Monday, February 28, 2011

March 1st Press Conference in Harrisburg Introducing State Immigration Enforcement Package

March 1st Press Conference Introducing State Immigration Enforcement Package

Although this is not a NumbersUSA event, information is being forwarded to members in Pennsylvania who may be interested in attending or watching the live web cast.

Dear Pennsylvania activist,

The message below is from Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a champion of state immigration enforcement legislation, who will hold a press conference on Tuesday, March 1st to introduce a package of enforcement bills for the 2011 session. He is encouraging those who live in the Harrisburg area to attend the event. You also may watch the live web cast.

Within the next few days, we will forward more information on his package of bills and ask you to contact your state legislators about becoming bill co-sponsors.

------

MEDIA ADVISORY

State Lawmakers to Deliver Solution to Halt Pennsylvania’s Illegal Alien Invasion

WHAT:    State Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler) and other prime sponsors will officially introduce the National Security Begins at Home illegal immigration reform package for the 2011-12 legislative session.                               

WHO:   Other invited speakers include: Reps. Jim Cox (R-Berks), Tom Creighton (R-Lancaster), Rob Kauffman (R-Cumberland/Franklin), Jerry Knowles (R-Berks/Schuylkill), Ron Marsico (R-Dauphin), Mark Mustio (R-Allegheny), Scott Perry (R-Cumberland/York), Harry Readshaw (D-Allegheny) and Sen.  Kim Ward (R-Westmoreland).                

WHEN:       Tuesday, March 1, 2011

TIME:        10 a.m.

WHERE:    State Capitol Media Center, Harrisburg

LIVE WEB CAST:   Log on to RepMetcalfe.com, beginning at 9:55 a.m. on Tuesday morning.
Email from:
Numbers USA
1601 N. Kent Street
Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209


Shooting Liberal Fish in a Barrel

Burt Prelutsky

By Burt Prelutsky

It isn't merely that they're always wrong about everything that makes leftists so damn obnoxious, it's their unshakeable belief that they're always right.

In a world that calls for logic, they have an endless supply of emotion. Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight, these lunkheads bring a crying towel.

They talk incessantly about the need to raise taxes, mainly to provide for the poor. But, one, it's the taxes that are making more and more people poor and, two, they themselves retain an army of accountants and money managers to keep their tax bite to an absolute minimum. Or, better yet, they arrange things so that they receive their money through trusts, tax shelters and offshore accounts. Or, best of all, they simply cheat on their taxes. So it is that in one of those categories you will find George Soros, Tim Geithner, John and Teresa Kerry, Charlie Rangel, Alex Baldwin and all of the Kennedy's except George.

Time and again, man-made global warming has been shown to be a man-made hoax, but the true believers on the Left will continue promoting it, even when someone like Al Gore curiously changes the nomenclature and begins referring to climate change or climate disruption.

Some liberals are so gullible, I have even been tempted to place an ad in the NY Times or the Washington Post, promising to provide people with guaranteed winners at the race track if they'll send me, say, a hundred bucks. If they did, I'd send them this morning's newspaper with yesterday's race results.

If leftists had the slightest ability to reason, wouldn't they question why Obama and those of his cronies who promote the redistribution of wealth aren't standing on the corner redistributing all of theirs? Obama had millions of dollars when he became president, and today he has even more. George Soros had billions of dollars in January, 2009, and today he has even more. Why is that? It can't be that hard to find poor people who will gladly take the money off their hands. Heck, I'd take it, and I'd even give them the names of some winning horses. But the question remains, why is it only my dough and yours that needs to be redistributed?

Also, why is it that liberals are always talking about social justice? What ever became of plain old justice? So far as I can tell, when so-called progressives tack on "social," what they mean is that there should be two kinds of justice, separate and unequal, one for rich people and one for poor, one for white people and another for everybody else.

The problem is that when Eric Holder, for instance, refuses to prosecute New Black Panthers for intimidating white voters, he is in fact practicing social justice. Which is no justice at all. If anything, it should be called injustice.

Worse yet, it is the sort of thing that Sonia Sotomayor pledged to promote, as a wise Latina, on the Supreme Court.

