Category Archives: news

U.S. Government vs. State of Arizona, A Constitutional Battle

By Daniel Downs

The federal government is suing Arizona to block the implementation of its new immigration law. The U.S. Department of Justice will argue that the new state law violates the Constitution by claiming authority over immigration policy, which has historically been the jurisdiction of the federal government, according to a Politico news report.

Does Arizona have a constitutional right to police immigration within its borders? Let’s look at Arizona’s new immigration law.

Section 1 of the new law states the intention of Arizona lawmakers:

“The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”

Critics of Arizona’s immigration law focus on law enforcements obligation to determine immigration status of any person whose behavior warrants reasonable suspicion. Preceding any so-called racial profiling must be lawful contact between an officer and the illegal immigrant. As stipulated in the law, lawful contact means a police officer must have stopped an illegal for a traffic violation or for other public offense. The same applies to employers hiring known illegals. The law provides two mechanisms for determining whether an employer has knowingly hired illegals: One is a complaint form made available by which the public may report illegal hiring to officials; and the second is employer reporting of new hires to the state and federal government. (Sec. 2, Article 8; Sec. 4-7)

I suspect the federal government may not like Arizona’s intentions to work with federal immigration departments as well as Homeland Security in the effort to enforce strictly federal immigration laws. (Sec. 2-3, 6-8)

Another area of contention is the level of state, county, and local enforcement involvement intended by Arizona’s new law. Because Arizona is a border state with numerous entry points accessible to illegals, the potential for state and federal law enforcement overlap and jurisdictional conflict may be point of serous concern.

The question, however, is whether Arizona’s immigration law is constitutional. Throughout the text of the law, state compliance with federal immigration law is prominent in the various means of enforcing both sets of laws.

Even so, is the Dept. of Justice right? Does the Arizona law violate the U.S. Constitution?

In Section 8, Congress has the power to “provide a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This is the only legal basis for any and all immigration and naturalization law. The federal government has a right and obligation to protect the borders of all and every state by laws defining who may legally cross those border, how they may obtain permission to do so, and by effectively policing those border to prevent illegals from entry, its obligation also requires actual enforcement of laws. If the federal agencies created for that purpose do not, it is the obligation of states like Arizona to protect its citizens from illegals as it deems necessary. Once illegals have crossed their borders, states like Arizona have Constitutional right and obligation to make and enforce laws that protect their citizens from unwanted foreigners. As long as those laws comply with reasonable existing state and federal laws, no constitutional law could be violated.

Only federal bureaucrats, who evade their obligation to enforce existing law while waiting and working to win the votes of those illegals and their sympathizers, are the only ones violating Constitutional law.

If the Obama administration wins, Ohio will also lose the right to uphold the rule of law as well as to protect its citizens from illegals. The argument that states may still protect its citizens against crime, whether committed by illegals or not, is fallacious. It is a rare occasion that law enforcement actually protects a lawful citizen from robbery or assault. Prevention is rare. Prosecution after the fact is the norm. Arizona’s immigration law at least adds a small measure of prevention to the very misleading term “protection”.

Sources: Politico, July 7, 2010 and Arizona S.B. 1070.

Economy Continues to Struggle One Year After Biennial Budget

By Jarrod Martin, State Representative

As we are all well aware, Ohio’s economy has continued to struggle while other states have seen a slight economic rebound. Unlike many of our neighbors, our economy cannot grow because our tax rate is so high. If we were able to lower taxes, small businesses would have more income to hire new employees and businesses across the state would expand because Ohioans would be spending more. However, House Democrats raised taxes in 2009 and passed a budget last July that will cost the taxpayers for years to come.

The biennial budget, which passed in 2009, increased spending by $1 billion in 2010 and $950 million more in 2011. Tax revenue alone cannot fund this budget nor repair the state’s deficit. The Office of Budget and Management projected that the state’s tax revenue will grow by $974 million in the next two years, but will not reach the $5 billion necessary to replace the losses from this budget’s out of control spending.

To otherwise fund this spending, the governor proposed 150 new fees that will take nearly $1 billion from the wallets of the taxpayers. Additionally, the budget usurps $8.5 billion from one-time sources that could have been more wisely spent. On top of these sources, the state received $900 million more from the taxpayers after Ohio’s Democrats passed House Bill 318, which repealed the final installment of the income tax reductions and raised your 2009 income tax rate by 4.2 percent.

