O’Reilly wrong about the “stealth Jihad”

Mr. O’Reilly,

Last night you made the statement that we have no hard evidence that there is such a thing as “Stealth Jihad” in the United States, wherein Islam is trying to indoctrinate us all to believe their culture is morally equivalent to our own in its treatment of men, women. minorities, other religions, etc.

That statement is absolutely false. You are dangerously misinforming your audience and the attractive blond lady on the program vs. Alan Colmes was right. You evidently are not aware of terrorist investigator Steve Emerson’s work and his video, “Jihad in America” from 1994, wherein he presents mountains of “hard evidence” that “Stealth Jihad” has been going on for years in this country. since at least 1971. The FBI and CIA are finally finding active Islamic chapters promoting these ideas all over the US. Mr. Emerson has a second video coming out in a couple of months called, “The Grand Deception – Jihad II”, which addresses Stealth Jihad in great depth citing thousands of “hard facts.” Please watch it and continue to wake up America and refute completely the misinformation of that awful guy, Colmes who is either stupid, a dedicated liar, a paid propagandist or all three. He is certainly one of your “pinheads.”

Jerome Kaufman

Fewer jobs, more immigrants

Despite Loss of 1 Million Jobs, 13.1 Million Arrived 2000-09

WASHINGTON – New Census Bureau data collected in March of this year show that 13.1 million immigrants (legal and illegal) arrived in the previous 10 years, even though there was a net decline of 1 million jobs during the decade. In contrast, during the 1990s job growth was 21 million, and 12.1 million new immigrants arrived. Despite fundamentally different economic conditions, the level of immigration was similar for both ten-year periods.

The report, “Immigration and Economic Stagnation: An Examination of Trends 2000 to 2010,” is online at Among the findings:
The March 2010 data show that 13.1 million immigrants (legal and illegal) have arrived in the United States since January 2000. This is the case despite two significant recessions during the decade and a net loss of one million jobs.

Data collected in March 2000 showed one million fewer immigrants arrived from January 1990 to March 2000 (12.1 million), while 21 million jobs were created during the decade.
In 2008 and 2009, 2.4 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the United States, even though 8.2 million jobs were lost over the same period.

The new data indicate that, without a change in U.S. immigration policy, the level of new immigration can remain high even in the face of massive job losses.

Immigration is a complex process; it is not simply a function of U.S. labor market conditions. Factors such as the desire to be with relatives or to access public services in the United States also significantly impact migration.

Although new immigration remains high, the 2.4 million new arrivals represent a decline from earlier in this decade. In the two years prior to 2006, for example, there were 2.9 million arrivals, according to Census Bureau data.

There was no significant change in legal immigration during the past decade. Although the number of jobs declined in the decade just completed, 10.3 million green cards were issued from 2000 to 2009, more than in any decade in American history.

Illegal immigrants also continue to arrive, though prior research indicates that the number coming dropped significantly at the end of the decade.

Among the states with the largest proportional increase in their immigrant populations over the last decade are Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Alaska, Mississippi, Arkansas, Washington, North Carolina, Maryland, and Nebraska.

Discussion: Some have argued that immigration levels are simply a function of labor market conditions in the United States. But the new Census Bureau data remind us that immigration is a complex process driven by many factors in addition to the economy. In 2008 and 2009 net job losses numbered over 8 million, and the immigrant unemployment rate doubled. Yet more than two million new legal and illegal immigrants settled in the United States in those two years. This does not mean the economy is irrelevant to immigration levels. Rather it means that many factors in addition to the economy impact the flow new immigrants into the country. Such factors as the desire to be with relatives, political freedom, lower levels of official corruption, and the generosity of American taxpayer-funded public services are all among the reasons people come to the United States. These things do not change during a recession or even during a prolonged period of relatively weak economic growth, like the decade just completed.

Immigration has a momentum of its own. In 2000 there were already more than 30 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country. This enormous population means there are social networks of friends and family who provide information about conditions in the United States to those back home. This in turn makes those in the home country more aware of opportunities in the United States and more likely to come. New immigrants often live with established immigrants who can help the new arrivals. Thus as the immigrant population grows, it creates pressure and opportunities for even more immigration.

