|
|
|
Come hear Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine tell us about the latest news regarding the City of Los Angeles.
This picture was taken of Dennis Zine in the summer of 2003 when he talked to the Canoga Park West Hills Republican Women Federated at the home of Cheryl Sullivan. He is a little bit older now, but he is still our City Councilman; and he has been returning every year to keep us informed about our City. This year he is coming on……….
Thursday, August 14, 2008
6:00 p.m.
in time for appetizers and drinks (Bring something if you would like.)
at the home of
Cheryl Sullivan
7544 Lurline Avenue, Winnetka, CA
located just south of Saticoy between Mason and DeSoto
Cost is $15 for members. This is an excellent MEMBERSHIP EVENT. Your guests, spouses, and prospective members are free, so invite them along.
|
|
|
|
Dearest All,
I am happy and pleased to begin my unique message, by expressing my gratitude to all of you on the successful outcome of our greatest fundraising event of the year. What a great day ladies and gentlemen!
For your records, we have had 79 guests, and amongst all of us having a good time enjoying many moments, as well as having had the weather in our favor, we fundraised $ 4,500.00. (Of course, expenses come out of that.)
My sincere appreciation goes to each one of you, and I hope that between the day of the fashion show and this message no one will be left without truly knowing that I was always aware of everyone’s participation for this event.
Thank you to all those who helped before, during and after the event.
I wish to thank some of you, whom I did not mention on the day of the event : The “TRIO” bartenders, a special thank you goes to Joe Ashelby and to our ladies who modeled : Monica Plattenberger, Barbara Cirks, Maria Schwartz, Angela D’Amico, Edie Kaul and Sue Sabato.
I thank “My Fair Lady”, “Dressed Up”, Sulma’s Handbags”, and “Wild Rose” – the stores from Alley in the Valley- who provided the fashions. I hope, when you support these stores at 6000 Reseda Boulevard, you mention our fashion show to them.
Bonita came all the way from San Diego to make her jewelry available to us.
The grounds were beautiful, and the location itself could not have been better to welcome all of you. I am encouraged to do this again, perhaps next year earlier in the year. Stay tuned !
In the meanwhile, we have a few months only to the great election upcoming for our United States of America President, in November, as well as for other local and state elections. Many of us are working hard and long hours at the headquarters, and in other ways, for the success of our party and our candidates Senator John McCain and Armineh Chelebian.
Remember, our club day to help at the Valley Republican Headquarters is TUESDAY. However, other days are also possible. Call 818-704-0446 to confirm that they will be open. The address is 20121 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 106, Woodland Hills.
I am pleased and thankful to those of you who have volunteered for the voter registration the week-end of July 26 and 27. We registered 11 voters, and if you recall last time again 11, and in March 17.
Four of us will attend the Fair voter registration, Thursday September 11, 2008, and I wish to add a second day Thursday September 25 2008.
Those of you who would like to sign up for the 25th, please call me.
I am very proud and honored to be the president of such a devoted club that is willing to make a difference on all grounds possible for the better.
I look forward to see all of you, your friends and guests at our “next station”, upcoming August 14th, 2008, the great party at Cheryl’s residence.
Board Action: The Board voted to raise the price of our monthly luncheons to $22 since the hotel has raised their price to us.
|
|
|
|
Don't Re-Elect Their Mayors, Indict Them
|
Mayors Villaraigosa of Los Angeles and Newsome of San Francisco both want to become California's next governor.
Both men, moreover, have granted "sanctuary" to all illegal aliens -- even gang members like those who shattered the lives of the Shaw Family, the Bologna Family, and Heaven only knows how many other families.
Should these two Mayors be elected governor, or should they instead be indicted for aiding and abetting illegal immigration? Let's look at the law:
Entering the country illegally is a crime, punishable by up to six months' imprisonment. (8 U.S.C. 1325.)
Aiding and abetting illegal immigration, moreover, is also a crime. (8 U.S.C. 1324.) Federal law provides for a five-year prison sentence for "any person who . . . aids and abets the commission of any" of the following acts:
1. Concealing.
"Knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
2. Encouraging.
"Encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
3. Transporting.
"Knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law[.]"
Can you even count all of the ways that Villaraigosa's and Newsome's "sanctuary city" policies aid and abet illegal immigration?