With the government reform initiatives my Republican colleagues and I proposed, the state would have saved more than $1 billion annually. Our proposals include legislation to streamline the bloated executive branch and to weed out wasteful Medicaid spending. We found areas where we can painlessly eliminate excess spending; however, the House Democrats decided to cut spending from the areas that need funding the most, including education and elderly health care programs. Their shortsighted moves will jeopardize important programs and will not pay off in the long run.

Raising my three children in Beavercreek, I frequently think about their future here in Ohio and whether there will be enough incentives for them to stay when they are considering colleges and careers. I fear that our state will not grow jobs and hold as many economic opportunities for them if we continue to overspend and burden our taxpayers. All parents hope that their children will have as many opportunities-if not more-than they had, and I would like to do my part to make this a reality for all of our children in the Buckeye State.

World Population Day “Everyone Counts” Theme Should Include Unborn Children

by Scott Fischbach

Nations throughout the world will celebrate World Population Day Sunday, July 11, with the theme, “Everyone Counts.” Established in 1989 by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), World Population Day calls attention to urgent global issues.

MCCL GO is pleased to see the United Nations express concern for the lives of every human being. People in many parts of the world are suffering from lack of food, water, health care and other essentials to life. One of the worst threats humans face, however, is that of being killed by abortion before they are even born.

The UNFPA is “an international development agency that promotes the right of every woman, man and child to enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity.”

The UNFPA’s stated goals are to advance “policies and programs to reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.” In the pursuit of these goals, the lives of unborn children must not be forgotten.

The rights of unborn children have been clearly delineated in United Nations documents. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec. 10, 1948) includes life as a universal right:

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child (Nov. 20, 1989, General Assembly Resolution 44) states the following:
Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth” (emphasis added).

Article 6
States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

The destruction of human life by abortion is the greatest human rights struggle of our time. The World Health Organization estimates that 42 million abortions are performed worldwide each year—a profound violation of the equal dignity and rights of human beings. The destruction of unborn human life is in direct opposition to the “Everyone Counts” belief fostered by World Population Day.

As the UNFPA seeks an all-inclusive approach to addressing the concerns of human life, MCCL GO calls for renewed recognition of unborn children as essential members of the human family. Real progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty and suffering will never be achieved without guaranteeing the right to life for all human beings, before as well as after birth.

Scott Fischbach is the executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life and oversees MCCL Go, its international outreach

SourceLifeNews.com, July, 9, 2010

Maryellen O’Shaughnessy Speaks to Greene Dems

The Greene County Democratic Party (GCDP) Women’s Club hosted Maryellen O’Shaughnessy, Democratic candidate for Ohio Secretary of State, at the GCDP Headquarters at 87 E. Main Street in Xenia on Monday 6/28/10. A discussion with Greene County based Democratic candidates followed her very informative speech. Pictured left to right are GCDP Chair Don Hollister, Bill Conner, Maryellen O’Shaughnessy, and Steve Key. Bill Conner is the candidate for U.S. Congress and Steve Key is the candidate Greene County Commissioner.

Church attendance up in 2010

Gallup has recorded small upticks in churchgoing over the past two years. The latest poll found that 43.1 percent of Americans reported weekly or almost weekly church attendance, up from 42.1 percent in 2008.

Though a small increase, Gallup noted that it is “statistically significant,” considering the data is based on more than 800,000 interviews collected between February 2008 and May 2010.

Respondents were asked to report on how often they attend church, synagogue, or mosque.

Thirty-five percent said they attend at least once a week and eight percent said they go almost every week. Meanwhile, 11 percent said they only go once a month, 25 percent listed “seldom” church attendance and 20 percent said they never attend.

The most dedicated churchgoers, according to the Gallup organization, are conservatives, non-hispanic blacks, and Republicans. Those least likely to attend church at least once a week or almost every week are liberals, Asians, and those aged 18 to 29 years.

Overall, church attendance is increasing in America and Gallup does not believe it is tied to economic woes.

“The increase comes as Americans’ economic confidence has also risen, suggesting that, instead of church attendance rising when economic times get bad, as some theorize, the opposite pattern may be occurring,” the research organization stated.

A 2009 Gallup poll had discovered no evident change in church attendance during the economic recession, particularly between 2008 and 2009. Though many Americans were negative about the economy, there were also no significant changes in the percentages of Americans who said religion is important to them.

