New Jersey mayor fights feds over prayer during citizenship ceremony

A New Jersey town canceled its ceremony celebrating new U.S. citizens after federal immigration officials would not allow the event to begin with a prayer.
According to the Star-Ledger, Carteret Mayor Daniel Reiman had assured U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials that the prayer leading Saturday’s ceremony would be nondenominational.
“They refused to budge on that,” Reiman said, the paper reported.
The battle came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local government meetings can include sectarian prayers.

“They refused to budge on that.”- Carteret Mayor Daniel Reiman

Reiman and immigration officials each cited the high court’s opinion.
Reiman, who was elected to office in 2002, said the court’s decision is proof that he should be able to open any event with a prayer. He issued a statement Friday saying it is borough policy to open all borough events with a prayer and a moment of silence.
The citizenship agency said the ruling does not mean federal agencies are required to include prayers in ceremonies. It cited a portion of the justices’ decision that referred to the “Pledge of Allegiance” as one of the traditions that “lend gravity to public proceedings.”
Katie Tichacek Kaplan, a spokeswoman for the immigration agency, told the Associated Press that it's a long-standing policy to make sure naturalization ceremonies are "conducted in a meaningful manner which is welcoming and inclusive and excludes political, commercial and religious statements."
Click to read the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America.
Reiman said the town celebrates diversity and that the prayer is non-denominational. He said the immigration service can "host its godless ceremony someplace else."
The event was moved to Newark.
During the fight to include prayer in the opening of the naturalization ceremony, Reiman cited the CIS website, which states that new citizens must recite an oath that contains the phrase, “so help me God,” as well as the “Pledge of Allegiance,” which includes the phrase “under God.”
The website says that reciting the pledge and oath completes the process of becoming a U.S. citizen.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Policing for Profit? Lawmakers, advocates raise alarm at growing gov’t power to seize property

