Deathwatch Press Corp.

"...Plus, if something amiss were to happen, there are no members of the press in the motorcade to report on any mishap.

That's the reason the press insists on being with the president wherever he goes at any time of day or night. Among ourselves, the duty is called the "deathwatch," a macabre appellation for an assignment more akin to babysitting than high-powered journalism. But imagine if there had been no press in the motorcade in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Our knowledge of the JFK assassination would be less than it is. It's from that incident that the moniker "deathwatch" is derived...."

My CommentsI'm going to get a away from the politics for a bit. I know you're asking yourself, if you're posting a story about the president leaving with out the press knowing, how can this not be about politics? That's a good question. And I'll answer it.

The press that follow the president is called Deathwatch, Deathwatch That's f'ing awesome! Deathwatch is a Space Marine unit assigned to Ordo Xenos...and the President. That's clearly irrefutable proof that we are the best country in the world.

How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens

Original Post: Townhall
By: Michelle Malkin

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door "to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement." But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in "Nazi-zona" last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.

The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?

-- The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for racial and ethnic profiling?

-- If outsiders do not enhance the country's "economic or national interests" or are "not found to be physically or mentally healthy," they are not welcome. Neither are those who show "contempt against national sovereignty or security." They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

-- Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama's illegal alien aunt -- a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

-- Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

-- Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico's Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There's been no public clamor for "comprehensive immigration reform" in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.

Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators "Smash the State," and holding signs that proclaimed "No human is illegal" and "We have rights."

But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot "in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any).

As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico's southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn't respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.

Meanwhile, Mexican consular offices in the United States have coordinated with left-wing social justice groups and the Catholic Church leadership to demand a moratorium on all deportations and a freeze on all employment raids across America.

Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing -- a job the U.S. government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Here's the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into its own hands:

Hipócritas.

Vote Fraud Cases Progress in Milwaukee

Original Post: Maciver Institute

MNS – The prosecution of five cases of alleged vote fraud in Wisconsin brought forth by a joint state, city and county task force, will continue.

Herbert Gunka, Suzanne Gunka, Maria Miles, Kevin Clancy, and Michael Henderson are each charged with election fraud arising out of the November 4, 2008 Presidential Election. They made their initial appearances before Milwaukee County Court Commissioner Grace Flynn Tuesday.

The charges were brought forth by the Election Fraud Task Force, a collaborative effort between the Wisconsin Department of Justice, the Milwaukee District Attorney’s Office and the Milwaukee Police Department.

“Elections fraud is unfortunate and very real,” said Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen. “Through our partnerships and the task force we seek to hold those accountable who degrade and diminish the lawful votes of others. Elections fraud undermines our democracy.”

According to a release issued by the Wisconsin Department of Justice:

Miles and Clancy served as Special Registration Deputies (“SRD”) for the City of Milwaukee in advance of the 2008 Presidential Election. Each worked for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“ACORN”). Miles and Clancy are each charged with the felony offense of Falsely Procuring Voter Registration as Party to a Crime. The complaint alleges that Miles and Clancy submitted multiple voter registration applications for the same individuals, and also were part of a scheme in which they and other SRDs registered each other to vote multiple times in order to meet voter registration quotas imposed by ACORN.Henderson is charged with one count of Voting by a Disqualified Person and one count of Providing False Information to Election Officials, both felonies. His complaint alleges that Henderson registered to vote at the polls on November 4, 2008, thereby certifying that he was a qualified elector. It also alleges that he then cast a ballot. At that time, Henderson was on an active period of probation for felony convictions from Rock County. A felon on an active period of supervision for a felony offense is prohibited by state law from voting in any election.

Herbert and Suzanne Gunka are each charged with the felony offense of Double Voting. Their complaint alleges that they each voted in the November 2008 election by casting absentee ballots before the election. The complaint also alleges that after casting absentee ballots, they each voted in person at their polling place on election day.

Commissioner Flynn found that each of the complaints supported probable cause and the defendants were ordered to appear for preliminary hearings on May 6, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.

Each individual charge against the defendants carries a potential penalty of up to 3 1/2 years imprisonment and as much as $10,000 in fines.

Another polar rescue must send chills down spines of alarmists

Original Post: Herald Sun

By: Andrew Bolt

TOM Smitheringale wanted to prove the world was warming. Now he's another alarmist with frostbite.

The 40-year-old from Perth planned to be the first Australian to trek unassisted to the North Pole, but announced he'd raise some consciousness along the way.

As he wrote on his website: "Part of the reason Tom's One Man Epic is taking place now is because of the effect that global warming is having on the polar ice caps."

Indeed, he wanted to see the North Pole while it was still there: "Some scientists have even estimated that the polar ice cap will have entirely melted away by 2014!"


But Antarctica isn't melting away, and Arctic ice has slowly increased since its big low in 1997.

But no one seems to have told Tom, who soon found his extremities freezing.

Two weeks ago he nearly called off his trek after suffering excruciating pain in his fingers and thumbs, forcing him to call in emergency help.

And last week he had to be rescued by Canadian soldiers after falling through the ice sheet.

"(I) came very close to the grave," he said, on being flown out.

This is actually now the fourth year running that warming alarmists have had to be rescued from expeditions to prove the Arctic is warmer than it actually is. It's a metaphor.

Last year it was British eco-explorer Pen Hadow and his two-person team who had to be flown out mid-stunt, after battling brutal sub-zero weather conditions that gave the team's photographer frostbite.

The year before, eco-adventurer Lewis Gordon Pugh was similarly thwarted.

He'd planned to kayak 1200km to the North Pole to raise awareness of how global warming had allegedly melted the ice sheet so badly that scientists warned the North Pole that summer could be ice-free.

No such luck. Pugh had to pull out, still 1000km from the finish, when a great barrier of sea ice blocked his route.

