Supreme Court Rulings on SB-1070 and Obamacare Commit “Treason to the Constitution,” and are Null and Void.

Supreme Court Rulings on SB-1070 and Obamacare Commit "Treason to the Constitution," and are Null and Void.

In June, 2012, roughly two years after the initial filings, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) passed down rulings on the multi-state lawsuit against Obamacare, and on Arizona’s SB-1070. Was the Constitution upheld or further eviscerated? Political pundits on both sides of the issues spun the rulings to fit either their joy or outrage depending on their political persuasion, but what really happened?

"When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom." -Confucius (551 BCE - 479 BCE)

Regardless of which side of the issues you reside, you were betrayed. The federal district courts that the complaints were filed in had zero constitutional authority to hear the cases. The appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, had zero constitutional authority to hear “on appeal” the lawsuits against Arizona’s SB-1070 and Obamacare.

The Declaration of Independence clearly states:“…governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The process matters and the ends do not justify the means, especially when the “means” involve shredding the Constitution, and the “ends” involve destroying the sovereignty of the States, and eviscerating the Bill of Rights. An authority usurped is a tyrannical act, and this unjust power was not derived from the “consent of the governed.”

Thomas Jefferson’s advice   “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundation of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special Government to a general and supreme one alone.

We shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately taken. If they do, then, with the editor of our book, in his address to the public, I will say, “that against this every man should raise his voice, and more, should uplift his arm…That pen should go on, lay bare these wounds of our Constitution, expose the decisions seriatim, and arouse, as it is able, the attention of the nation to these bold speculators on its patience.” - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820  

Thomas Jefferson further advised: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion with education.”
James Madison, author of the Constitution, is attributed with the following from March 3, 1817:“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

In a June 12, 1823 letter to Judge William Johnson, Thomas Jefferson writes:“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.“  — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

Taking Jefferson’s advice, give due diligence to the following questions:
1. How did inferior federal district courts establish jurisdiction and venue to hear the cases brought before them, and was that Constitutional?2. Where in the Constitution did the appellate courts and the Supreme Court obtain their authority to hear these cases [in which a State is party] “on appeal?”3. If the appellate courts and SCOTUS did not obtain that authority directly from the Constitution, then where did they get it?4. If Congress granted that authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?5. If the Supreme Court granted this authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?6. What did the Framers of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court say about such a situation?  

An honest review of the process will expose that the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, was usurped and ignored at every step of the way. Until the above questions are answered, an honest discussion of the merits of the cases and the rulings handed down, is not possible. Until due diligence is given the above questions, making any decisions regarding what We the People’s next course of action should be is premature and irresponsible.  

What does the Supreme Law of the Land say about how these cases should be handled?

The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 states:“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” [Emphasis added]

In 1821, in "Cohens v. Virginia," Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall stated the following:  

• “The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."
• "…It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution."
• “The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank, and the part two of its authors [Madison and Hamilton] performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed.”
• “These essays having been published while the Constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.”   

–U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall

1. How did inferior federal district courts establish jurisdiction and venue to hear the cases brought before them, and was that Constitutional?ANSWER: Plaintiffs cited 28 USC 1251, 1331, and 1345 in their complaints to establish jurisdiction and venue before inferior federal district courts. These statutes are themselves “repugnant” to the Constitution, and should have been rejected. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court was granted the power to authorize the subjugation of cases “in which a State shall be Party” to inferior courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has the duty, as clearly defined in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, Part 1, to be the “first” to hear cases “in which a State shall be Party.”.

Over the years, both Congress and the Supreme Court have overstepped their authority on this issue, each relying on the other to validate the practice, yet nothing in the Constitution authorizes either to do so. Laws not written in pursuance of the Constitution are not law at all, and no court has authority to rely on unconstitutional laws to take jurisdiction that is not theirs to exercise. Additionally, no ruling passed down by a court that has no constitutional authority is valid. 28 USC 1251, 1331, and 1345 must be amended to conform to the mandates of the Constitution. View proposal here.

Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 78:“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is executed, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803:  

• “It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
• Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” [emphasis added]  

2. Where in the Constitution did the appellate courts and the Supreme Court obtain their authority to hear these cases [in which a State is party] "on appeal?"

ANSWER: They didn’t. The Constitution grants no such appellate authority to any court, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts should have taken these cases away from "inferior tribunals" under his authority over the lesser courts, and in pursuance of his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. He was advised of this constitutional crisis, and chose to ignore it, as were the litigants in the Arizona and Virginia cases. (Read: Open letters to Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts at RejoinorDie.com)

3. If the appellate courts and SCOTUS did not obtain that authority directly from the Constitution, then where did they get it?
ANSWER: Congress, in direct contradiction to Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, granted authority to the federal appellate courts and to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear cases “on appeal” within the federal judiciary in which States are Party. No such constitutional crisis would ever arise if Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, Part 1 was upheld.

4. If Congress granted that authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?ANSWER: No. The Constitution only authorizes Congress to make exceptions and to establish regulations [laws] in respect to cases that do not involve sovereign States [foreign or domestic]. The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, part 2 clearly states that the “appellate” jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is granted in relation to “all the other cases before mentioned.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “original jurisdiction” as follows: “Original Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in the first instance. Jurisdiction to take cognizance of a course at its inception, tries it, and passes judgment upon the law and facts. Distinguished from appellate jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added.)

5. If the Supreme Court authorized inferior federal courts to hear cases “in which a State shall be Party,” does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court that power?

ANSWER: No. The Supreme Court of the United States is granted [shall have] “original jurisdiction” over cases in which one of the parties represents a sovereign (foreign or domestic), and is granted “appellate jurisdiction” over “all the other cases.”
The Supreme Court may choose to hear or not hear on appeal “all the other cases” for which it was granted “appellate jurisdiction.” The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the authority to neglect or subjugate cases to inferior courts it is required to hear ‘in the first instance.”

The states, acting alone or in tandem, have no discretion under the Constitution to engage in a federal lawsuit on behalf of a sovereign state in an inferior federal court. To do so violates the Constitution and undermines the sovereign relationship of all other states that exists between them and the federal government within our constitutional republic.

6. What did the Framers of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court say about such a situation?

ANSWER: The Framers of the Constitution [the sovereign states] established, and the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged, that when a conflict between the sovereign States and the federal government arises, and said conflict is to be resolved within a federal court, that it must be adjudicated “in the first instance” before the U.S. Supreme Court, and no other. The Constitution makes no differentiation regarding whether or not the State is a plaintiff or a defendant. The cases against Obamacare and Arizona’s SB-1070 fall in that category.

Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 81:

“In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.”

George Washington warned us, and advised us in his 1796 Farewell Address:

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803:

“If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction.“

“If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where

the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance."  

“Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.”

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”

“If the solicitude of the Convention respecting our peace with foreign powers induced a provision that the Supreme Court should take original jurisdiction in cases which might be supposed to affect them, yet the clause would have proceeded no further than to provide for such cases if no further restriction on the powers of Congress had been intended. That they should have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, with such exceptions as Congress might make, is no restriction unless the words be deemed exclusive of original jurisdiction.”

“It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.”

“When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system divides it into one Supreme and so many inferior courts as the Legislature may ordain and establish, then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them as to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the words seems to be that, in one class of cases, its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other, it is appellate, and not original. If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to the obvious meaning.”
- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Mr. Bernard Reese, a Trustee of the Supreme Court Historical Society, in an August 10, 2010 article titled, “Court had no authority in Arizona case; Supreme Court does,” published in the Rockford Register Star states:


“The United States Constitution, Article III, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 specifically provides that: “In all cases …. in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

“Thus, U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder filed the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case. This means that neither Judge Susan Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, has any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue...” (Emphasis added)

-Bernard Reese, of the law firm Reese & Reese,

Trustee, Supreme Court Historical Society

In early August, 2010, taking the advice of Jefferson to “inform their discretion through education,” letters were delivered to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. These letters have since become known as ‘scarlet letters.’

Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, in a December 12, 2010 Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace, stated the following items should be taken into consideration when deciding cases in the interest of maintaining public confidence in the court: 1- the text of the legislation, 2- the history, 3- the traditions, 4- the precedents, 5- the values, and 6- the consequences of the decision.


An application of Justice Breyer’s philosophy on maintaining “public confidence” in the court suggests the following analysis:


• TEXT – Compare 28 USC 1251 to Article III, Section 2, and the bills to the Constitution.


• HISTORY – Founding documents & Federalist Papers 62, 78, and 81


• TRADITIONS – “original jurisdiction” in Blackstone’s Commentaries, and in Black’s Law Dictionary.


• PRECEDENT – “Marbury v. Madison"   • VALUES – does this statute uphold intent of the Framers?


• CONSEQUENCES – shredding of State’s Rights, risks the loss of confidence in the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution.


Was “public confidence” in the Supreme Court advanced or diminished by these rulings? Nothing about the Supreme Court’s handling of these cases instills confidence they are upholding the Constitution. Without getting into the merits of the case, if the Constitution was usurped at every step of the way, and the Supreme Court Chief Justice does nothing to secure the integrity of the process, how can public confidence in the high court be anything but diminished?


“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the roots.”

- Henry David Thoreau

A wise man told me "If you don’t know where you’re headed, any road will get you there." Are we heading in the direction of restoring and upholding the Constitution, or are we being ruled by the whims of men?

Did we “bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution” as Jefferson advised? The parties that filed these lawsuits and the parties that responded made “strategic decisions” to ignore the “Supreme Law of the Land” and relied instead on unconstitutional statutes and case law to justify their actions. The federal district courts which took “original jurisdiction” had no such constitutional authority as the statutes they relied upon to establish “jurisdiction and venue” were themselves unconstitutional.

The appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, relied on precedent and unconstitutional statutes to establish their appellate authority to review the cases against Obamacare and Arizona’s SB-1070.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution has never been amended to authorize the subjugation of cases to “inferior tribunals” [federal district courts] in which the sovereign states “are Party,” nor has it been amended to grant the appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the authority to hear cases “on appeal” in which a state is Party. James Madison talked about usurped powers.

This is not “just government,” and We the People have not consented to it. There are many remedies available to right these wrongs. The sovereign states have a duty to “interpose, nullify, and reject” these rulings, and We the People have a duty to replace every usurper in public office: federal, state, and local.   In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, a state’s right and duty is explained with the following:
“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them.” -James Madison, from Elliot’s Debates, Library of Congress

In the Report on the Virginia Resolutions, James Madison author of the Constitution states:
“However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”  -James Madison, from Elliot’s Debates, Library of Congress
  Face it folks, the system has been perverted to undermine, ignore, and destroy our constitutional republic. Our ignorance of the mandates in the Constitution have made us vulnerable to opportunists who prey upon the public resolve for their own political or financial gain with reckless disregard for the Constitution they swore an oath to defend against all enemies. When we cheer on such usurpations because the rulings are favorable to our positions, we become enablers to the destruction of our constitutional republic.


Samuel Adams, often referred to as the ‘Father of the American Revolution,” advised us,
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."


Obamacare and Arizona’s SB-1070 aren’t the core problem. The rulings for and against them aren’t the core solution. Tens of millions of dollars were coerced out of grassroots pockets to fight against Obamacare, and nothing changed. The federal government’s refusal to uphold its constitutional duty to “protect us against invasion” (see Article IV, Section 4), and the states’ refusal to demand their grievances be heard in a court that has constitutional authority (Article III, Section 2, Clause 2) further empowers the federal government and further eviscerates state sovereignty. Without the states upholding their constitutional duties, We the People don’t have a chance of preserving our God-given Rights against a rogue federal government.
Jeff Lewis National Director
, FIRE Coalition National Director
, Patriot Coalition Project Director
, The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER Email
: Jeff@patriotcoalition.com Phone
: 252-876-9489 Twitter
: http://twitter.com/PatriotWatchdog

Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona immigration law, strikes down rest

The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law in a 5-3 decision on Monday that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops. That part of the law, which never went into effect because of court challenges, will now immediately be enforced in Arizona.

