Department of Offense

This is a heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance. You know who they are. They’re the ones with the clever television ads featuring the perky brunette actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the largest funders of the left in America . He’s your typical rich spoiled kid who took over the company from his father and apparently feels “guilty” for his success and now dedicates himself to making it impossible for anyone else to become wealthy.

Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what’s left of America ’s Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed, Lewis is himself an ACLU member. One of the ACLU projects he earmarked his funds for was an effort to sue school districts who have drug testing policies. In other words, this idiot wants teachers to be able to use drugs without fear of exposure. I wonder what he would think if all his own employees came to work drugged out every day.

Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and American Coming Together, two key components of the socialist left. The former group is perhaps the main group used by the Obama forces to organize their activists; the latter group is a 527 political action group that essentially served as a front for the SEIU union thugs who ran ACORN. His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the international socialist who finances much of the Obama political network.

It’s disturbing that Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the free enterprise system. He reminds me somewhat of Armand Hammer, the former head of Occidental Petroleum who did business with Joseph Stalin and became his good friend, around the same time Stalin was executing businessmen all over the USSR .

What angers me further is the way this company is targeting television shows watched by conservatives such as Fox News. Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans so that he can destroy our country. He’s banking on no one finding out who he is. I think it’s time we expose this clown.

The liberal media are not reporting the truth about the new Arizona immigration law (SB1070). Instead, the so-called “news” media are ignoring the will of the people, who have made it clear that they want our borders secured. Instead of reporting the truth about the sentiments of the American people, the Obama-controlled media are pushing their own agenda — expressing disdain and contempt for the new Arizona law and any other attempt to quell the illegal immigration problem in the U.S.

This lack of honest news coverage threatens the ability of our nation to deal with the crisis on our southern border.

A prime example is the just-released Media Research Center review of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC from April 23 to July 25 that found the networks have aired 120 stories with an almost ten-to-one tilt against the Arizona law (77 negative, 8 positive, 35 neutral)! This reaction to a common-sense measure designed to assist the federal government in locating illegals is insane! And it’s out of step with the vast majority of Americans.

The MRC is committed to doing everything that we can to force honest and accurate coverage of (1) the depth of the problems caused by illegal immigration, (2) good faith efforts by states like Arizona to control the problem, and (3) reported plans by the Obama Administration to grant amnesty to illegals by executive fiat!

A major part of our effort will be to mobilize 100,000 citizens to sign the following petition calling upon the liberal media to fairly cover the issue of illegal immigration. Please take a moment to sign the petition below.

sign the petition

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.

Liberals Still Acting Stupidly on Race
by Gary Bauer

The election of our first black President was supposed to signal a milestone in our nation’s pursuit of a post-racial society. Part of the hope and change millions of voters expected involved racial reconciliation.

Interviewed in the wake of Barack Obama’s victory, Martin Luther King III predicted, “race relations clearly will be advanced…because of President-elect Obama.”
But instead of marking a new beginning in race relations, Obama’s presidency has given new life to the old politics of racial grievance. In fact, ironically, Obama himself has been most responsible for initiating a new era of race-baiting.

One year ago, Cambridge police arrested Obama friend and Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates at his home for disorderly conduct. A few days later, Obama claimed that the police had “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates, adding “that there’s a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

Obama was careful to preface his remarks by conceding, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played.” But Obama’s ignorance didn’t stop him from making his explosive charges, which led to a firestorm of criticism that lasted for months.

The Cambridge incident established a template that the Left has followed for the past year. Liberals have thrust race into the forefront of most of the top political and social controversies. They’ve alleged racism without sufficient knowledge of the facts and sometimes in spite of the clear facts.

At its annual conference, the NAACP adopted a resolution condemning the allegedly “racist elements” of the Tea Party. The organization’s leaders cited the supposedly racist signs at Tea Party rallies and the alleged hurling of racist epithets at black legislators at an event in Washington, D.C. No one has found any evidence such epithets were uttered.

One would think that many NAACP members would be embracing the Tea Party, not condemning it. After all, minorities have been hurt most by President Obama’s economic irresponsibility. At over 15%, unemployment among blacks is nearly twice as high as it is among whites. As Vernon Parker, who is black and a Tea Party member and former mayor, told Politico, “The NAACP should be concerned about bringing jobs to people in depressed areas. Not the Tea Party.”

Re-reading columns I have written about race over the last two years, I am struck by the long list of leftwing politicians and media personalities who have attributed opposition to Obama and his agenda to racism. In fact, I am hard-pressed to name many prominent liberals who have not done so.

During the election, opposition to Obama was often blamed on race with virtually no proof. The McCain campaign was accused of stoking racism even though it went so far out of its way not to be labeled as such that it refused to raise Obama’s racist and anti-Semitic pastor Jeremiah Wright as a valid issue. McCain felt highlighting the racism of Obama’s mentor would itself somehow be seen as racist. Sadly, he was probably right.
Since Obama’s election victory, race has been thrust into almost every major political issue. Townhall protests of socialized medicine were said to be fueled by racism, as was the anti-spending Tea Party movement.

When Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, the media suggested tough questioning by Republicans during her confirmation hearing would risk alienating Hispanic voters. The hearing became a love-fest.

Obama Atty. Gen. Eric Holder called America a “nation of cowards” on race. It was an ironic allegation from the man heading a Justice Department that has cowardly allowed race to dictate policy.

Under Holder, DOJ is accused by a former Justice official of systematically ignoring civil rights cases in which blacks are the alleged perpetrators. Exhibit A is its refusal to prosecute an air-tight case of voter intimidation by New Black Panther Party thugs.
It’s not that Holder hasn’t prioritized cases in which race plays a role. He has filed a federal lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law and may file another court challenge on grounds of racial profiling. No matter that the law simply requires police to check the immigration status of persons they suspect have been involved in a crime.

With the Justice Department playing racial politics with the law, racial grievance groups are feeling emboldened. Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Janet Murguia of La Raza took to the pages of the Washington Post to call on Major League Baseball to move the 2011 All Star Game from Arizona because of the state’s new immigration law.

They wrote that the game should be moved from Phoenix because “the families, friends and fans” of a third of the players who are non-white “could be treated as second-class citizens because of their skin color or the way they speak.” The authors also absurdly compared Arizona’s immigration law to the racist and segregationist policies under Jim Crow.

There was once a time when the allegation of racism was so toxic that it could end a distinguished career or a promising future in an instant. But the Left has been over-playing its race card. Its race-baiting is becoming increasingly self-defeating, as so many spurious accusations of racism mean real incidents of racism are trivialized.

With each cynical attempt to play racial politics, it becomes clearer that it is the Left that’s acting stupidly on race and in the process is further dividing America.

The new Arizona law has sparked serious debate regarding state government authority to enforce immigration laws in the United States. Moreover, the law has important implications on the future direction of drug policy, crime prevention and free trade throughout the Nation. Sadly, the one person who has been brought on every cable news channel to discuss this issue is Al Sharpton. Don’t we deserve someone better for such an important discussion?