The year before gave even more farcical entertainment.

"Explorers and educators" Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen said they were off on what reporters described as "a historic 75-day expedition to the North Pole and beyond to raise awareness of global warming's impact on the fragile Arctic".

It turned out that what was fragile was not the Arctic but the alarmists, who had to call off their big trip not long after it started, when Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold drained their batteries.

Explained a spokesman: "They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming."

Like the globe, really.

The fact is that when Arctic rescuers must save more people from global warming stunts than from global warming itself, it's time to heed again the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." So if alarmists settled down, they might just live longer, and keep their toes.

And the rest of us might not be put to so much needless expense. Like rescues, for instance.

Comedy Central afraid of religion of peace

Comedy Central censors South Park Mohammed episode

Original Post: UK Telegraph

Comedy Central, the television network, has censored the latest episode of South Park, following threats by a radical Muslim group that its producers could be killed.

The cartoon series made by Matt Stone and Trey Parker has attracted criticism throughout its award-winning run Photo: Paramount Comedy Channel

The second episode of a two-part storyline contained further references of the Prophet Mohammed, but his body was purposely blocked out while all audio mentions to him were bleeped out.

Comedy Central also censored 35 seconds worth of a conversation towards the end of the show between the characters Stan, Jesus Christ and Father Christmas.

It led to speculation that Parker and Stone had censored themselves as part of a joke or a wider commentary, but they issued a statement in response to Comedy Central's decision to alter the episode.

It said: "In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind.

"We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode.

"It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear.

"It didn’t mention Mohammed at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it."

A Comedy Central spokesman said: "I can't go into the thinking behind it, but I can confirm it was Comedy Central that inserted the bleeps and not South Park."

Last week, the character was believed to be disguised in a bear costume. When that same costume was removed this week, Father Christmas appeared.

The bear costume had angered the New York-based group Revolution Muslim, which posted a message on its website saying that producers Trey Parker and Matt Stone had insulted their prophet.

The message included a gruesome picture of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker murdered by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a movie about a woman who rejected Muhammad's teachings. The message said the "South Park" producers would "probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh" for airing the show.

The posting included Comedy Central's New York address, as well as the address for Parker and Stone's California production studio.

Parker and Stone are known for waiting until the last minute before turning in fresh episodes. This week's episode contained no direct reference to the warning.

Lawmakers want Guard to curb violence in Chicago

Original Post: NBC Chicago
By: ZACH CHRISTMAN

Shootings, abductions, beatings, rapes, home invasions ... the list of atrocities that take place in Chicago practically every day reads like a montage from "A Clockwork Orange." That's why a group of state lawmakers say they want to call in the National Guard.

State Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford, both Chicago Democrats, are calling on the governor, Mayor Daley, and Police Superintendent Jody Weis to use the Guard to clean up the city's streets.

"As we speak, National Guard members are working side-by-side with our troops to fight a war halfway around the world," Fritchey said in a Sunday release. "The unfortunate reality is that we have another war that is just as deadly taking place right in our back yard. Is this a drastic call to action? Of course it is. But is it warranted when we are losing residents to gun violence at such an alarming rate? Without question."

The representatives used a shocking comparison to drive home their point: 113 people have been killed in Chicago so far this year -- the exact same number as U.S. troops killed during the same time period in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Enough is enough. We’ve already lost too many lives. We need action now," Ford said.

The call for National Guard troops isn't a criticism of Chicago police, the lawmakers said, but rather a realization that they're stretched too thinly.

" ... by calling up the National Guard, we can help the police do their job and save lives in the process. We have trained and ready National Guardsmen living right here in Chicago who could be immediately deployed to assist our police officers. Let’s get them out into the streets," Fritchey said.

Fritchey and Ford said action needs to happen soon, because summer is right around the corner and the warm weather brings an increase in violence. They also suggested that Guard troops wouldn't have to be used all over the city. Instead, they could be strategically deployed on the 9 percent or so of Chicago's streets where most of the violence happens.

Ford said having armed military on the streets wouldn't bother him at all.

"If they can save even one life, one child, in my community, I would welcome the National Guard with open arms and I am confident that my constituents would as well," he said.

The lawmakers noted that the National Guard has been used in Illinois and other states during specific moments of violence, but they have never been used to combat "general urban unrest."

Weis responded by saying he thinks the proposal is well-meaning, but wouldn't work. The military's mission isn't always compatible with civilian law enforcement, Weis told the Associated Press. Gov. Quinn's office has not issued a response.

My Comments: Boy it sure looks like they need more gun control laws. They aren't quite restricting honest citizens enough. Maybe they should pass a law making crime illegal.

Howard Dean says the Health Care bill is designed to redistribute wealth

How much more proof do we need that this current administration is at least socialist. He doesn't say it's going to make our country healthier or reduce costs, he says it's going to redistribute wealth.

Why cleaner air could speed global warming

Original Post: LA Times
By: Eli Kintisch

You're likely to hear a chorus of dire warnings as we approach Earth Day, but there's a serious shortage few pundits are talking about: air pollution. That's right, the world is running short on air pollution, and if we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound.

Cleaner air, one of the signature achievements of the U.S. environmental movement, is certainly worth celebrating. Scientists estimate that the U.S. Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant called sulfate aerosols, for example, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems.

But even as industrialized and developing nations alike steadily reduce aerosol pollution -- caused primarily by burning coal -- climate scientists are beginning to understand just how much these tiny particles have helped keep the planet cool. A silent benefit of sulfates, in fact, is that they've been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. Emerging science suggests that their underappreciated impact has been incredible.

Researchers believe greenhouse gases such as CO2 have committed the Earth to an eventual warming of roughly 4 degrees Fahrenheit, a quarter of which the planet has already experienced. Thanks to cooling by aerosols starting in the 1940s, however, the planet has only felt a portion of that greenhouse warming. In the 1980s, sulfate pollution dropped as Western nations enhanced pollution controls, and as a result, global warming accelerated.

