Constitution Warrior

Furthering the Cause of Anti-Federalism

Archive for the tag “Obama”

Chief of Staff Dorn VA Medical Center Jan 2012 – Do Not “…send out anymore non-VA care GI requests for endoscopy until further notice.”

According to VA IG Report No. 12-04631-313 “Healthcare Inspection: Gastroenterology Consult Delays William Jennings Bryan Dorn VA Medical Center Columbia, South Carolina”, Former Chief of Staff Barbara Temeck, M.D, sent an email to the Business Office “not to “…send out anymore non-VA care GI requests for endoscopy until further notice.”” According to the IG Report the email stated ““…attempting to internalize as many of these 700 cases as possible.”. During January 1–March 29, 2012 only 100 Veterans were seen outside the VA for Colonoscopies while the In-house Colonoscopies declined during the same time period.

VA DORN No Fee BAsed care

Why the Chief of Staff made this decision is unclear.  The IG Report report substantiated claims of a lack of priority by HR and Nursing Admin to staff open positions in the GI Clinic.

We substantiated that GI staffing was not optimal and that critical nursing positions went unfilled for months. It was difficult to determine specifically when some critical positions were vacant, primarily because interviewees recalled dates and events differently or documentation was sparse. However, most GI managers and clinicians we interviewed relayed similar accounts of staffing deficiencies, positions not being backfilled, and difficulty getting approval for new hires. During the AIB, the former CoS testified that the GI Service lacked nurses and clerks, and that the problem was “fairly long standing.”

The Chief of Medicine requested funds in 2011 from VISN 7 to address the growing backlog in the GI CLinic. The Request was approved and the facility received $1.02M but only appropriated  $275,000 for Non-VA Care Colonoscopies.

We substantiated that VISN 7 gave the facility $1.02M in early September 2011 to use to address the GI backlog but that only approximately $275,000 was actually used for this purpose through August 2012. The Business Office was not aware that the additional monies were “earmarked” to address the GI backlog and obligated the funds as usual. The VISN 7 CFO told us that although the facility was given $1.02M expressly to address the GI backlog, they did not have to report back to the VISN on how the funds were used. The CFO reported that facilities may use their discretion to determine how to best meet the needs of their patients; however, fee care was specifically identified as a mechanism to reduce the backlog.

Clearly the funds were available to refer Veterans to Non-VA Facilities but the CoS chose not to. Why would the CoS make this decision when clearly the Facility did not have the capacity due to staffing issues. Veterans DIED. People need to be held accountable.

Advertisements

Three Events Which Happened Before #Benghazi Attack – Need Answers

Many know about the lax security in Benghazi and the Obama Administration’s Ludicrous Story about a YouTube Video causing Protests. Three other events took place in the days before and the morning of the Benghazi attack which we have no answers for.

  1. On Sept 4th 2012,  Egyptian General Intelligence Service warned that a radical jihadi group is planning to launch terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies in Cairo in a TOP SECRET document.  Was this warning sent to the US Embassy in Cairo or any other US Agencies? If so Who received this warning? Was this warning disseminated?

    http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/intelligence-warns-attacks-against-us-and-israeli-embassies

  2. On Sept 10th, a cable was sent from Washington D.C. to US Embassy Cairo warning of violence stemming from the airing of an Anti-Muslim YouTube video.  The cable was not sent to any other posts in the region to include Benghazi. Who sent the cable? Why was the cable not sent to US Embassy in Tripoli Libya?

    http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/US-Cairo-embassy-was-warned-of-possible-violence

  3. On the morning of Sept. 11th at 0453 AM EST, an article appeared in the Egypt Independent about the Sept 4th Egypt Intelligence Memo warning about Terror attacks on the US and Israeli Embassies in Cairo. Did anyone in any US Agency see this article? If so who? Was it passed on to anyone?

    Intelligence warns of attacks against US and Israeli embassies   Egypt Independent

Someone in the Media needs to follow-up on these three events.  These are the REAL answers needed.

We Were Duly Warned – Geo. Mason

Ezekiel “Dr. Mengele” Emanuel, Chief Architect of ObamaCare, and his “Complete Lives System”

Emanuel Kelly File
The Chief Architect of Obamacare is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Recently, Megyn Kelly has had him on her show, “The Kelly File”. Anyone who saw Dr. Emanuel on “Kelly File” knows he is an abrasive, arrogant, and downright nasty individual.

Ezekiel “Dr. Mengle” Emanuel’s views on Health Care is known as “The Complete Lives System”. Below is an excerpt from “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions” written by Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, Ezekiel J Emanuel which appear in “The Lancet” Vol 373 January 31, 2009 pages 423–31.

Do not be fooled by the rhetoric of the Marxists. As you read this excerpt from the article, you will immediately notice the Marxist “buzz words” of “social justice”,”fair”, “just”, et.al.

At its core, ” the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives.”

(Formatting did not transfer over. I did my best to edit)

“The complete lives system”

Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles (table 2): youngest-first,prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. 5 As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice: “individual human lives, rather than individual experiences, [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate.” 1,75,76 Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system.

Consideration of the importance of complete lives alsosupports modifying the youngest-first principle byprioritising adolescents and young adults over infants(figure). Adolescents have received substantial educationand parental care, investments that will be wasted withouta complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet receivedthese investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life.77

As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, “It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does”; 78 this argument is supported by empirical surveys. 41,79 Importantly, the prioritization of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo. Consequently, poor adolescents should be treated the same as wealthy ones,even though they may have received less investment owing to social injustice.

The complete lives system also considers prognosis,since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. 42 When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly,allocating to the better-off is often justifiable. 1,30  Some small benefits, such as a few weeks of life, might also be intrinsically insignificant when compared with large benefits. 8

Saving the most lives is also included in this system because enabling more people to live complete lives is better than enabling fewer. 8,44 In a public health emergency,instrumental value could also be included to enable more people to live complete lives. Lotteries could be used when making choices between roughly equal recipients, and also potentially to ensure that no individual—irrespective of age or prognosis—is seen as beyond saving.
34,80 Thus, the complete lives system is complete in another way: it incorporates each morally relevant simple principle.

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance,whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated (figure). 78 It therefore superficially resembles the proposal made by DALY advocates; however, the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely, ALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled people as objectively less valuable.

Finally, the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accuratelyfrom identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health thatthe sickest-first allocation creates. 58,59

Objections

We consider several important objections to the complete lives system.

The complete lives system discriminates against older people. 81,82 Age-based allocation is ageism. 82 Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. 8,39 Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. 16 Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.

Age, like income, is a “non-medical criterion” inappropriate for allocation of medical resources. 14,83  In contrast to income, a complete life is a health outcome. Long-term survival and life expectancy at birth are key health-care outcome variables. 84 Delaying the age at onset of a disease is desirable. 85,86

The complete lives system is insensitive to international differences in typical lifespan. Although broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over the very elderly people, implementation can reasonably differ between, even within, nation-states. 87,88 Some people believe that a complete life is a universal limit founded in natural human capacities, which everyone should accept even without scarcity. 37 By contrast, the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, an daccept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources.

Principles must be ordered lexically: less important principles should come into play only when more important ones are fulfilled. 10 Rawls himself agreed that lexical priority was inappropriate when distributing specific resources in society, though appropriate for ordering the principles of basic social justice that shape the distribution of basic rights, opportunities, and income. 1  As an alternative, balancing priority to the worst-off against maximising benefits has won wide support in discussions of allocative local justice. 1,8,30 As Amartya Sen argues, justice“does not specify how much more is to be given to the deprived person, but merely that he should receive more”. 89

Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending. 81,90 The complete lives system explicitly rejects waste and corruption, such as multiple listing for transplantation. Although it may be applicable more generally, the complete lives system has been developed to justly allocate persistently scarce life-saving interventions. 39,80 Hearts for transplant and influenza vaccines, unlike money, cannot be replaced or diverted to non-health goals; denying a heart to one person makes it available to another. Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create “classes of  Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on”, 91 but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.

Legitimacy

As well as recognising morally relevant values, an allocation system must be legitimate. Legitimacy requires that people see the allocation system as just and accept actua lallocations as fair. Consequently, allocation systems must be publicly understandable, accessible, and subject topublic discussion and revision. 92 They must also resist corruption, since easy corruptibility undermines the public trust on which legitimacy depends. Some systems, like theUNOS points systems or QALY systems, may fail this test, because they are diffi cult to understand, easily corrupted,or closed to public revision. Systems that intentionally conceal their allocative principles to avoid public complaints might also fail the test. 93

Although procedural fairness is necessary for legitimacy, it is unable to ensure the justice of allocation decisions o nits own. 94,95 Although fair procedures are important,substantive, morally relevant values and principles are indispensable for just allocation. 96,97

Conclusion

Ultimately, none of the eight simple principles recognise all morally relevant values, and some recognise irrelevant values. QALY and DALY multiprinciple systems neglect the importance of fair distribution. UNOS points systems attempt to address distributive justice, but recognise morally irrelevant values and are vulnerable to corruption. By contrast, the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis,lottery, and saving the most lives. In pandemic situations,it also allocates scarce interventions to people instrumental in realising these four principles. Importantly, it is not an algorithm, but a framework that expresses widely affirmed values: priority to the worst-off, maximising benefits, and treating people equally. To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.

