Video: Gov. Brewer says Obama giving Mexico double the money that is gives to Arizona for Nat. Guard protection

Video: Gov. Brewer says Obama giving Mexico double the money that is gives to Arizona for Nat. Guard protection

June 29th, 2010

The Obama administration is suing Arizona over their recent immigration law, which is an attempt to slow the many illegal immigrants pouring into Arizona.

Now the Obama administration is giving more money to Mexico than they are to Arizona, according to a recent meeting Gov. Jan Brewer had with administration officials.

Get Informed! Read some more articles about this situation
Obama courting Latinos by suing Arizona  

Obama administration boycotting Arizona.  

Mexican government joining lawsuit against Arizona.

Watch the lawsuit being revealed for the first time by Hillary Clinton on Ecuadorean TV   

All of these articles show a developing dangerous rift between the Obama administration and the state of Arizona. Why is Obama so desperately trying to put down the right of Arizona to protect itself and courting with foreigners to do this?

The perfect society: A land without wealth?

The perfect society: A land without wealth?

Anthony W. Hager

Utopia! It’s the holy grail of egalitarian busybodies far and wide. If only outcomes were equal, as defined by the egalitarians themselves, the world would become a place of balanced chi and seamless harmony. These societal engineers have long believed in their unique intellects and superlative abilities, which qualify them to distribute wealth and contentment to a longing world. Sadly, there’s no shortage of these do-gooders.

A New York State Assemblyman envisions an increased millionaire tax. If passed, high income earners–who already bear a disproportionate share of New York’s tax burden–will pitch in an additional 11-percent. The broken record known as Hillary Clinton still laments how “the rich” don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes. Oregon, too, has joined the chorus.

Earlier this year Oregon voters passed Measures 66 and 67, raising taxes on individuals and businesses that wealth redistributors, in their profundity, have deemed excessive winners in life’s lottery. Typical class envy tactics preceded that electoral outcome. Proponents argued that education, public safety and health would suffer if the initiatives failed. The poor, naturally, would take it on the chin.

The entire premise of a perceived “fair share” is ambiguous at best. Would the egalitarian consider taxation equitable if the “rich” surrender, say, 75-percent of their income to government? Hillary Clinton, Oregon voters and New York assemblymen might think so. But anyone with a toehold on reality understands that productive people shoulder the tax burden now. The top one-percent of earners pays 28-percent of federal income taxes. Additionally, over the last 30 years the taxation on incomes above $75,000 has steadily increased while declining on incomes below that threshold.

Arguing that wealthier Americans pay little or no taxes is misleading. No, make that an outright lie. And that’s not the only mischaracterization offered by the “soak the rich” crowd.

In promoting Measures 66 and 67 the Oregon Center for Public Policy claimed that “asking” Oregonians to “contribute” more in taxes would improve the state’s fiscal structure. Certainly some taxation is necessary for governments to execute legitimate functions. But referring to tax increases as “asking” people to “contribute” is unadulterated spin, sufficient to strain even the strongest gastronomical constitution. And it’s so typical of the egalitarian social engineer.

Charitable organizations solicit contributions, and contributors alone determine their level of participation. No such choice exists with taxation. Tax levies aren’t a request on government’s part, and taxes aren’t contributed sans duress. Taxes are compulsory and their collection is ultimately a matter of force.
Sadly, there’s little to be achieved in arguing taxation with egalitarians. Redistributionists are so devoted to equalizing all incomes and imposing their Marxist vision on society that debate has become futile. Equally futile are the protests of the productive, whose incomes are sacrificed upon the perverse altar of egalitarianism. The producer’s right to their production will never match the needs of the oppressed when it comes to conjuring empathy. Therefore the “rich” are safely marginalized, demonized and dismissed.

What would happen if busybodies like Hillary Clinton, New York legislators and Oregon voters fulfill their collectivist dreams? If there were no private wealth the economy would become void of capital investment. Innovation and production would decelerate, with a corresponding decline in employment and living standards. The resulting misery would create greater demand on government, which puts the do-gooders in position to distribute the remaining wealth as they so determine. They will achieve their socialist dreams, but only for a season.