Let's start with "concealing." Villaraigosa's policy is the ultimate in concealment, because it prevents the police from investigating the crime of illegal entry in the first place. The LAPD Manual (Vol. 4, Section 264), specifically states:
"ENFORCEMENT OF UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION LAWS. Officers shall not initiate police action where the objective is to discover the alien status of a person. Officers shall neither arrest nor book persons for violation of Title 8, Section 1325 of the United States Immigration Code (Illegal Entry)."
And the LAPD Manual does not stop there. Consider the following passage (Vol. 1, Section 390): "UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Undocumented alien status in itself is not a matter for police action."
If these provisions in the LAPD Manual do not constitute aiding and abetting through concealment, what does? The manual specifically refers to the federal statute that makes it a crime to enter the country illegally. The LAPD Manual is a dream come true for people who have committed the crime of entering the country illegally.
Can you imagine the uproar if the manual included similar provisions for, say, child molesters?
Villaraigosa's policy effectively blinds the police when it comes to illegal aliens. What better way to aid and abet the concealment of illegal aliens than to prohibit the police themselves from investigating the crime altogether?
The City likewise aids, abets and conceals illegal aliens by requiring City agencies to accept Matricula Consular cards as valid ID. What possible purpose does that serve other than concealing the identity of persons who enter the country illegally? After all, people who live here would have a driver's license or other valid ID, and people visiting here legally would have a passport and/or visa.
The City of Los Angeles, moreover, doles out Section 8 housing subsidies regardless of whether the recipient is here legally. What do you want to bet they even have application forms in Spanish? If paying the rent for an illegal alien's apartment isn't "harboring," what is?
San Francisco, however, wins the prize for "encouraging" and "transporting." If you follow the illegal immigration issue, you already know that San Francisco actually used taxpayer money to run TV and radio ads proclaiming, in Spanish, that the city is a "sanctuary city." San Francisco also put illegal aliens on planes to help them avoid arrest by federal authorities.
|
|
|
|
Legislators have long relied on easy fixes
|
CONTACT: Sam Cannon
(916) 319-2065
Once again, California’s Legislature is saddled with the arduous task of creating a state budget for the next fiscal year, and more often than not, budgeting becomes a nasty partisan battle to decide how tax revenue is spent. This year is no different, as the state faces one of the worst budget deficits in its history. As usual, Republicans and Democrats are unable to find common ground to solve a $15 billion deficit. As the summer drags on and government officials propose the same “tried and failed” solutions, one must wonder how we can avoid budget pitfalls in the future. The answer lies in substantive budget reform.
Legislators have long relied on easy fixes to solve budget deficits. These unrealistic solutions have included the use of general obligation bonds and robbing special use funds to make ends meet. For example, this spring Governor Schwarzenegger unveiled a plan to borrow against future state lottery profits, hoping that another get-rich-quick scheme might satiate the Legislature’s voracious spending appetite for one more year. Despite his optimism, Schwarzenegger’s plan doesn’t address the structural deficiencies of the current budget system.
In concert with their reliance on easy solutions, California’s lawmakers have allowed the state budget to grow at a disproportionate rate when compared to population and inflation. Since 2004, the budget has grown by $27 billion, and that number would increase considerably under this year’s Democratic budget proposals.
To make matters worse, complicated formulas that dictate funding increases have helped to balloon the budget to immense proportions. This is problematic because overall growth cannot continue to increase at a rate that outpaces revenue generation. Some of my colleagues across the aisle argue that Republican budget proposals will slash funding to vital programs in the budget. What they aren’t admitting, though, is that many of these reductions will leave these supposedly neglected programs with a greater amount of money than the year before. This is an unusual example of “Orwellian mathematics” at work. If lawmakers expect to get the state out of this mess once and for all, the legislature must adopt a constitutional spending limit that is linked directly to population growth and inflation.
In addition to the spending cap, the legislature should create a rainy day fund that will give the state flexibility during revenue shortfalls. California’s tax system is structured in a way that creates volatility. When the economy is sluggish, we experience a reduction in state revenues. However, in periods of strong economic growth when the state enjoys a budget surplus, no mechanism exists to save money for bad years. This was the case in the 1998 when Governor Gray Davis squandered a massive budget surplus, which compounded deficits in later years.
