by Ali Noorani

In the vacuum left by the federal government’s failureto reach a comprehensive fix of the nation’s broken immigration system, states have taken it on themselves to fill the void through a patchwork ofstate-based laws that mirror Arizona’s approach. However, states considering harsh immigration proposals should heed Arizona’s cautionary tale.

According to a report compiled by the National Immigration Forum, at least seven states are likely to propose immigration enforcement laws similar to Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” commonly referred to as SB 1070, the nation’s broadest and most punitive immigration measure. Some will attempt to follow Arizona’s example despite overwhelming evidence that Arizonalike immigration legislation will further strain already fragile state economies.

Out of the seven states likely to consider Arizonalike legislation, Pennsylvania and South Carolina are highly at risk of approving such harsh immigration enforcement measures. In Pennsylvania efforts to pass anti-immigrant proposals failed in the summer of 2010 but efforts in 2011 could be supported by the now-conservative controlled legislature and Governor Tom Corbett who as Attorney General, filed a legal brief in support of SB1070. Several Arizonastyle bills have also been pre-filed in South Carolina. Like Pennsylvania, passage of a bill similar to South Carolina also has a conservative controlled legislature and governor supportive of the Arizona law.

SB1070 diverts scarce resources away from community policing by forcing police to spend time playing a federal role. In addition, taxpayers will bear the inevitable financial burden of lengthy court litigation.

As efforts to reform the nation’s immigration laws have stalled in Congress, the number of state-based immigration laws has increased dramatically. In 2008 alone, 1,305 bills were considered by state legislatures, 206 were enacted, and three were vetoed.

Arizona’s legislation is mired in a costly legal battle that appears headed for the United States SupremeCourt and could take years to resolve. Several key policy and public safety questions remain unanswered by proponents.

According to independent analysis, the lawwould exacerbate problems it purports to address, such as public safety, a state’s budget deficit, and confusion around the role of law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration laws. Analyses also show that SB1070 has already cost Arizona millions of dollars in tourist and convention revenue.

Preliminary assessments of the likely outcome of proposed copycat measures in state legislatures across the country indicate that at least

seven states, Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Tennessee, are likely to pass a measure similar to Arizona’s.

These states have some combination of the following: a re-elected, highly-motivated potential bill sponsor, an alreadyintroduced measure similar to Arizona’s or a legislatureapproved resolution supporting Arizona’s SB 1070, as well as a conservative governor and conservative majority in the legislature.

Politically, the law had an electoral ripple effecton races and campaigns in Arizona and the rest of the country. It had a powerful and negative impact on the Republican brand among the nation’s fastest-growing electorate: Latino and immigrant voters. Republican leaders in these states now have

tough choices to make as they weigh the responsibilities of governing.

Who will speak for their party on immigration reform and what path will they choose as their states contemplate Arizona-style policies in response to the broken immigration system?

How will they answer questions of cost and safety?

The exact number of states that will pass harsh immigration enforcement laws depends on a number of factors.

We can, however, be certain that the immigration battle in state legislatures in 2011 and 2012 will have a profound impact on independent voters’ perception of leadership in troubled economic times and the progress of changing the public face of the Republican Party among Latino voters.

Republicans will have a real electoral problems in 2012 if the party continues to be seen as one that lacks respect for Latino ­and immigrant families.

The immigration problem is a national one that requires a federal solution.

We can’t solve it on a state-by-state basis, and we certainly can’t solve it with proposals like SB1070 in Arizona or in any other state. We need the federal government to take bold and decisive action, and fix our immigration system now.

(Ali Noorani is executive director of the National Immigration Forum.)

por Mike Adams,

Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) We’ve been covering health freedom topics with great intensity lately, and that has taken away from our typical coverage of natural cures, herbal remedies, medicinal foods and so on. Some people are asking why we’ve shifted our focus, and I want to answer those questions with clarity and determination.

It’s one thing to know HOW to use herbs and superfoods, and there’s a wealth of knowledge to be gained in that area. But it’s another thing entirely to have ACCESS to those herbs and superfoods without being criminalized or harassed by the government in the process. I would say that unless you have access to those healing remedies, all the knowledge in the world of how to use them makes no difference.