Such idealism has no foundation upon which to build. Since government produces little, and that which is produced is a case study in inefficiency, the egalitarian society is doomed to failure. Only the most influential busybodies will benefit from their societal and economic transformation. The rank and file do-gooder will be destined to impoverished servitude alongside their once-wealthy neighbors, whose property they helped confiscate.

So goes the nation without private wealth. Utopia? I think not.

Anthony W. Hager has authored more than 200 published articles for various newspapers, periodicals and websites. He can be reached through his website,

Obama Enlists Radical Groups, SEIU, Labor Unions to Push for Amnesty

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, June 28, 2010, 8:18 PM

Barack Obama just enlisted his radical leftist groups, the SEIU and labor unions to push for amnesty this year.
The AP reported:

President Barack Obama is enlisting activists and labor leaders in a push for comprehensive immigration legislation that will showcase Republican opposition and include a speech by the president.

The strategy was discussed during a meeting Monday by a range of prominent labor leaders and activist groups. Participants said Obama reiterated his support for immigration legislation but noted the political realities that have stalled it in Congress.

Latino leaders say they will work in coming months to pressure Republicans to give way and support an immigration bill — and make opponents pay at the ballot box if they don’t.

“We’re going to make absolutely crystal clear who’s at fault here,” said Eliseo Medina, a leader of the Service Employees International Union.

Prospects for passage of comprehensive immigration legislation look bleak this election year, and even many Democrats are wary of wading into the hot-button issue. But Obama, who pledged as a candidate to make immigration reform a top priority during his first year in office, faces pressure from the Hispanic community to act — or at least to try.

Sarah Palin: Another Victory for the Second Amendment

Sarah Palin: Another Victory for the Second Amendment

Another Victory for the Second Amendment
 Yesterday at 10:46am
The Supreme Court handed down an important ruling today stating what should be obvious: that the Second Amendment, in the words of Justice Alito writing for the court, “applies equally to the federal government and the states.” Today’s decision in McDonald vs. City of Chicago, in conjunction with the landmark Heller case two years ago, should leave little doubt that our individual right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere and is a right for everyone.

For an interesting perspective on the significance of today’s ruling, take a look at David Rittgers’ article in National Review here.

– Sarah Palin

Morning Bell: The Dodd-Frank Assault on Economic Recovery

Morning Bell: The Dodd-Frank Assault on Economic Recovery

Posted By Conn Carroll On June 29, 2010 @ 9:16 am In Enterprise and Free Markets | No Comments

Following the release of the 2,000-page Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill last Friday, fixed-income portfolio manager Christine McConnell told Businessweek [1]: “Clarity is good. [Once financial institutions] understand the rules of the road they’ll be able to accommodate their business models.” There is only one problem: passage of the Dodd-Frank bill doesn’t provide any clarity. In fact, it does the exact opposite. The New York Times [2] explains: “The bill, completed early Friday and expected to come up for a final vote this week, is basically a 2,000-page missive to federal agencies, instructing regulators to address subjects ranging from derivatives trading to document retention. But it is notably short on specifics, giving regulators significant power to determine its impact.”

In other words, this law is going to be continually rewritten by federal bureaucrats for years to come. And the continued uncertainty it will create is just the beginning of its faults [3]:

Permanent Bailout Authority: The Dodd-Frank bill creates an “orderly liquidation” process by which regulators are empowered to seize financial institutions that they believe are in danger of failing and liquidate them. While the lack of a broadly accepted process for closing down large financial institutions helped lead to the massive bailouts of 2008 and 2009, this liquidation process is problematic. Federal regulators are granted broad powers to seize private firms they feel are in danger of default, and these powers are subject to insufficient judicial review. Such governmental discretion to seize private property is constitutionally troubling.

