SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MJ who wrote (82779)4/18/2010 10:53:56 PM
From: lorne2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224724
 
Look how much money illegals milking you for
Amount expected to rocket if Democrats grant amnesty
April 18, 2010
By Michael Carl
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
wnd.com


A new report from Numbers USA, which advocates for limits on immigration into the United States, says each American paid $330 last year to provide government services for illegal aliens.

Numbers USA staffer Chad MacDonald said if an amnesty plan becomes law, allowing illegals from coast-to-coast to suddenly establish citizenship, their retirement program will set U.S. taxpayers back an estimated $2.6 trillion.

In an interview with WND, MacDonald addressed a long list of issues, including the costs of illegal immigration.

"Last year, every American on the average paid $330 to provide government services for low-education illegal immigrant households," he said. "If amnesty legislation would be passed by Congress, like the proposal from 2007, American taxpayers would have to pay $2.6 trillion in retirement costs to those amnestied illegal aliens."

MacDonald and a team of volunteers has been following the Tea Party Express, an organization that has been traveling the country staging rallies to protest the high costs of government and advocate for more individual rights and responsibilities. Flyers by the thousands have been given out, he said.

The message isn't complicated: The more immigrants, the higher taxes go.

He said since 1990, immigrants who have come to the U.S. have swelled the welfare rolls.

"Fifty-three percent of recent immigrants use welfare services and immigrants who have arrived since 1990 and their legally born children account for a 75 percent growth rate in the nation's uninsured population," MacDonald said.

Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

That has voters worried.

"The issue is about jobs and about fiscal responsibility, and that resonates with the voters," MacDonald said.

He said even in left-leaning regions, such as the Northeast, he's found supporters.

"Today I brought 5,000 flyers and I'm down to about 1,500. I have 50 activists here handing out the flyers and we've gotten a great response from the crowd. The response has been good at every stop along the way as well," MacDonald reported at the Boston tea-party event this week.

"There's always opposition, but I didn't encounter any opposition in Boston," MacDonald said.

He said Numbers USA is not anti-immigrant.

"Numbers USA is absolutely not anti-immigrant. We're just for lower immigration numbers. We have a very strong no immigrant bashing policy on our web site and for our members," MacDonald explained.

"It's about policy for us. It's about reducing the amount of legal and illegal immigration to historical levels when this country had great growth and had low unemployment and that's our policy," he said.

"We are a nation of immigrants and if it is working the way it has historically worked, 250,000 to 300,000 each year, and we've experienced great growth," MacDonald said.

"Last year there were 1.8 million. We had 1.1 million green cards issued last year. That's hard to understand when there are nearly 25 million Americans who are unemployed," MacDonald said.

He said another expense hits taxpayers in the number of illegal aliens who are in prison.

"I can't speak to the situation in every state, but I know that in California, about 30 percent of the inmate population is illegal," MacDonald said.

Advocates for amnesty claim that by passing an amnesty bill, the U.S. could bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue. But that doesn't align with a research report by the Center for Immigration Studies. The CIS report said claims made by a pro-amnesty think tank about illegal immigrants and a 90 percent tax payment rate are misleading.

"The report, 'Immigrant Legalization: Assessing the Labor Market Effects,' was published by the foundation-supported Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), and was written by Laura E. Hill, Magnus Lofstrom, and Joseph M. Hayes. You will be reading about the 90 percent or so tax payment rate throughout the upcoming legalization debate," CIS reported.

"The trouble is that this finding, though narrowly accurate about the people studied, totally misrepresents the characteristics of America's illegal population generally," the CIS report continued.

The CIS report claims that the California group used an ideal model to back their findings about illegal immigrants.

"If you read the technical appendices to their study carefully, you will find that they draw data from the 2003 New Immigrant Survey. And who was studied in that survey? It was people who, and I am quoting, 'have recently gained legal permanent residence in the United States,'" the CIS report concluded.

Other costs include the losses from crime by illegal aliens, an issue that reached headlines in recent weeks with the shooting death of an Arizona rancher who may have been trying to help an illegal alien crossing his ranch.

States themselves sometimes have resorted to fighting back. Arizona recently adopted a plan that allows law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of any suspect if the officer has reason to suspect the person's legal status.

Besides its public information campaign, MacDonald said his organization also is seeking support in Congress that could be used to defeat any coming amnesty proposal.

WND reported earlier when one organization suggested using information from the 2010 Census to track down, apprehend and deport illegal aliens.

"We'd like for Congress to pass a special bill demanding that the census data be used," William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, told WND at the time. "The alarm that needs to be raised is that every illegal alien that fills out the census is stealing taxpayer resources and political representation."



To: MJ who wrote (82779)4/19/2010 2:29:50 PM
From: lorne  Respond to of 224724
 
the only person I think would look better in a burqua is pelosi...anyhow remember what hussein obama said...America is the worlds largest moslum country.
Wonder what hussein obama has in store for USA when he passes his immigration law...maybe many more ME moslums for America??..Hussein obama said ..if things get rough he will side with the moslums.

