Two completely separate stories, but they add up to complete confusion.  First, Homland Security is systematically dropping cases against illegals even if they have prior convictions.  Huh?  So even the fact that it is their job to catch and deport those who have entered the U.S. illegally, they choose not to?  Not even if they are convicted criminals?

In a remarkable move that has stunned the legal profession, the Department of Homeland Security is systematically dismissing pending deportation cases against illegal aliens, even when the offenders have been previously convicted of crimes in the U.S.

The government agency charged with keeping America safe quietly began dropping cases against deportable illegal immigrants about a month ago, according to a story in Texas’s largest newspaper. The effort began in Houston and has baffled local immigration attorneys who say the government dismissed their clients’ deportation even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed. “It was absolutely fantastic,” said one lawyer who had three cases dismissed this week.

But that won't stop government agencies from pushing the boundaries of the Constitution with citizens though.  Apparently it is just fine to bug and track anyone who is foolish enough to park in their own driveway.  Fourth Amendment?  Search warrant?  Who needs 'em.

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway - and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre - and scary - rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants - with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)

It's all backwards and upside down, I tell you. All backwards and upside down.

In a win for those who favor the life of a child over that of scientific research, a District Court has put a preliminary injuction on the Obama administration's new guidelines because it would violate an existing law banning the use of public money to destroy human embryos.  via Reuters:

(Reuters) - A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction on Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue.

The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involved the destruction of human embryos.

Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

"(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling. The Obama administration could appeal his decision or try to rewrite the guidelines to comply with U.S. law.

The suit against the National Institutes of Health, backed by some Christian groups opposed to embryo research, argued the NIH policy violated U.S. law and took funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells.

The U.S. Department of Justice, White House and NIH had no immediate comment.

Key to the case is the so-called Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which Congress adds to budget legislation every year. It bans the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

I read this article at RWN and imediately thought of the cross atop Table Rock in Boise, and Lizard Butte in Marsing.  There has been contention here in the past as well, and probably will again in the future.  For now, however, from almost anywhere in the Treasure Valley, you can see these.  I love Idaho.

As the left falls all over itself to claim that building the Ground Zero Mega-Mosque is the perfect chance to “showcase” our “Constitutional freedoms” and our religious tolerance, there is another state where religious tolerance is not as noticeably on display as it is for New York’s Muslims. Naturally, in Vermont, it is the religious freedom of Christians being denied. To be sure, the Old Media is not nearly as interested in this story.

Richard and Joan Downing own a hilltop property in Lyndonville, Vermont and on that property they've built a family chapel where they host weekly Catholic services for all. Next to the chapel they have also erected a 24-foot-tall cross called the Cross of Dozulé, a cross that the State of Vermont is insisting that they remove. (Visit The Chapel of the Holy Family website)

How does the State of Vermont justify its demands that the family pull down the cross? Vermont officials are citing environmental regulations that give it the power to determine what sort of construction violates the "aesthetics" of Vermont's scenery.

Read the whole story

Part 2 of this story.  If you haven't read it already, skip on over and read part 1 first.  via WND.

Last week, the media, White House and nation were in a hullabaloo over a Pew Research Center poll which revealed that one in five Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim.

The poll received so much attention and response that the White House released a rebuttal reiterating that Obama is "a committed Christian."

The fact is, Americans are more baffled now by Obama's personal religion than they were when he first came into office.

John Green, University of Akron politics professor and senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, concluded, "I haven't seen any example, and I've been following polling of presidents for a long time now, of where we've seen increased confusion about religiosity the longer they're in office."

Part of the confusion comes, for example, when Obama doesn't make room to commemorate a National Day of Prayer with prominent Christian leaders or even spend time with the God-centered Boy Scouts of America at their national jamboree (as preceding presidents have), but he doesn't miss hosting the Muslim Iftar Ramadan dinner at the White House or pass up the chance to fight for the rights of Muslims to construct an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero.

At times, Obama has given pointed responses about his faith in Christ. At other times, he comes across ambiguous and even clueless about his faith. Still, at other times, he is downright condescending about the Christian faith.

A Tuscon school district is under the microscope by the AZ state Department of Public Education.  The district has "Raza Studies" classes (La Raza?) that the DPE wants  to make sure is in compliance with H.B. 2281, a bill that "prohibits a school district or charter school from including courses or classes that either promote the overthrow of the United States government or promote resentment toward a race or class of people."

The state has asked for a video of the course but the district has told the them that they will not comply.

The superintendent of the Arizona Department of Public Education says his agency will consider a refusal by the school district in Tucson to videotape its "Raza studies" classes as evidence the district is "deliberately" concealing its agenda.

The state had asked Tucson, in view of a new state law that takes effect at the end of this year that bans promoting to students "the overthrow of the United States government" and other issues, to record its "Raza" classes this fall to document what is being taught.

No, said Tucson officials.

So the state, which starting Jan. 1 can withhold 10 percent of the district's state funding, confirmed it would cite that refusal when the dispute comes up for judicial review.

When the funds are withheld, said a state letter to the district, "You will have the right to appeal to an administrative law judge. If you agree to this videotape, it will be helpful evidence to the administrative law judge. If you refuse, we will offer that refusal as evidence to the administrative law judge that the school district has deliberately hidden facts that would show that the district is in non-compliance with H.B. 2281."

The new law was adopted this year by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer. But it largely has been overshadowed by the international furor over the state's plan to make illegal under state law what already is illegal under federal law – being in the state without permission.

Read the whole story

This one has a lot of people ticked off on both sides of the issue.  Proposition 8 was passed and the California state Constitution was amended to define state-recognized marriages as being between a man and a woman.  That was challenged, in a court presided by a completely unbiased judge (who happened to be in a same-sex relationship), and the amendment was ruled unconstitutional.  Then, in a "dare you to challenge the ruling" moment, he goes a step further:

And, just yesterday, Walker’s refusal to stay his judgment pending appeal, the latest step in his gamesmanship to try to deprive Prop 8 proponents of their appeal rights and to avoid effective appellate review of his shenanigans.

Walker’s course of conduct would be sufficient cause for national scandal in any case.  That it comes in a case that aims to radically remake the central social institution of American society makes it utterly intolerable.

I can’t imagine that any federal district judge has ever committed more egregious and momentous acts of malfeasance in a case.

This releated article goes over the truth and fiction behind the controversy.  It is worth reading.  Here are a couple of excerpts:

Remember the road signs that were funded with taxpayer money that extolled the successes of the stimulus program?  Apparently that wasn't an isolated issue.  From Judicial Watch.

Although federal law prohibits it, U.S. taxpayers have financed an unprecedented number of costly propaganda and public relations initiatives pushing Obama Administration policies.

Details of the violations are laid out in a new report (Analysis of the First Year of the Obama Administration: Public Records and Propaganda Initiatives) issued this week by a House panel that oversees all facets of government, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It reveals that, under one-party rule, the White House used the Obama campaign machinery to tout the president’s agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives.

In nearly a dozen cases the administration abused taxpayer resources and/or violated federal law that prohibits using public funds to promote partisan propaganda, according to the probe. For instance the administration spent millions of dollars to buy road signs touting progress under the economic stimulus law and coordinated taxpayer-funded art to promote Obama’s legislative priorities in the first few months of his presidency.