There's hot debate over the size of what amounts to a cooling mask, but there's no question that it will diminish as industries continue to clean traditional pollutants from their smokestacks. Unlike CO2, which persists in the atmosphere for centuries, aerosols last for a week at most in the air. So cutting them would probably accelerate global warming rapidly.

In a recent paper in the journal Climate Dynamics, modelers forecast what would happen if nations instituted all existing pollution controls on industrial sources and vehicles by 2030. They found the current rate of warming -- roughly 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade -- doubled worldwide, and nearly tripled in North America.

Despite intransigence on carbon emissions, even China is taking aggressive steps to cut sulfate pollution, and temperatures have risen as a result.

But surely the answer can't be to slow our drive to clean our air. One way to buy time might be to tackle another air pollutant that warms the planet: soot. In 2008, scientists estimated that so-called black carbon, soot's prime component, is responsible for 60% more global warming above that caused by greenhouse gases. Cleaner-burning diesel engines in the West and more efficient cookstoves in the developing world are the answer. But on both scores, "relatively little has been done to address the problem," says the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force.
Advertisement

In the face of severe climate risks, credible scientists are beginning to study geo-engineering -- tinkering with global systems to reduce warming directly. One scheme is to spew sulfates or other sun-blocking particles miles high in the stratosphere. If it worked, it would mimic the natural cooling effect of volcanoes, replacing the near-surface sulfate mask with a much higher one. But the possible side effects could be dire, including damage to the ozone layer. The potential geopolitical implications, like wars over the thermostat, could be devastating as well.

We might need geo-engineering to stave off the worst effects of the warming. But most climate scientists think we're not there yet. And so the most important thing we can do now is to train our sights on both the unexpectedly helpful sulfates and the unexpectedly pernicious carbon. We can't continue to only focus on traditional pollutants without reducing greenhouse emissions. We simply have to find a way to clean our air of both.

Eli Kintisch is the author of the just-published "Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope -- or Worst Nightmare -- for Averting Climate Catastrophe."

Senate Bill Sets a Plan to Regulate Premiums

Original Post: NY Times
By: ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — Fearing that health insurance premiums may shoot up in the next few years, Senate Democrats laid a foundation on Tuesday for federal regulation of rates, four weeks after President Obama signed a law intended to rein in soaring health costs.

After a hearing on the issue, the chairman of the Senate health committee, Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, said he intended to move this year on legislation that would “provide an important check on unjustified premiums.”

Mr. Harkin praised a bill introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that would give the secretary of health and human services the power to review premiums and block “any rate increase found to be unreasonable.” Under the bill, the federal government could regulate rates in states where state officials did not have “sufficient authority and capability” to do so.

The White House offered a similar proposal in the weeks leading up to approval of the health care legislation last month. But it was omitted from the final measure, in part for procedural reasons.

Reviving the proposal on Tuesday, Mr. Harkin said: “Rate review authority is needed to protect consumers from insurance companies’ jacking up premiums simply because they can. Protections must be in place to ensure that companies do not take advantage of current market conditions before health reform fundamentally changes the way they do business in 2014.”

“Currently,” Mr. Harkin said, “about 22 states in the individual market and 27 states in the small group market do not require a review of premiums before they go into effect — and perhaps even more. This is a gaping hole in our regulatory system, and it is unacceptable.”

Under the new health care law, starting in 2014, most Americans will be required to have insurance. Insurers will have to offer coverage to all applicants and cannot charge higher premiums because of a person’s medical condition or history.

Michael T. McRaith, director of the Illinois Department of Insurance, told Congress on Tuesday, “There is a distinct possibility that less responsible companies will raise rates to price out people who are sick or might become sick between now and 2014.”

Mr. McRaith said he and the governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, a Democrat, “unequivocally support state-based insurance regulation,” because local officials understand local markets.

He endorsed Mrs. Feinstein’s bill, saying it would “provide an impetus” for states to regulate premiums if they did not already do so.

Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group for insurers, said Congress should let the new law work before piling on additional requirements.

Congress, she said, has largely ignored the cause of rising premiums: the explosive growth of medical costs and the power of hospitals and other health care providers to dictate prices.

Ms. Ignagni said the law imposed new requirements, taxes and fees on health plans, which could further drive up costs.

Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said: “Health insurance companies’ profits for one year equal about two days of health care spending in the United States. So even if we were to take away all the profits of the so-called greedy insurance companies, that would still leave 363 days a year when health care costs are expanding at a rate our country cannot afford.”

Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a research center that advocates free-market health policies, said the Democrats’ proposal was unlikely to succeed in lowering insurance costs.

“Capping premiums without recognizing the forces that are driving up costs would be like tightening the lid on a pressure cooker while the heat is being turned up,” Mrs. Turner said.

Mrs. Feinstein said her bill would close what she described as “an enormous loophole” in the new law. And she said health insurance should be regulated like a public utility.

“Water and power are essential for life,” Mrs. Feinstein said. “So they are heavily regulated, and rate increases must be approved. Health insurance is also vital for life. It too should be strictly regulated so that people can afford this basic need.”

Mr. Harkin interrupted the hearing to note that one of the nation’s largest insurers, UnitedHealth Group, had just reported that its first-quarter earnings had increased 21 percent, to $1.19 billion, surpassing Wall Street expectations.

Some securities analysts say they doubt that insurers can sustain such gains after major provisions of the new law take effect.

Authoritarian FDA demands condiment submission

FDA calls for salt cutbacks

Original Post:LA Times
By: Melissa Healy and Andrew Zajac

Reporting from Washington — The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday announced a gradual but potentially far-reaching effort to reduce the amount of salt Americans consume in a bid to combat high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes and other health problems that have soared to near-epidemic proportions.