“Dr. Mengele” Emanuel is the Primary Author and Point of Contact for the Article.

Department of Bioethics,The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,Maryland, USA
(G Persad BS,A Wertheimer PhD,E J Emanuel MD)
Correspondence to: Ezekiel J Emanuel,Department of Bioethics,The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,MD 20892-1156, USA eemanuel@nih.gov

Immigration Reform: NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA (NCLR)

NCLR Logo

With more than 300 affiliate organizations in 41 U.S. states, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is currently the largest national Hispanic civil-rights and advocacy organization in America. It is also one of the most influential, as reflected in the fact that NCLR representatives have been called to testify at Congressional hearings more than 100 times since the 1970s.

NCLR’s roots can be traced back to the early 1960s, when a group of young Mexican Americans in Washington, DC decided to form a coordinating body to bring existing Hispanic groups—which were generally small and isolated—together into a single united front, which they called the National Organization for Mexican American Services (NOMAS). Soon thereafter, NOMAS presented a funding proposal to the Ford Foundation, which in turn issued a large grant to finance a major, first-of-its-kind UCLA study of Mexican Americans and the major issues they faced.

Before long, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights began to hold a series of influential hearings on the status of Mexican Americans and, later, other Latino groups residing in the United States. In addition, the Ford Foundation initiated a second (though less academic) investigation of the same subject. To carry out that study, Ford hired three Mexican Americans—Dr. Julian Samora (a community activist who helped pioneer the field of Latino Studies; Dr. Ernesto Galarza (a professor who was widelyconsidered “the dean of Chicano activism”); and Herman Gallegos (a San Francisco-based community organizer who had previously worked with his mentor, Saul Alinsky, to establish a Mexican-American political action group. These three men traveled throughout the Southwest to meet with other Hispanic activists vis a vis policies and programs that could be developed to help Mexican Americans. These consultations resulted in the publication of two reports showing that Mexican Americans “faced numerous obstacles, especially with respect to poverty”; needed “more local, grassroots programmatic and advocacy organizations”; and could benefit from a sustained “national advocacy” campaign on their behalf.

To address these issues, Galarza, Samora, and Gallegos collaborated to co-found the Southwest Council of La Raza (SWCLR)—NCLR’s predecessor—in Phoenix, Arizona in February 1968. SWCLR’s major funding was provided by the Ford Foundation, the National Council of Churches, and the United Auto Workers union. Gallegos became SWCLR’s first executive director, while Galarza served as a consultant to the nascent organization. In the summer of 1968, SWCLR began to help establish and support barrio (community) groups committed to “promoting empowerment, voter registration, leadership development, and other forms of advocacy.”

At the end of 1972, SWCLR became a national organization and changed its name to the National Council of La Raza (NCLR, often simply called “La Raza”) “to reflect its commitment to represent and serve all Mexican Americans in all parts of the country.” The following year, the group relocated its headquarters from Phoenix to Washington, DC. Thanks in large measure to continued support from the Ford Foundation (totaling approximately $40 million in grants over the next four decades), NCLR would grow into a behemoth of the left-wing “civil rights” and “social justice” establishment.

Controversy over the Name “La Raza”

The words “La Raza” (Spanish for “The Race”) in NCLR’s name have long been a source of considerable controversy. Critics claim that the name reflects an organizational commitment to racial separatism and race-based grievance mongering. By NCLR’s telling, however, such critics have mistranslated the word “Raza.” “The term ‘La Raza,’” says the organization, “has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as ‘the people’ or, according to some scholars, ‘the Hispanic people of the New World.’” According to NCLR, “the full term,” which was coined by the Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos, is “la raza cósmica,” meaning “the cosmic people.” NCLR describes this as “an inclusive concept” whose purpose is to express the fact that “Hispanics share with all other people’s of the world a common heritage and destiny.”

NCLR’s interpretation of Vasconcelos’s explanation, however, is inaccurate. As Guillermo Lux and Maurilio Vigil (professors of history and political science, respectively, at New Mexico Highlands University) note in their 1991 book, Aztlan: Essays on the Chicano Homeland:

“The concept of La Raza can be traced to the ideas and writings of Jose Vasconcelos, the Mexican theorist who developed the theory of la raza cosmica (the cosmic or super race) at least partially as a minority reaction to the Nordic notions of racial superiority. Vasconelos developed a systematic theory which argued that climatic and geographic conditions and mixture of Spanish and Indian races created a superior race. The concept of La Raza connotes that the mestizo is a distinct race and not Caucasian, as is technically the case.”

In short, Vasconcelos was not promoting “an inclusive concept,” but rather, the notion of Hispanic racial superiority.

NCLR’s claim is further contradicted by the Council’s own race-specific statements about its activities and objectives. For example, NCLR says that it “welcomesaffiliation from independent Hispanic groups” which share its goals; that it “assistsHispanic groups that are not formal Affiliates”; that it “supports and strengthens Hispanic community-based organizations nationwide—especially those that serve low-income and disadvantaged Hispanics”; that it seeks “to increase policymaker and public understanding of Hispanic needs and to encourage the adoption of programs and policies that equitably serve Hispanics”; that it serves “all Hispanic subgroups in all regions of the country”; and that its political and ideological message is “reaching millions of Hispanics each year.”

La Raza Mag

The Early Years

In 1974 Raul Yzaguirre began a 30-year tenure as NCLR’s national director. Under his stewardship, NCLR in 1975 not only started to concentrate more heavily on public-policy issues but also began to “gradually broaden” its focus from one that was “solely on Mexican Americans,” to one that included all “Chicanos and other Hispanics.” This expanded constituency became official NCLR policy in 1979 when the organization’s board of directors affirmed the Council’s role as “an advocate for all Hispanics.”

The most prominent individual associated with the fledgling NCLR was the legendary union activist Cesar Chavez, who was elected to Council’s board. He was unable to serve in any meaningful way, however, because of the demands of his principal occupation as head of the United Farm Workers of America.

Maclovio Barraza, a Tucson-based labor organizer who claimed that the injustices inherent in American society had turned Mexican Americans in the Southwestern U.S. into one of “the most disadvantaged segments of our society,” served as NCLR’s board chairman during the organization’s first 9 years. Notably, the federal government’s Subversive Activities Control Board had identified Barraza as a Communist Party member.

Illegal Mexican Immigration

NCLR’s Opposition to Post-9/11 Homeland Security Policies

NCLR strongly opposed most of the U.S. government’s post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts—alleging, in most cases, that they “undermined” the rights of “noncitizen Latinos.” Some examples:

  • NCLR opposed the Aviation Transportation and Security Act of 2001, which required that all U.S. airport baggage screeners—many of whom were Hispanics—be American citizens. “Tying together citizenship and security—without any evidence that the two are linked—sets a new and dangerous precedent in the United States” said NCLR staffer Michele Waslin.
  • NCLR endorsed the December 18, 2001 “Statement of Solidarity with Migrants,” which was drawn up by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. This document called upon the U.S. government to “end discriminatory policies passed on the basis of legal status in the wake of September 11”
  • NCLR was a signatory to a March 17, 2003 letter exhorting members of the U.S. Congress to oppose Patriot Act II on grounds that it “contain[ed] a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers … that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights.”
  • In 2003, NCLR endorsed the Community Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties campaign, a project that tried to influence city councils to pass resolutions of non-compliance with the provisions of the Patriot Act.
  • A June 2003 issue brief funded by the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and George Soros’s Open Society Institute gave an extensive overview of NCLR’s view of border issues under the heading “Counterterrorism and the Latino Community Since September 11.” Regarding the recent dissolution of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the incorporation of immigration enforcement into the newly formed Department of Homeland Security, the report stated: “Placing the immigration agency within a new mega-national security agency jeopardizes our country’s rich immigration tradition and threatens to make the already poor treatment of immigrants by the federal bureaucracy even worse.”
  • NCLR endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
  • Post-9/11, NCLR cooperated with groups such as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Arab American Institute to protest the deportation of Arabs living in the United States illegally.
  • NCLR also cooperated with socialist/Marxist groups such as Refuse&Resist!, which likened those lawfully arrested and deported, to the “disappeared” political prisoners of banana republics.

