Department of Offense

With the help of unions, partisan politicians and pro-amnesty groups, the White House intends to push for back-door amnesty and bypass Congress altogether.

“It makes sense to do now what the administration can do… it doesn’t have to go through Congress. It (amnesty) doesn’t have to go through the toxic political process,” said Ana Avendano of the AFL-CIO at a recent press conference.

The AFL-CIO is one of the largest union representatives which include all the radio/broadcasters as well as the Hollywood crowd.

The Obama Administration is making a three pronged effort to gain amnesty without bringing the always hot-button immigration issue into the U.S. House of Representatives.

The first prong the Administration is attacking is the 287(g) rule which some Democrats in Congress called “misguided.” This provision states local law enforcement can arrest those here illegally in the country who have not committed any major crimes.

“That fact you have to commit a major crime to be arrested is a joke,” says Jena Baker McNeill of the Heritage Foundation. “Coming into this country illegally is against the law.”

The 287(g) provision has been most notably used by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona. His office currently uses 287(g) to curtail an explosive invasion of illegals in to his U.S./Mexico border state.

However, pro-amnesty groups like National Immigration Forum see things differently.

In a press release from the group; “Any enforcement regime that targets that population is a waste of time and money and a band-aid on an open wound, at best,” said Ali Noorani, executive director for National Immigration Forum.

Since Janet Napolitano’s place as the head of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was lamented during the Administration change, many policies have seen a certain softening.

At the top of the list is 287(g) enforcement.

“Today’s 287(g) announcement by DHS is a stark departure from the current practice and I fear will only hinder our law enforcement agencies’ ability to apprehend and detain illegal aliens,” said Hal Rodgers-R Ky. in a statement. “The current 287(g) program enables state and local law enforcement to effectively enforce federal immigration law and is key to keeping our country safe.”

A spokesperson from DHS, Matt Chandler, sounded cheery when asked if this would hinder Sheriff Joe. “Yes.”

However, at a recent meeting with Sheriff Joe, Jay LaSuer, candidate for San Diego Sheriff, said, “Sheriff Joe doesn’t think this new ruling will slow him down too much.”

The next area where the Obama administration plans on softening is the E-Verify program.

The Obama Administration has pushed for workplace raids and arrests to be stopped and informed law enforcement to steer clear of the illegal immigrants caught working illegally.

Many of those caught at workplaces are using false documents and have now committed two crimes, one of which is a felony, says Congressman Brian Bilbray-R, CA.

“We need all these laws, including all aspects of E-Verify, in order to tackle illegal immigration. All of this is piecemeal work, but it’s all the little things that mean a lot when put together,” McNeill said.

By taking the no-match rule in E-Verify away many feel it will only make it easier and a no brainer for those in this country illegally to stay. “This only works when all parties involved are penalized, including employers and illegal alien offenders,” McNeill finished.

“The fact that DHS wants to overlook the rule of law will only lead illegals to expand their footprints in this country,” Bilbray said. “These new rules will encourage those to come here illegally and this welcome mat mentality means amnesty.”

This leads to the third prong of the back door amnesty. The health care reform package includes a provision that Republican’s tried and failed to strip from the House health care package.

The plan known as the Heller amendment and was written by Rep. Dean Heller, R-NV, and was to include clauses that mandated checks similar to E-Verify in order for applicants to qualify for government subsidized health insurance.

The Heller amendment said, “It would better screen applicants for subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or otherwise entitled to it.”

The two identification processes the Heller amendment would use are programs the federal government already employ; The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).

In an interview with Janice Kephart of the Centers for Immigration Studies regarding the inclusion of illegals in the health care bill she came to a similar conclusion.

“If amnesty forgives illegality, then this is just another element of a multi-faceted approach to a red carpet for illegals, “Kephart said. “Who cares if our current health care system can’t provide adequate coverage for those born here?”

Another point to keep in mind is the real cost of amnesty. In a 2007 report, The Heritage Foundation estimated that amnesty would cost the American public more than $2.6 Trillion, yes TRILLION.

While counter pro-amnesty groups insist those here illegally will pay into the Internal Revenue Service raising capital, The Heritage Foundation claims the cost of retirement benefits from amnesty would be unsustainable and fall well short of any revenue collected.

Heritage also contends that the rush to social services (such as Food Stamps, public housing and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) would overwhelm the already over-burdened system.