The FDA's efforts will begin by seeking voluntary cutbacks by the food industry. But ultimately, the agency may resort to regulating acceptable levels of sodium in food and beverages.
Advertisement

"Nothing is off the table," said FDA spokeswoman Meghan Scott. "Everyone's in agreement that something needs to be done….We just don't know what it's going to look like."

The FDA's decision was applauded by public health advocacy groups and scientists, who have long pointed up the link between high salt intake and a host of serious – and costly – medical problems.

But it was also criticized by some industry groups, and some conservative political leaders denounced it as another government assault on personal freedom.

The deliberate pace sketched by the FDA, and the absence of any immediate plans to issue regulations, were in contrast to a strongly worded report concurrently released Tuesday by the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences.

The institute declared that expeditious "regulatory action is necessary" because efforts to educate the public about the perils of excessive dietary salt and voluntary sodium-cutting efforts by industry have failed, although the institute called for such regulations to take effect gradually.

On a daily basis, Americans consume almost 50% more than the roughly one teaspoon of salt recommended as a maximum by the federal government's 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, according to the institute's report.

Sodium intake is "simply too high to be safe," said Dr. Jane E. Henney, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and chairwoman of the institute committee that produced the report. "Clearly, salt is essential.… We need it. But the level we're taking in right now is far beyond the maximal levels we need."

The 14-member panel's findings, more than a year in the making, come on the heels of a welter of studies tallying the health and economic costs of excessive salt intake.

Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health predicted that, if dietary sodium consumption declined to the levels recommended in the 2005 federal guidelines, some 90,000 deaths could be averted yearly.

A Rand Corp. study published in September estimated that reducing American sodium intake to recommended levels could save $18 billion yearly in treatment for hypertension, stroke, renal disease and heart failure associated with excessive salt consumption.
Advertisement

"There is now overwhelming evidence that we must treat sodium reduction as a critical public health priority," said Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Harvard School of Public Health's department of nutrition.

Willett, who was a key figure in the recent federal initiative to drive trans fats from the U.S. food supply, noted how quickly the U.S. food industry adapted to those new rules, and called for that industry's "best creative minds to bring similar leadership" to the bid to reduce sodium.

But the head of the salt lobby blasted efforts to curb salt consumption as unwarranted and overly broad.

"It's not scientifically sound," said Lori Roman, president of the Salt Institute. "They're talking about some very drastic reductions. They could be harming people."

Another key industry trade association, the Grocery Manufacturers Assn., took a more measured approach.

It said in a statement that food makers already offer low- or no-sodium versions of many items. "We look forward to working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to develop a national sodium reduction strategy that will help the consumer," the group said.

The FDA's decision to press food makers to reduce salt caps a 30-year campaign by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The center sued the FDA in 2005 to try to force the agency to reclassify salt as a food additive subject to regulation.

Salt currently is categorized as a substance "generally recognized as safe," hence not regulated in food products.

Center director Michael Jacobson urged the FDA to adopt mandatory limits on salt swiftly, and then phase them in slowly. A gradual phase-in is considered crucial so that consumers do not notice a taste difference in foods with diminished amounts of salt.

While public health advocates like Jacobson hailed the clampdown, libertarian skeptics of government viewed it as another sign of a nanny state run amok.

"It's another encroachment on people's personal freedom," said Gary Howard, spokesman for Campaign for Liberty, a libertarian advocacy group formed in the wake of Texas Rep. Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign.

"They've already gotten into people's medical care," Howard said. "Where will they go next? Will they mandate exercise?"

Memes and images

Thank you to a geekologie post for this image.

Government buys coke for monkeys

Original Post: McClatchydc
by: Benjamin Niolet

Monkeys are getting high for science in North Carolina.

An analyst at the Civitas Institute seized on that image when selecting a cocaine addiction study at Wake Forest University Medical School as No. 1 on a list of the "10 worst federal stimulus projects in North Carolina." Civitas' Brian Balfour takes swipes at projects, writing that they "seem completely unrelated to avoiding an economic 'catastrophe,' but rather an ad hoc satisfaction of countless dubious wish lists."

So, what is the $71,623 federal stimulus grant paying for?

Well, a job, said Mark Wright, a spokesman for the Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

"It's actually the continuation of a job that might not still be there if it hadn't been for the stimulus funding. And it's a good job," Wright said. "It's also very worthwhile research."

The study is examining the effects of cocaine on a particular neurotransmitter among monkeys who have had a long-term addiction to cocaine.

The medical school boasts a significant body of work studying addiction. Ultimately, the study could lead to better treatment for recovering cocaine addicts.

Balfour also cited another Wake Forest study. This one is studying whether yoga and other non-pharmaceutical therapies such as wellness classes can help alleviate hot flashes and other symptoms of menopause.

"How does this study help revive the economy?" Balfour asked.

Well, again, jobs, said Nancy Avis, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health policy at the medical school. The funding, more than $147,000 over two years, will contribute to the salaries of six people.

NYT/CBS Poll: 52% Say Obama Moving America Towards Socialism

Original Post: CNS News
By: Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – A New York Times/CBS News poll found that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, think the policies of President Barack Obama are moving the United States toward socialism

Published April 14, the poll surveyed the political, racial, and social opinions of both the general pubic and self-described members of the tea party movement. It found that while tea party participants are generally more conservative than the broader population, they are also better educated and slightly more successful.

The poll found that almost the entirety of the tea party movement – 92 percent – shared the views of most Americans that Obama was turning the United States into a socialist country.

The poll asked respondents specifically whether the president’s policies “are moving the country more toward socialism.” Fifty-two percent answered “toward socialism” while only 38 percent answered “not toward socialism.”

A mere six percent of self-described tea party Americans answered “not toward socialism.”