Trusting the Same Regulators that Failed Last Time: The legislation establishes a new 10-member Financial Stability Oversight Council composed of regulators that would be responsible for monitoring and addressing system-wide risks to the financial system. This council would also have nearly unlimited powers to draft financial firms into the regulatory system and even force them to sell off or close pieces of themselves. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to detect systemic risk before a crisis has occurred, and the council would serve mainly as a group to blame for failing at an almost impossible task. On the other hand, its huge powers are much more likely to destabilize the financial system by stifling innovative products while failing to detect dangers posed by existing ones.

Brand New Innovation Killing Regulators: The bill also creates a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection with broad powers to regulate the financial products and services that can be offered to consumers. The new agency would nominally be part of the Federal Reserve System, but it would have extraordinary autonomy. This autonomy would impede the efforts of existing regulators to ensure the safety and soundness of financial firms, as rules imposed by the new agency would conflict with that goal. For many consumers, this would make credit more expensive and harder to get.

Micromanaging the Market: The conference committee also added a form of the “Volcker rule” which would largely prohibit any bank or other institution with FDIC-insured deposits from undertaking proprietary trading or from owning or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds. While the legislation does reject the near-total ban on such investments, the difference between legitimate and traditional activities and those the Volcker rule seeks to ban would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Attempting to do so would require an intrusive, expensive regulatory compliance system that by its nature would micromanage day-to-day activities.

Fannie and Freddie Forever: Despite much rhetoric about ending bailouts, the bill does nothing to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of the largest recipients of federal bailout money. These two government-sponsored enterprises, now in federal receivership, helped fuel the housing bubble. When it popped, taxpayers found themselves on the hook for some $150 billion in bailout money. The failure to address their future is a serious error and shows just how hollow are claims that this agreement will prevent future crises.

These are just some of the major flaws in a bill that is just one House and Senate vote away from President Barack Obama’s desk (a fuller list can be found here [3]). But final passage is not as sure today as it looked Friday. The passing of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) [4] leaves the majority one vote short of the 60 needed to move for a final vote. In addition, the insertion of an estimated $20 billion in new taxes [5] has Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) reconsidering his original vote in favor of the measure. Scott released a statement [6] explaining: “My fear is that these costs would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher bank, ATM and credit card fees and put a strain on lending at the worst possible time for our economy. I’ve said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes.”

Explaining that the Dodd-Frank bill would force banks to either take on more risk to recoup earnings diminished by reform or behave too conservatively in order to avoid losses, financial analyst Chris Mutascio summarized [1] the ultimate effect of the legislation: “Pick your poison—neither tastes good to us and we believe neither is particularly good for the economy and job growth.”

Quick Hits:

  • This morning, the Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Army soldiers of the 6th Air Defense Artillery Brigade successfully conducted a successful intercept test [7] for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense element of the nation’s Ballistic Missile Defense System.
  • Shallow water drillers tell CNN that President Obama’s deep water oil drilling ban has become a stealth ban on all Gulf drilling [8] forcing hundreds of layoffs with many more on the way.
  • House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) is trying to insert a provision into the war supplemental funding bill [9] that would compel volunteer firefighters to join unions, threatening the survival of America’s nearly 26,000 volunteer fire departments.
  • The lead attorney in the victorious Chicago Second Amendment case promises [10]: “There will be future cases, I will be bringing cases in the days and weeks to come.”
  • President Obama’s political director Patrick Gaspard failed to disclose [11] that he was slated to receive a nearly $40,000 payout from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) while he was working in the White House.

Social Insecurity

Social Insecurity

Posted By Tait Trussell On June 29, 2010 @ 12:05 am In FrontPage | 4 Comments

Only 11 percent of workers and 8 percent of retirees feel any “confidence” in the federal government, a new national poll discovered. It also found a huge majority of working Americans don’t believe [1] Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they retire. These findings can be seen as a dramatic and seminal judgment of the policies and operations of the Obama administration and the Congress.

