligerents in this fight against government action. I think the fact that evangelicals and Catholics are coming together on this issue ought to be a sign to all Americans that something really significant for religious liberty is at stake.”
John Garvey, president of Catholic University of America, said that the addition of Wheaton College to the now 24 lawsuits demonstrates that the issue is about religious freedom, not contraception.
We have to get rid of this thing before it decimates what good is left in our heavily regulated and government-controlled medical system.
There may be a debate over whether Obamacare’s individual mandate is a penalty or a tax, but there is no debate among doctors and their patients about the fact that Obamacare will be bad for America’s health.
The climate in my medical office is changing; my patients sense that a storm is coming. They are worried, and there is little I can do to reassure them. They are used to my office manager getting approvals for the CT scans, mammograms, PSAs, and MRIs I order, and they realize that many of these tests will no longer be covered by insurance once Obamacare’s committees — which look at so-called comparative-effectiveness research and review current guidelines — are through with them.
Last week, with the Fourth of July looming, I was able to get a quick CT scan to rule out appendicitis for one patient, and an ultrasound of the legs to quickly diagnose a blood clot for another. Tests like these — ordered solely on the basis of my medical intuition – may not be possible in a few years. Since in both cases the symptoms weren’t “textbook,” I would probably have had to appeal to some Kafkaesque committee, wasting precious time; in an extreme instance, this could even cost a patient his or her life.
My patients know that their premiums will be going up and that, paradoxically, they will be receiving less service for their money. This is what happens when more people enter the system and are covered with easy-to-overuse insurance. Patients who overuse services will ultimately crowd out legitimate use for the group, as more regulations are imposed by both public and private insurers to preserve their bottom lines. Unfortunately, this process jeopardizes the art of medicine and real medical treatments, as doctors are pressured to conform to guidelines and insurers refuse to cover creative solutions. Obamacare caters to the worried well by allowing anyone to use the insurance, whether he or she is sick or not, with lower co-pays and deductibles and therefore no incentive against overuse. My patients also realize that I will be paid less for seeing them — first by Medicare and Medicaid, and then the private insurers will follow suit. Patients anticipate longer waits in my office and less time to spend with me. No one is asking me any more when I will change my office carpet or paint the peeling walls.
My patients know that there is a doctor shortage, and that many of the doctors who are practicing medicine today are not accepting their insurance. They know that this reality applies to specialists as well as primary-care doctors. Nurse practitioners are well trained and have a focus on nutrition and prevention that many doctors lack, but my patients know they are not interchangeable with me.
Their ugly mask is being peeled away, one exposed scandal at a time.
Another former Planned Parenthood employee is accusing the abortion giant of engaging in systemic fraud, according to a lawsuit made public today.
Attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund) filed the suit on behalf of former Planned Parenthood clinic director Sue Thayer against the abortion giant’s Iowa affiliate in March 2011. The suit accuses Planned Parenthood of having submitted “repeated false, fraudulent, and/or ineligible claims for reimbursements” to Medicaid and failed to meet acceptable standards of medical practice.
“During my last years working at Planned Parenthood, it became increasingly clear to me that not all of their policies and protocols were completely legal and ethical,” Thayer said in announcing the suit.Sue Thayer
Thayer joins former Planned Parenthood employees Abby Johnson, Karen Reynolds, and P. Victor Gonzalez, all of whom have filed separate lawsuits alleging widespread and massive fraud at the abortion organization. Gonzalez’s claim alone alleges $100 million in fraud.
“Americans deserve to know if their hard-earned tax money is being funneled to groups that are misusing it,” said Michael J. Norton, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom. “People may hold different views about abortion, but everyone can agree that Planned Parenthood should play by the same rules as everyone else.”
ADF attorneys filed the suit under a federal law that allows “whistleblowers” with inside information to expose fraudulent billing by government contractors. By law, such cases may not be made public until a court unseals them.
