Archive for the ‘Federal Law’ Category

Barack Obama condemned the IRS scandal earlier this week saying,

“I have got not patience for it… I first learned about this from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this.”

But now we know… The Obama administration knew about the IRS targeting scandal in June 2012 – before the November elections.
The New York Times reported:

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was auditing the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

At the first Congressional hearing into the I.R.S. scandal, J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, told members of the House Ways and Means Committee that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel of his audit on June 4, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly thereafter.”

It remained unclear how much the disclosure would affect the broader debate over the I.R.S.’s problems. Complaints from Tea Party groups that the I.R.S. was singling them out became public in 2012, through media accounts.

Mr. George told Treasury officials about the allegation as part of a routine briefing about ongoing audits he would be conducting in the coming year, and he did not tell the officials of his conclusions that the targeting had been improper, he said.

Comcast Cable, “the nation’s largest cable provider,” has decided it will not accept firearm and ammunition advertisers in the future.

This decision comes after Comcast has been running ads for some gun and hunting groups for decades. Comcast chose this new position after purchasing NBCUniversal, which has a long-standing ban against firearm, ammunition and firework advertisements.

This move brings Comcast in line with its competitors, Time Warner Cable and Cox Communications.

Cox already had a ban similar to the one Comcast has now instituted and Time Warner Cable announced in January that it was banning “ads showing semi-automatic weapons and guns pointed at people.”

Gun control advocates praise Comcast’s “brave move,” while gun store owners say their profession has been unjustly singled out by Comcast.

For anyone who has done even a cursory study of Barack Obama’s life, they know that his radical Marxist views are not a recent phenomenon.

During his New York years, he was a frequent participant in the annual Socialist Scholars Conference held in Manhattan.

In the 1990s, he was affiliated with the Marxist New Party.

He called for an outright ban on guns in 1996.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, he funneled millions of dollars to socialist front groups like ACORN, via the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. His buddy, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, helped stuff the money in the pockets of these “public welfare” groups, often taking money from wealthy donors who believed the funds were being used to further education or stamp out poverty. This was Barack Obama’s first foray into “spreading the wealth around.”

The dirty little secret about Marxists is that the moral outrage they have about the poor, about gun violence, about war, and even about the environment (so-called “global warming,” now rebranded as “climate change”) is that these are all simply tools to set up a totalitarian government. A so-called utopia where “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is not determined by the individual, but according to an elite bureaucracy.

Read more here.

After suffering a major legal setback in the summer, Arizona regained its footing in court Friday when a federal judge dismissed parts of the U.S. Justice Department’s challenge to the state’s new immigration law and rejected several claims made by Hispanic activists and Phoenix police officers.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling on Friday struck down the federal government’s challenge to the portion of the law that prohibits the transport of illegal immigrants.

It also rejected a challenge from Phoenix police officers and an advocacy group called Chicanos Por La Causa who argued that the cops could be sued for racial profiling if they enforced the law or lose their jobs if they didn’t.

Bolton agreed with Arizona that they had no valid claim of immediate harm.

Bolton also dismissed a lawsuit from the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders who were seeking an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law because the group argued federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders.

“I am pleased with today’s decision,” Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said in a statement Friday. “I strongly believe that the citizens of Arizona will ultimately prevail in all of these legal challenges. My defense of the rule of law will continue as vigorously as ever.”

Arizona’s law has been at the center of an impassioned national debate on illegal immigration ever since it was passed in April. The federal government filed a lawsuit soon after to block the measure — a battle that is ongoing and is likely to wind up in the Supreme Court.

Read more here.

The Arizona Latino Republican Association will become the first Hispanic organization in the country to actively oppose the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona’s new immigration law.

Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, Inc., said he will be joined by ALRA Chairman Jesse Hernandez and members of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association at an announcement Thursday morning in Phoenix.

ALRA will become the first group of Latino Americans to “put a foot forward legally” in support of S.B. 1070 by filing a motion to intervene against the Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging Arizona’s immigration policy, Klayman said.

“This is a way to tell the country that, ‘Hey, we’re Americans too and we believe in the rule of law,” Klayman told Foxnews.com. “It’s a way to say, ‘We got here legally and we contributed a great deal. We want the rest of the country to recognize that we’re with you’ [in the national immigration debate].”

By filing the motion, Klayman said ALRA will be “in effect, a defendant” in the DOJ lawsuit, which names the state of Arizona as well as Gov. Jan Brewer as defendants. The Justice Department claims the federal government has “preeminent authority” on immigration enforcement and that the Arizona law “disrupts” that balance.

The motion was being finalized as of Tuesday.

Read more here.

By PAUL SPERRY

President Obama is suing Arizona for hav ing its cops identify and round up illegal aliens — even though he’s also deputizing them to do the same thing.

That’s right: Under a little-known federal program called ICE 287(g), the administration has continued to enlist at least eight Arizona state law-enforcement agencies to carry out the procedures at issue in the new Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29.