Other parts of the law, including a provision that Public Schools (& Here’s the History) made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, will remain blocked, as the justices affirmed the federal government's supremacy over immigration policy.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, wrote the opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas partially dissented, saying the entire law should have been upheld.

CONTINUED:  http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-upholds-key-part-arizona-immigration-law-141927514.html

David DeGerolamo--NC Freedom (reposted)

A Judeo-Christian Nation Must Not Stand


October 23, 2010 by randyedye

Our nation is fading into the sunset of the world’s greatest experiment on self-government. The founding principles and morality upon which this nation was built are now reviled and attacked on a daily basis. The definition of religion varies but as it pertains to a successful society, it defines the morality of the people’s behavior and laws. In order to overthrow a nation based on virtue and morality and replace it with state directed control, you must remove faith. Too many people in the patriot movement run away from religion. We forget (or chose to forget) that our American Revolution was called the “Presbyterian Revolt” in England.

In fact, George III called it a “Presbyterian war,” many in Britain referred to it as “the Presbyterian revolt,” and the British Prime Minister said, “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and that is the end of it.”

The fall of the United States is being accomplished with attacks on two fronts: economic and religious. The self censuring of our politically correct society includes the destruction of our faith in religion and morality which has led to our downfall. On October 23rd, a rally is being held in King, North Carolina to protest a decision by the city council to remove the Christian flag above a monument in their central park. In Grand Rapids, Michigan a civil rights complaint was filed against a woman because she advertised for a “Christian roommate”. On the other hand, the firing of Juan Williams for stating a fact that all of us believe concerning Muslims is not denounced by the media, most politicians or the church.

We must understand that our country’s downfall was a three pronged attack which only succeeded due to the apathy of an affluent society. We the People are the only ones to blame for our loss of moral government, church and education. Our efforts have focused on government and the upcoming elections. No efforts are made to retake our churches or schools. Without the leadership of the church, there would not have been a revolution or a United States. Social Justice and greed have overthrown our churches and have contributed to our moral decay. If you go to church, when was the last time that you heard a sermon referencing “natural law” and “freedom” being a right bestowed on every man by God?

Our children and young adults are attending indoctrination centers instead of school or centers of higher education. Did you know that the government classifies “home schooling” as a tenet for extremists? Our Department of Education in Washington, DC dictates mandates in our schools concerning even the food that our children eat. Do you see the blurring of the lines between government, church and education? How about some recent examples:

1. Winston-Salem State University sends out a mass e-mail telling staff and students to vote Democrat.

2. Three van loads of Hughes High students in Cincinnati were taken last week to vote and given sample ballots only for Democratic candidates. This was during school hours and they were then rewarded (paid off) with ice cream.

3. Seton Hall Law School’s Center for Social Justice filed a class action lawsuit today against New Jersey on behalf of low-income legal immigrants who have been denied state-funded Medicaid health insurance under the FamilyCare program due to recent budget cuts.

4. Here is part of a letter referring to Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration bill.

“When injustice becomes law, resistance to that law becomes our moral duty. Thus, this law must be stopped.”

KATE LORE

Southeast Portland

Rev. Lore is the social justice minister of First Unitarian Church in Southwest Portland.

America now understands that the upcoming elections are a critical tipping point in our history. We still do not recognize the threat to our future coming from the silencing of the church and the state controlled educational system. Unfortunately the people and politicians who have brought our country to its knees, do understand this.