Which reminds me -- as we begin the long, slow slog to the 2012 presidential election, it is essential that Republicans keep their eye on the prize. It will be a rough, even at times dirty, fight for the GOP nomination. Even without Mike Pence in the running, it promises to be a very crowded field. There are some potential candidates I like a lot, some others not so much. But I vow that whoever emerges victorious from the primary wars will have my support, even if I don't agree with him or her on every last issue.

The essential thing for all Republicans to keep in mind, whether they're RINOs or Tea Party patriots, is that Obama has already appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan and Ms. Sotomayor. The only good thing I can say about them is that, aside from their gender, it didn't alter the makeup of the Court because the ladies were replacing those equally liberal dodos, John Paul Stevens and David Souter.

But God forbid that Obama gets an additional four-year term and has the opportunity to replace 75-year-old Antonin Scalia or place a younger version of 78-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the bench.

Keep in mind that long after the Obamas have gone back to Chicago where they can vote for Rahm Emanuel, party with Bill Ayers and pray with Jeremiah Wright, his Supreme Court appointments could continue to hold sway over everything from health care and same-sex marriages to illegal immigrants and late term abortions.

If you think four years of Obama is bad, just try to imagine what 30 or 40 years would be like.

Read
more excellent articles at The Patriot Post
Opinion

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Obama’s Defense of Gay Marriage

The National Center for Public Policy Research – Press Release

Obama’s Defense of Gay Marriage Over Rule of Law Challenged by Black Conservatives

Washington, D.C. -  Black conservatives with the Project 21 leadership network say President Obama's decision that the executive branch will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act because of its alleged unconstitutionality is unconstitutional in itself -- and point out that it sets a potentially dangerous precedent.

"At no time in the history of this nation has a president so openly shown such unabashed contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law," said Project 21's Jerome Hudson. "President Obama's decision to have the Justice Department ignore the Defense of Marriage Act removes all doubt that he has nothing less than a lack of respect and understanding for the founding principles of our nation. We are a nation of laws and not men."

On February 23, Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement announcing that the Obama Administration "will cease defense of Section 3" of the Defense of Marriage Act because Obama believes sexual orientation deserves "a more heightened standard of scrutiny" and that "[t]he President has concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional." Congress, which passed the law in 2000 by a 342-67 vote in the House of Representatives and 85-14 vote in the Senate, still has the ability to legally defend the law. President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law.

There are currently three major challenges to DOMA in the federal courts.

Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie added: "The pure arrogance of this man is incredible. We see a sitting American president functioning as a monarch juxtaposed to an elected representative of the people. Obama privately decided that he didn't like DOMA and -- on the authority of his conscience and opinion alone -- saw fit to disregard legislation that was drafted, passed overwhelmingly and signed into law by a preceding president of his own party."

"If President Obama is concerned about the constitutionality of laws, he should start with his own health care plan which has been determined to be unconstitutional by 26 state attorneys general and ruled unconstitutional by two judges," noted Project 21's Lisa Fritsch. "President Obama -- though he acts as God -- does not have the judicial authority to make his opinion and political agenda lawful. His political agenda supersedes any regard for constitutional law, American values and recognition of true discrimination."

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives since 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or (703) 568-4727 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org


Read more informative articles at The National Center for Public Policy Research


Tuesday, February 22, 2011

John Quincy Adams, President and Congressman

American Minute with Bill Federer

On FEBRUARY 21, 1848, John Quincy Adams suffered a stroke at his desk in the House chamber, shortly after making an impassioned speech against the Democrat plan of extending slavery to the Western territories won in the Mexican-American War.

He died 2 days later without regaining consciousness.

A bronze marker on the floor indicates where Adams's desk once stood, known at the "whispering spot" in Statuary Hall.

John Quincy Adams was the only President to serve as a Congressman after having been President.

Nicknamed Old Man Eloquent for speaking out against slavery, he offered a plan for its elimination.

In 1841, John Qunicy Adams defended before the Supreme Court 53 Africans who had mutinied aboard the slave ship Amistad, gaining them their freedom.

As African slaves were purchased at Muslim slave markets, John Quincy Adams wrote in his "Essay on Turks" (1829): "The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran...
The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies..."

John Quincy Adams continued: "In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab...spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth...
He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as a part of his religion...
The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust, to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature."

Read more at American Minute
P.O. Box 20163, St. Louis,
MO 63123, 314-487-4395


Political