La Raza Protest CA

Current Programs of NCLR

To promote the interests of Hispanics in the United States, NCLR currently engages in research, policy analysis, and advocacy in 8 major program areas:

1) Advocacy & Empowerment

NCLR’s Advocacy & Empowerment (A&E) program aims to help Latinos “assert” their “rightful place” in American society, where they “are suffering from higher rates of unemployment and foreclosure than other communities.” Asserting that “our [Latinos’] voting rights are threatened in states throughout the country,” the A&E program concentrates on “advocacy activities at state and local levels” and seeks to “strengthe[n] Latino participation in the political process.” It does this by “encouraging eligible applicants to become citizens”; “motivating citizens to register and vote”; and “creating a new generation of Latino leaders to educate voters about issues affecting Hispanics and to advocate for local, state, and national policies that will help build a strong Latino community and a stronger country.” Further, the A&E program helps non-citizen Hispanics to become citizens through its “Citizenship, It’s Time!” and “Citizenship Assistance” initiatives, the latter of which provides grants to naturalization programs run by community-based organizations. Similarly, A&E promotes Hispanic voter-registration and voter-mobilization through its “ya es hora ¡VE Y VOTA!” (“It’s Time, Go Vote!”) and Latino Empowerment and Advocacyprojects. Some additional facts:

  • In pursuit of its A&E program goals, NCLR, at the 2008 “Take Back America” conference sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future (CAF), proudly announced that it would be joining a number of fellow left-wing organizations in “the most expensive” ($350 million) voter-registration, voter-education, and voter-mobilization effort “in history” during that year’s election season. Other members of the coalition included ACORN, the AFL-CIO, CAF,MoveOn.org, Rock the Vote, and the Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund.
  • NCLR opposed the REAL ID Act of 2005, which required that all driver’s-license and photo-ID applicants be able to verify they are legal residents of the United States, and that the documents they present to prove their identity are genuine. According to La Raza, this law “opens the door to widespread discrimination and civil rights violations.”

2) Children & Youth

NCLR’s Children & Youth program was created to represent the interests of this “fastest-growing segment of the American population.” A key component of the program is its Líderes Initiative, a national campaign designed to “build the skills of Latino youth and increase their leadership capacity.”

3) Civil Rights & Justice

NCLR’s Civil Rights & Justice (CRJ) program—founded on the premise that “discrimination severely limits the economic and social opportunities available to Hispanic Americans”—conducts civil rights-related policy analysis and advocacy activities “to promote and protect equality of opportunity in voting, justice issues, education, employment, housing, and health care for all Americans.”

A matter of particular concern to the CRJ program is racial profiling, which, according to La Raza, occurs “when an individual’s race or ethnicity is used to establish a cause for suspicion of a crime.” Such “tactics,” says NCLR, “not only violate civil rights, they also undermine the ability of law enforcement to enforce the law effectively” and cause Hispanics who are targeted to “los[e] trust in the integrity of law enforcement.” To address this issue, NCLR “works with policy-makers, law enforcement, and the community to eliminate the use of racial profiling.”

The CRJ program also focuses heavily on the matter of juvenile justice, lamenting that Hispanic youth: (a) “have disproportionate contact with all stages of the juvenile justice system, from being stopped by law enforcement to their arrest, detention, waiver to adult criminal court, and sentencing”; (b) are “at substantial risk of being detained with adults, which has been shown to lead to increased rates of recidivism and suicide”; and (c) need a range of special “services targeted specifically” toward them, including “greater access to culturally and linguistically competent delinquency-prevention services and alternatives to detention.” Among NCLR’s more noteworthy publications on this subject are: School-to-Prison Pipeline: Zero Tolerance for Latino YouthReauthorizing the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: The Impact on Latino YouthLatino Youth in the Juvenile Justice System; and Latino Youth, Immigration, and the Juvenile Justice System.

  • In 2009, NCLR complained that the proposed Gang Abatement and Prevention Act, which sought to punish violent gang crime more harshly, would have “a disproportionate and negative impact on youth of color, particularly Latino youth, who are subjected to racial-profiling, ‘gang enhanced’ sentencing guidelines, and imprisonment in adult facilities where they are abused, assaulted and ultimately groomed into hardened criminals.” Rejecting “punitive measures designed only to punish and not to reform,” La Raza seeks to “shif[t] the emphasis from punishment to prevention and rehabilitation.”

4) Economy & Workforce

NCLR’s Economy & Workforce program promotes policies to “boost Hispanic employment in good jobs, provide safe and fair workplaces, bridge Latino workers’ education and skills gaps, and offer a secure retirement.” One such policy is the Escalera initiative—created by NCLR in collaboration with (and through the support of) the PepsiCo Foundation and PepsiCo, Inc.—which seeks to “eliminate barriers to employment and economic mobility” by means of career exploration, technology skills development, leadership development, personal development, and academic support. In pursuit of a similar end, NCLR’s Career Pathways Initiative aims to steer “low-skilled and limited-English-proficient” adults toward the “green, health care, and customer service sectors.”

5) Education

NCLR’s Education program is dedicated to “increasing educational opportunities, improving achievement, supporting college-readiness, and promoting equity in outcomes for Latinos.” Toward these ends, La Raza offers “capacity-building,” training, and technical assistance to help its Affiliates serve the needs of the Hispanic community “at each critical stage of the education pipeline.”

6) Health & Nutrition

NCLR’s Health & Nutrition (H&N) program seeks to address the “widespread lack of health insurance and [the] inadequate supply of language services [that] currently … prevent Latinos from gaining access to quality care.” It also aims to “eliminate the incidence, burden, and impact of health and environmental problems in Latinos.” In pursuit of these goals, NCLR’s Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation conducts policy analysis and advocacy at the federal level.

  • One of the most significant aspects of the H&N program is its strong opposition “to any legislation which would inhibit immigrant access to health care because of mandates that require inquiry or documentation of immigrant status.” In other words, it favors healthcare benefits for illegal aliens.

7) Immigration

NCLR’s Immigration program calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” that would encourage “the 12 million undocumented people in our country to come forward, obtain legal status, learn English, and assume the rights and responsibilities of citizenship”; “crac[k] down on unscrupulous employers whose practices undermine conditions for all workers”; “unclo[g] legal channels to reunite families and allow future workers to come in with the essential rights and protections that safeguard our workforce”; and enact “proactive measures to advance the successful integration of new immigrants into our communities.”

  • The Immigration program supports the DREAM Act, which would provide a path-to-citizenship for long-term illegal immigrants who first came to the U.S. as minors, have a relatively clean criminal record, hold a high-school diploma or GED, and are not older than age 30. The DREAM Act also contends that illegal immigrants who wish to attend college in their state of residence should be eligible for the same, heavily discounted tuition rates that are available to in-state students who are legal residents.
  • NCLR advocates immigration reform based on a grant of “earned” amnesty that would confer legal status upon illegal aliens.
  • In 1990 NCLR published a report, authored by Cecelia Muñoz, asserting that Congress had a “moral obligation” to repeal the “unconscionable” employer sanctions (against those who hired illegals), which were “inherently discriminatory” and “infringe[d] upon the civil rights of Americans.” The report also advocated “a second legalization program” for illegal immigrants who came to the United States after the enactment of the 1986 amnesty.
  • NCLR strongly opposed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, a welfare-reform bill that: required recipients of certain welfare benefits to begin working after two years of receiving those benefits; placed a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds; and tightened enforcement of child-support compliance. NCLR’s major complaint was the fact that the law banned new legal immigrants from receiving federal public benefits during their first five years in the United States.
  • In 2001, NCLR formed focus groups to study how the American public felt about the word “amnesty”as it pertained to  immigration policy. After the focus groups reported that the public’s reaction was extremely negative, La Raza national director Raul Yzaguirre advised then-Mexican President Vicente Fox to avoid using the term ever again. He urged Fox instead to employ such euphemisms as “regularization,” “legalization,” “normalization,” “permanence,” “earned adjustment,” and “phased-in access to earned regularization.”
  • In 2003, NCLR joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit the tried to prevent federal authorities from entering immigration information into a national crime database—and to prevent local police officers from accessing that data.
  • NCLR is adamantly opposed to permitting local and state police to enforce immigration laws, on the theory that such officers are not adequately trained in the complexities of those laws and thus are likely to abuse their authority. In 2003 and 2005, for example, La Raza warned that the proposed Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act would “result in higher levels of racial profiling, police misconduct, and other civil rights violations.”
  • In 2006, NCLR opposed what it described as a “punitive” bill that sought to control the flow of people illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Nonetheless, La Raza rejects the notion that it is an “open-borders advocate,” stating that it has “repeatedly recognized the right of the United States, as a sovereign nation, to control its borders.”
  • NCLR opposed President Bush’s signing of the “Secure Fence Act of 2006,” which authorized the construction of 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
  • At many of the massive “pro-immigration” rallies that NCLR members attended in 2006, their signature slogan was: “La Raza unida nunca sera vencida!” (“The united Race will never be defeated!”)
  • In 2007, NCLR commissioned the Urban Institute to conduct a study on how the children of illegal immigrants are negatively affected when their parents are apprehended in workplace immigration raids. The findings were published in a report titled Paying the Price: The Impact of Immigration Raids on America’s Children, which said that such children commonly exhibit “depression,” “post-traumatic stress disorder,” “separation anxiety,” “aggressive behaviors,” “sleep patterns that are changing,” “changes in appetite,” and “exaggerated mood swings.” One child, said the report, “was diagnosed with having suicidal thoughts.”
  • In 2007, NCLR opposed the state of Oklahoma’s tough, enforcement-first immigration laws, which cut off welfare benefits to illegal aliens, stiffened sanctions against employers who hired illegals, and strengthened cooperation and information-sharing between local and federal authorities.
  • In April 2010, Arizona—a state that had experienced an explosion in serious crimes committed by illegal aliens—signed into law a bill deputizing state police to check with federal authorities on the immigration status of criminal suspects whose behavior or circumstances seemed to indicate that they might be in the United States illegally. The heart of the law, which explicitly disallowed racial profiling and was a mirror image of longstanding U.S. federal law, was this provision: “For any lawful contact [i.e., instances where an officer questions or detains someone who has violated some law, usually a traffic infraction] made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency … where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.” Citing this law as evidence that many people were now “under attack just for being Latino,” NCLR initiated a boycott against Arizona to discourage other states from enacting similar laws.
  • NCLR portrays illegal immigrants as vital contributors to the American economy. As La Raza staffer Michele Waslin has put it, “Important sectors of the labor market are increasingly dependent on undocumented workers.”
  • NCLR believes that illegal immigrants should be permitted to obtain driver’s licenses, on the theory that such a policy would improve public safety and lower insurance costs.
  • La Raza lawyers have waged a relentless assault on local and national efforts to enforce existing American immigration laws by promoting “sanctuary city” policies that prevent police from checking the immigration status of criminals, verifying resident status in the workplace, or securing the nation’s borders.