David DeGerolamo
NC Freeedom

ConservativeActionAlerts.com

Fiscal Relief through Immigration Enforcement


Written by CAA Opinion on September 07, 2010
JAMES R. EDWARDS, JR.


Want to hear an unexplored way to relieve American taxpayers, while reducing billions of dollars of public spending by cash-strapped states and localities? Enforce our immigration laws.


The state of Arizona is having to fight the Obama Administration as hard as it fights illegal aliens and the cartels that smuggle them into the United States. There’s no support whatsoever to help reduce illegals’ fiscal burden.

The Obama Justice Department has sued to block the state’s new, wildly popular S.B. 1070. The administration also has sued Arizona over its employment verification law. Obamaites have targeted Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio with trumped-up charges of mistreating criminal aliens—really just an intimidation tactic straight from the bowels of Chicago politics.

Yet, Arizona’s state and local government agencies, and of course state taxpayers, bear a tremendous cost burden on account of illegal immigration. Still, Obama’s immigration officials are more and more restricting the state and local police role in immigration enforcement, ever narrowing the list of illegals they consider “criminals,” and abusing exceptional-case powers to effect de facto amnesty.

In other words, the federal government—deliberately and systematically, under this administration—is doing nothing to ease the tremendous fiscal burden illegal alien impose on American citizens. In fact, the Obama Administration worsens the fiscal situation for Americans, in Arizona and elsewhere, by its pro-amnesty stance on one hand and its anti-enforcement position on the other hand.

Make no mistake. Immigration imposes significant costs on the native-born. These costs mount at the federal, state and local levels. They range from education to welfare to medical care to criminal justice and beyond. For almost one-third of the states, these costs are measured in the billions of dollars.

The latest study of illegal immigration’s costs comes from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. This report, titled “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers,” tallies the burden to federal, state and local governments.

FAIR calculates that illegal immigration imposes annual costs of $113 billion on taxpayers. The federal share of this cost comes to $29 billion a year. States and localities each year shoulder more than $84 billion annually due to illegal immigration.

Native-born families each pay an average $1,117 to subsidize illegal aliens. The report notes that American families in states with larger illegal populations pay a higher amount for the services illegals impose.

State and local spending on illegal aliens is heaviest in California, the No. 1 immigrant destination. That state pays out nearly $28 billion each year to serve illegal aliens.

Outlays pay for education, healthcare (particularly Medicaid), criminal justice and welfare. Education accounts for the lion’s share of illegal immigration’s costs.

Arizona alone lays out $2.57 billion annually on the public costs imposed by illegals. The so-called jobs magnet may have more power, but it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the taxpayer subsidy magnet also weighs in aliens’ decision to break U.S. immigration laws.

Apologists for illegal aliens assert that illegals pay taxes here. Set aside the fact that illegals’ presence forces American families to pay an extra $1,117 on average to subsidize the illegals’ public costs. (In Arizona, families face more than $1,500 a year in extra taxes to cover illegals’ costs.) Not only the FAIR study, but any honest analysis shows that illegal aliens don’t nearly pay their fair share of taxes.

Federal taxes paid by illegal aliens amount to about $9.46 billion annually, FAIR reports. Illegals contribute just $3.96 billion a year to state and local coffers. That’s eclipsed several times over by the $84 billion illegals collect through state and local public services.

As a fiscal relief valve, immigration enforcement has proven effective. An August 16, 2006, fact sheet from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau cites massive savings in just one of Arizona’s state agencies.

According to the ICE document, “In November, 2005, the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) began processing alien inmates at their Intake Center as part of the 287(g) program. By processing aliens who met the criteria for early release and turning them over to ICE for removal, the ADC has realized a cost savings of $2,985,655 and a savings of 53,135 bed days.”

The state corrections department in less than one year, with ICE’s cooperation, saved nearly $3 million simply by ridding the state and our nation of some criminal aliens. Yet, the Obama ICE agency has turned hostile toward the 287(g) program, toward state and local immigration enforcement help, toward the exercise of state and local prerogatives directed toward driving illegal aliens from their jurisdictions.