WASHINGTON –  Motel owner Russell Caswell wasn’t expecting to find himself at the center of a national controversy when FBI agents came knocking on his door.
They said they wanted his Tewksbury, Mass., business – and the land it was on – because they suspected it was a hotbed for drug-dealing and prostitution. The agents, who were working with state and local authorities, told a disbelieving Caswell they had the right to take the property, valued at as much as $1.5 million, through a legal process known as civil forfeiture.
Caswell, 70, fought back, and the case turned into one of the nation's most contentious civil forfeiture fights ever – and one that legal experts say sheds light on a little-known practice that, when abused, is tantamount to policing for profit.
Civil forfeiture is when police and prosecutors seize property, cars or cash from someone they suspect of wrongdoing. It differs from criminal forfeiture cases, where prosecutors typically must prove a person is guilty or reach a settlement before freezing funds or selling property. In civil forfeiture, authorities don’t have to prove guilt, file charges or obtain a conviction before seizing private property. Critics say it is a process ripe for abuse, and one which leaves citizens little means of fighting back.
“You breed a culture of 'take first, ask questions later,'” Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, told FoxNews.com. “It’s thuggish behavior.”
Law enforcement officials argue that civil forfeiture powers give them an effective tool against lawbreakers. Freezing funds and seizing assets allow them to hit alleged criminals, frequently suspected drug dealers, where it hurts the most – their wallets.
Alarmed civil rights groups and libertarians are rallying against the practice. Salzman's group defended Caswell and won case in federal court last year. 
But not every target of civil forfeiture can afford the fight.
In 1985, the U.S. Department of Justice created its Asset Forfeiture Fund. One year later, the fund -- which holds the proceeds from seized property and is available to be divvied out to law enforcement agencies -- brought in $93.7 million. In 2008, the amount had ballooned to $1.6 billion. In 2013, it reached $6.3 billion.
Across the country, many states are stepping up efforts to curb civil forfeiture abuse.
In Tennessee, local law enforcement agencies get to keep 100 percent of all property seized through civil forfeiture – an incentive some say can tempt police to go after property for the wrong reasons. Rep. Barrett Rich, a former state trooper, introduced legislation last year that would eliminate the practice in the Volunteer State.
The original version of Rich's bill would have required authorities to obtain a warrant before seizing property. Forfeiture and title transfer of property would take place only under due process of law and only if the owner of the property had been prosecuted and convicted. Rich's bill underwent amendments that, in the end, amounted to more modest reforms to state law.
“We shouldn’t completely get rid of civil forfeiture,” Rich told FoxNews.com. “It’s a valuable tool for law enforcement, but it is also ripe for abuse.”
In other states, the fight for reform has been even harder.
In March, the Georgia Sheriff’s Association successfully killed a bill that would have raised the burden of proof in civil cases and mandated the forfeiture of property worth more than $5,000 be brought before a judge rather than handled administratively.
GSA president and Putnam County Sheriff Howard Sills argued the bill would “demoralize the law enforcement community to a point where we will see little public benefit in enforcing the law when it comes to drug dealers and other criminal entrepreneurs.”
His letter drew harsh criticism from many watchdog groups.
“It is hard to believe that a Georgia law enforcement official would argue that upholding the law is worthwhile only when it is profitable,” Heritage Foundation bloggers Jason Snead and Andrew Kloster wrote. “Such are the perverse incentives created by civil forfeiture laws.”
An investigation conducted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution looked into how funds over a five-year period were spent in Georgia. 
According to the newspaper, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard spent thousands of dollars gleaned from civil forfeitures on pricey dinners and an elaborate home security system for himself. In November 2009, he allegedly paid $800 to rent out a movie theater. Three months later, Howard told his employees they’d have to take 10 furlough days due to budget constraints.
To many, like attorney Salzman, civil forfeitures represent a dangerous area of the U.S. justice system where, by law, a person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around.
On a national level, Salzman says a loophole in the federal law called equitable sharing allows authorities to circumvent the paper-thin protections offered on a state level.
In Ball Harbour, Fla., police raked in more than $5 million through its participation with the Justice Department’s asset forfeiture sharing program in 2011.  The town, which is home to only 2,500 permanent residents, made most of its money through the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing program.
Under the federal program, state and local agencies work in tandem with the feds and often they are allowed to keep most of what they help seize. Property is often sold, with proceeds funneled back into local coffers. They money can go toward anything from new equipment to raises and other perks from the same officials who carried out the bust.
It’s the lopsided power of the law that many Americans who are targeted can’t afford to fight, Salzman says. 
Salzman, who took on the Caswell case pro bono, said law enforcement officials targeted his client’s property out of greed. 
The basic accusation they used to seize his motel was that Caswell could have done more to police what was happening in his own motel. That was news to Caswell, who says over the years he had comp’d the cops free rooms and space so they could set up stings and bust drug deals going down.
“I’ve found, which is kind of hard to believe, but I’m responsible for the action of people I don’t even know, I’ve never even met, and for the most part I have no control over them,” Caswell said in court.  “And I have to rent them a room unless I have a real good reason not to or I get accused of discrimination and that kind of thing.”
“And when they do something wrong, the government wants to steal my property for the actions of those people, which to me makes absolutely no sense,” he added. “It’s more like we’re in Russia or Venezuela or something.”
After a four-day trial, on Jan. 24, 2013, a federal judge in Boston dismissed the forfeiture action against the motel, ruling that the government engaged in “gross exaggeration” of the evidence and did not have authority to seize the property.

