» Schumer: Three Branches of Gov’t Are House, Senate and White House

Schumer: Three Branches of Gov’t Are House, Senate and White House

Um, Senator Schumer… the House and Senate are both part of the same branch of government: the Legislative Branch.

Oh, and by the way… you sit on the Senate Committee that oversees the third branch: The Judiciary.

This guy is a Senator? How did that happen? He describes the 3 branches of government .. as the House, the Senate, and The President. Uh, even my public education correctly taught me the 3 branches are the Legislative, the Juducial, and the Executive. (And here’s the even bigger alarm. Shumer sits on the the Senate Committee with oversight over the Judiciary.. the branch of Government he left out in his professorial remarks. Schumer once again displays his ignorance and determination to keep the course — leading America into Financial Chaos.

ACLU, feds coordinated attack on Arizona crackdown on illegals

‘It’s one thing to share disrespect for rule of law, but it is quite another to collude’

Posted: January 29, 2011
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily


Arizona governor Jan Brewer speaks to the media following a meeting with President Barack Obama on Arizona's new immigration law, at the White House in Washington on June 3, 2010. UPI/Kevin Dietsch Photo via Newscom

A public interest organization that uncovers and prosecutes corruption in government said it has confirmed from Department of Justice documents that the federal agency under Barack Obama‘s command worked hand-in-hand with the American Civil Liberties Union to attack Arizona over its tough new immigration law.

That law, SB 1070, now is being challenged before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It created applause from secure borders advocates and a furor among a wide range of immigrant rights advocacy organizations last year when state officials adopted plans to let state law enforcement officials crack down on illegal aliens who already are violating federal law.

Get the facts on the threat to America coming across its own borders, “In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security”

Judicial Watch, the corruption-fighting Washington organization, earlier had submitted a filing in the court case on behalf of Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of the state’s SB 1070, asking the appeals court to reverse a preliminary injunction granted by a district court in July, just as the law was about to take effect.

That injunction has not yet been lifted.

(Story continues below)

The district court judge suspended four of SB 1070’s key provisions as the Obama administration called the plan racist even though it specifically prohibits racial profiling.

Now Judicial Watch has posted online a file of nearly 100 pages of documents it obtained from the government, revealing that the DOJ “worked hand-in-hand with the American Civil Liberties Union.”

The documents, obtained through the Federal Freedom of Information Act, revealed that there was an exchange of “touching base” e-mails between Lucas Guttentag, chief of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, and Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general under the Obama administration’s Department of Justice.

From Guttentag to Kneedler was:

I left a voicemail earlier today about checking in once the district court rules. Would you be available then? [Redacted statement] And from all of us, thank you again for your argument on behalf of the United States. Lucas

Responded Kneedler:

Thanks Lucas. We should definitely check in once we hear. We’ll be huddling here as soon as we can. What is your thinking at this point on if/how you will proceed in various possible scenarios? It was good to see you, even if only briefly, and to be on the same side for once! [Redacted statement] I have a feeling we might be seeing each other again on this case. Ed

Following up was Guttentag:

Thanks Ed. Yes, a real pleasure to be on the same side. I think we will be strongly inclined to seek an immediate emergency injunction from the 9th Circuit… Can you share your current thinking with regard to the various scenarios? Best Lucas

Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of Arizona's illegal immigration law Senate Bill 1070, poses for a photo in Mesa, Arizona July 19, 2010. The SB 1070 law is currently being challenged at the U.S. District Court to prevent it from going into effect on July 29, which would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. REUTERS/Joshua Lott (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS SOCIETY)

“It is one thing to share the ACLU’s disrespect for the rule of law but it is quite another to collude with the organization on a prosecutorial strategy against the state of Arizona,” said Tom Fitton, chief of Judicial Watch.

“Frankly, these new documents show it is hard to tell where the ACLU ends and the Justice Department begins. The Obama Justice Department is supposed to be an independent, nonpartisan law enforcement agency. Many Americans will be disturbed, though maybe not surprised, to find that Eric Holder’s Justice Department is colluding with one of the most leftist organizations in the nation.

“We know whose ‘side’ this Justice Department is on when it comes to the enforcement of our immigration laws,” Fitton said.

Also revealed in the cache of documents were e-mailed exchanges between ACLU staff members and Joshua Wilkenfeld, the assistant U.S. attorney who signed the government’s pleadings in the lawsuit against Arizona.

