Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Leftists Pushing To Make States Recognize International And Shariah Law

The radical leftists are at it again.  Pushing to force foreign laws  on us.  We must stop this effort to bring Shariah Law to the United States!  It's going to be up to you to make your voice heard on this issue.  Make sure you State Representative does not support this effort to destroy our Constitution and legal system! 
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Brennan Center for Justice and the Shoulder to Shoulder Campaign present:

Webinar: Are Foreign Law Bans
a Threat to All Faiths?

Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m 
featuring:
Amos Toh, Katz Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice
David L. Barkey, National Religious Freedom Counsel, Anti-Defemation League
Karen Georgia Thompson, Reverend, United Church of Christ  
 moderated by: 
 Christina Warner, Campaign Director, Shoulder to Shoulder Campaign
Please join us for a discussion about how your community can challenge anti-foreign law legislation in your state. Across the U.S., lawmakers are introducing bills that outlaw the use of religious, foreign, or international law in state courts, creating a host of problems for religious communities. Marriages, wills, divorces influenced by religious laws (like Jewish Halakha, Catholic Canon law, or Islamic Shariah law) could be negatively affected.


Although courts have found legislation explicitly targeting Shariah law to be unconstitutional, lawmakers in 35 states have tweaked and introduced bills banning foreign and international law over the last four years. In fact, seven states have passed anti-foreign law bills since 2010. While anti-Muslim sentiment is still motivating these laws, Americans of every faith should be concerned about their impact on their religious freedom.

Click here to RSVP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Christina Warner at cwarner@shouldertoshouldercampaign.org
###
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law | 161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor | New York, NY 10013 | 646.292.8310 phone | 212.463.7308 fax | brennancenter@nyu.edu



  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Brennan Center For Justice is also behind the new move to make it easier to facilitate voter fraud:

URGENT CALL TO ACTION-LEFT WING GROUP TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT SCOTUS AND RIG ELECTION PROCESS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 More on what Shariah Law looks like:








Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Rep. Tony Cardenas (D) Wants Taxpayers To Pay Moving Expenses Of The Unemployed So They Can Move To Allegedly Look For Work



Get ready for it....Now a Dem from Cal. wants the tax payers to be on the hook for 'moving expenses' to help 'mobilize' people and allow them to move where they want to in order to look for a job. This is from the hearing today before Congress. 

Rep Tony Cardenas (D) wants to remove barriers for people to work. His suggestion: "Give the long term unemployed workers a 'lump sum' unemployment payment to help cover the moving costs so workers can move from one area of high unemployment and, perhaps, to an area with low unemployment rates in order to accept employment that would require them to move."

He goes on to say, If we were able to figure out a way to help people 'mobilize' and move to an area that has companies that are hiring, wouldn't that help the economy? To which the head of the CBO, Douglas Elmendorf, replied yes it would.  Elmendorf went on to say that the thing that he (Rep Cardenas) needs to understand is that there are a lot more people looking for work than job openings and just moving people wouldn't fix the problem. 

So now he wants the tax payers to pay moving expenses for people to move to another area of their choosing with no guarantee they will be employed. What about the people living in that area? Are they convinced that someone living in that area isn't also needing a job?

Gee does anyone else see the massive fraud that will come with this?  


Watch the full hearing here:
February 5, 2014 
U.S. Economic Outlook
Douglas Elmendorf testified on the 2014 federal budget and economic outlook.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GOP senator questions if CBO 'cooked the books' on ObamaCare

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) demanded that leaders from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) testify before the Senate Finance Committee on why early cost estimates of ObamaCare were so far off.

“Now the American people have to pick up the tab on the CBO errors,” Roberts said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “I’m calling for CBO to come before the [Finance] Committee. … Let the hearings begin.”

Roberts’ comments came as CBO released a report Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, would cost the country 2.5 million jobs over the next 10 years.
The nonpartisan agency found the reform law’s negative effects on the economy would be “substantially larger” than what it had previously anticipated.

It said the equivalent of 2.3 million workers would be lost by 2021, compared to its previous estimate of 800,000, and that 2.5 million workers would be lost by 2024. It also projected that labor force compensation would be reduced by 1 percent from 2017 to 2024 — twice its previous estimate — and that declining economic growth would add $1 trillion more to deficits.

Roberts questioned if CBO’s error was because of political pressure in order to get enough Democratic support to pass the law in 2010.

“This is about accountability of past actions and we must ask the difficult question,” Roberts, who serves on the Finance Committee, said. “Was this political? Were the books cooked?”

The White House swiftly pushed back against the findings, seeking to dismiss suggestions from Republicans that ObamaCare has economic growth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Budget office chief: ObamaCare creates ‘disincentive’ to work

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a damning assessment Wednesday of the Affordable Care Act, telling lawmakers that ObamaCare creates a "disincentive for people to work," adding fuel to Republican arguments that the law will hurt the economy.