Obama angers labor groups with Wal-Mart visit to promote energy efficiency

SAN JOSE, Calif. –  President Obama is showcasing Wal-Mart, often a target of labor groups and other Democratic constituencies, to promote advances in energy efficiency in his broader campaign to confront climate change.
Obama on Friday was to announce commitments from more than 300 companies and local and state governments to use solar energy technology. He also was announcing executive actions aimed at increasing energy efficiency in buildings and appliances. The White House says the solar effort will power the equivalent of 130,000 homes and the administrative actions could reduce carbon pollution in an amount equal to taking 80 million cars off the road for one year.
The White House chose Wal-Mart because the company has committed to doubling the number of solar energy projects at its stores, Sam's Clubs and distribution centers.
But in choosing the giant retailer as the backdrop for his announcement, Obama triggered a backlash from labor unions and pay equity advocates who say Wal-Mart pays low wages and who archly noted that Obama has made pay equity a central issue of his presidency.
"What numbskull in the White House arranged this?" former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who served in the Bill Clinton administration, said in a posting on Facebook on Thursday.
"While he's in California, I would hope President Obama would speak directly to Wal-Mart employees and hear from them about their daily struggles to pay the rent and put food on the table," said Maria Elena Durazo, the executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO.
Wal-Mart says it pays wages that are competitive in the retail industry.
The clashing energy vs. jobs message is not new to the White House. Labor unions, for example, have pressed the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada into the U.S. because it would create jobs. Environmentalists oppose the pipeline, and the administration recently put off a decision on whether to approve it, likely until after the November congressional elections.
Obama was wrapping up a three-day trip mostly devoted to raising money for the Democratic Party.
Complicating things for the White House, Obama on Thursday attended a fundraiser hosted by Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, who sits on Wal-Mart's board of directors.
In promoting the energy efficiency announcement ahead of Friday's event, the White House said solar energy prices have dropped markedly in four years, with solar panels now costing about 60 percent less.
"All of this means more jobs in the industry, which is now supporting more than 140,000 good-paying American jobs and that are increasing at a rate of 20 percent per year," said Dan Utech, a special assistant to Obama on energy and climate change.
The White House said Obama also would announce completion of energy efficiency standards for walk-in coolers and freezers typically used in grocery stores.
The rule on walk-in freezers was proposed last August under an agreement with attorneys general from 10 states and New York City. The states, along with House and Senate Democrats, have been urging Obama to move faster to implement proposed efficiency standards, including those for commercial walk-in coolers and freezers, which were due in 2012.

Pope Francis should stick to doctrine, stay away from economic 'redistribution'

Pope Francis has spent a year on the Throne of Peter. In that time, his modest style and high-minded ideals have ignited a new optimism and fervor among Roman Catholics, including those who left because of disagreements with some of its teachings.
Francis has gone out of his way to voice support for the world’s poorest citizens, rightly noting that their plight is too often ignored or brushed aside. Until this week, his statements have called for voluntary action by wealthier countries and individuals as the right way to relieve economic inequality. He appealed to our better selves, and in so doing, made us all ask if we could be kinder and more generous. The answer, of course, is yes.
On Friday, however, Francis chose a meeting with – of all people -- officials of the United Nations to endorse what he called “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.”

By appearing to sanction what amounts to forced redistribution, Francis grievously exceeded his authority and became what amounts to a robe-wearing politician.

By appearing to sanction what amounts to forced redistribution, Francis grievously exceeded his authority and became what amounts to a robe-wearing politician. He also exposed his Church, one of the wealthiest institutions in the world, to inevitable charges of hypocrisy. And he put himself in a position of having to back up his frothy talk with ruinous action.
Let’s see: for starters, perhaps the Catholic Church and its affiliated non-profit organizations should start voluntarily paying income and real estate tax in the United States, from which it has traditionally been exempt.
There is no doubt that the addition of tax revenue from the Church would be considerable, if hard to estimate. The 17,000-plus parishes may not all measure up to architectural wonders like St. Patrick’s in New York or the newer Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles. But few Catholic churches have absolutely no value. What would 39.5% of all that be?
How could Francis, or his subordinates in the United States object to voluntarily turning over part of their vast revenue?
The notion of the church paying taxes is certainly not heretical. Italy – which surrounds Vatican City where the pope lives – began taxing Catholic Church property last year as a way of helping to relieve its enormous economic problems. At last check, St. Peter’s was still standing.
Further, Francis might consider selling off the artworks stored at the Vatican museum and in churches throughout the world, and the thousands upon thousands of ancient books and manuscripts in its library. The Pietá, for instance, should fetch a pretty penny, especially if the buyer is, say, a backer of Al Qaeda who can afford to smash it to pieces as soon as it is acquired.
The pope is the head of the Church. He is the Vicar of Christ and is infallible on matters of doctrine.
When it comes to economics, however, Francis should stick to making suggestions for how to voluntarily reduce economic inequality and leave tax policy to the politicians. Perhaps he can help by offering a prayer for them. God knows, they need it.
John Moody is Executive Vice President, Executive Editor for Fox News. A former Vatican correspondent and Rome bureau chief for Time magazine, he is the author of four books, including "Pope John Paul II : Biography."