Gallup noted that the rising church attendance could be a result of demographics. Americans who are 65 years old and older are more likely to attend church than those who are younger. Baby boomers, who are now entering their 60s, are beginning to enter the age range that traditionally has been associated with higher religious service participation. And if baby boomers do in fact attend church more frequently as they age, Gallup expects church attendance to increase steadily in the years ahead.

Source: Christian Post, June 29, 2010

Kettering Health Network Among Top 10 In Nation

The Kettering Health Network was awarded a spot among the top ten health network by Thomson Reuters. In their annual health system benchmark study of all hospitals. The top 100 hospitals are selected to establish benchmark standards for hospitals. Out of the top 100 hospitals, the nation’s 10 health networks with the highest benchmarks were chosen.

The winners of this award outperformed their peers by providing better care, following standards of care more closely, saving more lives, creating fewer patient complications, making fewer patient safety errors, and earning better overall patient satisfaction scores.

This year’s top health systems had

* 12.3% fewer mortalities
* 13.2% fewer complications
* 5.4% better patient safety than their peers
* Patients returning home sooner — with an average length of stay more than half a day shorter than at similar systems — and with better longer-term outcomes.

One member of the Kettering Health Network is Greene Memorial Hospital located here in Xenia.

Source: Ohio Hospital Association, June 25, 2010 and Thomson Reuters

House Passes Disclose Act Bill That Would Place Heavy Restrictions on Pro-Life Organizations

The House of Representatives on Thursday approved legislation that pro-life groups oppose because it would place significant limits and restrictions on their ability to communicate with the public about legislation and political candidates. Lawmakers approved the DISCLOSE Act 219-206 that had the support of most Democrats and drew opposition from almost every Republican.

The bill is a response to the Supreme Court’s decision striking down some of the unconstitutional provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that limited free speech and received strong opposition from pro-life groups and most pro-life lawmakers in Congress.

The biggest problems are that it would require pro-life groups to disclose donors’ names and require them to restrict 501(c)4 activities that allow them to educate their members and the public about legislative and election issues.

The measure now heads to the Senate, where pro-life groups hope Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will be able to keep the GOP caucus together, perhaps with the help of a Democrat or two, in support of a filibuster against the legislation. Should the Senate approve and President Barack Obama sign the DISCLOSE Act, it could hamper the efforts of pro-life groups to raise and spend money educating the public about the voting records and stances of elected officials and candidates for Congress.

The National Right to Life Committee helped lead the way in opposition to the bill, which it calls “a blatant political attack on the First Amendment rights of NRLC, our state affiliates, and our members and donors.” The so-called “NRA carve out,” a revision agreed to by the House Democratic Leadership “is not only worthless, but adds insult to injury,” and would not apply to NRLC or to any of NRLC’s 50 state affiliates, the pro-life group explains.

“This is not about informing the public,” said Douglas Johnson,the NRLC’s legislative director. “This is about deterring communication about those who hold or seek federal office.

While a handful of conservative Democrats and members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted against the bill, just two Republicans — Reps. Mike Castle of Delaware and Joseph Cao of Louisiana — voted for it.

In the Senate, the bill may face a rocky future as even some Democrats are concerned about the exemptions carved out in the bill for the NRA and other groups and even moderate Republicans like Scott Brown of Massachusetts suggest they may not join Democrats in supporting the bill.

“To do any type of campaign finance reform before an election cycle to gain some type of strategic advantage is inappropriate,” Brown told The Hill. “There has been no evidence that any corporation is going to try to influence any elections. It’s being done strictly for a tactical advantage, and that’s not right.”

And pro-abortion Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine says she is leaning no as well.

Pro-life groups will rely on their no votes and capturing others like Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat.

Source: LifeNews, June 25, 2010

The Two Faces of the Ground Zero Mosque

by Raymond Ibrahim, Associate Director of the Middle East Forum

Depending on whether Islamists address Americans or fellow Muslims, the same exact words they use often relay diametrically opposed meanings. One example: when Americans hear Muslims evoke “justice,” the former envision Western-style justice, whereas Muslims naturally have Sharia law justice in mind.

Islamists obviously use this to their advantage: when addressing the West, Osama bin Laden bemoans the “justice of our causes, particularly Palestine”; yet, when addressing Muslims, his notion of justice far transcends territorial disputes and becomes unintelligible from a Western perspective: “Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion [i.e., Islam] as unjust, hostile, and evil. But who’s understanding is right—our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs?” (Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).