The testimony from CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf comes after his office released a highly controversial report that detailed how millions of workers could cut back their hours or opt out of the job market entirely because of benefits under the health law.

The White House and its Democratic allies accused Republicans, and the media, of mischaracterizing the findings. But Elmendorf backed Republicans' central argument -- fewer people will work because of the law's subsidies.

"The act creates a disincentive for people to work," Elmendorf said, under questioning from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
Source: Fox News

 

 

Thursday, January 16, 2014

URGENT CALL TO ACTION-LEFT WING GROUP TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT SCOTUS AND RIG ELECTION PROCESS

URGENT CALL TO ACTION...LEFT WING GROUP, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE,  IS TRYING TO RIG THE SYSTEM AGAIN BY GOING AROUND THE SUPREME COURTS RULINGS ON VOTING RIGHTS. 

LET CONGRESS AND THE SENATE KNOW THIS BILL NEEDS TO BE KILLED.  IT IS JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY THE LEFT TO RIG OUR ELECTION PROCESS AND MAKE IT EASIER TO COMMIT VOTER FRAUD!

POST ON THESE LAWMAKERS FACEBOOK, TWITTER, ETC.  GET THE WORD OUT AS THE BILL HAS BEEN INTRODUCED BY THE MOST LEFT WING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, JOHN CONYERS AND PATRICK LEAHY AS WELL AS REPUBLICAN JAMES SENSENBRENNER.

THIS IS THE INFORMATION I HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE:

Latest Developments
Congress Introduces Voting Rights Act Bill
Today, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and others, introduced a bill to strengthen the Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court eliminated its key protections last year.

“From its first days, the Voting Rights Act united members of both parties. Critically, this proposal continues that bipartisan approach,” said Brennan Center President Michael Waldman. “America was founded on the principle that we all are ‘created equal.’ To fulfill that promise, we need an election system that works well for everyone, and doesn’t tolerate discrimination against anyone. This bill is a crucial first step. We hope it gets stronger as it moves through the legislative process.”

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, jurisdictions with a history of discrimination must seek pre-approval of changes in voting rules that could affect minorities. This process, known as “preclearance,” blocks discrimination before it occurs. Last June, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 4 — which determines the states and localities covered by Section 5 — arguing that current conditions require a new coverage formula.

Today’s bill would, among other changes:
  • Require jurisdictions with a recent record of repeated Voting Rights Act violations to pre-clear election law changes.
  • Expand the current “bail-in” procedures, which allow courts to subject jurisdictions to preclearance. 
  • Create a uniform requirement to inform voters of certain pending voting changes.
  • Enhance the ability of lawyers to halt discriminatory election measures before they can harm citizens.   (Allow voter fraud by not requiring ID)
  • Allow federal observers to monitor elections to ensure compliance with laws protecting the rights of Americans who speak limited English.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
State Updates
Arizona – The Associated Press spoke to several voters caught up in Arizona’s fight over its documentary proof of citizenship law, which the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated last year for federal elections.
Kansas – Kansas has a similar problem. More than 19,000 registrations are on hold due to the state’s proof of citizenship requirement. A group of Democratic legislators introduced a bill to fix the problem. Jean Schodorf, a former Republican state senator who had voted for the law, is now demanding an audit of Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s supervision of the measure. “He promised that this law would be simple, easy and seamless to implement,” said Schodorf, who switched parties and is expected to challenge Kobach as a Democrat. “We’re in this horrible mess.”
Alabama – State officials last week agreed to provide voter registration opportunities at public assistance agencies. Read more here. Meanwhile, a federal judge used a mechanism in the Voting Rights Act to reinstate federal oversight of voting laws in Evergreen, Alabama.
California – “Conservatives and Tea Partiers” are trying to put voter ID on the ballot this November, according to MSNBC.
Florida – State election officials will soon start efforts to remove non-citizens from the voter rolls, but this time election supervisors will have a chance to opine on the plan. Voting advocates and the Justice Department sued to halt a purge in 2012 after the supervisors found the lists were riddled with errors.
Iowa – State Senator Tom Courtney (D) wants to investigate whether Secretary of State Matt Schultz (R) properly used federal money to investigate voter fraud charges. But the agency that can conduct an investigation, the Election Assistance Commission, currently has no commissioners. Courtney sent a letter last week asking the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee to confirm the nominees.
Kentucky – A state House committee approved a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to those with past criminal convictions. The bill, which is backed by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R), needs 60 percent of the vote in the House and the Senate to be placed on the ballot this fall.
Mississippi – State Sen. David Blount (D) believes there will be bipartisan support for his bill to offer online voter registration.
North Carolina – The NAACP broadened its lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s package of restrictive voting laws, arguing the measures discriminate against Hispanics as well as African Americans. The group is also asking for access to Republican lawmakers’ emails to show the bill’s “sponsors knowingly discriminated against racial minorities.” The state says the emails should be private because of legislative privilege.
Ohio – The legislature will consider a series of bills to restrict voting, including a measure to eliminate Ohio’s “Golden Week,” the one week where a voter can register and cast a ballot on the same day. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) reached a settlement in which he agreed to use an interstate database to identify ineligible voters on election lists. Advocates worry the program “makes it too easy to wrongly remove voters from the rolls.”