All these issues combined can create a back door amnesty, according to Lawmakers like Bilbray and other watch dog groups like CIS.

“When you throw big business and big labor together, the power and profit creates an unholy alliance,” the Congressman said.

For all these reasons, like them (politicians) or not, American’s need their lawmakers involved when it comes to immigration reform.

The largest tax increases in the history of America will be instated on 
January 1, 2011. Tax hikes that affect families and small business are 
especially high. 
 
The GOP Congress tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and 
families will expire on 01-01-2011. Personal income taxes will 
increase: 10% to 15%, 25% to 28%, 28% to 31%, 33% to 36%, and the 
highest of 35% to 39.6%. Many people are looking into possibly 
revising their withholding deductions. 
 
The “marriage penalty” will start from the first dollar earned. The 
child tax credit drops from $1,000 to $500 per child. The marriage 
deduction reverts to the single deduction amount. The dependent care 
and adoption tax credits are reduced. 
 
The “death tax” returns with 55% top tax rate on estates over $1 
million. 
Savers and investors have a capital gains tax increase from 15% to 
20%. The dividends tax increases from 15% to 36.9%. (In 2013, another 
increase of 3.8%.) 
Higher tax rates on savers and investors as the capital gains tax 
increases from 15% this year to 20% in 2011. Dividends tax increase 
from 15% to 39.6% in 2011, then another 3.8% in 2013. 
 
Healthcare will be more costly. There are over 20 new or higher 
taxes. Americans no longer can use health savings accounts, flexible 
spending accounts, or health reimbursement pre-tax dollars to purchase 
non-prescription medicines, except insulin. 
 
The “Special Needs Kids Tax” imposes a cap of $2,500. Many families 
use FSA’s (Flexible spending accounts) to pay for special needs 
education. Leading schools can easily cost $14,000 per year. 
 
Tax on non-medical early withdrawals from a Health Savings Account will 
increase from 10% to 20%. 
 
Many tax relief provisions for the American family expire on January 1, 
2011. Only 4 million families fell into a tax burden that had to 
calculate their taxes twice, and pay taxes at a higher price. In tax 
preparations of 2011, an estimated 28 million families will be ensnared 
by the Alternative Minimum Tax (an extra tax some people have to pay on 
top of the regular income tax). 
 
Small business takes a huge tax hit. The United State Congress Joint 
Committee on Taxation has issued a 46-page publication listing all of 
the expiring Federal Tax Provisions. 
 
Tax benefits for education tuition and fees will not be 
available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers 
can no longer deduct classroom expenses. Employer-provided educational 
assistance stops. Hundreds of thousands of families will no longer be 
able to deduct student loan interest. 
 
Charitable contributions from IRA’s will no longer be allowed. 
 
Americans are advised to begin their preparations now for the increased 
expenses the Congress of the United States has imposed on the citizens. 
 
Sources: Kiplinger Letter, Americans for Tax Reform, Joint Committee 
on Taxation (U.S. Congress)

by Newt Gingrich

One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks “the war on terror” instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign.. This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.

Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia–Islamic law–upon all aspects of global society.

Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.

For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia’s supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.

Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods–a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term “war on terrorism” is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.

Sharia and Western Civilization

Sharia law is used in many Muslim countries to justify shocking acts of barbarity including stoning, the execution of homosexuals, and the subjugation of women. Sharia does not permit freedom of conscience; it prohibits Muslims from renouncing their Islamic faith or converting to another religion. Sharia does not support religious liberty; it treats non-Muslims as inferior and does not accord them the same protections as Muslims. In these and other instances, sharia is explicitly at odds with core American and Western values. It is an explicit repudiation of freedom of conscience and religious liberty as well as the premise that citizens are equal under the law.

Thus, the radical Islamist effort to impose sharia worldwide is a direct threat to all those who believe in the freedoms maintained by our constitutional system.

Creeping Sharia in the United States

In some ways, it speaks of the goodness of America that we have had such difficulty coming to grips with the challenge of radical Islamists. It is our very commitment to religious liberty that makes us uncomfortable with defining our enemies in a way that appears linked with religious belief.

However, America’s commitment to religious liberty has given radical Islamists a potent rhetorical weapon in their pursuit of sharia supremacy. In a deliberately dishonest campaign exploiting our belief in religious liberty, radical Islamists are actively engaged in a public relations campaign to try and browbeat and guilt Americans (and other Western countries) to accept the imposition of sharia in certain communities, no matter how deeply sharia law is in conflict with the protections afforded by the civil law and the democratic values undergirding our constitutional system.