Of course, that Osama bin Laden—slayer of 3,000 Americans and avowed enemy to the rest—exhibits two faces, one to Americans another to Muslims, is not surprising. Yet the reader may well be surprised to discover that the controversial Cordoba Initiative, which plans on manifesting itself as the largest American mosque, situated atop Ground Zero—that is, atop the carnage caused by none other than bin Laden—also has two faces, conveying one thing to Americans, quite another to Muslims.

The very name of the initiative itself, “Cordoba,” offers different connotations to different people: In the West, the Andalusian city of Cordoba is regularly touted as the model of medieval Muslim progressiveness and tolerance for Christians and Jews. To many Americans, then, the choice to name the mosque “Cordoba” is suggestive of rapprochement and interfaith dialogue; atop the rubble of 9/11, it implies “healing”—a new beginning between Muslims and Americans. The Cordoba Initiative’s mission statement certainly suggests as much:

Cordoba Initiative aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.

Oddly enough, the so-called “tolerant” era of Cordoba supposedly occurred during the caliphate of ‘Abd al-Rahman III (912-961)—well over a thousand years ago. “Eight hundred years ago,” i.e., around 1200, the fanatical Almohids—ideological predecessors of al-Qaeda—were ravaging Cordoba, where “Christians and Jews were given the choice of conversion, exile, or death.” A Freudian slip on the part of the Cordoba Initiative?

At any rate, the true history of Cordoba, not to mention the whole of Andalusia, is far less inspiring than what Western academics portray: the Christian city was conquered by Muslims around 711, its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. The original mosque of Cordoba—the namesake of the Ground Zero mosque—was built atop, and partly from the materials of, a Christian church. Modern day Muslims are well aware of all this. Such is the true—and ominous—legacy of Cordoba.

More pointedly, throughout Islam’s history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka’ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam’s holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, was built atop Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.

(Speaking of, in 2006, when the Pope visited the Hagia Sophia in Turkey, there was a risk that the “Islamic world [would go] into paroxysms of fury” if there was “any perception that the pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims,” for example, if he had dared pray there—this even as Muslims today seek to build a mosque on the rubble of the Twin Towers.)

Such double-standards lead us back to the issue of double-meanings: As for the literal wording of the mosque project, “Cordoba House,” it too offers opposing paradigms of thought: to Westerners, the English word “house” suggests shelter, intimacy—coziness, even; in classical Arabic, however, the word for house, dar, can also mean “region,” and is regularly used in a divisive sense, as in Dar al-Harb, i.e., “infidel region of war.” Thus, to Muslim ears, while “Cordoba” offers allusions of conquest and domination, dar is further suggestive of division and separation (from infidels, a la the doctrine of al-Wala’ wa al-Bara’, for instance).

Words aside, even the mosque’s scheduled opening date—9/11/2011—has two aspects: to Americans, opening the mosque on 9/11 is to proclaim a new beginning with the Muslim world on the ten-year anniversary of the worst terror strikes on American soil; however, it just so happens that Koranic verse 9:111 is one of the loftiest calls for suicidal jihad—believers are exhorted to “kill and be killed”—and is probably the reason al-Qaeda originally chose that date to strike. So while Americans may think the mosque’s planned 9/11 opening is meant to commemorate that date, cryptically speaking, it is an evocation for all out war. A “new beginning,” indeed, but of a very different sort, namely, the propagation of more Islamists and jihadists—mosques are, after all, epicenters of radicalization—on, of all places, soil sacred to America.

Some final thoughts on the history of Cordoba and the ominous parallels it bodes for America: though many Christian regions were conquered by Islam prior to Cordoba, its conquest signified the first time a truly “Western” region was conquered by the sword of Islam. It was also used as a base to launch further attacks into the heart of Europe (until decisively beaten at the Battle of Tours), just as, perhaps, the largest mosque in America will be used as a base to subvert the rest of the United States. And, the sacking of the original Cordoba was facilitated by an insider traitor—a warning to the U.S., which seems to have no end of traitors and willing lackeys.