Thayer, the former manager of Planned Parenthood’s Storm Lake and LeMars clinics, states that Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, an affiliate now known as Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, filed nearly half-a-million false claims with Medicaid, from which Planned Parenthood received and retained nearly $28 million.
The lawsuit alleges that Planned Parenthood knowingly committed Medicaid fraud from 2002 to 2009 by improperly seeking reimbursements from Iowa Medicaid Enterprise and the Iowa Family Planning Network for products and services not legally reimbursable by those programs.
If Thayer prevails, Planned Parenthood could be ordered to pay the United States and Iowa as much as $5.5 billion in False Claims Act damages and penalties, according to an ADF press release.
Tell me drug lords and terrorists aren’t going to be taking major advantage of this.
The Obama administration is moving to shut down nine Border Patrol stations across four states, triggering a backlash from local law enforcement, members of Congress and Border Patrol agents themselves.
Critics of the move warn the closures will undercut efforts to intercept drug and human traffickers in well-traveled corridors north of the U.S.-Mexico border. Though the affected stations are scattered throughout northern and central Texas, and three other states, the coverage areas still see plenty of illegal immigrant activity — one soon-to-be-shuttered station in Amarillo, Texas, is right in the middle of the I-40 corridor; another in Riverside, Calif., is outside Los Angeles.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection says it’s closing the stations in order to reassign agents to high-priority areas closer to the border.
“These deactivations are consistent with the strategic goal of securing America’s borders, and our objective of increasing and sustaining the certainty of arrest of those trying to enter our country illegally,” CBP spokesman Bill Brooks said in a statement. “By redeploying and reallocating resources at or near the border, CBP will maximize the effectiveness of its enforcement mandate and align our investments with our mission.”
But at least one Border Patrol supervisor in Texas has called on local officers to “voice your concerns” to elected officials, warning that the “deactivation” will remove agents from the Texas Panhandle, among other places. Several members of Congress have asked Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher to reconsider the plan. And local officials are getting worried about what will happen once the Border Patrol leaves town, since they rely on those federal officials to assist in making immigration arrests.
“It could impact us tremendously since we’ve only got two agents up here now for 26 counties,” Potter County Sheriff Brian Thomas told FoxNews.com.
Our favorite family MD is considering closing down her private practice and getting out for good, thanks to this monstrosity.
The Doctor Patient Medical Association Foundation conducted a faxed survey of random doctors in May 2012. In the survey, it is clearly delineated that the medical system as it is changing is discouraging doctors from practicing. 83% of the doctors said that current changes made them think about quitting, and 90% of them thought the path of the medical field currently was wrong.
They apparently feel that their Hippocratic oaths are being compromised; 61% of them feel that Hippocratic ethics are getting more difficult to practice, which is troubling, since one of the cardinal parts of the oath is the phrase “I will keep them from harm and injustice.”
85% of the doctors surveyed felt that the patient-physician relationship is declining. 37% of the doctors said they were just squeaking by, and 39% said things would get worse over the next five years.
The doctors were virtually unanimous that the government is at fault for medicine being on the wrong track, and feel that corporate medicine is trying to destroy private practice. The highest numbers ever recorded are opting out of Medicare and Medicaid. They feel the best way to attack the current problems is to restore autonomy, eliminate government involvement, increase patient responsibility and implement free market reforms.
Doctor Responds to Obamacare Supreme Court Ruling
View on YouTube
What young, aspiring medical student is going to want to go through all the sacrifice so they can end up as a harangued government employee?
This is the the kind of stuff that dehumanizes both patients and providers to the point that you end up with severe cases of criminal neglect, as is already happening in Britain’s socialist healthcare system.
The day the Supreme Court ruled in favor of ObamaCare, a friend called me. He’s an extremely dedicated, much-loved surgeon, and he was frustrated and livid in equal measure.
“I’ve actually had a lot of experience working in all different types of environments,” he began. “I’ve worked in a government-run socialized medical care system, and I saw the waste and inefficiency.