The poll also found that while tea party members generally shared the economic concerns of the broader population, this did not motivate their strong opposition to Obama. That opposition was based on the president’s policies, not on the poor economy or on other factors, such as the president’s race.

In fact, the racial attitudes of tea party members fell in line with those of the rest of the country, with 73 percent of tea party members saying that blacks and whites had an equal chance of success – a view held by 60 percent of Americans.

Tea party activists are strongly motivated by traditional conservative issues, such as the size of government and federal spending, according to the poll. Ninety-two percent of tea party members said they would prefer a smaller, less intrusive federal government to a larger one – a view they shared with 52 percent of Americans.

Eighty-nine percent of tea partiers thought that Obama has expanded government too much in trying to deal with the recession, an opinion which fell in line with the views of 50 percent of the country.

Tea party activists also agreed with the rest of the country – though in higher proportions – on the issue of federal bank bailouts. Seventy-four percent of tea partiers said the economy would have improved without the bailouts -- a view shared by 51 percent of Americans generally.

When it came to questions of who are tea party members, the poll found that 50 percent described themselves as “middle class” and 26 percent described themselves as “working class.” Only 29 percent of tea partiers do not have at least some college education, a figure that far outpaces the rest of the country, of which 47 percent have no college education.

Perhaps the most important statistic in this election year found that tea party activists were more likely than other Americans to favor the current two-party electoral system 52-48 percent.

The finding that should most worry incumbents who do not share tea party members’ views was that 97 percent of the activists are registered voters.

According to The New York Times, "(t)he nationwide telephone poll was conducted April 5-12 with 1,580 adults. For the purposes of analysis, Tea Party supporters were oversampled, for a total of 881, and then weighted back to their proper proportion in the poll. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for both all adults and Tea Party supporters, and it is higher for subgroups."

Alexander: Obama's 'Soviet-Style' Takeover of Student Loans

Original Post: National Review
By: Robert Costa

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), the U.S. secretary of education from 1991 to 1993, tells National Review Online that President Obama’s revamping of the federal student-loan program is “truly brazen” and the “most underreported big-Washington takeover in history.”

“As Americans find out what it really does, they’ll be really unhappy,” Alexander predicts. “The first really unhappy people will be the 19 million students who, after July 1, will have no choice but to go to federal call centers to get their student loans. They’ll become even unhappier when they find out that the government is charging 2.8 percent to borrow the money and 6.8 percent to lend it to the students, and spending the difference on the new health-care bill and other programs. In other words, the government will be overcharging 19 million students.” The overcharge is “significant,” Alexander adds, because “on a $25,000 student loan, which is an average loan, the amount the government will overcharge will average between $1,700 and $1,800.”

“Up to now, 15 out of 19 million student loans were private loans, backed by the government,” Alexander says. “Now we’re going to borrow half-a-trillion from China to pay for billions in new loans. Not only will this add to the debt, but in the middle of a recession, this will throw 31,000 Americans working at community banks and non-profit lenders out of work.”

Alexander, a former University of Tennessee president, says the effects of Obama’s policy could be felt for decades. “When I was education secretary, one of my major objections to turning it all over to the government was that I didn’t think the government could manage it,” he says. “This is going to be too big and too congested, and makes getting your student loan about as attractive as lining up to get your driver’s license in some states.”

“It changes the kind of country we live in more than it changes American education,” Alexander concludes. “The American system of higher education has become the best in the world because of choice and competition. Unlike K-12, we give money to students and let them choose among schools, having the choice of private lenders or government lenders. That’s been the case for 20 years. Having no choice, and the government running it all, looks more like a Soviet-style, European, and even Asian higher-education model where the government manages everything. In most of those countries, they’ve been falling over themselves to reject their state-controlled authoritarian universities, which are much worse than ours, and move toward the American model which emphasizes choice, competition, and peer-reviewed research. In that sense, we’re now stepping back from our choice-competition culture, which has given us not just some of the best universities in the world, but almost all of them.”

Alan Grayson: Urologist Who Put Anti-Obama Signs Up in Violation of Ethics Rules

Original Post: Crooksandliars.com
By: Heather

Congressman Alan Grayson has filed a formal complaint with the Florida Department of Health and the Florida Medical board after a voter in his district sent him a picture of this -- Pissed-off Florida urologist to Obama supporters: Go somewhere else. Par for the course Anderson Cooper questioned Rep. Grayson's motives with filing the complaints.

COOPER:Democratic Congressman now Alan Grayson. A woman whose daughter took a picture of the sign sent it to the congressman complaining. He's filing a formal complaint with the Florida Department of Health and the Florida Medical Board. Congressman Grayson joins us now.

You -- does it make sense, what the doctor is saying? I mean, he's claiming he's not turning any patients away.

REP. ALAN GRAYSON: He's a very confused individual. That much is obvious.

But what he's doing clearly is a violation of the ethics rules that you cited earlier, the Hippocratic oath, the rules of the AMA. And it's at the expense of his patients and care. What he's doing is no different from saying, "I will not treat a black person. I will not treat a Catholic."

I thought that we, as a country, has moved beyond that.

COOPER: But wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

I mean, I'm not taking a side. I'm not taking anybody's side in this, but, just for accuracy's sake, he has said nothing about race. And race is a protected category. I mean, there are -- it is illegal to discriminate someone based on race. It is not illegal to say you don't want to treat somebody because you don't like their politics. Politics is not a protected class.

GRAYSON: Well, in fact, where he lives, in Mount Dora, which is in my district, many, many of the Democrats who live in Mount Dora happen to be African-Americans.

So, by saying that he will not treat somebody who supported Obama, he's saying that he's not going to treat a large number of African-Americans in the community.

COOPER: Wait. So, you're saying race is at the core of this? Come on. There is no evidence of that at all.

GRAYSON: No, I'm saying -- I'm saying that it shows very poor judgment. And the effect of this -- the effect of this is to set us back as a country. That's why I'm disgusted by it.