Data Source: Unlike in past decennial censuses, the 2010 census, which will be released shortly, has no immigration questions. Thus it will provide no information about the nation’s immigrant population. The Census Bureau data analyzed in this report are from the March Current Population Survey, also referred to as the Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
The new data provide a first look at immigration for the decade just completed. In this report, we use the terms “immigrant” to mean all persons living in this country who were not U.S. citizens at birth. The Census Bureau often refers to these individuals as “foreign born.” The immigrant or foreign-born includes those in the country legally and illegally. Prior research indicates that some 90 percent of illegal immigrants are included in the Current Population Survey.

Center for Immigration Studies is an independent non-partisan research institution that examines the impact of immigration on the United States.


Napolitano does not understand Border Security

Saturday Dec. 18 the Arizona Republic ran the story: Napolitano Confirms Gang Killed Agent regarding Agent Brian Terry and the border situation. The article is a clear depiction that neither Secretary Napolitano nor Alan Bersin has an understanding of the conditions along our southern border in Arizona.  Even though both have spent significant time in Arizona they seem to have forgotten what life along the Southern Arizona Border is like.

Napolitano was stated as saying, “It would be wrong to conclude from Terry's death, as well as the killing of longtime southern Arizona rancher Robert Krentz, that drug violence is on the rise or rampant along the border.” Again the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association invites the Secretary to meet with our members to explain and help us understand the armed gunmen and drug mules that cross our ranches daily. Explain to us how two murders in Arizona and several shootouts between drug cartels and law enforcement is not an increase in violence along the border. "We're seizing more currency, we're seizing more drugs, we're seizing more guns, and so those numbers are going up," Napolitano said. Yet in the same article she claims that we do not have an issue with drug related violence.

Arizona Cattle Growers’ President Steve Brophy says, “In reading the Republic story about Secretary Napolitano’s reaction to the murder of Agent Terry north of Nogales last week, I was struck almost dumb by her characterization of the murder and mayhem that is occurring daily on both sides of our border with Mexico as ordinary crimes.” The Southern Arizona border is porous and the federal government has failed to do its job of keeping American citizens safe. “What country in the world would tolerate illegal crossings of countless tons of drugs each year over that same area? And, what country in the world would tolerate its own Secretary of Homeland Security dismissing that as “everyday crime”? As long as we do tolerate it, we deserve what we have gotten, even though Rob Krentz and Agent Terry didn’t deserve what happened to them,” says Brophy.

The time for our federal government to act is now. We must Restore Our Border before the violence form Mexico drug cartels claims another American life.

Arizona Cattlemen’s Association


Stop earmark legislation.  Stop the spending.

"Stop the Spending" continues.  There are many on Capitol Hill who refuse to hear the cry.  Many Democrats with the support of President Obama continue in their effort to spend as they choose, regardless of the ear-piercing messages from Americas' taxpayers.

On November 30, 2010, Vote Number 255 for "S. Amendment 4697 to S. 510" "To establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013",  the US Senate defeated on a '39 for' and '56 against' legislation to establish a moratorium on earmarks for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013.

Thirty-two Republican Senators voted for the moratorium on earmarks while 8 GOP members voted against the moratorium (Bennett-UT, Cochran-MS, Collins-ME, Inhofe-OK, Lugar-IN, Murkowski-AK, Shelby-AL, and Voinovich-OH).  It must be noted that Senators Inhofe and Lugar are up for re-election in 2012.

Fifty of the fifty-seven Democrat Senators voted against the moratorium.  Eighteen of these Democrats who voted against the moratorium who are up for 2012 elections: Akaka-HI, Bingaman-NM, Brown-OH, Cantwell-WA, Cardin-MD, Carper-DE, Casey-PA, Conrad-ND, Feinstein-CA, Gillibrand-NY, Klobuchar-MN, Kohl-WI, Manchin-WV, Nelson-NE, Stabenow-MI, Tester-MT, Webb-VA, Whitehouse-RI.

Both Independent Senators Lieberman-CT and Sanders-VT voted against the moratorium on earmarks.  Some Republicans In Name Only (RINO) are courting Sen. Lieberman to change his political registration and join the GOP.  Sen. Lieberman is a left-wing spending and pro-abortionist Liberal.  He votes Conservative on U.S. Military operations only. Republicans need honorable men and women who support fiscal, social, and national security issues on all significant subjects defined in the GOP Platform.

The "big spenders" who voted against legislation to establish a moratorium on earmarks and are up for 2012 re-elections are Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Many Americans expect members of the Democrat Party to continue with "tax and spend" policies as this is their process that has left Americans' debt now reaching $14 trillion.  When will all Americans demand that the Democrat Party stop "out-of-control" spending, including earmarks?