In addition, these attitudes, expressed in a poll of a representative sample of Americans, are a significant socioeconomic development in the life of the tried and supposedly true programs of Social Security and Medicare. Since its birth in 1935, [2] the Social Security System has been fondly called America’s most popular program [3]. For nearly one-third of recipients, it has provided their entire income. And Medicare, the health-care program for the aging since 1965, not only has won the confidence of the elderly it has helped to keep many chronically ill seniors alive. But now most retirees, as well, are doubtful about the future benefits promised by Social Security and Medicare, the new poll revealed.

These upsetting attitudes toward the federal government and its major long-standing programs were discovered in the 2010 Retirement Confidence Survey, [2] a representative national sample of 1,153 adults conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and Mathew Greenwald & Associates, a public opinion company. This was the 20th annual survey of EBRI, a non-partisan Washington-based organization. It is engaged in original public policy research and education on economic security and employee benefits and attitudes. It is supported by 30 large, well-known American companies and private individuals.

When those working Americans were asked by EBRI “if the Social Security System will continue to provide benefits of at least equal value to the benefits received by retirees today” only 6 percent of the men and 7 percent of the women were confident that this would be the case. When the sample of the nation’s working adults were asked “if the Medicare system will continue to provide benefits received by retirees today,” even lower percentages showed any confidence. Only 5 percent of men and 4 percent of women responded they were sure this medical-care benefit would be available for them.

Even among current retirees, only 11 percent expressed confidence that Social Security benefits will continue to pay current benefits to them. Seventeen percent said they were “not at all” sure. When asked about Medicare, only 7 percent are confident it will serve them in the future. But 17 percent of the retirees answered that they were “not at all” confident about Medicare’s future. This, despite a strong pitch from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about Medicare sent by first class postage in a slick brochure to all 44 million households with Medicare recipients.

The principal purpose of the Retirement Confidence Survey, of course, was to measure workers and retirees plans and attitudes concerning retirement. But the EBRI study said Americans “are most likely to express confidence in private employers (23 percent of workers and 27 percent of retirees very confident).” They also said they were very confident about banks and insurance companies, but “least likely to feel confidence in the federal government.”

President Obama’s favorability rating has dropped [4] significantly in the past six months according to a Pew Research poll. Obama’s competence has been questioned in dealing with the massive Gulf oil spill, the faint economic crawl-back, the gigantic national debt, his unpopular health care law, and troubles abroad. According to a CBS/New York Times poll on June 16, the approval rating of Congress was only 19 percent, [5] while 70 percent disapproved of the performance of our legislative branch. Citizens have watched fearfully as Congress made deep cuts in Medicare, doubled the national debt, threatened growth-killing taxes, and passed authoritarian energy policies. In early March, CNN said, summarizing the results of its CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, that the majority of Americans say “the government poses an immediate threat [6] to individual rights and freedoms.”

Even the liberal Huffington Post [7] in a June 18 article on pending financial reform in the Senate sounded a pained chord: “Is this the Democratic Party I know and support? Is this the Black Caucus? The Hispanic Caucus? The Progressive Caucus? The Obama Administration? Where is the fairness in this amendment?”

Even Germany joined the critics [8] of deficit spending June 2, rebuking the Obama Administration over its red ink policies, the Washington Times reported, indicating a looming fight over deficits as global leaders headed for a summit of the Group of Eight industrial powers.

Obama in April appointed a bipartisan debt panel [9] to struggle with how to shrink the government’s red ink. At its first meeting, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-White House Budget Director Peter Orszag pointed to the potential for our national debt to precipitate an economic crisis. Bloomberg Businessweek reported: “The challenge facing the panel is devising a plan proposing hundreds of billions in tax increases and spending cuts that can get backing from at least 14 of 18 members of the panel.” The federal debt, it noted, is “projected to reach 90 percent of the U.S. economy by 2020. Interest rates are forecast to quadruple to more than $900 billion annually by that year.” The panel’s recommendations are not due until December 1. Panel co-chairman former Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo) described the difficulty of reaching a recommendation as “like giving dry birth to a porcupine.”