Our access to natural healing remedies, superfoods and herbs is under constant threat. For example, the FDA has outlawed supplement companies and food companies from offering scientificallyvalidated free speech about their products. If a cherry company links to a scientific study on its website, providing a scientific basis for clinical evidence that cherries can help prevent gout, for example, the FDA sends them a threatening letter claiming they may be subjected to criminal prosecution, have their products seized, and even thrown in prison for selling “unapproved drugs.” (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)

Both local and federal authorities, meanwhile, have declared war on raw milk producers, treating them like drug dealers with armed raids, arrests and criminal prosecutions. If milking a cow and selling that milk to your neighbor is now a federal crime, what other foods or natural substances might the feds go after next? (It looks like they may soon outlaw the selling of breast milk!) With the passage of the recent Food Safety Modernization Act, the FDA will be moving forward with so-called Codex Alimentarius harmonization.

It’s written right into the bill text (http://www.naturalnews.com/030863_f…). This law also requires the FDA to set up enforcement offices in foreign nations to run a global food safety scheme that will try to pasteurize, irradiate or fumigate virtually all foods entering the United States. This is an effort to kill these foods and destroy most of their nutritive qualities. “Safety” is just the excuse to sterilize your food.

This same law also gives the FDA authority to inspect and shut down backyard gardeners, small local famers, small greenhouse operations, people who sell items at the farmers’ market, and so on. No, these groups are not automatically exempt from the bill as was claimed by bill proponents: They must “apply” to be granted exemption by the FDA — a process requiring them to produce tax returns, safety documentation and a pile of paperwork that the FDA can choose to declare “insufficient.”

With our health ­freedoms under attack, it’s crucial that we take a stand and support our Natural Law rights (Godgiven rights) to grow our own food and medicine, to buy food and natural medicine, and to sell what we grow to our local neighbors and community members. All these rights are under assault by the federal government, and if we don’t work to oppose the tyrants who want to take away our access to healing foods, herbs and supplements, we may end up living in a nation where vitamins are outlawed (or at least the natural, food-based vitamins are), herbs are regulated off the shelves and local farmers’ markets are shut down. Instead of getting your food from a neighbor, you’ll have to get it from a food factory that passes the FDA’s “safety” inspections even though it’s still injecting aspartame, sodium nitrite and a MSG into its food products. (The FDA considers all those chemical food additives to be “safe,” believe it or not.)

­

by Paul Joseph Watson

Infowars.com

The scanners at the airports have become a nightmare for millions of travellers, who have to endure being watched naked in the machines. (PHOTO BY AP)

News that Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura is striking back against being personally subjected to TSA harassment by suing the federal agency is sure to re-ignite a TSA revolt that has led many airports to consider abandoning the TSA altogether and replacing them with private security, while the TSA has until the end of today to respond to a FOIA request filed by former Congressman Bob Barr that could send further shockwaves through the Homeland Security-controlled federal body.

Having first privately told Alex Jones back in November of his intention to sue the TSA in a lawsuit that directly names DHS chief Janet Napolitano and TSA head John Pistole, yesterday’s announcement of legal proceedings against new invasive groping measures introduced last year has provoked a tidal wave of media coverage.

The TSA has become embroiled in a number of lawsuits and legal challenges over the past few months as the agency’s policies are flagrantly abused by TSA staffers in numerous blatant examples of sexual harassment, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and wanton disregard for the 4th amendment to the Constitution.

Nowhere was this more evident than in the case of Lynsie Murley, 24, of Amarillo, Texas, who received compensation from the agency after TSA workers pulled down her blouse, exposed her breasts and then laughed in her face, leaving Murley, “extremely embarrassed and humiliated” according to the lawsuit.

The actions of Ventura, who is risking his television career by refusing to fly until TSA policies are changed, are sure to once again stir a

national debate about TSA ­policies that peaked back in November and culminated in a national opt out day protest on Thanksgiving.

