Thursday, June 25, 2009

Obama Salutes Gay Movement - Skips National Day of Prayer

From Focus on the Family:

Gay-Activist Movement to be Honored at White House

by Steve Jordahl, CitizenLink senior staff writer

Event comes just months after the Obama administration failed to acknowledge the National Day of Prayer with East Room celebration.

The Obama administration, which refused to send a representative to a Capitol Hill commemoration of the National Day of Prayer, is hosting a White House celebration of what most gay activists regard as the birth of their movement.

President Barack Obama has invited key leaders in the gay community to the East Room on Monday to commemorate the Stonewall Riots of June 28, 1969, during which hundreds of homosexuals threw bottles and garbage at police and set a gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, on fire.

Tim Goeglein, Focus on the Family's vice president of external relations and a former special assistant to President George W. Bush, said the White House event is a boon to the gay lobby, which has been becoming impatient with Obama.

"The president of the United State has the largest bully pulpit in the country and clearly gets to pick and choose among the issues that he would want to highlight," Goeglein said. "There's an enormous amount of pressure (to advocate for pro-gay policies). The president has partially extended health benefits to homosexual partners. The president is of course now doing a commemoration, a very important commemoration.

"But I think the larger goals are the ones that he's already committed to doing — overturning the DOMA , which is the protection of marriage in the states, and lifting the ban on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' " which prohibits "out" homosexuals from serving in the armed forces.

What's interesting about the Stonewall event, Goeglein added, is that it comes just months after the White House did not commemorate the National Day of Prayer.

"It's disappointing," he explained, "that after several years of celebrating the National Day of Prayer in the East Room at the White House, the day unfortunately in this instance does not get equal billing.

"It's a mistake not to be able to commemorate the National Day of Prayer at the highest possible levels, and we're very hopeful that this will be rectified next year."

Sunday, June 21, 2009


The National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action, has sent out a Legislative Alert to all Arizona NRA members.

The Arizona Senate will take up House Bill 2474, Arizona's "Workplace Protection " bill. It is imperative that you contact your State Senator as soon as possible since this important self-defense reform could be heard very soon.

House Bill 2474, sponsored by State Representative John Kavanagh ( R-8) and Frank Antenori (R-30), would permit law-abiding Arizona citizens to keep a firearm locked in their privately owned vehicle when parked on publicly accessible parking lots. This bill will help protect the rights of gun-owners who carry for self-defense during their daily commute.

Please contact your State Senators and respectfully urge them to support HB 2474 with no hostile amendments. Also, remind them that this legislation has already passed the Arizona House with strong bi-partisan support.

The American Conservative Republican feels that HR 2474, is good, common sense legislation that does not infringe on the private property rights of the owners of publicly accessible parking lots and further protects the Second Amendment rights of citizens to Keep and Bear Arms. The ACR strongly urges the passage of HR 2474, Arizona's "Workplace Protection" bill.

For God and country,
Bob Haran

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Cathi Herrod on Informed Consent Bill

Abortion bill empowers women on their choice
by Cathi Herrod - Jun. 20, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic, My Turn

Abortion is certainly a controversial issue, but there shouldn't be controversy about one thing: Women who are choosing to have an abortion should be making an informed decision based on accurate medical information. The Abortion Consent Act (SB 1206) makes that a reality.

In his "My Turn" column last Saturday on SB 1206 ("Bills threaten abortion care,"), Planned Parenthood CEO Bryan Howard alleges the bill was crafted without "talking to the affected women and their health-care providers." Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Abortion Consent Act is a product of years of testimony from women who have had abortions and from board-certified obstetrician/gynecologists. The proposed legislation clarifies and updates Arizona abortion statutes to remedy real-world problems.

For example, in the House Health Committee on Feb. 25, a board-certified obstetrician gave a first-hand account of Planned Parenthood's practices: A woman makes an appointment and is assigned to a morning or afternoon group. Upon arriving, instead of meeting privately with her doctor, she is forced to sit in a group to learn about her abortion by videotape.