House majority Leader Steny Hoyer, in a speech [10] June 22 said that Democrats can take care of the country’s debt problems. He said everything from defense spending to raising the retirement age for Social Security is on the table when taking on the nation’s fiscal problems:

On the spending side, we could and should consider a higher retirement age, or one pegged to lifespan, more progressive Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a stronger safety net for the Americans who need it most. It isn’t possible to debate and pass a realistic and long-term budget until we’ve considered the bipartisan commission’s deficit reduction plan…

The top six most important problems [11] facing the nation according to a June 17 Gallup Poll are the “economy in general,” “Unemployment/Jobs,” “Natural disaster response/Relief,” “Dissatisfaction with government,” “Healthcare,” and “Federal budget deficit.” All are testing the competence of President Obama. Meanwhile, it seems, America is expected to play a waiting game.

Abetting Terrorism = “Free Speech”?

Abetting Terrorism = “Free Speech”?

Posted By John Perazzo On June 29, 2010 @ 12:27 am In FrontPage | 5 Comments

In a 6 to 3 decision last week, the Supreme Court upheld [1] a federal law that makes it a crime for Americans to provide “material support” of any kind – be it in the form of cash, weaponry, training, personnel, services, or “expert advice or assistance” – to a foreign terrorist organization, even if that support is for ostensibly peaceful purposes. At issue in the case, known as Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, was the question of whether this restriction violates Americans’ First Amendment rights of free speech and association. Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said that “even seemingly benign support” for such an entity “bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization”; “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends”; “helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups”; and strains “the United States’ relationships with its allies.” As to the specific issue of free speech, Roberts pointed out that people “may say anything they wish on any topic”; that they “may speak and write freely about” any organization of their choice; and that they are even free to become members of whatever group they wish to join. Roberts was backed in his decision by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and the soon-to-be-retiring John Paul Stevens. Dissenting from the majority decision were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor, who saw the “material support” restriction as a violation of the First Amendment.

A lead plaintiff in the case was the longtime civil-rights attorney Ralph Fertig [2], whose professed desire is to help the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) find peaceful ways of advancing its goal: the creation of an independent Kurdish state in southeast Turkey, northern Iraq, and parts of Iran and Syria. Because PKK’s history is replete with bombings, kidnappings, and a violent insurgency responsible for some 22,000 deaths, the U.S. government has designated it as a terrorist organization. Notwithstanding this bloody track record, Fertig and his fellow plaintiffs maintained that with a proper blend of persuasion and education, PKK could be convinced to renounce its violent tactics and to work, instead, within the framework of “various representative bodies such as the United Nations for relief.” By Fertig’s reckoning, the ban against giving aid to PKK and other terrorist groups is “more dangerous than McCarthyism” ever was. After the Court announced its decision last week, a dejected Fertig said: “This is a very dark day in the history of the human rights struggle to assist groups overseas that are being oppressed.”

A look at Fertig’s background and affiliations will help place his disappointment in proper perspective. First and foremost, Fertig is president of the Humanitarian Law Project [3] (HLP), an organization created by Los Angeles real estate magnate Aris Anagnos [4], who since the early 1970s has bankrolled Marxist causes around the globe — including the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, the Marxist rebels in Chiapas, and the regime of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro [5]. Over the years, HLP has consistently sided with America’s Marxist adversaries in international disputes; has accused the U.S. of committing “atrocities” in both Iraq wars; has called for the United States to be prosecuted for its alleged war crimes by the World Court; and has identified American disarmament as a chief prerequisite for peace around the world.

Fertig also serves as a supporting member of the Campaign Against Criminalizing Communities [6] (CACC), which complains [7] that the war on terror was concocted by warmongering conservatives to “promot[e] a racist culture of suspicion towards migrant and Muslim communities”; to “generat[e] and manipulat[e] public fears [that will] justify a perpetual state of war”; to plac[e] entire communities under suspicion of associating with such ‘terrorism’”; to “us[e] ‘intelligence’ obtained by torturing detainees abroad”; and to “wag[e] psychological warfare through disinformation and mass-media scares about ‘al [8] [8]Qaeda [8] cells.’” (All scare quotes were in CACC’s original literature.)