8) Wealth Building

NCLR’s Wealth-Building (WB) program, lamenting that “Latino families own just nine cents for every dollar owned by White families,” features a Housing and Community Development component and a Wealth-Building Policy Project devoted to “helping low-income Latino households build wealth through tangible assets, such as homes, cars, and savings.” Specifically, the WB program seeks to help Latinos purchase their first home, avoid foreclosure, access their tax refunds, and make prudent financial decisions. It also lobbies for policy changes that would “hold banks and lenders more accountable to Latino families for their services, protect against deceptive lending practices, and increase access to financial products and decision-making tools.”

  • The foregoing objectives are rooted in the premise that lending institutions commonly try to exploit Latinos. As a logical outgrowth of that premise, NCLR has long pressured banks to lower their qualification standards for home loans to Hispanic borrowers. When large numbers of banks ultimately succumbed to such pressure (which was augmented by similar mandates from the federal government), there was a dramatic spike in the number of subprime loans that were issued to Hispanics (and, for the same reason, to African-Americans). Thus the stage was set for the housing market crisis of 2008, which in turn caused Hispanics as a whole to lose fully two-thirds of their net worth.
    (For details about the correlation between watered-down mortgage-lending standards and the housing-market crisis, click here.)
  • NCLR has also sought to partner with banks that conduct business with illegal aliens.

NCLR’s Charter Schools

NCLR supports a network of some 115 charter schools across the United States, to provide Hispanic children with “a better educational option than the nearby traditional public schools.” A number of these charter schools openly advocate ethnic separatism and anti-American, anti-white attitudes. Some examples:

  • The Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Arizona is “structured and developed around the concepts of identity, culture, and language.” It supports local ethnic lobbying efforts “to right social injustices by educating the community and helping create social change.” Under the heading “Greatest Achievements,” the school’s website once listed a visit the school had received from the Marxist academic fraud Rigoberta Menchu.
  • La Academia Semillas del Pueblo is a Los Angeles public school that teaches children “Aztec math” and the Mexican indigenous language of “Nahuatl.” The school’s principal, Marcos Aguilar, is an ethnic separatist who believes that “the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”
  • The Aztlán Academy in south Tucson, Arizona seeks “to integrate a meaningful Chicano Studies program into [students’] lives, language, and academics, as a means of developing their intellects as well as their pride and self-esteem.” (“Aztlán” is the separatist name for the Southwestern United States—an area that, according to such separatists, rightfully belongs to the government and people of Mexico.)
  • The Dolores Huerta Preparatory High School in Pueblo, Colorado is named after the Latina labor-union activist who is a board member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
  • The Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in Saint Paul, Minnesota, supports the federal DREAM Act, which would provide a path-to-citizenship for long-term illegal immigrants who first came to the U.S. as minors, have a relatively clean criminal record, hold a high-school diploma or GED, and are not older than age 30. The DREAM Act also contends that illegal immigrants who wish to attend college in their state of residence should be eligible for the same, heavily discounted tuition rates that are available to in-state students who are legal residents.

Aztlan Civil war

Aztlan and the Question of “Reconquista”

According to the late Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Georgia), NCLR teaches that “Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as ‘Aztlán’—a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America.” Norwood stated that La Raza views this region as the rightful property of the government and people of Mexico, and thus seeks to bring about a Mexican “Reconquista” (“Reconquest”) of these southwestern states. But such a reconquest “won’t end with territorial occupation and secession,” Norwood added. “The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of ‘Aztlán.’” Norwood also characterized NCLR as “a radical racist group … one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.”

John Stone, president of the U.S. Freedom Foundation and former chief of staff to Rep. Norwood, similarly maintains that NCLR has ties to a number of separatist Reconquista groups.

In 2007, La Raza’s website stated explicitly that NCLR’s mission is the “empowerment of our gente [people] and the liberation of Aztlán.”

NCLR, however, says it is a “misconception” to believe that it has ever, at any time, endorsed “the notion of a ‘Reconquista’ or Aztlán.’” 

illegal immigration rally phoenix-july-31-2010

La Raza’s Support of Separatist Groups

While claiming that it “has never supported, and does not support, separatist organizations,” NCLR acknowledges that in 2003 it provided the Georgetown University chapter of MEChA—an openly separatist Chicano student group—with a$2,500 grant. But NCLR defends that grant by asserting that MEChA’s “primary objectives are educational—to help Latino students finish high school and go to college, and to support them while at institutions of higher education.”

NCLR’s Motto

It has been widely reported that NCLR’s official motto is “Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada,” which means “For The Race Everything, Outside the Race Nothing.” But NCLR says it “unequivocally rejects this statement, which is not and has never been the motto of any Latino organization.”
We can stop hate
The Premise That America Is Racist, Hateful, and Discriminatory

NCLR has succeeded in defining, on its own terms, the parameters of the immigration debate by smearing critics of its agendas as “anti-immigrant” racists. Typical was a 2008 campaign called “We Can Stop the Hate.” Launched by NCLR with the assistance of the Center for American Progress, Media Matters, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), this campaign was overtly designed to silence critics who raised alarms about mass illegal immigration into the United States, and who opposed amnesty and open borders. The La Raza campaign portrayed such concerns as the “rhetoric of hate groups, nativists, and vigilantes.”

Some additional illustrations of NCLR’s bedrock belief that America is inherently racist and unjust:

  • NCLR calls for lawmakers to expand the coverage of hate-crimes legislation and toughen the penalties therein, “in part because such crimes are often used to deter racial, ethnic, or religious minorities from living where they choose.”
  • NCLR periodically holds educational seminars and roundtables to “expose and explore the causes of discrimination against Afro-Latinos and Indigenous Latinos.”
  • In 1994, NCLR released Out of the Picture, the first extensive content analysis of prime-time TV portrayals of Hispanics. According to NCLR, this production documented “both the severe under representation as well as the excessively negative portrayals of Latinos on network television.”
  • NCLR supports affirmative action (i.e., racial and ethnic preferences) in higher education and the business world.
  • NCLR supports increased funding for “affordable housing” (i.e., taxpayer subsidies for low-income people’s housing costs) and “programs to combat housing discrimination.”
  • NCLR rejects Voter ID laws as “barriers to voting” that disproportionately affect non white minorities and the poor. As such, La Raza denounces such laws as an “absolute disgrace.”
  • NCLR contends that there is a great need for enhanced “gender pay equity” in the workplace, a claim rooted in the demonstrably false premisethat women are routinely paid less than their equally qualified and credentialed male counterparts.

Opposing Assimilation

NCLR opposes legislation that would make English the official language of the United States. Former La Raza president Raul Yzaguirre once declared that “U.S. English”—America’s oldest, largest citizens’-action group dedicated to preserving English as the national tongue—“is to Hispanics, as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks.”

Strongly supportive of bilingual education and the provision of bilingual ballots for Spanish-speaking voters, NCLR in 1998 joined other left-wing groups in filing a lawsuit designed to prevent Proposition 227, California’s ballot initiative for bilingual-education reform, from becoming state law.

NCLR Leadership and Major Figures

NCLR is governed by a Board of Directors that includes 21 elected members who are “representative of all geographic regions of the United States and all Hispanic subgroups.” The organization also receives guidance from a Corporate Board of Advisors, which consists of senior executives from 24 major corporations and their liaison staff. These corporations are: AT&T, Bank of America, Chevron, Citi, the Coca-Cola Company, Comcast Corporation, ConAgra Foods, Ford Motor Company, General Mills, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft Foods, McDonald’s Corporation, MillerCoors LLC, PepsiCo, Prudential, Shell, State Farm Insurance Companies, Time Warner Inc., Toyota Motor North America, UPS, Verizon, Walmart, and Wells Fargo. Moreover, NCLR has an Affiliate Council composed of executive directors and senior executive staff members from 12 community-based organizations affiliated with La Raza.