The program dates to a 1995 law signed by President Bill Clinton, which allows US immigration officials to train local law-enforcement officers and authorize them to ID and detain illegals. After 9/11, the Homeland Security Department entered into official partnership agreements with various police departments, allowing them to search federal databases for illegals.
Napolitano: As governor, OK’d police work on illegals. -
AP
Napolitano: As governor, OK’d police work on illegals.

The program spread across the country, including to Arizona. It now involves 71 state and local police agencies. Indeed, Homeland Security has even conscripted Arizona state troopers to help it enforce federal immigration rules. Obama’s Homeland Security chief, Janet Napolitano, OK’d that agreement and another deal with a second state law-enforcement agency when she was Arizona’s governor.

All told, the feds have deputized 1,100-plus cops in 26 states to round up illegals — including officers in the liberal bastions of New Jersey, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Maryland and Massachusetts.

And the program has continued virtually unabated in the Obama years — despite calls by the ACLU and Hispanic groups to shut it down. The ACLU complains the program promotes an “anti-immigrant agenda” and encourages “racial profiling and civil-rights abuses” — the very same complaints Obama’s been making about the Arizona law.

Which, presumably, is why the president didn’t mention federal 287(g) program in his immigration “reform” speech, in which he scolded Arizona for its “divisive” and “ill-conceived” crackdown on increasingly violent illegal immigrants pouring across the border. “Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable,” Obama complained.

“Unenforceable”? Hardly. Just since 2006, more than 110,000 illegal immigrants have been ID’d and rounded up for deportation under the extremely successful federal-state partnership, which is finally putting a dent in the backlog of criminal aliens in the United States.

Last year, one out of every five immigration-related arrests in the country was made by local police.

In its lawsuit against Arizona, the administration argues the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration and border security. Yet it’s farming out that role to state and local police under 287(g).

And Gov. Jan Brewer says she signed the Arizona statute to help enforce federal law, not to supplant it. In fact, the state’s new training video prepping cops for the new crackdown advises them to turn over any illegals they nab to either ICE agents or “the local 287(g)-certified officer.”

Local cops across the country are already directly involved in federal border security — the Obama administration just prefers not to acknowledge it. Its rhetoric and legal filings utterly ignore what it’s doing with its other hand, raising even greater suspicion that its opposition to Arizona’s new law is pure politics designed to energize the Democratic base ahead of November’s elections.

If Arizona’s law usurps federal authority, what about those 71 agreements the feds have made with state and local police under 287(g)? Are they unconstitutional, too?

Perhaps this hypocritical administration should look into suing itself.

Are you believing this? First we have the absolute refusal of the Obama Administration – and the Bush Administration before it – to protect our Southern border from the Mexican invasion and to enforce our immigration laws. Then we have the State of Arizona, besieged with crime, drugs and the costs that come with being the preferred crossing point for illegals. Finally Arizona has had enough and it passes it’s own immigration law. Actually, it’s a bit of a stretch to call this law “Arizona’s” since it does nothing but take already existing federal law and codify it at the local level. So … Obama’s reaction? Does he apologize for his inattention to the invasion? Hardly. He instructs his dog washers in the Department of Justice to file a lawsuit against Arizona. The lawsuit says that Arizona is “usurping federal authority.”

Let’s cogitate on this for a moment.

Federal law makes it illegal to cross the border into the United States without legal authorization. The Feds refuse to enforce the law.

Mexicans invade America across the Arizona border. Crime soars in Arizona. A rancher is killed. Phoenix becomes the kidnapping center of the U.S. Drugs flood across the border with the illegals.v The Feds do virtually nothing.

Finally Arizona passes a law making what is already a crime under federal law a crime under State law.

The Arizona law gives Arizona law enforcement the authority to do what federal law enforcement officers can already do … but aren’t.

Democrats see Hispanic votes slipping away if the law is enforced.

Obama instructs a lawsuit to be filed citing “usurping federal authority.”

Question: Robbing a federally insured bank is a federal crime. It’s also a crime under the statutes of the State of Arizona. Should the Justice Department file a lawsuit against Arizona demanding that Arizona law enforcement officials cease enforcing Arizona’s law against robbing banks because it usurps federal authority? Just wondering.

And what about this particular U.S. Justice Department? Is this the same Justice Department that dismissed charges against that white-hating member of the New Black Panther Party who has warned black males that if they ever want to be free they’re going to have to kill some white people and some white babies! The New Black Panther Party member who stood in front of a polling place in Philly during the last election waving a steel baton and making threatening remarks to white voters? THAT Justice Department? The same Justice Department that is headed by a man who pardoned terrorists who shot up the U.S. Capitol? Yup! That’s the same Justice Department alright.

So .. here’s the picture. The federal government is NOT going to secure our border with Mexico; at least not until amnesty for the criminal aliens who have already crossed is arranged. Votes for Democrats, you know. So while the Federal government sits on its hands Hispandering … Arizona acts, then gets taken to court.

Welcome to ObamaWorld.