From Guttentag to Wilkenfeld was:

Josh …Yes, look forward to talking. I’m getting a fuller briefing on yesterday’s hearing later this morning (Calif. time) and then I am tied up for a short while. Would it work for you to talk at about 4.00 or 4.30p Eastern? If it’s okay with you, I’d like to include two colleagues. By the way, we tried to order a transcript yesterday but understand the US Attorney’s office already did. Can we get a copy directly from you when it’s available?

All best,

Judicial Watch reported it documented that Wilkenfeld sent the transcript later that day.

It was May 17, 2010 when the ACLU, and other groups including the National Immigration Law Center, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and National Day Laborer Organizing Network, filed a class action lawsuit against Arizona over its legislature’s attempt to protect its citizens and its jobs from illegal aliens.

“On July 6, 2010, the Obama DOJ filed a lawsuit of its own, which has been described by Congressman Peter King, R-N.Y., as a ‘cut and paste’ version of the ACLU lawsuit,” Judicial Watch reported.

WND previously reported when Judicial Watch asked that the provisions suspended by the judge be reinstated:

  • Section 2(B) [reasonable attempt to determine a person’s immigration status] “imposes no ‘new’ burden on lawfully present aliens because Arizona law enforcement officials have the discretion to inquire about a person’s immigration status regardless of Section 2(B). Section 2(B) also does not place any undue burden on federal resources because Congress has mandated that the federal government respond to requests from state and local law enforcement officers about persons’ immigration status.”

  • Section 3 [willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document] “does not regulate the conditions under which a lawfully present alien may remain in the country. Instead, Section 3 utilizes ordinary state police powers to create criminal penalties for the failure to comply with a federal registration scheme.”

  • Invoking Arizona’s broad authority to regulate employment under its police powers, Section 5 [unlawful employment of illegal aliens] “seeks to strengthen Arizona’s economy by protecting the state’s fiscal interests and lawfully resident labor force from the harmful effects resulting from the employment of unlawfully present aliens.”

  • Section 6 [warrantless arrest] “does not grant Arizona law enforcement officers the authority to determine whether an individual has committed a public offense that makes him removable. Section 6 only authorizes Arizona law enforcement officers to make a warrantless arrest of an individual who has already been determined to have committed a public offense that makes him removable.”

Fitton said Pearce “specifically crafted” the law “to be entirely consistent with federal law.”

He earlier said, “The district court jumped the gun by invalidating components of the law on a purely speculative basis. It is shameful that the Obama administration has chosen to mount a legal assault against the state of Arizona for simply trying to protect its citizens.”

It was U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton who struck the state law’s provisions, drawing applause from both the U.S. and Mexican governments.

The case is expected ultimately to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But national support continues to grow for the law, which is designed to make up for a lack of federal enforcement of immigration laws by giving more authority to state officials. Other states have begun copying it, too.

“This is a matter of America’s sovereignty and security, and every patriotic American must get involved,” said Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center.

The organization, a national, public-interest law firm in Michigan, filed a brief in support of Arizona’s law.

“If we can’t defend our borders from attack by illegal immigrants, in time we will lose our country,” Thompson said. “What confidence should we have in an attorney general who, without even reading the law, accused Arizona of racial profiling? Patriotic Americans must show they stand with Arizona in this matter.”

Read more: ACLU, feds coordinated attack on Arizona crackdown on illegals

Mom Exits Prison as School Choice Week Ends

Earlier this week I reported on the hero-mom who went to jail for trying to get her children a decent education.  In short, Kelley Williams-Bolar was convicted of a felony for hauling her daughters across a school district boundary.   She committed this crime in order to enroll them in a school with decent standards, one that would provide them the kind of opportunity you would want your own children to have.  Today she was released from prison.  The Heritage Foundation reports this courageous woman’s ordeal in more detail, and puts the whole event in context But the bottom line is this.  The politicians and teachers unions in Akron, Ohio believe that mothers like Williams-Bolar pose a very serious threat to society.

How is it that the Left, which purports to care so much for children and is always preaching equality of both opportunity and outcome, remains so strongly opposed to school choice?  As this incident exposes, liberal double standards are not flaws in an otherwise sincere world view.  They are the visible aura of a lust for power that is routinely disguised as concern for the common man. 