COOPER: But, again, he's not doing anything illegal.

GRAYSON: Well, that remains to be seen. You know, he's licensed. There are licensing authorities who are going to look into what he's doing. And I hope that they will take action, because, frankly, I think a lot of people are disturbed just to go into his office. He's turned his inner office, his reception area, into some shrine of right-wing nuttery.

And he said earlier today on FOX News that he's upset about the health care bill because it means that old people won't able to go to nursing homes anymore.

COOPER: Critics of you, though, will say, well, look, this comes across as a partisan attack, that you're using the legal system, or the medical ethics system, to pressure someone who doesn't agree with you.

GRAYSON: Well, that's not true.

COOPER: I mean, if this was an Obama supporter who put up a sign saying, "I don't like Republicans, and Republicans should go elsewhere," would you be as outraged?

GRAYSON: I'm protecting the people in my district who deserve medical care, even if they happen to have voted for Obama.

COOPER: Nobody, though, seems to be alleging that he treats any of his patients any differently based on what they believe. I mean, so far, no one has said that their care has suffered because they were an Obama supporter.

GRAYSON: How many people walked in -- walked up to his front door, saw the sign, and turned away? How many people referred from other physicians in the community, including primary care physicians, how many patients saw that sign and walked away?

COOPER: What kind of penalty do you think he should get?

GRAYSON: Well, whatever the medical authorities think he should get. But it is a clear violation of ethics, and it's a particularly ugly one. Why is it that the right wing is so preoccupied with denying people health? Why is that?

COOPER: Representative Alan Grayson, appreciate you being on for your perspective. Thank you very much.

GRAYSON: Thank you.

Lawmaker removed from comittee for wanting to read bill

Lawmaker says she was removed from panel over global warming bill concerns

Original Post:JS Online
By: Lee Bergquist and Jason Stein

A Democratic member of the Assembly said Thursday that she was removed from a committee that advanced legislation limiting carbon emissions.

Rep. Ann Hraychuck (D-Balsam Lake) said Assembly leaders pulled her from the Special Committee on Clean Energy Jobs after she expressed concerns in the morning that revisions on the last-minute legislation didn't give her enough time to review the changes and talk to constituents about the bill.

The changes, in the form of a substitute amendment, were circulated among lawmakers on Tuesday.

Hraychuck is a former sheriff who has taken on a number of law-and-order bills for Democrats since defeating incumbent Republican Mark Pettis in 2006.

Rebekah Sweeney, a spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan (D-Janesville), said Hraychuck had five bills on Thursday's Assembly agenda, including one to raise penalties on those who help felons illegally purchase guns.

The decision to have Hraychuck leave the committee, which was considering only the climate-change bill, was to allow Hraychuck to focus on her own bills, Sweeney said.

But Jim Bender, spokesman for Assembly Minority Leader Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon), said the move was about keeping a Democratic lawmaker in a competitive district from voting on a controversial bill.

Bender said the move showed Democrats were nervous about the public's reaction to the contentious proposal.

The panel voted 6-3 Thursday to advance the bill to the full Assembly. Eight amendments offered by Republicans were rejected by majority Democrats.

The bill would require that 25% of the state's energy to generate electricity come from renewable resources by 2025.

The aim of the legislation is to lower heat-trapping carbon emissions and to reduce the state's reliance on out-of-state fossil fuel sources. Wisconsin spends $16 billion a year on oil, natural gas and coal to generate electricity.

Proponents say the legislation will spur new employment in the energy sector and green technologies, but opponents say it will increase the cost of electricity and drive up manufacturing costs.

Hraychuck said there were many good provisions in the bill and that she was committed to passing legislation that will increase energy efficiency, reduce carbon emissions and create jobs.

Obama: Al-Qaida would use nuke if it could

Original Post: Yahoo News
By: ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON – If al-Qaida acquired nuclear weapons it "would have no compunction at using them," President Barack Obama said Sunday on the eve of a summit aimed at finding ways to secure the world's nuclear stockpile.

"The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama said. "This is something that could change the security landscape in this country and around the world for years to come."

"If there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications economically, politically and from a security perspective would be devastating," the president said.

"We know that organizations like al-Qaida are in the process of trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and would have no compunction at using them," Obama said.

The Nuclear Security Summit of more than 40 world leaders in Washington this week is aimed at securing "loose nuclear material," Obama said. He was holding one-on-one meetings Sunday with several of those leaders.

He said other world leaders have offered "very specific approaches to how we can solve this profound international problem."

Obama singled out South Africa for giving up its nuclear program, and said it "has been a strong, effective leader in the international community on nonproliferation issues. South Africa has special standing in being a moral leader on this issue."

South African President Jacob Zuma was among the leaders Obama met with Sunday at Blair House, across from the White House. Others included Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

"I feel very good at this stage in the degree of commitment and a sense of urgency that I have seen from the world leaders so far on this issue," Obama said. "We think we can make enormous progress on this, and this then becomes part and parcel of the broader focus that we've had over the last several weeks."

Last Thursday, Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that reduces each side's deployed nuclear arsenal to 1,550 weapons. Earlier in the week, Obama approved a new nuclear policy for the United States, vowing to reduce America's nuclear arsenal, refrain from nuclear tests and not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them.

Obama said securing loose nuclear arms is "a central part of the process, but probably the most urgent one and the one we are most concerned with in the short term."

After his remarks, Obama met with Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani. The White House said Obama praised Pakistan for its quick reaction to an attack by Islamic militants against a U.S. consulate in northwestern Pakistan last week. Obama also reiterated that the U.S. and Pakistan are facing a common enemy.

Pakistan has a troubled history with the United States, and anti-American sentiment runs high among ordinary Pakistanis. U.S. leaders go out of their way to assure Pakistan that the United States will not walk away from the improving relationship with Pakistan, and Congress has committed billions in new aid to the country.