Shown here is Barry Wong, candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission. (BarryWong.com)

Fox News

Ratcheting up the debate over immigration in his state, a candidate for the Arizona utilities commission is threatening to cut off power and gas to illegal immigrants if he’s elected.

“It is not a right. It is a service,” Barry Wong, candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission, told The Arizona Republic.

The Republican candidate argues that the policy would be a cost-saving measure for consumers.

Though it would cost money for power companies to check immigration status, he said it would ultimately save money because power companies would not have to build new plants to serve the illegal immigrant community, presumably passing on that savings to consumers. His plan, if elected to the five-person commission, would be to require utilities to check immigration status.

“There is a cost ratepayers shouldn’t have to bear because of the illegal immigrant population,” he said, while acknowledging the idea would probably attract “criticism about human-rights violations.”

Though Arizona has drawn praise and criticism alike from all corners of the country for its new law making illegal immigration a state crime, support was hard to come by for Wong’s proposal.
None of the other candidates for the commission would endorse his idea. The CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry also blasted Wong in a column in the Republic, accusing him of trying to “score cheap political points” while marking a “new low” in the state’s immigration debate.

“To deny someone access to electricity based on his or her immigration status is not only a wrongheaded policy proposal, it’s just cruel,” Glenn Hamer wrote, calling the candidate’s economic argument “absurd.”

Wong, who was born in the United States, is the son of Chinese immigrants. He previously served in the Arizona House of Representatives.

It’s not the first time the issue of Arizona’s power supply has come up in the immigration debate.

After the Los Angeles government decided to boycott Arizona in May over its law, Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce wrote a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa threatening to cut off power to the city. Los Angeles and Arizona officials later acknowledged that the state could not unilaterally sever those power contracts.

By: Linda Chavez

As someone who has long supported a major overhaul of our immigration laws, I’m sorry to say that President Obama’s call this week for new legislation will only make matters worse. With unemployment hovering at almost 10 percent, the country is in no mood to increase the number of legal immigrants or temporary workers in the U.S. And short of doing so, we cannot fully solve the vexing problem of illegal immigration. But an open and honest debate on immigration is difficult with so much disinformation on the issue circulating.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, for example, made the outrageous claim recently that “we all know that the majority of the people that are coming to Arizona and trespassing are now becoming drug mules. They’re coming across our borders in huge numbers.” But the facts don’t bear her out. So let’s examine some of the facts:

Illegal immigration is down, not up. Since mid-decade, illegal immigration at the Mexican border has declined drastically. Border apprehensions — one of the most consistent and accurate measures of illegal traffic — are at a 35-year low, down 54 percent since 2005. The peak period of illegal immigration — 1995-2000 — coincided with a major expansion in the U.S. economy, with jobs plentiful. Indeed, the 2008 recession and slow recovery have been as big a factor as beefed-up border security in drastically reducing illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration has not led to an increase in crime, nationally or in the communities in which large numbers of illegal immigrants reside. The popular perception that illegal immigration equals increased crime is one of the most persistent reasons many fear that illegal immigration is causing untold hardship to Americans. But the facts don’t bear out the fears. Crime in the U.S. has been declining consistently over the last two decades, even while illegal immigration was increasing.

According to the latest FBI Uniform Crime Reports, overall crime declined nationally for the 16th straight year, with violent crime down 5.5 percent in 2009 And the figures for Arizona — ground zero in the immigration debate and the state that experiences the largest influx of illegal immigrants into the U.S. — show that violent crime has been falling steadily and is lower now than at any point since 1972. In Phoenix, violent crime declined by about 10 percent.

Half of the 10 lowest-crime big cities in the U.S. are in Border States: El Paso, San Jose, Austin, San Diego, and Los Angeles; and two others, New York and Denver, are home to large illegal immigrant populations as well. The crime statistics for El Paso are perhaps the most surprising. The city is the second-safest big city in America, according to FBI data, with a population that is 82 percent Hispanic, including nearly 30 percent who are immigrants, many of them illegal. What’s more, El Paso sits just across the river from one of the most dangerous places on the planet, Ciudad Juarez. The drug-cartel crime that has driven murders in Juarez to make it the murder capital of the world — an appalling 242 in May alone — has not spilled over onto the streets of El Paso, however.

The U.S. Border Patrol has more resources than ever, and patrolling the Mexican Border is far safer than most law enforcement jobs. There are now more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents, making the agency the largest law enforcement contingent in the federal government. According to a Customs and Border Protection study obtained by the Associated Press through a Freedom of Information filing, violent attacks against Border Patrol agents declined in 2009, and attacks against agents are far lower per capita than those against police officers and sheriffs, 3 percent compared to 11 percent, with the attacks against border agents consisting mostly of rock-throwing while gun and knife attacks were the predominant assaults against police.

These facts don’t justify ignoring illegal immigration or pretending that there aren’t costs associated with it. Every nation has the right — and obligation — to protect its borders. We must secure the U.S. border, but pretending that illegal immigration is fueling a crime wave or is at historic highs is just plain wrong.