Such, then, is the dual significance of the Cordoba Initiative: What appears to many Americans as a gesture of peace and interfaith dialogue, is to Muslims allusive of Islamist conquest and consolidation; mosques, which Americans assume are Muslim counterparts to Christian churches—that is, places where altruistic Muslims congregate and pray for world peace and harmony—are symbols of domination and centers of radicalization; the numbers of the opening date, 9/11/11, appear to Americans as commemorative of a new beginning, whereas the Koranic significance of those numbers is suicidal jihad. Of course, the two faces of the Cordoba House should not be surprising considering that the man behind the initiative, Feisal Abdul Rauf, also has two faces.

Going along with the historic analogy, there is one bit of good news: As opposed to the vast majority of onetime Western/Christian nations annexed by Islam, Cordoba, Spain did ultimately manage to overthrow the Islamic yoke. Though only after some 700 years of occupation.

Source: Pajamas Media, June 22, 2010.

Islam, AIG Bailouts, Federal Reserve Banks, Tim Geithner, and Barak Obama : Connections

I just came across a pending federal court case against U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and the Federal Reserve for their involvement in the federal governments bailout of AIG bank. The case alleges the federal government’s bailout and majority ownership is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. By bailout and acquiring a controlling interest in AIG, the federal government participates in funding Islamic Sharia law and religious activities. The White House leaders and Federal Reserve leaders not only knew they were funding Islamic religious activities but the openly publish it on official website and similar means of communication.

It becomes clearer why a Muslim President was needed to work his PR magic throughout a stupefied America as well as predominately Muslim Middle East. Acquiring AIG is good for Islam. It is good for federal revenues, and it is good some types of investors. However, it is not good for predominately non-Muslim taxpayers to fund Islamic religious activities no matter how profitable it may be.

Some prophecy writers see Islam as dominating the globe during what the Bible describes as the last days. The same believe the anti-Christ will be a Muslim. They also see this anti-Christ figure as having worldwide control over commerce and banking. Could it be we are witnessing the means by which the anti-Messiah will rise to this level of power?

Too Big To DISCLOSE? SBE Council Rips Bill that Protects Speech of Powerful Interests, but Muzzles Small Business

With a June 18 vote expected in the U.S. House on the so-called “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act” (DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 5175), a leading small business advocacy organization ripped the legislation, and said its clear intent is to silence the voice of small business during the 2010 election cycle. SBE Council President & CEO Karen Kerrigan sent a letter to every House member detailing the group’s outrage about H.R. 5175’s “unconstitutional, discriminatory, onerous and politically motivated underpinnings.” SBE Council will KEY VOTE the legislation as a vote against small business in its upcoming Ratings of Congress.

“Small business owners are rightly outraged by this legislative charade. It imposes complex and burdensome ‘disclosure’ requirements on businesses and their associations, while exempting big powerful interests like labor unions, the NRA and AARP. First there was ‘too big to fail’ and now ‘too big to disclose’ – small business owners keep getting the shaft from this Congress,” said Kerrigan.

According to SBE Council’s Kerrigan, H.R. 5175 is a bad bill that got worse once the National Rifle Association (NRA) cut its deal with House Democrats. The NRA will not take a position on the bill ever since language was included that effectively exempts the organization from its onerous and unconstitutional demands.

Kerrigan said, “This special deal for the NRA and other groups is a scandal. It speaks to the desperation of the bill’s supporters to muzzle the business community during the upcoming election cycle.”

The unwarranted, complex and burdensome disclosure requirements in H.R. 5175 would apply to businesses and business associations, but not to labor unions or the NRA due to the crafty donor levels designed by the legislation. Blanket restrictions on election-related speech, such as independent expenditures, would be placed on government contractors, but effectively not unions under government contract. Unworkable and intimidating “stand by your ad” provisions would only apply to business groups and other advocacy organizations.

“Essentially, the free speech rights of labor unions, the NRA and a few other powerful interest groups are left intact by the bill. Our voice is effectively curbed by the legislation,” added Kerrigan.

According to SBE Council, the bill’s language flies directly in the face of the kind of speech most clearly and fully protected under the First Amendment, i.e., speech related to politics, elections and policy. The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear in its decisions that such speech warrants protection, and any differential treatment of speakers based on identity or content violates the First Amendment.

“No matter where one happens to fall on the philosophical and political spectrum, this legislation is nothing less than shameful,” concluded Kerrigan.

SBE Council is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting small business and promoting entrepreneurship. For additional information, please visit: http://www.sbecouncil.org/.