NCLR’s president since 2005 has been Janet Murguía, who worked in Bill Clinton’s White House from 1994-2000, ultimately serving as deputy assistant to the president. Murguía was subsequently the deputy campaign manager and director of constituency outreach for the Gore/Lieberman presidential campaign of 2000. In 2001, Murguía joined the University of Kansas as executive vice-chancellor for university relations. When Arizona voters in 2004 approved Proposition 200, a public referendum requiring state residents to prove citizenship before registering to vote, and to prove citizenship or legal immigration status before applying for public benefits, Murguia characterized the measure as “anti-immigrant.” Moreover, Murguia contends that “hate speech” should “not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights.”

la raza illegal aliens racism

Other major figures in NCLR history, in addition to those previously mentioned, include Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (who is a longtime member of La Raza) and Cecilia Munoz (a longtime policy analyst with the organization).

NCLR’s Think Tank

NCLR administers a Policy Analysis Center that it describes as America’s preeminent Hispanic think tank. The Center’s broad-based agenda encompasses such issues as immigration, education, free trade, affordable housing, health policy, and tax reform.

NCLR’s Partners and Allies

NCLR works closely with the American Civil Liberties Union and the the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. It also shares major agendas and values with Latino Justice PRLDF (formerly the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund), and the League of United Latin American Citizens. Further:

  • NCLR has participated in a series of campaigns in conjunction with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, “calling on all Americans to be tolerant of diversity.”
  • NCLR has participated in a number of joint initiatives with the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics, and the National Urban League, to “identify and denounce hate crimes and other acts of intolerance.”
  • NCLR has participated in public-service campaigns with the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Children’s Defense Fund, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and other partners to “prevent housing discrimination against minorities, families with children, and individuals with disabilities.”

Viva La Raza Obama

Support From Barack Obama

During his presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008, Barack Obama addressed NCLR, lauding the organization for its “extraordinary” work.

Obama NCLR

NCLR’s Funders

NCLR receives more than two-thirds of its funding from corporations and charitable foundations; the rest comes mostly from government sources. Among the foundations that have supported the organization are the Aetna Foundation, Allstate Foundation, the American Express Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the AT&T Foundation, the Bank of America Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Fannie Mae Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the HKH Foundation, the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Verizon Foundation, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

In addition, as of February 2011, some 30 major corporations were officially listed as financial supporters of NCLR. One of the organization’s most noteworthy corporate funders is Citigroup:

  • On March 5, 2003, Citigroup announced a $105 million strategic partnership with NCLR. The core component of this partnership was Citigroup’s pledge to provide up to $100 million to finance the creation of affordable housing and community facilities in areas with large Hispanic populations. Meanwhile, the Citi Foundation awarded NCLR a $5 million grant to support the group’s community-development initiatives in Hispanic neighborhoods.
  • In 2008, Citigroup and the Citi Foundation gave a $1 million grant to NCLR, to support the latter’s efforts to build the capacity of its nearly 300 state and local affiliates nationwide.
  • During 2008-09, the Citi Foundation donated some $1.75 million to NCLR, which used part of the money to fund its Preserving Neighborhoods and Creating Homeowner Opportunities initiative. This program helps NCLR affiliates acquire, maintain, and repurpose foreclosed, vacant, bank-owned properties in urban  communities with high foreclosure rates and large concentrations of Latino residents. The initiative began in Phoenix and later expanded to such places as Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, and the District of Columbia.

Defund La Raza Tax Dollars

In 2011, a Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for NCLR and its affiliates had skyrocketed since President Barack Obama had hired its longtime senior policy analyst, Cecilia Muñoz, to be his director of intergovernmental affairs in 2009. During Muñoz’s first year in the White House, government funds earmarked for La Raza totaled approximately $11 million—far above the $4.1 million figure for the previous year. Fully 60 percent of that $11 million came from the Department of Labor—headed by Hilda Solis, who has close ties to the La Raza movement. Further, in2010 the Department of Housing and Urban Development gave NCLR $2.5 million to fund its housing-counseling program; the Department of Education contributed almost $800,000 to NCLR; and the Centers for Disease Control gave approximately $250,000.

Moreover, NCLR affiliates nationwide collected tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars in 2010. An NCLR offshoot called Chicanos Por La Causa, for example, saw its federal funding nearly double to $18.3 million following Muñoz’s appointment. Ayuda Inc., which provides immigration law services and guarantees confidentiality to assure illegal aliens that they will not be reported to authorities,took in $600,000 in 2009 and $548,000 in 2010 from the Department of Justice. (The group had not received any federal funding between 2005 and 2008.)

WEBSITE: NCLR

CGI: HealthCare.gov Not Their First Government Contract

I saw a post yesterday about Valerie Jarrett’s daughter Laura and her husband, Tony Balkissoon, working for CGI.  Neither works for CGI (Laura Jarrett works for Mayer Brown Law Firm and Tony Balkissoon works for Sidley Austin LLP Law Firm in Chicago). But in looking into it, I found some very interesting information about CGI.

The HealthCare.gov website and the Exchanges are not CGI’s first contracts with the US Government.  They have been involved with HUD since 1999.  CGI holds many contracts with HUD.   Check out this article By Lydia DePillis of the Washington Post.

“CGI Federal landed the Healthcare.gov contract. Here’s how it fights for the ones it loses.”

CGI Federal, arguably the key contractor behind the construction of HealthCare.Gov, has come under a fair amount of scrutiny over the past few weeks for its federal health-care practice. But that’s far from its only contract.

HUD: Just another source of CGI's contracts. (Lydia DePillis)

HUD: Just another source of CGI’s contracts. (Lydia DePillis)

Consider Section 8 rental subsidies. For CGI, the business of handling the low-income housing program started back in 1999, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development — under pressure to downsize its in-house operations — started outsourcing the job to public housing authorities around the country. The housing authorities would subcontract with IT providers like CGI Federal, which mopped upmore than 25 percent of the $200-300 million or so in fees that came from HUD every year. CGI, the biggest of all the subcontractors, provides the infrastructure and support to route housing subsidies to landlords and monitor for compliance with HUD rules.

The relationship between contractor and subcontractor is very close. At the Assisted Housing Services Corporation of Ohio, California Affordable Housing Initiatives, andNorth Tampa Housing Development Corporation, many staff actually list themselves on LinkedIn as CGI employees. The Ohio group’s state director, for example, identifies himself as a “Manager of Consulting Services in CGI Federal’s Healthcare Compliance Group, focused on business process outsourcing for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.” The California group‘s state director calls himself the same thing, adding that he has “quickly adapted staffing strategies to changing industry conditions in order to maintain and improve competitive position,” and has experience “analyzing and interpreting Federal policy and managing the impacts on operations.” The Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority executive named as the Ohio group’s contract administrator was a CGI director of consulting services until 2011.

So while the “instrumentality” set up by the housing authority is a separate legal actor, it effectively functions as a joint venture with CGI.

“What CGI and a number of other firms have done is they’ve gone in to work with these local housing authorities and said, ‘you’re eligible for this contract, we can provide you with a lot of help in administering these contracts, and share the fees with you,'” says Garth Rieman, director of advocacy at the National Council of State Housing Agencies, which is now competing with the local housing authorities for the Section 8 contracts. “So it’s a moneymaking venture for the local housing authority, to partner with these entities to win the contracts.”

In 2007 and 2009, however, HUD’s inspector general found that contract administrators had been allowed to overbill the program by tens of millions of dollars. In 2011, HUD decided to rebid the contracts, setting a lower standard for the profit margin that recipients would be allowed to take and a cap on the number of units any one contractor could administer. When the new contracts were awarded — with a savings of about  $100 million, or one third. over the previous set, — many of CGI’s partners lost out.

Instead of letting the awards stand, the losers complained en masse to the Government Accountability Office, prompting HUD to back off those awards and offer another solicitation. This time around, HUD got rid of the cap on the number of units a subcontractor could administer, but precluded out-of-state entities from landing a Section 8 contracts if there was a qualified local bidder, which cut into CGI’s business model — some of the entities they worked with offered services to housing authorities all around the region, and wanted to compete for contracts even further afield. The GAOruled that the new process was a no-no.

HUD decided to ignore the GAO. So the housing authority-affiliated entities appealed again, this time to the Federal Court of Claims — the three that contract with CGI filed a joint complaint, saying HUD’s award process was anticompetitive. In April, HUD won. But the companies kicked it up yet another notch, to the Federal Court of Appeals, where arguments were held last week. Until the litigation is resolved, HUD can’t execute any of the new awards.

Meanwhile, the Ohio entity asked its state’s Congressional delegation — where CGI does lots of business — to include an amendment in this year’s ill-fated Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development appropriations bill that would have forced HUD to keep the contracts available to out-of-state entities, which CGI wanted. (The legislators asked HUD nicely to do so earlier in 2012, to no avail).