The problem of creeping sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns. However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show sharia is coming here. Andy McCarthy’s writings, including his new book The Grand Jihad, have been invaluable in tracking instances in which the American government and major public institutions have been unwilling to assert the protections of American law and American values over sharia’s religious code. Some examples include:

In June 2009, a New Jersey state judge rejected an allegation that a Muslim man who punished his wife with pain for hours and then raped her repeatedly was guilty of criminal sexual assault, citing his religious beliefs as proof that he did not believe he was acting in a criminal matter. “This court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.” Thankfully, this ruling was reversed in an appellate court.

In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of sharia. The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.

In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.

In order to accommodate sharia’s prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price. It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code. Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of sharia within U.S. law.

Amazingly, there are strong allegations that the United States now owns the largest provider of sharia financing in the world: AIG.

Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for handing out copies of the Gospel of St.. John on charges of “disturbing the peace.” They were doing so on a public street outside an Arab festival in a way that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by sharia’s rules on proselytizing. This is a clear case of freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom being sacrificed in deference to sharia’s intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.

Shockingly, sharia honor killings-in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family-are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered “domestic disturbances.” (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)

Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.

It is in this context that the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero must be seen.

Exposing Radical Islamist Hypocrisy at Ground Zero

There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque. After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an “accessory” to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.

More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn’t mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.

The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque–”Cordoba House”–which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.

They say they’re interfaith, but they didn’t propose the building of a mosque, church and synagogue. Instead they proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred.

Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.

We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims’ families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.

Apologists for radical Islamist hypocrisy are trying to argue that we have to allow the construction of this mosque in order to prove America’s commitment to religious liberty. They say this despite the fact that there are already over 100 mosques in New York City.

In fact, they’re partially correct-this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty. It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.

By Martin Finucane, Globe Staff

The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

“What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America,” Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.

Under the new bill, he said, “Every vote will be of the same weight across the country.”

But Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was “tried and true” since the founding of the country.

“We’ve had a lot of bad ideas come through this chamber over the years, but this is going to be one of the worst ideas that has surfaced and actually garnered some support,” said Tisei, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor.

The bill, which passed on a 28-to-9 vote, now heads to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick’s desk. The governor has said in the past that he supports the bill, said his spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Supporters are campaigning, state by state, to get such bills enacted. Once states accounting for a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of Electoral College votes. That would hold true no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already approved the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign’s website. The new system would only go into effect once a sufficient number of states have passed laws that would make it work.

The current Electoral College system is confusing and causes presidential candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states, supporters say. They also say that the popular vote winner has lost in four of the nation’s 56 elections.

Presidential candidates now “ignore wide swaths of the country” they consider strong blue or red states and focus their campaigning on contested states, Eldridge said. If the president were picked by national popular vote, he argued, candidates would spread their attention out more evenly.

“That’s really what we’re talking about is making sure that every voter, no matter where they live, that they’re being reached out to,” he said.

Opponents say the current system works. They are concerned about a possible scenario where Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state’s 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.

Tisei also criticized the proponents for not following the normal procedures to seek a constitutional amendment.

“The thing about this that bothers me the most is it’s so sneaky. This is the way that liberals do things a lot of times, very sneaky,” he said. “This is sort of an end run around the Constitution.”

The measure passed both branches of the Legislature in 2008 but did not make it all the way through the process.

Harry Reid launched a sneak attack late Friday night to ram through the speech-killing “Disclose Act.” The key vote to end debate and vote on the “Disclose Act” will belate today or early Tuesday.

“Freedom of Speech is Under Attack”, the House voted on and passed their version of a controversial bill (HR5175) that would ban certain government contractors, corporations, and nonprofit organizations from engaging in any political speech. The vote of 219 – 206, opened the door for a full Senate vote.

The real purpose of the “DISCLOSE” Act (which is an acronym for Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) is to impose restrictions on speech by corporations, nonprofit groups and others who express themselves through political campaign advertising.

Of course UNIONS would be exempt from most of the provisions of the bill since unions support Democrats almost exclusively.

This is an emergency, so please call and/or email your U.S. Senators IMMEDIATELY and insist they vote for free speech and AGAINST the “Disclose Act” (S. 3295). We can’t let this legislation slip through our fingers again! It is just another way for government to deny Americans their freedom of speech.