California farmer locked in battle with union

SANGER, Calif. –  Six months ago, workers at one of the largest fruit farms in the U.S. went to the ballot box to decide if they would continue to be represented by the United Farm Workers, which won that right two decades ago but never forged a labor contract.
The ballots, still uncounted by state officials and locked in a safe, sit at the center of a dispute between the union launched by iconic farm labor leader Cesar Chavez and Gerawan Farming, Inc., which hires more than 5,000 workers annually to tend and harvest nectarines, peaches and plums.
Chavez has long since passed away, but the UFW's fight to get workers at Gerawan a union-negotiated contract goes on, moving from the farm's vast orchards in Central California to courtrooms amid accusations of broken labor laws and intimidation tactics.
In California, the nation's most productive agricultural region, unions over decades have won more than 750 elections to represent workers, said Philip Martin, a farm labor expert at the University of California, Davis.
But that never resulted in more than 350 negotiated contracts, so Martin said another 400 farms may find themselves in the same position as Gerawan.
In the South, such as North Carolina, a few farms and food processors have recently unionized, said David Zonderman, a labor historian at North Carolina State University, adding that the region still remains at the bottom of national rankings for organized labor.
"It can be Michigan, Main, North Carolina or Northern California," Zonderman said. "Organizing farm workers is very, very difficult."
Dan Gerawan, who runs the family business in Central California and claims it pays the highest wages in the industry, said the union and a runaway state labor board are in collusion, using what he considers to be an unconstitutional state law to take control of his business and rob his workers of their choice of whether to be represented.
Gerawan said the UFW turned its back on the workers for 20 years, until recently returning out of nowhere. "There's no longer peace in the fields," he said. "What was our sin that justifies this?"
UFW's National Vice President Armando Elenes said farm workers need protection today more than ever from abuses such as low wages, exposure to harmful pesticides and working in extreme heat.
He disputed union critics who say the UFW is reasserting its long-dormant right to represent workers merely to bolster its membership rolls and dues. "It has nothing to do with a money grab," he said. "It has to do with improving conditions for workers."
This feud dates back to 1992, when the UFW began to represent Gerawan's workers. The two sides met once, without agreeing to a contract.
After that, Elenes said UFW leaders realized they were up against a powerful, anti-union farm.
The union turned to Sacramento, Elenes said, and won passage in 2002 of a law that calls for mediation if two sides can't reach a contract. The UFW tested the law at three smaller farms in San Joaquin and Madera counties, gaining hundreds of new members before returning to Gerawan in 2012.
Gerawan said in the two decades that passed he heard nothing from the union.
"Not a letter, no phone call, no fax, no email, no contact at all," he said.
Elenes said there was no disappearing act, as Gerawan claims.
In a new round of negotiations last year, the sides met repeatedly without agreeing on a contract, and the UFW invoked its right to a mediator. Gerawan appealed, saying having a mediator order a contract has "dubious constitutional validity" and would unfairly force the union on him and his workers.
UFW's Elenes said he would rather obtain a voluntary agreement and not have to use the mediation law.
Silvia Lopez, who has picked peaches for 15 years at Gerawan, said she is happy with the pay and working conditions. "If they don't treat me good, I don't stay there even one day," the 38-year-old said.
Lopez said she doesn't want the UFW taking 3 percent of her paycheck in dues. She led a signature drive to hold a vote on whether the workers want the UFW to represent them anymore. The vote happened Nov. 5, and she believes the ballots -- if counted -- would drive out the UFW.
Silas Shawver, director of the state Agriculture Labor Relations Board's office in Visalia, said the ballots remain untouched because of unsettled allegations made by the UFW that Gerawan's crew bosses coerced workers into signing the petition calling for the vote, compromising the process.
Shawver denied that the agriculture board is on the UFW's side, saying his office is independent and bound by law to investigate potential violations of worker rights. Gerawan said his crew bosses have not intimidated workers, and he wants the votes counted.
Gerawan worker and union supporter Severiano Salas, 34, said in Spanish with the UFW's Elenes translating that working conditions have improved since the union returned. Salas, who has worked at the farm for 15 years, said he is ready to pay 3 percent for full union representation.
"What would I tell my kids if I didn't do this?" he said. "If I didn't defend myself, how am I going to face them?"