In this case, as in many school districts around the country, that power consists in a corrupt alliance between teachers unions and the politicians they fund.  The resulting political machine feeds off the cynical exploitation of our children while at the same time utterly disregarding the educational needs of those same children.  This machine is fueled by tax dollars, and oiled with the good intentions of uninformed voters who have genuine concerns about education but no understanding of the scam. 

Otherwise, why is it that the same liberals who support open borders and sanctuary cities prove so willing to imprison an inner city mother for no other crime than taking her children across an arbitrary districting line?  If this same woman had been an illegal alien, and had brought her children across our national border to provide them the identical educational opportunity, liberals would be celebrating her.  They would be lining the streets in protest, and insisting that her children be allowed to remain in our schools.  “Why should the children be punished,” they would insist?  “They didn’t violate any laws.” 

In point of fact, liberals already demand in-state college tuition for the children of illegal aliens, along with affirmative action benefits which amount to special advancement ahead of the children of legal residents—ahead, for instance, of the children of the American mother who was released from prison today.  A recent bill before Congress sought to grant effective amnesty to the children of those who have illegally entered our country.  But in the case of American born Williams-Bolar, liberals proved eager to send men with guns to lock her behind bars and to remove her children from the school they had been enrolled in for two years.  According to the judge, it was important to make an example of her.

So why this stark and brutal contrast in liberal sensibilities?  Why do liberals welcome illegal aliens with every form of booty and special consideration they can squeeze out of the taxpayers while at the same time vigorously enforcing the relatively insignificant boundaries of a public school district?  Why do they insist upon putting a poor American mother in jail for crossing a trivial line not shown on most maps, while at the same time insisting upon amnesty and public largesse for those who illegally cross our national borders?

Power is the only answer that accounts for this inconsistency.  Liberals see illegal aliens as a potential voting bloc, which they intend to demagogue and then manipulate as they have the black vote.  African Americans vote 90% Democrat.  Why is that?  In large part because Democrats have consistently promised them “benefits” and government “programs.”   Yet the plight of black families in America is worse than when these programs began.  Black education, in particular, has suffered spectacularly.  It is a sad irony that this poor woman—a black woman, by the way–who was released from prison today probably voted for the straight Democratic ticket.  Liberals intend to seduce Hispanic immigrants in this same way.  They do not see the illegal immigrant as an individual human being with personal dreams and hopes for achievement.  They see a tribe that can be seduced into dependency upon government and then conscripted for political warfare.

When it comes to school choice, the power dynamics are very similar.  For years the teachers unions have lobbied for laws that guarantee them forced dues, job security and a closed shop.  In return, these unions have funded the politicians who support their agenda.  The currency that lubricates this perpetual influence machine is taxpayer funding, which is metered out on the basis of student attendance days.  Since in many cases the public schools are doing a very poor job, a fact which both unions and politicians evidently understand all too well, concerned parents quite naturally wish to find better alternatives. 

But what if even one parent is allowed to withdraw her children from the assigned school?  Of course a mass exodus would follow.  Funding for the rejected school would soon collapse.  Teachers would be laid off, with the bad ones unable to find new jobs.  Campaign funding for the politicians supported by the teachers unions in such districts would dry up as well.  In order to prevent this, the education oligarchy, in collaboration with legislators and judges, has shown that it is quite willing to send mothers to jail.         

For the education establishment today, and that means unions, administrators and politicians, our children are often little more than a commodity to be exploited.  To get decent public education, we must cut the money supply that feeds this trade in young and vulnerable human lives.  We must allow families to choose their own schools, so that the effective schools can grow while the bad ones are eliminated.  Until we do that, we are collaborating in the destruction of our own children. 

Jim Wagner

» Is SEIU Working With Hamas And FARC? – Big Government

Is SEIU Working With Hamas And FARC?


Andrew Marcus

Prominent current and former members of SEIU local 73 are being investigated for their potential ties to the Hamas and FARC terrorist groups.

Late last year, their homes were raided by the FBI, and they were subpoenaed to appear in front of a grand jury for questioning.

Joe Iosbaker, Chief Steward of SEIU 73, and Tom Burke (former board member of SEIU 73) are among 9 people who are subjects in the investigation. None of them have been charged with any crimes, yet.

Two days ago, they refused again to appear in front of the grand jury.

The interesting thing about these SEIU folks is that they also belong to a violently radical group called the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. From their website:

The Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is a revolutionary socialist and Marxist-Leninist organization in the United States.

1) We stand for the right to self-determination up to and including secession for the African American nation in the Black Belt South.