Reagrding the purpose of the summit, the White House said Galani assured Obama that Pakistan takes nuclear security seriously and has appropriate safeguards in place.

Obama wrapped up his Sunday schedule by meeting with acting Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan before returning to the White House.

Destitute and desperate, Icelanders opt for exile

Original Post: Yahoo News
By: Marc Preel


MOSFELLSBAER, Iceland (AFP) – Anna Margret Bjoernsdottir never thought she would be forced to leave her once wealthy homeland, but after 18 months of economic upheaval she has decided to join the biggest emigration wave from Iceland in more than a century.

"I just don't see any future here. There isn't going to be any future in this country for the next 20 years, everything is going backwards," lamented the 46-year-old single mother, who plans to move to Norway in June.

The former real estate agent who lost her job when Iceland's housing market disintegrated two years ago said she feared she could soon be forced out of her large house in Mosfellsbaer, some 15 kilometres (nine miles) from Reykjavik.

"I don't want to sell it," she said, vowing to "fight to keep" the comfortable wooden dwelling she, her daughter Olavia, their cat Isolde Tinna and their dog Candit the Bandit have called home since 2004.

Bjoernsdottir is not alone in planning to leave Iceland's economic mess behind and seek a new future abroad. Most people in Reykjavik have someone in their surroundings who has already packed their bags and left.

Emigration has rapidly picked up speed since the Atlantic island nation's economy crumbled in late 2008, dragged down by the collapse of its major banks. Last year it marked the largest exodus from the country since 1887.

In 2009, more than 10,600 people left the country of fewer than 320,000 inhabitants, according to official statistics, with 4,835 more people moving away than immigrating.

Foreign workers, mainly Poles, who since the beginning of the decade had been drawn to Iceland's financial miracle, were the first to leave.

But Icelanders like Bjoernsdottir have not been far behind, most heading to the country's still prosperous Nordic neighbours, especially Norway.

"I don't think I can offer a good future to my daughter Olavia" in Iceland, Bjoernsdottir said.

Like many other Icelanders who have seen their worlds collapse since the financial turmoil began, Bjoernsdottir's predicament stems from the decision, on advice from her banker, to take up a loan in foreign currency.

Repayments on her loan, in yens and Swiss francs, became insurmountable after the Icelandic krona nose-dived following the banking sector implosion.

"My loans are twice as high as they were," she said, shaking her head in disgust. "The payments keep going higher and higher, so I have to leave, I'm forced to!"

Bjoernsdottir lost her job in real estate at the end of 2008 as the crisis hammered Iceland's economy. Since then she has picked up temporary teaching work, but that position also disappeared last September.

Analysts expect Iceland's beleaguered economy to stabilise in 2010, but gross domestic product shrank 6.5 percent last year.

Other victims of Iceland's financial woes have ended up with one foot in and the other out of the country.

Svanbjoern Einarsson, a 44-year-old father of three, says he is trapped in the country due to an unsellable house that he does not want to abandon.

Instead, the engineer has chosen to work for six-week stretches in Norway's oil capital Stavanger on the western coast, with occasional one- or two-week breaks home with his family.

"It's very difficult. When I work I forget about it, but in the evening it's very tough," he said.

Long-term, however, he acknowledged his future may be in Norway, not Iceland.

Like many of their countrymen forced into exile, both Bjoernsdottir and Einarsson blame Reykjavik for their country's plight.

"I'm so angry about this government," Bjoernsdottir said.

Iceland's first ever left-wing government came to power last year after the previous right-wing administration collapsed following a wave of protests blaming it for the state of the economy.

But the current government is now under fire over a deal to pay out massive compensation to Britain and the Netherlands for costs incurred following the fall of the online bank Icesave in October 2008.

Iceland has agreed to pay out 3.9 billion euros (5.3 billion dollars) to compensate for money the two countries paid out to 340,000 of their citizens hit by the bank's collapse.

"I had great hopes when the left-wing government was elected, that they would do something against corruption and the abusive loans, but all they do is talk about Icesave," Einarsson said.

In a March 6 referendum, more than 93 percent of Icelandic voters rejected a deal to repay Britain and the Netherlands at a high interest rate. Reykjavik has since said it will try to secure a more favourable agreement.

Bjoernsdottir was among those who voted down the deal -- and says the debacle strengthened her determination to leave Iceland.

"I don't want my daughter to have to pay for this," she said. "I just have such a bad feeling about what's happening here."

Barack Obama orders killing [assassination] of US cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

Original Post: Telegraph.co
By: Tom Leonard

Barack Obama's administration has authorised the assassination of the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a rare move against an American citizen.


The Yemen-based al-Awlaki has been linked to the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt in December to blow up a Detroit-bound jet by a man wearing explosives in his underpants.

The decision to add him to the US hit list required a National Security Council review because of his citizenship.

Officials said US intelligence had argued that the cleric now posed a direct threat to America, an al-Qaeda recruiter who had graduated from encouraging attacks to active involvement in them.

Al-Awlaki, 38, became famous last year after it emerged he had communicated extensively by email with Major Nidal Hasan, the army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.

The cleric, who allegedly had ties with the 9/11 hijackers, later praised the Fort Hood killings and said Muslims should only serve in the US military if they intended to carry out similar attacks.

He has also been linked to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian student accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound jet last Christmas with explosives in his underwear.

Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico and spent years as an imam in the US before moving to the Yemen, where he is believed to remain in hiding.

Members of the George W Bush administration have said they believe it never approved any American for a targeted killing.

However, officials now argue privately that Americans who side with the country's enemies are not ultimately "entitled to special protections".

In February, Dennis Blair, the director of US national intelligence, confirmed that its security agencies had the authority, having obtained specific permission, to kill American citizens if they posed a direct threat to the United States.