“The longer people worked in that system, the less work they wanted to do, because the more you wanted to do, the more they dumped on you. So after a while you stop doing it, because they’re not paying you to do more. Why should you do a difficult case, a difficult surgery that will take you hours and hours to do?
“You might start out wanting to do it, but after a while, you just run out of energy, because there’s no incentive. You’d have to be a superhuman being to continue to work in that system and not be worn down by it.
“Because nobody wanted to work, it would take an hour to turn over the surgical room. In my private practice now, it takes ten minutes.
“And I saw tremendous waste: closets of stuff that never got used. Nobody cared.
“Capitalism has completely transformed my sub-specialty. When I was in training, a common procedure that I do now took 40 minutes, and people needed a month of recovery. Now it takes 10 minutes, and people can go back to work almost immediately.
“And all these improvements were driven by the financial incentive. Capitalism has had a tremendously positive effect on patient care and outcome in my specialty.
“But when I go to meetings now, I see that there’s very little innovation going on. Everything’s being impacted by ObamaCare, which, among other things, raises taxes on medical devices.
“You know, doctors are people, and we’re being hammered on all sides here.
It’s the paperwork; it’s insurance; it’s transitioning to electronic medical records, so the government can get their mitts into your practice. It’s lawsuits; it’s rising overhead and decreasing compensation; it’s stress upon stress upon stress.
“And a lot of doctors are going to say, ‘Forget it. I don’t want to do this anymore.’ Guys that are 5 or 10 years older than me are just going to give up and walk away.
“Why should I be a slave to the government? You know, it used to be that doctors would do charity work at a charity hospital. Nobody wants to do it anymore, because we’re too overwhelmed.
“I work 60 to 70 hours a week, so how am I supposed to fight back against this? Most doctors don’t have the time to lobby their congressman or go to Washington. If you’re a doctor in the trenches, you’ve got a stressful job; you’ve got a family. You’re seeing the same number of patients and making half the income you used to make. People are litigious these days, so you’ve got to worry about lawsuits. When are you going to find time to lobby a politician?
“And the American Medical Association threw us all under the bus, even though only 18% of doctors belong to it. These people are ivory-tower academics, and they’re liberals. Most of them are in academic medicine; they get a salary with some sort of incentive bonus. They show up to work and go home. They’re not in the trenches like me, figuring out how to compete with other doctors and pay for malpractice insurance and how to hire four people I need to implement the electronic medical records and two people I need to deal with insurance.
“And as a doctor, I get it handed to me both ways. My taxes are raised, and my fees are lowered.
“You know, young people today who go to medical school — I don’t know what to tell them. You couldn’t pay me to go to medical school today. Some doctors are going to graduate with $500,000 in debt, and how are they going to make a living?
“You’re 32 or 33 years old by the time you finish your training; you’re married with little kids. You’ve been an apprentice for 16 years, and now you’re faced with socialized medicine. That’s the reality on the ground. How are you supposed to manage that?
Homeland Security Instructs Border Patrol Agents To ‘Run Away’ And ‘Hide’ If Faced With Armed Gunmen
How long before they start telling our soldiers to do the same on the battlefield?
An awful lot of those Operation Fast and Furious guns, like the one involved in Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder, are still missing, but fear not – the Department of Homeland Security has some helpful advice for other Border Patrol agents.
As Brandon Judd of the Arizona agents’ union explained on their website, “We are now taught in an ‘Active Shooter’ course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to ‘run away’ and ‘hide’. If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become ‘aggressive’ and ‘throw things’ at him or her. We are then advised to ‘call law enforcement’ and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered).”
“Throw things” at cartel killers packing automatic weapons? Like what, copies of ObamaCare?