Moments later when she is given an ultrasound, she is denied the opportunity to see her preborn child. The woman is thoroughly confused and uncertain as the doctor finally enters the room. Seeing her doctor for the first time, moments before the procedure, the woman starts crying uncontrollably. Instead of offering comfort, the doctor sternly says, "If you can't calm down, I can't get this done."

In other testimony, a woman who had an abortion herself and who has counseled many post-abortive women talked about their shared experiences. "Why didn't they tell us?" she asked. Why didn't abortion providers tell them about the risks, the alternatives and the accurate medical information?

Whether it is current medical risks, future medical complications, or the possible psychological consequences that accompany such an important decision, women deserve to hear the truth. The Abortion Consent Act solves this problem by requiring that doctors inform their patients of the details, risks and alternatives to the procedure 24 hours before the abortion takes place.

None of these provisions change the fact that women have a legal right to choose an abortion. It is unlikely that this legal right will change anytime soon, but that doesn't mean we can't help protect women and their preborn children by allowing them to make informed decisions. Over 30 other states have passed similar laws, and the provisions continue to be upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Abortion Consent Act empowers women to make informed choices about whether or not to have an abortion. As long as abortion is legal in this country, we should be making sure that women are protected and empowered to make informed decisions.

Cathi Herrod is president of the Center for Arizona Policy.

English is Our Unifying Language

Probably every language in the world is spoken is some American home and that's great as long as we all speak the same language outside the home.

Diversity is as American as apple pie and pizza pie, however, a nation needs unity as well as a tolerance of diversity to remain a nation united.

Language is an important unifying element to a nation and the unifying language for Americans is English. Patrick Henry gave his great "Give me liberty or give me death speech in English." Our Declaration of Independence as a nation was written in English. Our basic law, the Constitution, is written in English. Every American head of state, the president, has addressed the nation in English, and Lincoln gave his great appeal for national unity, the Gettysburg Address, in English, therefore, English has been and should remain, our national unifying language and the time has come to make English the official national language of the United States of America.

For God and country,
Bob Haran,

American Conservative Republican

Monday, June 15, 2009

FAIR Legislative Update, Obama Delays E-Verify

Administration Delays E-Verify Rule for Fourth Time; House Subcommittee to Consider Reauthorization

The Obama Administration announced last week that it would delay - for the fourth time - the implementation of a rule requiring most federal contractors to use the federal E-Verify system to check the work authorization status of their new hires. The rule is now set to take effect on September 8, 2009 - nearly nine months after the original effective date. (USCIS Update, June 3, 2009; See also FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).

The delay of the E-Verify requirement comes as special interest groups are challenging the rule in court. Led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a coalition of special interest groups sued the federal government in December 2008 to prevent the final rule (issued by the Bush Administration) from taking effect on its originally scheduled implementation date: January 15, 2009. The Bush Administration caved to the special interests, and, in January, announced that it would delay the implementation of the final rule until February. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 12, 2009). The Obama Administration has now postponed the implementation of the final rule three additional times and has used the same reason each time to justify the delay: "to permit the new Administration an adequate opportunity to review the rule." (See Federal Register, January 30, 2009; Federal Register, April 17, 2009; and Federal Register, June 5, 2009).

While the administration took steps last week to undermine the program, signs of support for E-Verify were evident in the U.S. House of Representatives. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) introduced a bill on Wednesday, June 3 that seeks to reauthorize E-Verify for five years, through the end of September 2014. The bill also contains provisions that would reauthorize three separate visa programs, including the controversial Religious Worker Visa Program. (See H.R. 2679's Legislative Text, June 3, 2009; See also USCIS Benefit Fraud Assessment, July 2006). However, the portion concerning E-Verify is practically identical to H.R.6633, legislation that passed the House of Representatives last year by a vote of 407 - 2. (See H.R. 6633's Legislative Text, August 1, 2008; See also FAIR's Legislative Update, August 4, 2008). The House Immigration Subcommittee had originally scheduled consideration of the new Giffords bill for last Thursday, June 4, but this markup was postponed to a date to be announced.