On Tuesday, Jane Harman, the Democrat chairman of the House homeland security subcommittee, said Al-Awlaki was "probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No 1 in terms of threat against us."

My Comments Wow, and there we have it. Barack Obama who's so careful to avoid any aggression or insult to the Muslim world is now utilizing assassination. ASSASSINATION I have to admit I'm shocked. He can't even us harsh language (except against Burma and Isreal) but now he's going to use assassination. I'm going to keep using that word to impress the seriousness of the fact. The U.S. doesn't use assassination, Obama accused Bush of being a torturer and he's going to had a man assassinated.

He hasn't even authorized the assassination of Bin Laden. Surely by now we have him in custody right? Right?

Obama's census-form choice: 'Black'

Original Post: LA Times
By: Oscar Avila

An individual's responses to census questions are confidential, but one of President Obama's answers on the 10-question form adds more fodder to the ongoing conversation about how America sees itself.

After media inquiries, the White House confirmed that Obama checked only the racial box that says: "Black, African Am., or Negro," the Associated Press reported.
Advertisement

Obama could have checked more than one racial box, given that his father was an African from Kenya and his mother was a white woman from Kansas. He could have checked "white" as well, or even "some other race" and written in "multiracial."

Obama's internal struggle over his racial identity was a theme in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father." But it is a struggle faced by other Americans, and it is an element in the country's efforts to come to terms with race relations.

The news quickly made the rounds among not only political commentators but citizens with mixed racial ancestry. Some second-guessed Obama's choice while others said there are no right or wrong answers to that question.

Michelle Hughes, president of the Chicago Biracial Family Network, said she received several e-mails from surprised friends within moments of Obama's decision being made public.

"I think everybody is entitled to self-identify. If he chooses to self-identify as African American, that's his right," she said. "That being said, I think that the multiracial community feels a sense of disappointment that he refuses to identify with us.

"I think his choice will have political, social and cultural ramifications."

Rich Benjamin, the African American author of the book "Searching for Whitopia," chimed in by e-mail to say that Obama's public choice is a vivid example of America's complicated racial dynamics.

"Given our growing racial diversity and intermixed populations, led by a mutt-style President, why bother to consider race at all? Isn't race an anachronism? Not at all," wrote Benjamin, a senior fellow at Demos, a New York think tank.

"Taking our human inventory, including race, allows us to uncover incredibly useful lessons about ourselves as a country."

Che Guevara was a racist terrorist murdering thug

I'm sick of people walking around with his image on his shirt when you know they have no idea who this sick individual really is. You don't see Hitler shirts worn around campuses do you? Yes, that is a fair comparison. Both were narcissistic megalomaniac sociopaths with delusions of grandeur one was just a bit more successful in his pursuits.

Phil Hare (Democrat) doesn't care about the Constitution

Bingo! That sums it up. Phil Hare doesn't care about the Constitution as long as he can do whatever he wants. This is probably the most un-American thing I've ever heard a Representative who's taken an oath to uphold the Constitution say. Including Obama's comments about it's flaws and blind spots.

Salt is a bigger threat than terroris?

I thought Democrats were the party of freedom. I thought Democrats stood up for individual rights. Apparently the American people are so stupid, so unmindful of their own bodies that we need the Government to protect us from salt in restaurants. What about keep your laws off my body?

Sex-change drugs a right, judge says

Original Post: JS Online
By: Bruce Vielmetti

A federal judge has struck down a Wisconsin law that prohibits prison inmates from getting hormone therapy to treat gender identity disorder.

U.S. District Judge Charles N. Clevert Jr., who presided over a civil trial challenging the law in 2007, issued a ruling late Wednesday and declared the statute unconstitutional on several grounds. Clevert's order indicated a longer memorandum decision would follow.

In early 2006, Clevert had issued a preliminary injunction to allow the hormone therapy to continue.

In Wednesday's order, Clevert found that the law amounts to "deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs' serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment," because it denies hormone therapy without regard to those needs or doctors' judgments. He found the law unconstitutional on its face and also in violation of the inmates' rights to equal protection.

"We're very excited about it," said Laurence Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, which represented the three named plaintiffs in the case. Lambda Legal, a national advocacy group, was also part of the plaintiffs' legal team.

"There have been other states with policies similar in ways to this and that were generally struck down or settled, but this was the first one with a statute passed by a legislature," Dupuis said.

Another ACLU attorney on the case, John Knight, called the decision common sense.

"The court's ruling doesn't require inmates to receive hormones or surgery for sex reassignment," Knight said. "It simply means that doctors are the ones who make the decisions about treatment."

He estimated that fewer than a dozen inmates are affected.

State lawmakers passed the Sex Change Prevention Act in 2005 in reaction to the case of a Wisconsin inmate who had been receiving the hormones for years, but sued when the Department of Corrections would not pay for sex-change surgery. Similar challenges were mounted in other states.

Though Clevert's ruling doesn't address surgery, Dupuis said he thinks the ruling supports the principle that any medical care in prisons must be based on medical judgment, which means the surgery would at least be theoretically possible.

But Dupuis said the case has broader implications.

"It's important to transgendered inmates, but also for other people in the system who have conditions that are unpopular and on which politicians might think they could make hay," he said.

State Rep. Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin), a co-sponsor of the Sex Change Prevention Act, said he expects Clevert's ruling will be appealed.

"There's no way the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment actually requires that taxpayers fund sex change operations for prisoners," he said.

Rep. Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford), another sponsor of the law, called Clevert's ruling "a travesty of justice" that should be appealed immediately.

"This ruling puts a higher priority on helping inmate Tommy become Tammy than protecting the pocketbooks of law abiding citizens," Suder said.

Bill Cosh, speaking for the Department of Justice, said the agency is reviewing the matter for possible appeal.