After the GOP voted against legislation to establish a moratorium on earmarks, many were shocked as the GOP elected Harold "Hal" Rogers (R-KY-5th.) as incoming Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Rep. Rogers received $248 million of earmarks from 2008 through 2010.  Rep. Rogers did vote with the GOP to establish a moratorium on earmarks.  We hope Rep. Rogers' vote is an honorable contribution in controlling the Capitol Hill "out-of-control" spending.

Now the Capitol Hill Democrats have put together a 1,924 page $1.27 trillion catch-all bill to continue government operations after December 18, 2910.  Based on the Washington Post, the legislation includes more than 6,000 earmarks totaling $8 billion.  Is this an additional Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrat Party team "cram down (y)our throat" orchestrated piece of legislation as  practiced for the past 2 years regardless of (y)our needs and/or desires?
From <Newsmax.htm> a small list of the wasteful spending includes:
Literal pork: Almost $350,000 is earmarked to study the management of swine waste in North Carolina.

$235,000 for the management of invasive weeds in Nevada. $300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii. Founded in 1973, the society sails a "voyaging" boat throughout the Pacific, studying how ancient Polynesian people settled far-flung lands.
Funds are devoted to a variety of agricultural needs, including research of maple syrup in Vermont, control of potato pests in Wisconsin, the development of virus-resistant grapes in Washington state, and peanut cultivation research in Alabama.

$80 million for states and Indian tribes to pay for preservation of Pacific salmon.
$13 million for clean-water initiatives in rural villages in Alaska.
$450,000 for the World Food Prize.
$500,000 for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute.
$200,000 to install solar panels at a food bank in Arizona.

Americans are demanding to stop the spending, reduce taxes, create jobs, and restore Constitutional freedoms.  Legislators must do more than balance the current and future budgets. America must begin to pay off some $14 trillion debt.  Americans also desire a return to Judeo-Christian values.  When will those on Capitol Hill listen?

Oscar Y. Harward | Monroe, North Carolina


Appoint Sheriff Arpaio as Secretary of Homeland Security

The United States could immediately secure out southern border with Mexico: Appoint Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph A. Arpaio as Secretary of Homeland Security. He has the unique qualities of experience, understanding the threat and having the resolve and know-how to stop the threat.

Bill Crawford | Scottsdale


A toast to Auld Lang Syne – and to cheaper, better college education

Quick! Which American president led troops across the Delaware River on Christmas Day? Don’t know? Don’t be sad—recent college grads probably don’t either. Studies by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) have shown that college students have a limited grasp of American History. For example, just over a third can correctly name the low point of the Revolution War. (That would be Valley Forge, by the way, where troops were led by that same future president—George Washington.) This shouldn’t surprise us.
According to, a study of over 700 college general education curricula, only 140 schools require a survey course in American History or Government. The numbers are similarly dismal for other core courses: nearly 40 percent of schools don’t require a math class, fewer than 250 require intermediate foreign language, 160 require a survey of literature, and only 25 require economics.

Instead of teaching students basic history, literature, and math, colleges are building new buildings. In fact, they compete with one another to build and build and build—and you, the taxpayer and tuition-check-writer, pay for it. A single square foot of construction can cost $300—and construction costs account for fewer than 30 percent of the lifetime costs of a building. In 2009, a space analysis firm estimated that an eighth of college buildings went up in the decade prior.

How to pay for it? Presidents and provosts borrow money to build buildings that make them look good. But your students don’t need them. How do we know? Because they never needed them before. In 1974, schools averaged 160 assignable square feet of space per student. On average, schools now provide nearly three times that. Meanwhile, you will find few classes in the evenings, on Fridays, or evening weekday mornings—to say nothing of the Saturday classes that schools used to require: less education, more empty, costly buildings.

Is this any way to run a university system?

As we head into this New Year, with many Americans are bracing for another year of financial difficulties, it’s time for colleges and universities to work together to save money and truly to educate the next generation of Americans. Some schools and states are doing this. For example, public universities in both North Carolina and Pennsylvania have taken advantage of distance learning technology to establish foreign language consortia: groups of schools will offer a language major or graduate program, saving the state money and producing future workers. ACTA’s research has shown that some modestly-priced state universities feature a core curriculum far more comprehensive than those at many elite institutions.

Higher education can provide better education and at a lower costs. Trustees and taxpayers should encourage administrators at their local schools to advance our students, not our debts.

Putting students first: that’s what we need. And we need it quick.