Utah residents become next to confront Bureau of Land Management, in growing debate

A band of Utah residents rode all-terrain vehicles onto federally managed public land Saturday to protest the Bureau of Land Management closing off the area.
The protest comes weeks after Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s successful standoff against the agency over grazing rights and appears to be the latest episode in the battle across the West over states’ rights on federally managed public lands.
In Blanding, Utah, in the state’s scenic southeastern, the protesters and their supporters say the agency has unfairly closed off a prized area, cheating them of outdoor recreation, according to The Los Angeles Times.
However, federal officials say the region, known for its archaeological ruins, has been jeopardized from overuse.
Bureau of Land Management Utah State Director Juan Palma, in a statement, said the riders may have damaged artifacts and dwellings that "tell the story of the first farmers in the Four Corners region" of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.
"The BLM was in Recapture Canyon today collecting evidence and will continue to investigate," Palma said. "The BLM will pursue all available redress through the legal system to hold the lawbreakers accountable."
Bureau of Land Management officers recorded and documented protesters who traveled into the closure area, he added.
San Juan County Sheriff Rick Eldredge said from 40 to 50 people, many of them waving American flags, drove about a mile down Recapture Canyon near Blanding and then turned around. Hundreds attended a rally at a nearby park before the protest
"It was peaceful, and there were no problems whatsoever," the sheriff told The Associated Press.
About 30 deputies and a handful of U.S. Bureau of Land Management law enforcement personnel watched as protesters drove past a closure sign and down the canyon located about 300 miles southeast of Salt Lake City.
The ride was organized by San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman to assert local control of the region, known as Recapture Canyon.
Recapture Canyon is home to dwellings, artifacts and burials left behind by Ancestral Puebloans as many as 2,000 years ago before they mysteriously vanished.
The canyon was closed to motor vehicles in 2007 after two men forged an illegal seven-mile trail. But hikers and those on horseback are still allowed there, according to the agency.
Governments in Western states are trying to get more control over vast tracts of federally owned land in large part because they say the land could be strategically developed to help boost local economies.
Supporters of the decades-old movement also say local governments are better suited to manage the land, considering in part the federal government is understaffed to manage the acreage.  
Lyman and his supporters want the BLM to act more quickly on a years-old request for a public right-of-way through the area.
The Blanding protest being spearheaded by a local public official, not a resident, also appears to be a sign of the growing frustrations in a rural county composed of nearly 90 percent public lands managed by the BLM.
Environmental groups have spoken out in support of the BLM, saying that fragile Recapture Canyon must be protected.
Earlier this week, BLM officials notified Lyman that any illegal foray in the area would bring consequences such as citations and arrest. 
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert also urged people to uphold the law.
Earlier this week, two men wearing hooded sweatshirts brandished a handgun at a BLM worker driving an agency vehicle, holding up a sign that read, “You need to die.”
"You need to die." Utah ranchers and county leaders recently threatened to break federal law and round up wild horses this summer if the agency doesn't do it first.
Motorized access to Recapture Canyon and other areas in Utah's wilderness has been a source of tension for decades. ATV riders rode another off-limits trail in 2009 in a protest. The Bureau of Land Management gave information about the riders to federal prosecutors, but no charges were filed.

Obama Car