Public records indicate that during this time, every quarter from 2010 through 2012, CGI Group itself was lobbying on “HUD housing management contracts.”

Finally, there’s also a whistleblower lawsuit from a former CGI employee — who’d been recruited from HUD after overseeing the very Section 8 contracts CGI won — alleging that he was fired after refusing to go along with fraudulent plans to work around the bidding process. CGI denies the accusations, but has so far failed to get the case thrown out.

Those are the lengths to which a company — in this case, partnering with a local non-profit entity that it needs to land the contract — will go to preserve government work. In private enterprise, of course, a losing bidder usually just figures they’ve lost, and moves on. In federal contracting, with enough lawyers, it’s possible to improve your chances of getting that business back.

“It is not unusual for a contractor to protest and to pursue all avenues, including the courts, to seek remedy when they feel like the government hasn’t followed its own rules,” says Neil Couture, director of Government Procurement Law and Business Programs at George Washington School of Business. “Especially in a strategically important area, with large dollars, or new technology.”

In response to questions about the current status of CGI’s partnerships with housing authorities, CGI spokeswoman Linda Odorisio said: “CGI’s systems and consulting services have been recognized by federal, state and local agencies as a key tool in helping public housing agencies operate more efficiently and effectively.”

Technically, it’s possible for CGI to also work with the statewide housing agencies that would be advantaged if HUD wins at the Court of Appeals, and hang on to the business it’s so carefully developed. But according to Rieman, whose organization represents those agencies, CGI has preferred to work with local entities — who may see the contract more as a business proposition than a way to serve residents.

“Does the system make sure that the entity administering the program has a full enough public purpose and affordable housing mission to ensure that the services are being done with that intent, and not just a narrower profit making enterprise with a private sector firm?” Rieman asks. “Our view is they are taking all steps necessary to preserve their opportunity to participate in this program in the way that they want to.”

Which doesn’t mean CGI is doing anything illegal. It’s just the cost of getting — and keeping — business.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/23/cgi-federal-landed-the-healthcare-gov-contract-heres-how-it-fights-for-the-ones-it-loses/

Immigration Reform: The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)

MALDEF logo

Founded in 1968 with a $2.2 million seed grant from the Ford Foundation, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) describes itself as “the nation’s leading Latino legal civil rights organization.” Its mission is to “promot[e]social change through advocacy, communications, community education, and litigation in the areas of education, employment, immigrant rights, and political access.” The intended beneficiaries of these efforts are Latinos, whom MALDEF seeks to “bring … into the mainstream of American political and socio-economic life.”

MALDEF was the brainchild of Latino activist and lawyer Peter Tijerina, a member of the San Antonio, Texas chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens(LULAC). In the early 1960s, Tijerina grew disaffected with LULAC’s assimilationist approach to immigration issues. Instead, he was inspired by the example of radical Latino activists who were coming to prominence during the cultural ferment of that decade. Preaching about “Brown Power” and “Chicano Power,” they urged their fellow Latinos to embrace their ethnic identity, to reject assimilation, and to confront America’s supposedly racist and oppressive system as well as their ethnic counterparts who betrayed the cause through assimilation. For example, Tijerina was galvanized by the example of Latino militant Reies Tijerina (no relation), a New Mexico-based preacher who led a series of violent actions in the 1960s to occupy land that he claimed rightfully belonged to Mexico but had been stolen by “Anglo” ranchers and lawyers.

Seeking to emulate that model, Peter Tijerina conceived the idea for a more confrontational alternative to LULAC. In 1967 he approached the Ford Foundation to ask for support in setting up a new Chicano rights organization. It was, on the face of it, an unusual appeal. Despite an often-difficult immigrant experience, Hispanics in the United States had never been subjected to the kind of systemic racism suffered by African-Americans. While Mexican schoolchildren were often segregated from whites in states like Texas and California, such segregation was not sanctioned by law; Jim Crow laws did not apply to Mexican Americans. Black leaders consequently took issue with the new Latino activists’ claims that the plight of Mexicans demanded the intervention of a civil rights organization.

Nevertheless, the Ford Foundation’s leadership embraced Tijerina’s request, accepted his claims, and officially came to view Mexicans in America as an oppressed minority in need of a new advocacy group to defend them. Ford president McGeorge Bundy formulated the foundation’s new radical view of the Mexican-American community—and by implication of America itself—in a statement equating the situation of Mexican Americans with that of former black slaves who had suffered more than a half century of legal segregation in the South and were systematically discriminated against across the country: “In terms of the legal enforcement of rights, American citizens of Mexican descent are now where the Negro community was a quarter-century ago.” On this premise, the Ford Foundation in 1968 granted nearly $2.2 million (to be dispensed over a five-year period) to Tijerina’s organization, MALDEF.

During the first three decades of MALDEF’s existence, the Ford Foundation supplied almost all of the group’s funding—a total of more than $25 million. Ford’s support also provided the radical MALDEF with a mainstream imprimatur, thereby helping the organization draw additional millions from foundations like Carnegie and Rockefeller and from corporations like Anheuser-Bush, Coca Cola, AT&T and Verizon, among many others. As a result, MALDEF, which had started as a fringe civil-rights group (in San Antonio) with no national resonance, became a nationally influential advocacy organization with regional offices in Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Antonio, Chicago, and Washington, DC; a satellite office in Sacramento; and program offices in Phoenix, Albuquerque, and Houston. Today MALDEF has net assets of approximately $6.8 million, an annual budget of $4.2 million, and a staff of 75 (including 22 attorneys).

Even more notable than its size is what MALDEF—with Ford’s backing—has been able to accomplish. Much of the organization’s policy agenda has been passed into law—whether in the form of federally funded bilingual education programs, in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants, the granting of driver’s licenses regardless of immigration status, or the establishment of “sanctuary cities.” And because of the group’s ever-growing stature in the pantheon of American immigration groups, MALDEF officials have been called to testify at Congressional hearings dozens of times since the 1970s.

Just as significantly, MALDEF has played a major role in: (a) radically transforming the immigration debate in America, fostering what has become the widespread acceptance of direct attacks on the very idea of national sovereignty; (b) the de facto elimination of any requirement for citizenship rights; and (c) the casual dismissal of all critics as “anti-immigrant” nativists, racists, and “McCarthyites.” For example:

  • MALDEF co-founder Mario Obledo said in 1998: “California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave. They should go back to Europe.”
  • In 2008, MALDEF joined the George Soros-funded Media Matters and Center for American Progress in supporting the National Council of La Raza’s “We Can Stop the Hate” campaign, which was designed to silence critics who raised alarms about mass illegal immigration into the United States and who opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. Disparaging those critics as “hate groups, nativists, and vigilantes,” the campaign made no attempt to answer their substantive concerns—for instance, the presence of an estimated 12-20 million illegal immigrants in the country; the budget-breaking economic burdens placed on social services and education provided by municipalities and states; the disproportionate crime and gang activity associated with illegal immigrants; or the fact that illegal immigration is perceived by Hispanic radicals as a way to reclaim the Southwestern United States for Mexico. (For an overview of this “reconquista” agenda, click here.)
  • MALDEF contends that those who wish to make English the official language of the United States are “motivated by racism and anti-immigrant sentiments”; that those who favor sanctions against employers reliant on illegal labor, seek to discriminate against “brown-skinned people”; that “fear and prejudice” is chiefly what animates those who oppose the distribution of driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants; and that people who call for the enforcement of immigration laws are acting out of “racism and xenophobia.”

In the process of pushing (along with allied organizations such as the National Council of La Raza) the mainstream American debate on immigration to the left, MALDEF has helped to radicalize Hispanic groups that at one time were distinguished by their political moderation. A prime example is LULAC, whose traditional approaches to immigration and citizenship had offended radicals like Peter Tijerina and inspired them to create MALDEF. Whereas LULAC and other liberal groups had once touted the virtues of patriotism, legal immigration, and cultural assimilation, by the 1980s that view of citizenship had become the province of so-called “reactionaries.” Echoing the MALDEF/LaRaza rhetoric of Chicano separatism, LULAC officials now stridently declared, “We cannot assimilate! We will not assimilate!”

MALDEF La Raza

Through its advocacy campaigns, MALDEF has radically distorted the concept of citizenship rights, transforming them into “human rights” as though the establishment of such rights was not contingent upon the existence of a nation-state and polity committed to them. These rights, once reserved for actual citizens and legal residents, are today widely presumed to apply to also those in the U.S. illegally with no commitment to preserving them. As former MALDEF president Vilma Martinez has said, “Our definition of Mexican-American has expanded to encompass not only the citizen, but also the permanent resident alien, and the undocumented alien.”

Although MADLEF professes a commitment to the expansion of opportunities for Latinos, that commitment wavers observably whenever certain Latinos deviate, even if only hypothetically, from the organization’s uncompromising support for unrestricted immigration. Thus, in 2001 and in subsequent years as well, MALDEF declared against the nomination of Miguel Estrada, a Honduran immigrant, to the Washington, DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Among its objections, MALDEF cited the possibility that Estrada might fail to “protect the labor and employment rights” of “undocumented workers.” In January 2005, MALDEF similarly opposed the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as U.S. Attorney General, expressing concern that he might allow states to enforce federal immigration laws.