While rejecting Zionist claims on Palestine and white supremacist claims to a white southern nation or northwestern nation, we do acknowledge the fact that the most advanced sections of the Black liberation movement, from the 1800s on, have demanded a Black Republic in the South.

It gets worse from there.

This is the same group who, along with the other subjects of the FBI investigation, takes credit for staging the 2008 RNC protest-riots.

Shockingly, SEIU leadership is supporting their accused members, and the chosen strategy of not cooperating with law enforcement.

Beginning at 6:15 in the video below, SEIU’s Matt Brandon gives the union’s full-throated support for targets of the investigation.

Let that sink in for a minute. SEIU members are being investigated for potential ties to terrorists, and SEIU leadership is supporting non-cooperation with law enforcement. Can we question their patriotism yet??


Imagine Haliburton being investigated by DOJ for potential ties to terrorists, and their management comes out in support of ignoring grand jury subpoenas. Do you think mainstream media outlets might cover it?

The bottom line is that in addition to demanding the right to riot on the streets of America, the Progressive movement in this country (including SEIU) wants the right to organize “non-violent” actions with Hamas and FARC.

Pay close attention to the 2 minute mark in the video below. The Lawyers Guild protester lets the cat out of the bag when he talks about Global Exchange being threatened by all of this. Global Exchange is one of the groups that helped organized the violent Hamas flotilla.

So here you have SEIU members participating in violent revolutionary causes, and SEIU leadership defending them.

This raises a lot of questions about the extent of coordination between the American Progressive movement and global terrorist organizations. We can think of at least two people who are strongly associated with this exact SEIU local 73, people who might be able to shed some light on the actions of its members:

Andy Stern


And President Barack Obama


From the 2008 SEIU 73 annual report:

SEIU Local 73 was all across the nation in 2008 assisting Barack Obama in his historic run for the White House. Members and SEIU Local 73 staff worked the primaries not only in Illinois, but in Ohio and other key states. The Purple Army was out in force to turn our nation blue!

To say that they are close is an understatement.

What does the President know, and how long has he known it?

Shocked.. Shocked, I say! SEIU in collusion with the likes of Hamas and FARC? Can it be?

Hmm. After examining the backgrounds of many of our members of the House of Representatives.. I’m not so shocked or surprised. Look here for a little more background on members of today’s U.S. Congress.. and the associations they support and encourage ( or are even members of)

On Amazon- ” The Cartel” Systematic Destruction of Public Education


Thank you Americans for Prosperity for the screening of this movie at the Clackamas Public Safety Offices!  This is an eye opening documentary that only  scratches the surface of today’s enormous corruption problem…and it is destroying our next generation.  Isn’t it time to root out this evil?

Get Real- It’s time to quit hiding behind rhetoric and face the Truth

What Obama (and Republicans) Didn’t Say

Posted by Rick Moran on Jan 27th, 2011 and filed under Daily Mailer, FrontPage.

Our unfunded-entitlement train is careening down the tracks about to tip over, but the conductor is lecturing us about staying in our seats until we come to a full stop.

That, among other things, was one of the important problems with the president’s State of the Union speech. It was also what was wrong with the GOP response delivered by Rep. Paul Ryan. Neither party is telling the American people the truth about the coming entitlement crunch which threatens not only our fiscal solvency, but our national security, our economic vitality, and ultimately, our way of life. Every year we delay the bitter medicine we must take to get our fiscal house in order adds trillions in unfunded debt to the entitlement burden we already carry.

We expected President Obama to downplay the problem. He’s got a re-election campaign to win and the hugely unpopular entitlement cuts and tax increases that are going to be necessary to address the problem would be his doom if he proposed them. There were exactly two paragraphs in the president’s speech that dealt with this nation-threatening crisis – as if it should be treated as an afterthought rather than as the 3-alarm fire it is. What’s worse, the president made it seem as if fixing our entitlement problems will be a lot easier than it is surely going to be.

He claimed that Obamacare would “slow these rising costs” for Medicare – an extremely dubious claim unproven by the facts – while assuring seniors that we must “strengthen” Social Security without “putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.”