E-Verify is a proven, successful tool operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration. It allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. According to DHS, the program has an impressive accuracy rate: "About 99.6% of all work-authorized employees verified through E-Verify are verified without receiving a tentative non-confirmation or having to take any type of corrective action." (USCIS Fact Sheet, January 8, 2009). In early May 2009, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that more than 122,000 employers were enrolled in the program, with another 1,000 signing up each week. (Testimony of DHS Secretary Napolitano, May 6, 2009).

In spite of the program's documented success and popularity, recent efforts to pass a long-term E-Verify reauthorization have stalled in the U.S. Senate. (See FAIR's News Release, July 29, 2008 and Immigration Issues, April 2009). Earlier this year, the House added a five-year reauthorization to the stimulus bill, but the Senate did not pass the same provision in their version of the bill and Congressional Leadership then stripped the reauthorization during conference committee. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, February 17, 2009). Then, in March, Congressional Leaders agreed to reauthorize E-Verify for another six months, through the end of September 2009. True immigration reformers are concerned that recent short-term reauthorizations have left E-Verify vulnerable to proponents of amnesty using the program as a bargaining chip the next time Congress debates a massive amnesty bill.

Buchanan Calls Sotomayor Nomination Unfair.

Miss Affirmative Action 2009
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Having lost the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, Republicans are looking to redefine themselves for a nation that still leans conservative but is less Republican that it has been in decades.

The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court presents just such an opportunity. For, even if the party loses the battle and Sotomayor sits on the court, it can win the war, as Ronald Reagan won the Panama Canal debate, even as Senate Republicans committed collective suicide by voting to give away the canal.

What are the grounds for rejecting Sonia Sotomayor?

No one has brought forth the slightest evidence she has the intellectual candlepower to sit on the Roberts court. By her own admission, Sotomayor is an "affirmative action baby."

Though the Obama media have been ballyhooing her brilliance - No. 1 in high school, No. 1 at Princeton, editor of Yale Law Review - her academic career appears to have been a fraud from beginning to end, a testament to Ivy League corruption.

Two weeks ago, The New York Times reported that, to get up to speed on her English skills at Princeton, Sotomayor was advised to read children's classics and study basic grammar books during her summers. How do you graduate first in your class at Princeton if your summer reading consists of "Chicken Little" and "The Troll Under the Bridge"?

In video clips dating back 25 years, and now provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor, according to the Times, even calls herself an "affirmative action product."

"The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an ‘affirmative action baby,' whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstance."

"If we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions," says Sotomayor, "it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted. ... My test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates."

Thus, Sotomayor got into Princeton, got her No. 1 ranking, was whisked into Yale Law School and made editor of the Yale Law Review - all because she was a Hispanic woman. And those two Ivy League institutions cheated more deserving students of what they had worked a lifetime to achieve, for reasons of race, gender or ethnicity.

This is bigotry pure and simple. To salve their consciences for past societal sins, the Ivy League is deep into discrimination again, this time with white males as victims rather than as beneficiaries.

One prefers the old bigotry. At least it was honest, and not, as Abraham Lincoln observed, adulterated "with the base alloy of hypocrisy."

As the Times reports, on the tapes, Sotomayor rejects "the proposition that minorities must become advocates of 'selection by merit alone.' She said diversity improved the legal system."

"‘Since I have difficultly defining merit and what merit alone means, and ... whether it's judicial or otherwise, I accept that different experiences, in and of itself, bring merit to the system,' she said, adding, ‘I think it brings to the system more of a sense of fairness when these litigants see people like myself on the bench."

What does the latest Times revelation tell us?

That were it not for Ivy League dishonesty, Sotomayor would not have gotten into Princeton, would never have been ranked first in her class, would not have gotten into Yale Law, nor been named editor of Yale Law Review, and thus would not be a U.S. appellate court judge today or a nominee to the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the White House itself leaked that the final four court candidates were all women and Sotomayor was picked because she was a Latina. One wonders how many superior students and judges have been passed over to advance Sonia Sotomayor's career?

From college days to court days, that career reflects, in word and deed, a determination to use any power she achieves to create a society where the demands of diversity triumph over the ideal of equal justice under law. For Sotomayor, the advancement of people of color over white males is justice.