MALDEF Unions

MALDEF’s Top Priorities Today

MALDEF’s chief social and political concerns today are the following:

Immigration: MALDEF’s Truth in Immigration campaign asserts that: “Political pundits, candidates for elected office, media networks, anti-immigrant organizations, and hate groups consistently disseminate negative myths about [Latino] immigrants that poison the atmosphere for immigrants and all Americans.” These “dehumanizing anti-immigrant stereotypes,” says MALDEF, “generate increased bigotry and violence.”

Another MALDEF initiative, titled Immigrant Integration, calls for “investments” of taxpayer dollars “to train and educate English language learners and assist [them in] transition into their new communities.” To this end, MALDEF has led a coalition of more than 200 local and national organizations “in support of legislation that invests in English language acquisition opportunities for adults and children; creates incentives for businesses to educate their workers and be a part of the integration of immigrants; and provides resources to help communities bring together key stakeholders.”

Trumpeting the economic contributions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States, MALDEF maintains that America’s “failed immigration policy … has resulted in a complete lack of legal recognition of millions of immigrants who are the backbone of the U.S. economy … doing the jobs that U.S. citizens and residents do not want.” To address this problem, MALDEF has exhorted Congress to “considerlegalization” for all “undocumented persons living and working here in the U.S.”

In 1994 MALDEF strongly opposed California’s Proposition 187—a referendum that would have denied government-funded education, health care and social services to illegal immigrants in that state—which was passed with the support of 59% of California voters. But following its passage, Prop 187 was immediately subjected to legal challenges, and a district court overturned the new law by judicial fiat. When the state of California initiated an appeal of that decision, MALDEF put a great deal of legal and political pressure on then-governor Gray Davis, eventually forcing the state to drop the appeal. Following that resolution, MALDEF openly trumpeted the large role it had played in winning “this victory of basic human and civil rights.”

MALDEF has sought not only “to expand access to driver’s licenses without regard to immigration status,” but also to gain official U.S. acceptance of Matricula Consular cards—the fraud-prone ID cards issued by the Mexican government—which are frequently used by illegal immigrants as a substitute for American identification documents. A CNS News report states: “The Matricula Consular has been under scrutiny by various law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, on the ground that the authenticity of the documents used to obtain the Matricula cannot be accurately verified.”

MALDEF steadfastly opposes the use of local and state police personnel to enforce federal immigration law, citing concerns about racial profiling and the disparity of enforcement against Mexican illegals. “The reason that we don’t want state and local police involved in immigration enforcement … it’s very, very bad for public safety,”said former MALDEF immigration-rights attorney Katherine Culliton. “If immigrants are afraid that they may get deported, they don’t report crimes. We know of cases of domestic violence where people don’t call. The overwhelming problem is that when immigrants don’t report crimes because they are afraid, then we’re all a lot less safe.”

When the Arizona legislature in 2010 passed SB 1070, a law making illegal immigration a state crime and giving state police broader powers to detain illegal immigrants when they were stopped for an unrelated infraction, MALDEF pronounced the law “unacceptable.” Critics who followed MALDEF’s lead similarly lambasted SB 1070 as intolerant and “draconian” in its supposed subversion of rights. Almost without exception, the national Democratic Party adhered to the MALDEF line, with Colorado Congressman Jared Polis going so far as to declare that the law was “reminiscent” of Nazi Germany and likening Arizona to a “police state.” The spirit of these charges was echoed by the Obama administration, which went on the warpath against the Arizona law. The President himself claimed that SB 1070 would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans,” while the Justice Department launched a lawsuit to prevent the law from going into effect. In July 2010, a federal judge bowed to MALDEF’s demands and blocked key provisions of the law.

In keeping with its campaign against local enforcement of federal immigration laws, MALDEF has promoted “sanctuary city” policies that prevent police from checking the immigration status of criminals, verifying resident status in the workplace, or securing the nation’s borders. MALDEF’s opposition to border-enforcement efforts is so effective that it routinely trumps national security. For example:

  • In 1994, MALDEF condemned Operation Gatekeeper, a U.S. government program intended to restore integrity to a portion of the California-Mexico border, across which many thousands of illegal aliens were streaming each year. Condemning this program for callously “diverting” illegal border-crossers “from California to the harsh and dangerous Arizona desert,” MALDEF charged that Americans who opposed unrestricted immigration were motivated largely by “racism and xenophobia.”
  • After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, MALDEF spearheaded a protest campaign against Operation Tarmac, a federal crackdown on illegal aliens working in secure sections of the nation’s airports. According to MALDEF, such law-enforcement efforts amounted to “actions that harm the civil rights of Latinos rather than protect them.”
  • MALDEF was a signatory to a March 17, 2003 letter exhorting members of the U.S. Congress to oppose Patriot Act II on grounds that it contained “a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers … that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights.”
  • During approximately the same time period, MALDEF endorsed the goals of the California-based Coalition for Civil Liberties, which tried to influence city councils nationwide to pass resolutions of noncompliance with the provisions of the Patriot Act.
  • In 2004, MALDEF emerged as a leading champion of the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, which, under the rubric of promoting “our nation’s safety,” sought to impede the ability of federal authorities as well as state and local law agencies to enforce immigration laws.
  • In December 2006, MALDEF—in conjunction with the Hispanic National Bar Association, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials—called on U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff to place a moratorium on work site raids designed to apprehend illegal aliens.

Hate Crimes: Asserting that “hate crimes against Latinos have risen 40%” in recent times, MALDEF laments that this “national epidemic” and “wave of hatred” is “spurred each day by hate speech, distortion of facts, and anti-immigrant sentiment expressed on cable shows, local radio shows and across the airwaves.” To counter those voices, MALDEF exhorts Congress to pass national legislation such as the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act.”

Economic Recovery: In 2009, MALDEF pledged to “work with partners in Congress and the [newly installed] Obama Administration to ensure that full economic recovery reaches the Latino community.” Toward that end, the organization staunchly supported the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, or stimulus bill, which Obama signed into law in 2009. In fact, MALDEF and the National Council of La Raza both helped the Obama Administration and Congress to draft that legislation, always with an eye toward “ensur[ing] that the concerns of Latino workers and families were addressed.” Among the bill’s key provisions, said MALDEF, were a variety of taxpayer-funded programs that would be “helpful to Latino families,” such as “an expanded Make Work Pay credit that assists low-income workers”; “the expansion and modernization of unemployment insurance”; “significant resources for state stabilization funds, [to] ensure that critical state programs and benefits remain available”; and “large investments in job training and education.” MALDEF lauded, in particular, House Representative Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona) and U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) for their efforts to include pro-Latino provisions in the stimulus bill.

Voting Rights: MALDEF’s top public-policy priority is to help Latinos and other “historically disenfranchised populations” gain “unimpeded access to the polls, regardless of national origin or language ability”; to “enhance Latino influence in the political process” by putting more ballots into their hands. However, MALDEF unequivocally opposes Voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements for those voters. In 2006, for instance, the organization filed a lawsuit challenging an Arizona law—passed by ballot initiative two years earlier—that required voters to prove their citizenship before casting their ballots.

MALDEF likewise opposes laws that bar convicted felons from voting in federal elections. Such laws, says the organization, disproportionately “disenfranchise” blacks and Latinos, who are convicted of such crimes at higher rates than whites. In an effort to ensure that “the most fundamental right of our democracy—the right to vote,” is made available to convicted felons, MALDEF in January 2003 launched a Right to Vote Campaign along with the American Civil Liberties Union, the Brennan Center for Justice, Demos, the NAACP, the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, the People for the American Way Foundation, and the Sentencing Project.

MALDEF also opposes the reconfiguration of voting districts in a manner that would “dilut[e] the votes of hundreds of thousands of Latinos.” In other words, it favors the creation and retention of districts wherein Latinos constitute a numerical majority or a plurality, thereby enabling Latinos as a distinct demographic bloc to elect whichever congressional representatives they want.

MALDEF redistricting_usa

MALDEF equates English-language ballots with the racist literacy tests that were once used to disenfranchise black voters in the American South. This perspective dates back to the early 1970s, when MALDEF filed (and won) a voting rights lawsuit on behalf of Puerto Ricans living in New York. The suit argued that English literacy tests discriminated against Puerto Ricans as a class of people. The courts agreed, allowing MALDEF to establish the radical legal precedent that holding elections in English—the official language of the United States—was an act of oppression that disenfranchised Hispanic voters. By 1975, groups like MALDEF were successfully campaigning to amend the 1965 Voting Rights Act and forcing jurisdictions with significant numbers of Hispanic residents to provide voting materials in Spanish. Instead of Hispanics integrating into American culture, as had been the traditional approach, they were now to be granted special treatment on the basis of their ethnicity—a key pillar of the multicultural agenda.