This advice comes via pamphlets from Homeland Security, and even a FEMA-administered computer course, which must be the least exciting first-person-shooter game ever created. According to a Fox News report, there is also a “pocket-sized card outlining protocol,” which probably contains the lyrics to “Brave Sir Robin Ran Away” from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Naturally, Border Patrol agents aren’t happy about their cowardly new protocol:
It’s one thing to tell civilian employees to cower under a desk if a gunman starts spraying fire in a confined area, say members of Tucson Local 2544/National Border Patrol Council, but to give armed law enforcement professionals the same advice is downright insulting. The instructions from DHS come in the form of pamphlets and a mandatory computer tutorial.
[...] One DHS employee told FoxNews.com the instruction cards were handed out to employees six weeks ago. At the time, he assumed they were only for civilian employees, not armed law enforcement officers within the department, which oversees the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
“Requiring BP agents to follow the same steps is egregious,” he said.
[...] But members of Local 2544 say they are obligated to protect the public in such a situation, whether they are on duty or not. Given the instructions, some wonder if they would be disciplined for taking down a gunman in a situation like the Fort Hood shooting or the January, 2011 case in Casa Adobes, in which a deranged gunmen shot 19 people, including Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Six people were killed.
“It is always comforting to know that for those of us who carry a weapon when we are off-duty, if we should encounter such a situation, stop a shooter and save countless lives, we can look forward to being disciplined or fired by the Border Patrol because we should have run away to hide and then maybe thrown objects at the deranged killer instead of taking action and stopping him with a firearm,” the union local’s website says.
Obama doesn’t even try to hide his disdain for the constitutional checks and balances and separation of powers.
If, as widely forecast, the Supreme Court votes down Obamacare on Thursday with Anthony Kennedy as the deciding vote, President Obama will likely shift his campaign strategy directly against the Supreme Court – and Kennedy in particular.
So far, President Obama, recognizing the respect in which the Supreme Court is held, has edged away from directly attacking the Supreme Court – although he did attack the Supreme Court directly during his 2010 State of the Union address over their Citizens United decision, and he recently and idiotically said it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare. He has instead leveled his most direct criticism at Congress, which he says is holding up his agenda.
All that may change if Obamacare loses in the Supreme Court. He won’t attack the institution as a whole. Instead, he’ll do something truly unprecedented: he’ll attack Justice Kennedy.
Kennedy is the second-oldest justice on the Court, at age 75; he was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988. There is a reasonable shot that Kennedy will retire during the next presidential term – although he could hang on until past his 80th birthday. Justice Ginsburg is 79 years old, and the Court’s most reliable liberal. She has been widely rumored to be suffering from health problems. And since Supreme Court appointments often become a ghoulish death watch, there is the possibility that she will step down within the next term as well.
That leaves the constituency of the Supreme Court very much in the air. If Kennedy steps down under Mitt Romney, the Court could become a 5-4 conservative majority; if Ginsburg has to step down for health reasons, that majority could become a whopping 6-3. For the first time in a century, an originalist-minded Supreme Court could be ruling on cases.
It’s official: Americans are now being ruled – not represented – by tyrants who recognize no constitutional limits to their authority, no law but their own dictates, no checks and balances, and no separation of powers. We are moving from Constitutional Republic to Dictatorship. What is it going to take for people to wake up?
The job of the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws passed by the Legislative Branch. Obama is unilaterally refusing to enforce the law.
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.
“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.
That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.
Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.
Jan Brewer referred to Obama’s behavior as a “war on Arizona“:
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News today, Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), the woman who signed into law SB 1070, the controversial bill dealing with illegal immigration upheld in part by the Supreme Court today, called the ruling a “victory” but added that the federal government was continuing to place Arizona “under assault.”
“I believe that this Supreme Court unanimously upheld the section that it is the heart of the bill,” she said. “It’s a victory for the rule of law and the 10th amendment.”
By the same token, Brewer recognized the threat implicit in the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to suspend cooperation with Arizona state authorities via 287(g) task force agreements. “This continued assault on the state of Arizona in regards to illegal immigration has been totally unfortunate,” Brewer said. “The bottom line is that the feds need to step up and do their job and secure our border so we can work on other issues that are a result of the borders not being secured.”