The revolt was led largely by the Drudge Report website, which flexed its significant media muscle to ensure the issue was kept in constant focus for weeks on end.

In a crude political stunt designed to deflate the success of the opt out protest, the TSA completely reversed its procedures as travelers across the country reported that the agency had temporarily roped off naked body scanners and relaxed supposedly mandatory invasive pat down policies.

This led to former Congressman Bob Barr’s Liberty Guard organization filing a Freedom of Information Act request demanding an explanation as to why the TSA felt comfortable in briefly mothballing policies it claimed were vital for national security simply as a propaganda ploy. Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad) Obviously reticent to address the FOIA, the TSA pulled out all the legal tricks to delay their response and in fact Liberty Guard’s Shane Cory informs us via email today that the agency has until the end of the day to formally respond to the FOIA request.

Any admission that the TSA amended its policies as part of a coordinated media stunt will send shockwaves through an agency already on the ropes, and we’ll have more on this story within the next 24 hours. Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

by Amalia Deloney and Joseph Torres

Last August, Latino organizations throughout the country joined forces to launch the coalition “Latinos for Internet Freedom” warning our community that the future of the free and open Internet was in jeopardy.

It now seems that our worst fears are about to be realized. The Internet is the most transformative communications network of our time because of the principle of Network Neutrality, which requires Internet service providers to treat all Web traffic equally. And for years big companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon have been trying to get rid of Net Neutrality. Now, finally, the Federal Communications Commission is poised to weigh in on this crucial issue. According to numerous reports, the rules being proposed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski would fundamentally change how the Internet has always operated.

If approved at the Commission’s Dec. 21 meeting, the chairman’s proposed rules would permit companies to discriminate online for the first time by interfering with the public’s ability to have unfettered access to content of their choice. The rules are worse for wireless, allowing carriers to block, degrade and slow down applications they don’t like. That is especially problematic for Latinos because mobile phones are the primary way this growing and significant segment of the community (almost 20 percent) accesses the Internet.

It would permit the big phone and cable companies to favor their own online content or that belonging to a select few by creating a pay-for-play scheme known as paid prioritization.

Any company that can’t afford the extra cost will be slowed down. The FCC chairman’s proposal is fake Net Neutrality that betrays President Obama’s pledge to “take a back seat to no one” on the issue. Many critics of open Internet protections claim that only so-called “privilege” Internet users care about Network Neutrality.

But this bogus argument is dismissive of the nearly 20 million Latinos who are online and use the open Internet to communicate with our families, organize in our communities, fight discrimination, support our businesses, educate our children, and speak for ourselves online.

In recent years, we have seen the Latino community use the power of the open Internet to fight for immigrant rights or to denounce anti-immigrant hate speech spewed by media personalities like former CNN host Lou Dobbs.

That is why more than 45 Latino organizations including, Presente.org, Center for Media Justice, National Hispanic Media Coalition and National Association of Hispanic Journalists joined the Latinos for Internet Freedom coalition to fight to preserve the open Internet that has allowed our community to speak for ourselves and tell our own stories.

The FCC chairman’s proposal would make it harder for Latinos to establish an online media presence. It would erect the same kind of economic barriers online that historically have prevented Latinos from owning their own radio and TV stations.

To get his proposed rule passed, the FCC chairman will need the support of Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, both of whom have strong ­track records of standing up for the interests of the Latino community and communities of color.

We urge Commissioners Copps and Clyburn not to vote for a fake Network Neutrality rule that fails on several counts. It fails to ban paid prioritization, does not extend protections to wireless networks, does not close all loopholes, thus allowing broadband providers to exempt themselves from the rules; doesn’t prevent the creation of a private Internet, nor does it establish the commission’s clear legal authority to pass open Internet protections.

To protect our Internet freedom, the commission needs to hear not just from lobbyists, but from the public. Hispanic Link.

(Amalia deloney is the grassroots policy director for the Center for Media Justice. Joseph Torres is senior advisor for the public interest group Free Press. Contact the FCC at Juliu s.genachowski@fcc.gov. . Phone 202-418-1000).