Republican senators should use this Sotomayor nomination to put affirmative action in the dock for what it is - race-based bigotry against white males so that persons of color can receive the rewards of society that they could not win in free and fair competition.

Lay out the Sotomayor record - SAT scores, LSAT scores, bar exam score, law review articles and her opinions - so that we can see up close what those who eviscerated Robert Bork regard as academic and judicial excellence.

No need for name-calling.

Just lay out the lady's opinions and record, so that, if she is elevated, Americans can say: Barack Obama voted against Chief Justice Roberts because Roberts could not measure up to Sonia Sotomayor, his ideal of what a justice ought to be

Trent Franks Champions Missile Defense

Legislation Would Restore Funds for Ground-based Midcourse Defense System

June 12, 2009 - The Strategic Forces Subcommittee yesterday passed by voice vote the portion of the defense bill that includes a $1.2 billion cut from last year’s ballistic missile defense appropriated level. The Republicans on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee vowed to fight to restore funds next Tuesday when the Full Committee considers the entire defense bill. While the Democrats increased funding for theater missile defense, there was a $500 million cut to the portion of the system that specifically protects the homeland from missiles from North Korea and Iran.

Congressmen Trent Franks (R-AZ), founder and co-chair of the Bi-Partisan Missile Defense Caucus (MDC), today was joined by Mike Turner (R-OH), Ranking Member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, and the co-chairs of the MDC, Parker Griffith (D-AL), Jim Marshall (D-GA), Pete Sessions (R- TX), and Doug Lamborn (R-CO), in introducing H.R. 2845 to fully fund this system to last year’s appropriated level.

Franks said, “The equation is simple. The threat to the United States from ballistic missiles is increasing, and due to this Administration, our ballistic missile defenses are decreasing. Mr. Obama's Missile Defense budget cuts are forcing a false choice on our military and our nation: Should the federal government offer protection for our forward deployed troops and our allies from short range ballistic missiles OR should the federal government offer protection to the American people from North Korean or Iranian missiles? We must do both. I fully support robustly funding theater ballistic missile defense, but this must not occur at the expense of homeland missile defense.

"It confounds me that this Administration can find $787 billion in projects for a “stimulus bill” but cannot find $500 million for ballistic missile defense to protect the homeland when Iran and North Korea are making tremendous advancements in their long range ballistic missile and nuclear technology.”

The “Protect the Homeland from North Korean and Iranian Ballistic Missiles Act” H.R. 2845:

1) Includes a Statement of Policy that Congress-

• acknowledges that North Korea’s and Iran’s long-range ballistic missile technology is improving and could be used to deliver chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons;
• expresses concern that North Korea’s and Iran’s long-range ballistic missile technology poses a real threat to the United States homeland;
• realizes missile delivery technology and warheads could be passed along to state and non-state actors; and
• supports ballistic missile protection of United States allies and forward deployed forces but believes it should not come at the expense of the protection of the United States homeland.

2) Directs the Secretary of Defense to deploy-

• Not less than 40 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska.
• Not less than 4 ground-based interceptors at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
• Such number of ground-based interceptors at such other locations as the President determines appropriate.

3) Authorizes the appropriation for fiscal year 2010, in the amount of $500,000,000, for the ground-based midcourse defense system of the Missile Defense Agency. This would bring the missile defense system up to last year’s appropriated level


WASHINGTON, JUNE 2009) – Jaxon Van Derbeken, police reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, is this year’s winner of the Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration. The award, presented each year by the Center for Immigration Studies, is intended to recognize journalists who go beyond the clich├ęs so prevalent in reporting on immigration and whose reporting informs deliberations in this important policy area.
Van Derbeken has worked for the San Francisco Chronicle since 1997, where he has covered the city’s police department. His reporting on the department’s troubled track record in solving violent crime won several awards and led to an overhaul of the department’s investigative arm.