Brewer was deeply upset at the new round of federal pressure on Arizona. “At every turn,” she said, “we see the federal government putting their finger down on other places … They rescinded the 287(g) for all law enforcement in the state of Arizona immediately after this ruling came out. They’re taking away the ability for us to work hand in hand with ICE. So now instead of being able to access the [citizenship] database we’re going to have to call in and go through ICE to verify if somebody’s illegally in the state or not. That’s an assault on Arizona. And it was only rescinded in the State of Arizona.”
States seeking to take immigration enforcement into their own hands are facing an uphill climb, after the Supreme Court reined in Arizona’s disputed law and the Obama administration followed by rescinding a key partnership allowing local police to enforce federal immigration rules.
The day’s decisions further weakened efforts by Arizona, and potentially other states, to take on immigration enforcement themselves.
Depends on who you ask.
While my colleague Joel Pollak suggests this morning that the Supreme Court “struck down the form – but not the substance” of Arizona’s immigration law, the truth seems to be the opposite: the Supreme Court defanged the Arizona law to the point where it has no meaning. The case is an outright victory for the Obama administration – it allows them to complain about racial profiling without the state of Arizona having the power to actually fight illegal immigration. Beyond which, the ruling is dead wrong.
First things first: the ruling today completely removes Arizona’s ability to deal with illegal immigration. There were four provisions of the Arizona law at issue:
- Section 2(B): When Arizona law enforcement reasonably suspect that somebody they have lawfully detained is in the country illegally, they must check immigration status.
- Section 6: Arizona law enforcement can make warrantless arrests if they have probable cause to believe that the suspect is in the country illegally. The person is then turned over to federal immigration authorities to deal with.
- Section 3: It’s a crime under Arizona law for illegal immigrants to fail to carry alien registration documentation.
- Section 5(C): Unlawfully present aliens can’t knowingly apply for, solicit, or do work in Arizona.
The Supreme Court struck down all but the first of these provisions. Logically, that means that even if Arizona law enforcement pulls somebody over for a traffic stop and checks immigration status, they can’t actually arrest them for immigration status under Section 6, and they can’t even cite them for a crime under Section 3. So, what are the cops supposed to do – check immigration status, then write a ticket and let these illegal immigrants go about their business?
As for provision 5(C), federal law already puts a burden on employers to check immigration status before hiring, but the state made it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit work. That provision is gone, too.
This leads to the second point: this is a big win for Obama. The heart of the law is not intact. Only the most controversial provision, which mandates illegal immigration checks by law enforcement – and which will not result in arrests in any case – remains, providing political fodder for the Obama campaign. They’re already capitalizing on it, calling the Supreme Court and the State of Arizona racist.
Today’s Supreme Court decision upholding the major provision of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 immigration law is a strong rebuke of the Obama Administration.
The Administration had argued that its own immigration enforcement priorities should be treated as controlling law—that is, above the determinations of both Congress and Arizona. But the Court’s decision means that the President must go through Congress if he wishes to impede the states’ ability to enforce immigration laws within their borders.
In a judgment joined by all eight justices who participated (Justice Elena Kagan was recused), the Court found that Arizona may implement its requirement that law enforcement officers make a “reasonable attempt…to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop, detain, or arrest, if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States.” The Court found that three other provisions, which regulated alien registration, illegal aliens seeking employment, and arrest of individuals based upon possible removability, were preempted by federal law.
In this case, the Court recognized that the core of S.B. 1070, which requires officers to work collaboratively with the federal government to determine the immigration status of those who have been stopped or detained for a lawful purpose, need not be interpreted to conflict with federal law. With this decision, the Court has reaffirmed the important principle that, much as he might want to, President Obama cannot prevent the states from taking action to enforce federal immigration laws just by saying that he doesn’t want them to do so.