Fertig also endorsed World Can’t Wait [9] (WCW), a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party [10] – a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist group calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government and its replacement with a Communist dictatorship. WCW sought [11] to “halt” the Bush administration’s alleged pursuit of “endless wars,” its routine use of “torture,” its indifference to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and its quest to transform the United States into a Christian “theocracy.”

In 2000, Fertig made a monetary contribution [12] to anti-war activist Medea Benjamin [13]’s unsuccessful run as the Green Party [14] candidate for U.S. Senate in California. Benjamin, who co-founded both Global Exchange [15] and Code Pink [16], aligns her politics closely with those of Fidel Castro [5]. She was a principal architect [17] of the violent 1999 protests in Seattle, where rampaging anti-globalization activists burned cars, smashed windows, and caused millions of dollars in property damage. She spearheaded a 2004 effort to donate $600,000 in medical supplies and cash to the families of the terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Fallujah, Iraq. And in 2006, she and Cindy Sheehan [18]together traveled [19] to South Korea to publicly condemn a U.S. plan for expanding an American military base near Seoul. According to Ms. Benjamin [20], the “innovative” economic policies of Venezuela’s communist president Hugo Chavez have placed his country at “the center of a new, progressive model of socioeconomic development that is shaping Latin America’s future.”

It should be noted that Fertig’s support for far leftists and Marxists does not end with Benjamin, Castro, and Chavez. In 2008 he donated money [21] to Barack Obama [22]’s presidential campaign and was, for awhile, in contention to be selected [23] as a delegate for Obama in California’s 30th Congressional District.

Representing Fertig and his fellow plaintiffs in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project was David Cole [24], a staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights [25] (CCR). In Cole’s estimation, the Court’s ruling “basically says the First Amendment allows making peacemaking and human rights advocacy a crime.” Since 9/11, Cole and CCR have focused their efforts heavily on derailing the U.S. government’s newly implemented anti-terrorism measures, which the Center depicts as having “seriously undermined civil liberties, the checks and balances that are essential to the structure of our democratic government, and indeed, democracy itself.” In December 2006, CCR and the Humanitarian Law Project jointly petitioned [26] a federal judge to dismiss charges that had been brought against the Hamas [27]-linked Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development [28], which in 2001 was shut down by the U.S. government because of its terrorist ties.

In 2002 Cole wrote, “It appears that the greatest threat to our freedoms is posed not by the terrorists themselves but by our own government’s response” to 9/11. That same year, Cole was a signatory to a “Statement of Conscience [29]” drafted by Not In Our Name [30] (NION), a self-described “peace movement” initiated by C. Clark Kissinger [31] of the Revolutionary Communist Party. The NION Statement condemned not only the Bush administration’s “stark new measures of repression,” but also its “unjust, immoral, illegitimate, [and] openly imperial policy towards the world.” According to NION, it was the American government – and not that of any other nation – that posed the most “grave dangers to the people of the world.”

Also in 2002, Cole came to the defense of Sami Al-Arian [32], the University of San Francisco professor arrested for his involvement with the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad [33]. “People cannot be punished for advocating criminal activity unless the Supreme Court has said their speech is intended and likely to incite imminent lawless actions,” Cole maintained. That said, he claimed that Al-Arian’s infamous remark wishing “Death to Israel” was protected speech.

Cole and CCR garnered considerable media coverage in 2005 when representing the self-described radical attorney Lynne Stewart [34] during her trial for having abetted the terrorist ambitions of Islamic Group [35] leader Omar Abdel Rahman [36], mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. When Stewart was found guilty in February of 2005, Cole lamented that “this case illustrates how out-of-hand things have gotten in the ‘war on terrorism’” (scare quotes in original).

In the calculus of leftists like Ralph Fertig and David Cole, there is nary a pro-terrorist word or act that cannot ultimately be defended under the rubric of “free speech.” Thus continues the Left’s quest to interpret the United States Constitution as a national suicide pact.