Americans could breathe a great sigh of tax relief if the Obama Administration would stop promising amnesty and start enforcing our immigration laws.

http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/1019

AMERICAN THINKER

U.N. report clearly not treason, just treasonous
September 02, 2010

Mark J. Fitzgibbons


Apparently the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's State Department consider our republican form of government a human rights deficiency.

As Carol Taber wrote, "Last week, the Obama State Department submitted a report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on the supposed human rights violations taking place in the United States." Michelle Malkin does her usual great job as well blasting the report.

Arizona's immigration enforcement law, S.B. 1070, is referenced in the report's ugly circumstances:

"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, justifiably upset, wrote a letter calling the report "unconstitutional" and "downright offensive."

Enacted lawfully by the State of Arizona, with provisions consistent with a federal statute, currently in a court challenge (opposed 2 -1 by Americans) by the Obama administration initiated before the law was implemented, and, of course, having violated no human rights, S.B. 1070 is a typical product of our American republican form of government, enacted at law and being litigated in our judicial system.

To air its displeasure with S.B. 1070 by referencing it in a human rights violation report to the U.N. clearly gives our foreign detractors and enemies comfort. This is a not-so-subtle attack on our republican form of government, the majority of Americans who support the law, and the majority of Americans who oppose the Obama administration's litigation against it.

It is treasonous, albeit, not an act of treason.

Obama's Speech Misleads Americans on Illegal Immigration & Amnesty

Obama's Speech Misleads Americans on Illegal Immigration & Amnesty


July 1, 2010

CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)

(866) 703-0864 WilliamG@alipac.us


ALIPAC is responding to President Obama's immigration speech by calling on him to abandon his push for Amnesty for illegal aliens and to honor his oath of office and the requirements of the US Constitution by enforcing America's existing border and immigration laws.

"We call on all candidates for Congress to clearly state their opposition to Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "President Obama is committing a form of Treason against the American public by refusing to adequately enforce our existing immigration and border laws at the behest Global corporations and financial influences intent upon usurping the self-governance of the American public. Americans want immigration enforcement, instead of Obama's Amnesty and we expect voters to punish Amnesty supporters in the 2010 elections."

Obama mischaracterized legal immigrants in today's speech, as he criticized Arizona's new law, SB 1070, which is now being considered in more than twenty states!

Obama cited the contributions of Albert Einstein, Nicola Tesla, and many other legal immigrants to the United States. It is patently insulting and a cheap political trick to compare law abiding legal immigrants with illegal aliens who willingly violate a series of US laws to take what is not theirs and what is not freely given by American citizens.

"Obama's speech was the same old tricks, since he confused legal immigrants with illegal aliens, and offered the false choice of blanket amnesty vs. mass deportations," said William Gheen. "Obama is trying to trick the American public by confusing legal and illegal and offering false choices, instead of doing his job properly."

Obama's speech was made at American University, which is where Dr. Robert Pastor has advocated the formation of a North American Community, which has been called a North American Union by those opposed to the components of the plan that calls for a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Obama also used the words 'Security and Prosperity' in his speech to convey his support for the Pastor plan, which was manifest during the Bush administration as the Security and Prosperity Partnership or SPP.

ALIPAC is launching a revised website at www.AgainstAmnesty.com to help Americans track, spread, and pass versions of Arizona's immigration laws in other states. Twenty states are currently listed.

ALIPAC will launch candidate surveys and pledges to all Federal candidates on July 5th that are designed to help voters determine which candidates support or oppose the Bush/Obama Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty plan. ALIPAC intends to endorse candidates who oppose the plan, while encouraging Americans to contribute to and volunteer on those endorsed campaigns.

"We encourage our political opposition to make sure their candidates proudly display their support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty," said William Gheen. "We will encourage our candidates to display their opposition. That way, the American public can clear many of these traitors out of office this year."

For more information or to schedule interviews, please visit www.alipac.us and www.AgainstAmnesty.com