The fiscal irresponsibility of the Legislature isn’t the fault of taxpayers; yet under Democratic budget proposals, California’s taxpayers will foot the bill. The worst thing that lawmakers can do is balance the budget on the backs of hardworking Californians. Constituents in my district pay some of the highest prices in the nation for gasoline. This financially devastating situation is compounded by the mortgage crisis, which has affected the Inland Empire more so than anywhere else in California. I intend to inject a dose of reality into budget deliberations in Sacramento this summer. It is time for real budget reform in order to end the “band-aid and baling wire” solutions of the past. We must implement the common-sense practices of money management and check balancing that every sensible Californian practices on a daily basis.
|
|
|
|
From the "The Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S.2433) is coming up for a Senate vote... according the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Once Harry Reid and the Democrat leadership put it on the calendar, we could have as little as a week to prepare for the vote." - Lee Cary, The American Thinker
If Cary is right, Senator Barack Hussein Obama's only major legislative accomplishment as a United States Senator -- which according to some conservative leaders is potentially an $845 billion United Nations give away of your hard-earned tax dollars -- could be coming up for a stealth vote any day now!
Is it really possible that our federal legislators are planning to pass Barack Hussein Obama's Global Poverty Act while they think we aren't looking?
Here's what conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly said:
"Rumors have been circulating around Capitol Hill that a few activist groups have renewed their surge and have begun lobbying full force for a bill introduced by presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). The bill has already passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee without any public hearings, and it also passed the House earlier this year. It is important to note that both of these votes were 'voice votes,' which was a deliberate strategy of the congressional majority so that no record would be kept of those who voted in favor of this problematic bill."
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media recently issued the following report:
"While Senator Barack Obama struggles to keep the public in the dark about the nature of his pro-U.N. Global Poverty Act, a recent 'Bay Area Interfaith Leaders' Luncheon' was held to lobby for Senate passage of the bill, whose cost has been estimated at $845 billion..."
"Meanwhile, a concerned parent alerted us to the fact that a Christian preschool in Long Island, New York was handing out a coloring page for children which included a plea for Congress to pass Obama's Global Poverty Act. 'Dear Parents,' said the letter that was sent home. 'We would like to join efforts with the congregation of St. David's to stop world hunger. You and your child can help by coloring and signing the enclosed sheet. This sheet will be sent along with many others to our representatives in Washington....
"The [enclosed] sheet said 'Dear Senator: At Preschool, I learned to thank God for the food I eat. I also collect coins to help those who don't have enough. Today, I ask you to help, too, with more and better aid for the world's poorest countries. We want Congress to pass the Global Poverty Act. Please cosponsor S. 2433. Thank you.' The child's name and age were supposed to be filled in.
"The pictures to be colored included what appeared to be an angel holding a bowl of food (with a Valentine heart on the robe and the bowl) and a basket with apples."
Now is not the time to be caught off guard! We can still stop Barack Hussein Obama's so-called Global Poverty Act!
|
|
|
|
Published in The New York Post on July 21, 2008.
Democrats' single most important domestic proposal - universal health insurance - may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.
Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"
That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants - who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.
About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up - mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.)
The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.
Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes?
Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly.
Obama's plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems.
Illegals now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening conditions - as any other American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of illegals recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)
But now they'd be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die for lack of it.
These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high blood pressure who smokes.
John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die waiting in line - especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.
McCain needs to hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to free, federally subsidized health insurance - and hit it hard.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Edwards, coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, is an adjunct fellow with the Hudson Institute.
www.humanevents.com/
Posted: 07/14/2008
New congressional restrictions on immigration enforcement should worry Americans about the direction of immigration policy after this year's election.
The Democratic majority on the House Appropriations Committee, led by North Carolina liberal David Price, put handcuffs on the popular 287(g) program. The FY 2009 Homeland Security Appropriations bill shuts off nearly all enrollment of state and local police departments in this program.
The bill, as passed by the House Appropriations Committee, prohibits Homeland Security from "enter[ing] into any agreement delegating law enforcement to any state or political subdivision of a state as authorized under such section 287(g), other than at a jail, prison, or correctional institution . . . ."
The committee report explains, "[B]ill language is included requiring ICE to prioritize the delegation of federal immigration enforcement authorities to state and local correctional agencies, and to preclude the use of any funds for the delegation of federal authorities to organizations that fail to comply with the terms of their agreements."