Fair Employment Practices: MALDEF contends that “discrimination continues to affect Latino workers at all levels of the economy,” in the form of “a hostile work environment”; “the denial of promotions”; “being forced to work unpaid ‘overtime’”; having “limited … opportunities for advancement”; and being “paid at substantially lower rates than non-Latino workers.”

As a partial remedy for the aforementioned problems, MALDEF supports affirmative action in hiring and promotion practices, and advocates the “consideration of race and gender in the awarding of public contracts.”

By contrast, MALDEF opposes the Electronic Employment Verification System (E-Verify), the Social Security Administration’s means of sending “No-Match” letters to business owners whose employees’ names and corresponding Social Security Numbers do not match the SSA’s records.

Education: Education has long been a leading concern of MALDEF. In the 1980s, for instance, the organization threw its legal clout behind the claims of illegal immigrants in Texas, who demanded a right to a free education at the taxpayers’ expense. In a successful lawsuit, MALDEF argued that denying the plaintiffs this “right” was unconstitutional.

MALDEF has also brought suit against public colleges and universities, charging that they were wrongly denying admission to illegal immigrants due to their “perceived immigration status.” In a corollary campaign, MALDEF has sued to compel state universities to allow illegal-immigrant students who reside in-state, to pay the same discounted tuition rates as their in-state legal counterparts.

MALDEF has repeatedly filed lawsuits aimed at forcing states to guarantee the availability of bilingual education in public schools, and has sought to suppress successful ballot initiatives—such as California Proposition 227 and Arizona’s Proposition 203—that would ban bilingual education programs which have long proven to be ineffectual. After California voters passed Prop 227 in 1998, for example, MALDEF joined the ACLU in filing for a temporary restraining order to keep the state’s largest school district from implementing the will of the voters.

MALDEF has also waged campaigns against the use of standardized tests to evaluate student achievement and abilities. In the late 1990s, for instance, the organization filed a class action suit against Texas to prevent that state’s schools from conditioning a high-school diploma on a student’s ability to pass a basic academic achievement test, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. Attorneys for MALDEF argued, unsuccessfully, that because some students, including a quarter of Hispanic students, failed the test, it was “unfair to all students,” and to “minority students” in particular.

The same mindset has long guided MALDEF’s activism in the realm of higher education as well. Indeed, the organization has commonly sought, by means of lawsuits and legislative proposals, to prevent universities from factoring standardized test scores into their admissions decisions. In 2004, for example, MALDEF filed suit against California State University, claiming that the school was “misus[ing] standardized test scores” and was thereby creating an admissions system that was “dysfunctional and unfair” to minority students. In support of that accusation, MALDEF adduced the fact that the university “attaches great weight to an applicant’s SAT or ACT score.”

One of MALDEF’s top priorities is to “ensure that students have equal access to educational opportunities regardless of income, nationality, or language skills.” Toward that end, the organization seeks to enforce compliance with “desegregation”decrees in various cities across the United States. Typically, such decrees are mandates for the reassignment and transportation of students to different schools, so as to change the racial makeup of the student bodies.

Leadership: Since 1989, MALDEF’s Parent School Partnership Program “has empowered parents and community leaders throughout the nation to become change agents in their communities” and to “become effective advocates in improving their children’s educational attainment.” In addition, MALDEF’s Law School Scholarship Program awards scholarships to several students each year based on their “past achievement,” “potential for achievement,” “financial need,” and “commitment to serve the Latino community through law.”

Funding and Leadership

MALDEF’s funding derives primarily from a core group of corporations and large foundations, most notably the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. It has also received considerable support from the Ahmanson Foundation, the AT&T Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and the Verizon Foundation. Only 2% of MALDEF’s revenues come from grassroots donations.

MALDEF is headed by a president and general counsel and is governed by a 30-member national board of directors. Headquartered in Los Angeles, the organization operates four regional offices. These are located in Los Angeles, San Antonio,Chicago, and Washington DC.

MALDEF Website:  MALDEF

NEXT:  Immigration Reform: The Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA)

Hating America: Obama Style – Catholic Version

The Current Government shutdown has become nothing more than any exercise in hatred.  From barricading the National Mall Memorials to closing National Parks, the childish vindictiveness coming from the White House rivals any two-year old’s temper tantrum.

But as we all watch Veterans tear down barricades and citizens toss traffic cones off roads, something very dark and sinister is occurring.

Congress passed the “Pay Our Military Act” prior to the government shutting down on Oct 1st 2013.  The Dept. of Defense under SECDEF Hagel was given the funds to maintain pay to not just Active Military but Civilian Personnel also.  DEFSEC Hagel interpreted the Act and sent out  “Implementation Guidance” to the appropriate subordinate Secretaries.

What occurs next should make a person shiver.

Contracted Military Chaplains, specifically Catholic Priests, were notified they could no longer practice to their Parishes.  The DoD threatened them with arrest if they did.  They were not allowed to enter the Chapels or Offices to recover any personal effects to include any instruments of their Ministry.

At Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia, the Church was closed and locked. With the attached sign on the door

Image

Father Ray Leonard was barred and threatened with arrest if he were to administer any ministry to members of his Military Flock.

Today, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  The lawsuit contends the DoD, SECDEF Hagel, Department of the Navy, and NAVSEC Ray Mabus violated the Constitutional Rights of Father Ray Leonard and parishioner Ret. Navy Veteran Fred Naylor as put forth in the First Amendment as to Free Exercise, Freedom of Expressive Association/Assembly and Freedom of Speech clauses and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Thomas Moore Center Press Release

Government Shuts down Catholic Services on Navy Base; Church locked; Priest threatened with arrest; TMLC Files Federal Lawsuit

Read Complaint Here
FATHER LEONARD – COMPLAINT FILED

The Debt Ceiling and Presidential Power

Excellent Article on the Debt Ceiling and Presidential Power.

I am an Originalist but in an Anti-Federalist Sense. I believe the Constitution is not really up for interpretation. The Framers made clear and concise arguments in the various notes of the Convention Debates, Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Any definitions of phrases or words are to be defined in the vernacular of the time.

I use Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language First edition 1828. Webster started putting together this Dictionary in 1807 and published it in 1828.

10/04/2013

The Debt Ceiling and Presidential Power
Michael Ramsey

The New York Times’ Room for Debate asks Can Obama Ignore the Debt Ceiling?, with contributions from Eric Posner (Chicago), Elizabeth Price Foley (Florida International), Akhil Amar (Yale), Dorothy Brown (Emory), James Galbraith (Texas — Economics), and Thomas Geoghegan. (Thanks to Micahel Perry for the pointer).

I think Professor Foley basically has it right:

Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to “borrow money on the credit of the United States.” This power is exclusive; it cannot be exercised by the other branches of government.

If Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the president has no authority to go around the legislature because he thinks raising the ceiling is desirable. Such an act would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. The president can no more authorize additional borrowing than he can impose new taxes, regulate commerce or exercise any other power granted only to Congress.

She suggests, though, that Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment (“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned”) imposes some limits:

The “debt” that “shall not be questioned” under Section 4 thus refers only to bonds and similar debt instruments. … [Thus], there can be no reneging on U.S. “debt” because of Section 4. But there is little risk of such a debt default occurring, simply because the federal government has more than sufficient tax revenue — more than $200 billion per month — to service existing “debt” to creditors.

http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2013/10/the-debt-ceiling-and-presidential-powermichael-ramsey.html

The Constitution, Obama and Blackmail: Who owns the land?

In the Constitution, the Federal Government does not have the specific power to own the resources or land of a State. After the Civil War, the land grab began. 100’s of Millions of acres especially in the West are owned by the Federal Government. They dictate how the land and resources are used.

Textualists will argue the Federal Government has this right under  Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution which says “Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”

What Constitutional provision explicitly justifies ownership of the land? At the point a State is created, it is no longer Federal Property. Congress can not retain ownership of land as a condition of admission to the Union, require a state to move its capital. Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911).

A plethora of Supreme Court Opinions exist in relation to Eminent Domain.  The problem as in most cases since the end of the Civil War, Progressives have changed definitions of words and phrases.  In this case, it is the term ‘public use”, in the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.

Traditionally, eminent domain has been utilized to facilitate transportation, the supplying of water, and the like, but the use of the power to establish public parks, to preserve places of historic interest, and to promote beautification has substantial precedent in more recent Juris Prudence.

Being more of an Originalist -in an Anti-Federalist Sense, I believe Federal Eminent Domain would only apply to its specific enumerated powers.  The Framers did not give power to Congress to establish parks, forests, or recreation areas.  In our current state of affairs, the Executive is punishing, dare I say blackmailing, the people and the States to force their Representatives to support something the people don’t want. The Obama Administration is intentionally causing harm by closing sites like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone and refusing offers from the various States to cover the costs of keeping these areas open.

Governor Jan Brewer

I offered to reopen the Grand Canyon to visitors by using state money, but federal officials declined my offer. I really shouldn’t be surprised that the Obama Administration doesn’t want Arizona’s help.

The People and the States need to rise up and demand their property is returned to them.

Post Navigation