In other words, some day in the future, a president is going to wave a magic wand and the trillions of dollars of Social Security unfunded liability is going to disappear. No one suffers. No one gets hurt. Presumably, the “rich” will take a hit, but then no one really cares about them

Newsflash: All the easy fixes for our entitlement nightmare have already been tried several times. We’ve raised the retirement age, raised the eligibility age for Medicare, raised Social Security and Medicare taxes – doubling them over the last 30 years. We’ve fiddled, we’ve tweaked, we’ve performed all the dishonest accounting possible, hiding the truth from the American people for as long as we could, and yet – here we are at the gates of fiscal hell, the devil is opening the door and there’s nowhere to run.

Meanwhile, the GOP is riding high at the moment and doesn’t want to sour the mood of the voters with blood curdling tales of $100 trillion plus in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. But that’s the reality of our situation and someone, somewhere, somehow is going to have to take the bit in their mouth and lead us out of this house of horrors we’ve constructed for ourselves.

Rep. Ryan, whose “Roadmap” at least offered an alternative to business as usual, was strangely quiescent about the entitlement mess. Not once in his response to the president’s speech did he mention Social Security or Medicare. Ryan at least had the courage to point out that we were in a major crisis headed for fiscal disaster, but the man who has offered a politically poisonous but realistic alternative stopped far short of endorsing what he so bravely put forth just a few months ago.

Cosmetic gambits like “spending freezes” and “doc fixes” can’t even begin to address the danger. This is political gamesmanship and it should anger us that the politicians know it but do it anyway. It’s not that the crisis is hidden, or has come upon us suddenly. We’ve known for decades where we were headed, but Washington chose the easy way: the politicians ignored the problem, kicking the can down the road, assuming they would be well into retirement — living off their extravagant congressional pensions — before history forced our hand.

The can has now been kicked into a cul de sac and there’s no way we can start kicking it back down the road. It may not be our fault, but we’re the ones who are going to have to pay for all of these promises so recklessly made by previous generations. One way or another, a solution will be found — or imposed — on us. Those are the only alternatives. Either the politicians will find the political courage (that they won’t get credit for) to start cutting and slashing at the monster or the monster will solve our problem for us by devouring us.

A few bare bones numbers are needed to prove that this is not hyperbole or political exaggeration. If we were to fulfill the promises made to every American from those born as I write this to the oldest citizen regarding Social Security and Medicare, it will cost us at least $130 trillion. Long before then, the entitlement crunch will have destroyed our economy. By 2016, 71% of the federal budget will be dedicated to paying entitlements of one form or another, the vast percentage of that being Social Security and Medicare.

There are 78 million baby boomers set to retire over the next 30 years, all expecting that monthly Social Security check for the rest of their lives. The significance of this is a matter of demographics. The number of workers paying into Social Security was 5.1 per retiree in 1960; this declined to 3.3 in 2007 and is projected to decline to 2.1 by 2035. We are currently in hock to the Social Security Trust Fund to the tune of $2.5 trillion. This number is expected to rise to $3.8 trillion by 2019. But by 2015, payments to Social Security beneficiaries will begin to exceed tax receipts. And by 2037, payments to recipients would start declining automatically – whether we wanted them to or not. The Trust Fund would be exhausted and Congress would be unable to tap any other revenue streams from the government to pay for it.

Medicare is in even worse shape. Bruce Bartlett read the last report from the Medicare trustees and noted that it would take an increase in personal income taxes of 81% to pay for the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare:

• To summarize, we see that taxpayers are on the hook for Social Security and Medicare by these amounts: Social Security, 1.3% of GDP; Medicare part A, 2.8% of GDP; Medicare part B, 2.8% of GDP; and Medicare part D, 1.2% of GDP. This adds up to 8.1% of GDP. Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax.Is it any wonder that President Obama or Rep. Ryan chose not to mention how serious the problem really is, and that addressing the crisis is going to be extraordinarily wrenching?

It took our politicians four score and five years to begin to address the evil of slavery. In truth, America deals with insoluble dilemmas by working around the edges of the problem, refusing to confront the roots of what ails us. The great compromises of 1820 and 1851 on slavery kept the nation from flying apart but did not address what was eating away at the body politic: that slavery was a wrong that needed to be righted.

We have spent a quarter of a century tinkering with Social Security and Medicare, stretching out the day of reckoning without addressing the fundamental math that underpins both programs: that someday, they would become unsustainable and drag us all to economic calamity.

That day has arrived. But you’d never know it listening to the president the other night with his new spending schemes and “things are getting better all the time” rhetoric. It hardly matters. One way or another, our fiscal crisis will be solved — either through bold and courageous actions that save us or our total collapse which will ruin us.