In 2008, as part of his beat, Van Derbeken learned that the city had a policy of not reporting to federal authorities for possible deportation those illegal immigrant drug dealers and other felons who claimed to be juveniles, instead paying for group homes and free flights home. Among the beneficiaries of this aspect of San Francisco’s illegal-alien sanctuary policy was a violent gang member who was later arrested as an adult in the murders of a father and two sons who became innocent victims of a gang war. In the best tradition of journalism, his reporting shone light on hidden aspects of government conduct, forcing city officials to abandon their policy of shielding the juvenile offenders after the first story broke.

This award is named in memory of Eugene Katz, who started his career as a reporter for the Daily Oklahoman. In 1928, he joined the family business, working as an advertising salesman for the Katz Agency, and in 1952 became president of Katz Communications, a half-billion-dollar firm which not only dealt in radio and television advertising but also owned and managed a number of radio stations. Mr. Katz was a member of the Center for Immigration Studies board until shortly after his 90th birthday in 1997. He passed away in 2000.

The Center for Immigration Studies is a non-profit, non-partisan research institute which examines and critiques the impact of immigration on the United States. It is animated by a pro-immigrant/low-immigration vision, but offers the Katz Award not to promote any point of view but rather to foster informed decision-making on an issue so central to America’s future.

# # #

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institute that examines the impact of immigration on the United States.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009


June 3, 2009
EDITORIAL: The jihad at home
It's a sad day in America when the shooting of an abortion doctor stops the presses but no one notices two soldiers gunned down by an Islamist.

When abortionist Dr. George Tiller was shot in Wichita, Kan., on Sunday, President Obama rushed out a statement condemning the shooting. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. dispatched U.S. Marshals to protect abortion providers and clinics (officially known as "appropriate people and facilities"), and the Justice Department Web site prominently featured Mr. Holder's statement pledging to "bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice."

The next day, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a homegrown, Yemeni-trained Muslim who spent time in the Middle East, gunned down two U.S. soldiers in broad daylight near Little Rock, Ark., killing one. When arrested, he made statements "indicating his association with Jihad," according to law enforcement sources. He told police he hates the military for its crimes against Islam and would have shot more soldiers if they had been available. You would think this would be worthy of comment from Washington, but as of this writing, we are still waiting.

This is the second homegrown terror event by black Muslim converts in as many months. Four men were arrested May 20 for plotting to blow up a New York synagogue and use an anti-aircraft weapon to attack military aircraft in Newburgh, N.Y. Jim Kouri, vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, who has followed these incidents closely, says he is "surprised we're not hearing more reports about this."

According to Mr. Kouri, the problem of radical recruitment among the black population is severe. "They proselytize young people who are persistently being told by society that they have been victimized," he said. "And young people are constantly looking for structure in their lives. Islam provides that structure." He said this particular brand of Islamic radicalism "also appeals to the tough street mentality, the macho males and submissive females, and, of course, potential for violence." Jihadist recruitment in America's prisons is ongoing. Yet with respect to this most recent incident, Mr. Kouri says, "nobody seems to care, at least not in the media."

There is a fundamental blind spot in some circles as to the threat posed by homegrown Muslim radicals. The March Department of Homeland Security Domestic Extremist Lexicon, which was pulled quickly in the wake of controversy with other department publications, was noteworthy for listing Jewish extremism and various forms of Christian extremism but making no mention of any form of Muslim extremism.

In October 2002, when D.C. Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo were terrorizing the capital region, profilers claimed with some confidence that the perpetrator was a white male Christian veteran rather than a pair of black male Muslims, one of whom had military service. This politically correct profiling may have kept Muhammad and Malvo at liberty and killing longer than they may have been otherwise.

The FBI is cognizant of the Islamist threat on the home front and has done a good job helping keep America safe. But the official silence is troubling. We suspect it is in part a matter of timing. With the president on his goodwill tour of the Middle East and about to make a major address reaching out to the Muslim world, it would be awkward to discuss a radical jihadist attack in the middle of the United States. Maybe when Mr. Obama gets back home, he can give this matter a few minutes of his time.

© The Washington Times. Displayed by permission. All rights reserved.
You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing into any web browser. The Washington Times, LLC and The Washington Times logos are registered trademarks of The Washington Times, LLC . The iCopyright logo is a registered trademark of iCopyright, Inc.