Media Round-Up
  • The courts will consider a number of voting rights issues in 2014. “If judges have to rule whether new restrictions are inspired by party politics or racial motives, it will be difficult to predict what they will say,” wrote UC-Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen at TPM. “But the impeding rulings will make a huge difference for minorities and younger Americans, whose voting rights are very much on the line.”

  • “If I need ID to buy cough syrup, why shouldn’t I need ID to vote?” Brennan Center Fellow Andrew Cohen breaks down his answer to that flawed question at The Atlantic.

  • Single-party control of state governments is leading to radically different approaches on a wide range of issues, from voting rights to labor contracts to health care, reported Dan Balz of The Washington Post.

  • The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony last week from Debo Adegbile, former head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who was nominated to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan will oversee the Division’s voting section, which handles the federal government’s voting rights policy.

  • The Nation’s  (COMMUNIST PUBLICATION) John Nichols highlighted the Brennan Center’s recent report, How to Fix the Voting System, as one of his “five reforms to make our politics matter.”

  • “Online registration is cost-effective for states, convenient for voters, and secure, because it reduces the potential for fraud while improving the accuracy of voter rolls,” according to new report from The Pew Charitable Trusts. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following is from the Brennan Center For Justice's website:

Voting Rights Act Bill: Critical First Step to Improve Elections

January 16, 2014
Today, members of Congress introduced a bill to strengthen the Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court eliminated key protections last year.

The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law released the following statement from President Michael Waldman:

“The Supreme Court gutted the core of the Voting Rights Act, removing a critical protection against discrimination in voting. We applaud these members of Congress for introducing this bill to help strengthen the law. Reps. Conyers and Sensenbrenner, as well as Sen. Leahy, have shown tremendous leadership. From its first days, the Voting Rights Act united members of both parties. Critically, this proposal continues that bipartisan approach. Voting rights should not be a partisan issue.

“America was founded on the principle that we all are ‘created equal.’ To fulfill that promise, we need an election system that works well for everyone, and doesn’t tolerate discrimination against anyone. This bill is a crucial first step. We hope it gets stronger as it moves through the legislative process.

“We also expect the president’s bipartisan voting commission to issue recommendations soon, which states can adopt quickly to improve elections. We look forward to working with members of Congress and election officials across the country to modernize voting and bring our system into the 21st century. We should assure that only eligible citizens can vote — but every single eligible citizen can vote.”

Read the Brennan Center’s report, If Section 5 Falls: New Voting Implications. Also see our resources on Voter Registration Modernization, including our recent report, How to Fix the Voting System.
For more information, or to set up an interview, please contact Erik Opsal at erik.opsal@nyu.edu or 646-292-8356.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To better understand why this bill needs to be killed, take a look at what the Brennan Center For Justice thinks about our Constitution: 
The Brennan Center plays a central, critical role in the drive for a renewed democracy and justice system. Our goal: To advance a robust vision of the Constitution as a charter for a thriving democracy. Bold policy reform must be supported by a long-term effort to shift legal doctrine. That is why we lead an ambitious new initiative to develop and articulate a compelling progressive jurisprudence for the 21st century.

This starts with our multi-year drive to roll back Citizens United. We convened what The New York Times called an “A list” of First Amendment scholars to begin to chip away at the ruling’s foundations, which led to our publication “Money, Politics, and the Constitution: Beyond Citizens United,” the first major book to assess the constitutional way forward. The Center previously published, “The Genius of America: How the Constitution Saved Our Country and Why It Can Again.”

The Center also holds numerous public events centered on the Constitution. Created in 1996, our annual Brennan Center Jorde Symposium sponsors top scholarly discourse and writing from a variety of perspectives on issues that were central to the legacy of Justice Brennan. Our Living Constitution Lecture series brings together thinkers and policymakers to further understanding of the Constitution and its role in a changing world.

The Brennan Center forges new doctrines not only in the halls of academia, but in the active fight for justice. We play the lead legal role in defending the integrity of our elections, coordinating the legal strategy to defend voting rights, working with civil rights and voting rights allies. Through lawsuits, advocacy, and research, we have protected voting rights for hundreds of thousands of Americans. We also insist on a fair and impartial judiciary, working hard to protect the courts from the influx of special interest spending that threatens to overwhelm judicial selection in the states.

By developing this kind of progressive legal scholarship, the Brennan Center has real impact in the academy, in legal practice and jurisprudence, and in the public debate on policy issues.