In other words, the bill curtails new 287(g) enrollment for police departments of states and localities. A fig leaf implies police have abused their 287(g) delegated authority (which isn't at all the case).
The bill leaves open the remote possibility of new 287(g) participation by law enforcement agencies. But the vast majority will be "agreements that will maximize the identification of aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States and have been convicted of dangerous crimes."
Identifying criminal aliens quickly and putting them through deportation proceedings while they serve their prison sentences is important. But a program for that already exists: the Institutional Removal Program (renamed the Criminal Alien Program).
And the Democratic legislation goes overboard. The language specifies that the targeted aliens should be both illegal aliens and "convicted of dangerous crimes." This will keep all but the most violent criminal aliens in the United States, because Congress has de-emphasized them that way. This legislation is pro-criminal alien and pro-illegal immigration.
First, there's no good reason to care whether a foreign-born criminal is a legal or illegal immigrant. Either way, we should kick them out of this country forever.
Second, what do the bill's authors consider "dangerous crimes?" They don't say. Why should criminal aliens who have run up criminal records for offenses short of murder, rape or armed robbery get to stay here?
Some of us might consider drunk driving to be a dangerous crime (as do Price's North Carolina colleagues Sue Myrick and Mike McIntyre). Or ID fraud or theft — certainly not victimless crimes. Or aiding and abetting a terrorist to exploit loopholes and get a driver's license in order to get on a plane, as happened with 9/11 hijackers.
America has made great progress over the past several years involving state and local law enforcement to take illegal and criminal aliens off our streets, behind bars and deported quicker.
The 287(g) program was created in 1996. It was intended to give state and local police the option of being actively involved in immigration enforcement. More and more states and localities have sought to join up, and these jurisdictions have aggressively adopted laws empowering their law officers and putting illegal and criminal aliens on the defensive.
Virtually unused until Alabama and Florida joined in 2003, some 55 jurisdictions (including Mecklenburg County and seven other North Carolina sheriff's departments) and nearly 800 officers across the nation participate in the 287(g) program, says Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
About 80 new 287(g) requests are in the works. More than 60,000 illegal or criminal aliens have been deported since January 2006, thanks to 287(g).
State legislatures increasingly seek to empower their police officers to go after illegal and criminal aliens. The National Conference of State Legislatures recently reported that more than half of 1,100 immigrant-related bills filed address law enforcement. Many of the nearly 200 bills in 35 states involving immigration policing authorize their states to participate in the 287(g) program.
|
|
|
|
"A person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it." ...1974 Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson.
"The Red, White and Blue is freedom's shield and hope."...John Philip Sousa.
"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom."...Albert Einstein
We might want to consider the above quotes when looking at The Great Seal of the United States. On July 4th, the Continental Congress passed a resolution authorizing a committee to devise a seal for the United States of America. It was to reflect the Founding Fathers' beliefs, values and sovereignty of the new Nation, but did not become a reality until June 20,1782.
Each element and each color has a specific meaning. Charles Thompson, Secretary of the Continental Congress stated: "The colors of the pales (the vertical stripes) are those used in the flag of the United States of America; the white signifies purity and innocence, the Red, hardiness and valor and the Blue, the color of the chief (the broad band above the stripes) signifies vigilance, perseverance and justice"
The obverse side prominently features the American bald eagle supporting a shield composed of 13 red and white stripes (pales) representing the Thirteen Original states with a blue bar (chief) uniting the shield and representing Congress. The motto of the United States, E Pluribus Unum (meaning out of many, one) refers to this union. The olive branch and 13 arrows grasped by the eagle allude to peace and war, powers solely vested in the Congress and the constellation of stars represents the new Nation taking its place among the sovereign powers.
The reverse side has a pyramid signifying strength and duration: the eye over it and the motto, Annuit Coeptis (meaning He [God] has favored our undertakings), allude to the many interventions of Providence in favor of the American cause. The Roman numerals below are the date of the Declaration of Independence. The words under it, Novus Ordo Seclorum (meaning a new order of the ages ), signify the beginning of the new American era in 1776.
The obverse front of the Great Seal, which is used 2-3,000 times a year, authenticates the President's signature on numerous official documents. Look at the back of your one dollar bill to see to see the obverse and also the less familiar reverse, which is never used as a seal.
|
|
|
|