White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.
By ANDREA ELLIOTT
April 18, 2010
nytimes.com

When President Obama took the stage in Cairo last June, promising a new relationship with the Islamic world, Muslims in America wondered only half-jokingly whether the overture included them. After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.

Nearly a year later, Mr. Obama has yet to set foot in an American mosque. And he still has not met with Muslim and Arab-American leaders. But less publicly, his administration has reached out to this politically isolated constituency in a sustained and widening effort that has left even skeptics surprised.

Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy.

The impact of this continuing dialogue is difficult to measure, but White House officials cited several recent government actions that were influenced, in part, by the discussions. The meeting with Ms. Napolitano was among many factors that contributed to the government’s decision this month to end a policy subjecting passengers from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, to additional scrutiny at airports, the officials said.

That emergency directive, enacted after a failed Dec. 25 bombing plot, has been replaced with a new set of intelligence-based protocols that law enforcement officials consider more effective.

Also this month, Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim academic, visited the United States for the first time in six years after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reversed a decision by the Bush administration, which had barred Mr. Ramadan from entering the country, initially citing the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Mrs. Clinton also cleared the way for another well-known Muslim professor, Adam Habib, who had been denied entry under similar circumstances.

Arab-American and Muslim leaders said they had yet to see substantive changes on a variety of issues, including what they describe as excessive airport screening, policies that have chilled Muslim charitable giving and invasive F.B.I. surveillance guidelines. But they are encouraged by the extent of their consultation by the White House and governmental agencies.

“For the first time in eight years, we have the opportunity to meet, engage, discuss, disagree, but have an impact on policy,” said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. “We’re being made to feel a part of that process and that there is somebody listening.”

In the post-9/11 era, Muslims and Arab-Americans have posed something of a conundrum for the government: they are seen as a political liability but also, increasingly, as an important partner in countering the threat of homegrown terrorism. Under President George W. Bush, leaders of these groups met with government representatives from time to time, but said they had limited interaction with senior officials. While Mr. Obama has yet to hold the kind of high-profile meeting that Muslims and Arab-Americans seek, there is a consensus among his policymakers that engagement is no longer optional.

The administration’s approach has been understated. Many meetings have been private; others were publicized only after the fact. A visit to New York University in February by John O. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, drew little news coverage, but caused a stir among Muslims around the country. Speaking to Muslim students, activists and others, Mr. Brennan acknowledged many of their grievances, including “surveillance that has been excessive,” “overinclusive no-fly lists” and “an unhelpful atmosphere around many Muslim charities.”

“These are challenges we face together as Americans,” said Mr. Brennan, who momentarily showed off his Arabic to hearty applause. He and other officials have made a point of disassociating Islam from terrorism in public comments, using the phrase “violent extremism” in place of words like “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism.”

While the administration’s solicitation of Muslims and Arab-Americans has drawn little fanfare, it has not escaped criticism. A small but vocal group of research analysts, bloggers and others complain that the government is reaching out to Muslim leaders and organizations with an Islamist agenda or ties to extremist groups abroad.

They point out that Ms. Jarrett gave the keynote address at the annual convention for the Islamic Society of North America. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity whose leaders were convicted in 2008 of funneling money to Hamas. The society denies any links to terrorism.

“I think dialogue is good, but it has to be with genuine moderates,” said Steven Emerson, a terrorism analyst who advises government officials. “These are the wrong groups to legitimize.” Mr. Emerson and others have also objected to the political appointments of several American Muslims, including Rashad Hussain.

In February, the president chose Mr. Hussain, a 31-year-old White House lawyer, to become the United States’ special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The position, a kind of ambassador at large to Muslim countries, was created by Mr. Bush. In a video address, Mr. Obama highlighted Mr. Hussain’s status as a “close and trusted member of my White House staff” and “a hafiz,” a person who has memorized the Koran.

Within days of the announcement, news reports surfaced about comments Mr. Hussain had made on a panel in 2004, while he was a student at Yale Law School, in which he referred to several domestic terrorism prosecutions as “politically motivated.” Among the cases he criticized was that of Sami Al-Arian, a former computer-science professor in Florida who pleaded guilty to aiding members of a Palestinian terrorist group.
At first, the White House said Mr. Hussain did not recall making the comments, which had been removed from the Web version of a 2004 article published by a small Washington magazine. When Politico obtained a recording of the panel, Mr. Hussain acknowledged criticizing the prosecutions but said he believed the magazine quoted him inaccurately, prompting him to ask its editor to remove the comments. On Feb. 22, The Washington Examiner ran an editorial with the headline “Obama Selects a Voice of Radical Islam.”

Muslim leaders watched carefully as the story migrated to Fox News. They had grown accustomed to close scrutiny, many said in interviews, but were nonetheless surprised. In 2008, Mr. Hussain had co-authored a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the government should use the peaceful teachings of Islam to fight terrorism.

“Rashad Hussain is about as squeaky clean as you get,” said Representative Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who is Muslim. Mr. Ellison and others wondered whether the administration would buckle under the pressure and were relieved when the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, defended Mr. Hussain.

“The fact that the president and the administration have appointed Muslims to positions and have stood by them when they’ve been attacked is the best we can hope for,” said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.

It was notably different during Mr. Obama’s run for office. In June 2008, volunteers of his campaign barred two Muslim women in headscarves from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit, eliciting widespread criticism. The campaign promptly recruited Mazen Asbahi, a 36-year-old corporate lawyer and popular Muslim activist from Chicago, to become its liaison to Muslims and Arab-Americans.

Bloggers began researching Mr. Asbahi’s background. For a brief time in 2000, he had sat on the board of an Islamic investment fund, along with Sheikh Jamal Said, a Chicago imam who was later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. Mr. Asbahi said in an interview that he had left the board after three weeks because he wanted no association with the imam.

Shortly after his appointment to the Obama campaign, Mr. Asbahi said, a Wall Street Journal reporter began asking questions about his connection to the imam. Campaign officials became concerned that news coverage would give critics ammunition to link the imam to Mr. Obama, Mr. Asbahi recalled. On their recommendation, Mr. Asbahi agreed to resign from the campaign, he said.

He is still unsettled by the power of his detractors. “To be in the midst of this campaign of change and hope and to have it stripped away over nothing,” he said. “It hurts.”

From the moment Mr. Obama took office, he seemed eager to change the tenor of America’s relationship with Muslims worldwide. He gave his first interview to Al Arabiya, the Arabic-language television station based in Dubai. Muslims cautiously welcomed his ban on torture and his pledge to close Guantánamo within a year.

In his Cairo address, he laid out his vision for “a new beginning” with Muslims: while America would continue to fight terrorism, he said, terrorism would no longer define America’s approach to Muslims.

Back at home, Muslim and Arab-American leaders remained skeptical. But they took note when, a few weeks later, Mohamed Magid, a prominent imam from Sterling, Va., and Rami Nashashibi, a Muslim activist from Chicago, joined the president at a White-House meeting about fatherhood. Also that month, Dr. Faisal Qazi, a board member of American Muslim Health Professionals, began meeting with administration officials to discuss health care reform.

The invitations were aimed at expanding the government’s relationship with Muslims and Arab-Americans to areas beyond security, said Mr. Hussain, the White House’s special envoy. Mr. Hussain began advising the president on issues related to Islam after joining the White House counsel’s office in January 2009. He helped draft Mr. Obama’s Cairo speech and accompanied him on the trip. “The president realizes that you cannot engage one-fourth of the world’s population based on the erroneous beliefs of a fringe few,” Mr. Hussain said.

Other government offices followed the lead of the White House. In October, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke met with Arab-Americans and Muslims in Dearborn, Mich., to discuss challenges facing small-business owners. Also last fall, Farah Pandith was sworn in as the State Department’s first special representative to Muslim communities. While Ms. Pandith works mostly with Muslims abroad, she said she had also consulted with American Muslims because Mrs. Clinton believes “they can add value overseas.”

Despite this, American actions abroad — including civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan and the failure to close Guantánamo — have drawn the anger of Muslims and Arab-Americans.

Even though their involvement with the administration has broadened, they remain most concerned about security-related policies. In January, when the Department of Homeland Security hosted a two-day meeting with Muslim, Arab-American, South Asian and Sikh leaders, the group expressed concern about the emergency directive subjecting passengers from a group of Muslim countries to additional screening.

Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, pointed out that the policy would never have caught the attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, who is British. “It almost sends the signal that the government is going to treat nationals of powerless countries differently from countries that are powerful,” Ms. Khera recalled saying as community leaders around the table nodded their heads.

Ms. Napolitano, who sat with the group for more than an hour, committed to meeting with them more frequently. Ms. Khera said she left feeling somewhat hopeful.

“I think our message is finally starting to get through,” she said.



To: MJ who wrote (82779)4/20/2010 8:04:55 AM
From: lorne  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 224724
 
Arizona House OKs Birther Bill
House votes to check candidates' citizenship
Published : Monday, 19 Apr 2010
myfoxphoenix.com

PHOENIX (AP) -- The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for re-election.

The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema says the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona "the laughing stalk of the nation."

Mesa Republican Rep. Cecil Ash says he has no reason to doubt Obama's citizenship but supports the measure because it could help end doubt.

Statement from Rep. Sinema

Republicans continue to take Arizona down the wrong track by wasting taxpayers time on frivolous legislation instead of working on important issues like health care for kids and seniors and education.

Republican Rep. Judy Burges amendment to Senate Bill 1024 today would require the Arizona secretary of state to verify a presidential candidate's birth certificate before the candidate's name is allowed on a ballot in Arizona. A presidential candidate already is required to prove that he or she is a naturally born citizen before they can run for that office.

This bill is nothing more than a waste of taxpayers time when the legislature should be working to fix more important issues like the fact that it eliminated KidsCare, which forfeits all federal health care dollars for kids and seniors in Arizona.