Michael Leo Pomeranz | Senior Researcher
American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA)


Righting “wrongs” based on wrong interpretations of “rights”

Socialists, from President Obama on down, look at the government as the creator and administrator of rights. That is why even some on the left liked the Heller and the McDonald decisions which overturned gun bans in Washington, DC and Chicago.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m ecstatic that the Supreme Court ruled against these the gun bans in these two cities. And I’d rather be in our shoes today than in the Brady Campaign’s – as they saw their arguments slapped down harshly by the Court.

So why then would some big-government types like these two decisions – especially the McDonald case out of Chicago? Because in basing their decision upon the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Justices perpetuated a false doctrine which has allowed the Constitution to continue evolving.

The Due Process clause is the place where judges invent rights and then decide how much the government can control them.

Gun Owners of America argued that the Court should have based its decision on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court would have then been using a definitive clause dealing with rights of citizenship rather than the amorphous “substantive” Due Process Clause where Courts have run wild and seldom come to constitutionally-based conclusions.

Justices love the Due Process Clause because it has been interpreted in such a way to allow judges to twist the Constitution to fit their big-government world view. They love this approach because they love righting “wrongs” based on what they THINK are “rights.”

President Obama complained on a Public Broadcasting radio interview, when he was a state senator, that the Constitution only protects negative rights and that such a limitation (in his view) must be overcome. Obama made it quite clear that a constitutional republic that is governed by our Constitution is antithetical to his socialism. He talks of a right to health care, and a right to a comfortable living, and, well, a right to anything the left thinks will help buy votes.

Indeed, the role of government in the Founders’ Constitution is to protect liberty, and no more. Socialists want government to provide for everything, making the people dependent, even at the expense of liberty.

The left is hoping to pit their understanding of the 14th Amendment where courts create rights against the Tenth Amendment. They argue that the Fourteenth Amendment, being enacted after the Tenth, trumps the earlier amendment. That is why they are so eager to inject their view of government-created rights into the 14th Amendment.

If the government is the creator of rights, then the government must be protected from the people. That means they cannot allow any notion that the Second Amendment is intended to be a check on the unconstitutional exercise of federal power. The constitutional militia was intended to be an instrument of the states to protect their citizens from the federal government (by legal definition throughout the colonies). All freemen were required to own military long arms.

Wyoming is on the right path. Wyoming has a Firearms Freedom Act which “interposes” Wyoming against all federal laws involving a firearm made in the state and which remains in the state. Unlike the other seven states with identical laws, Wyoming makes violation of the act by a federal official a state offense punishable by up to 365 days in jail. Had they added one more day to the potential penalty, any conviction would result in the loss of gun rights under 18 USC 922(g) for any federal official who violates their law.

States and county sheriffs are going to need to take the militia clauses of the Constitution seriously. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona has a posse of 3,000. If Arizona were to create a State Guard and encourage sheriffs to beef up their posse strength to levels analogous to Maricopa County, and if other states were to follow suit, the federal government would be less inclined to assume that there are no limits to their powers.

Such an outcome will not come about until we understand that there is no conflict between the Tenth and the Fourteenth Amendments, and that rights come from God, not from government. Government-made “rights” are the “wrong” rights.

Larry Pratt | Executive Director of Gun Owners of America


Fate of many in the hands of a few

Pullen impaled on the stake of a flawed election

We value fair play and honesty, and it makes our blood boil when we discover that there are those among us who have been throwing monkey wrenches into the electoral process. Our investigative team has looked at the evidence, and it is now clear that some dark souls have tampered with the normal process of electing State Committeemen for the Republican Party in Arizona. This is an outrage.

We first heard about it on the radio a few days ago - Randy Pullen, the hard-working, selfless, highly-effective Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party was blocked from reelection as a State Committeeman in his own district, LD11. Being elected as a state committeeman is a prerequisite to run for chairman. Therefore, a relatively small number of Precinct Committeemen (PCs) were able to deprive the rest of the state, the chance to reelect this stalwart.  The news is astonishing. Nobody in the entire state has done more and taken less to advance the party than Randy Pullen.

What were the PCs thinking? Since Pullen took over the leadership of the party, in election after election, even when the odds were stacked a mile high against GOP candidates, he led the way to an ever increasing crescendo of victories, culminating in the blockbuster win of 2010 that now gives Republicans a veto proof legislature. Nobody can suggest that Pullen has been anything but very successful, but maybe that is the problem. You have to wonder who in Arizona would thwart the will of the majority by dumping, through manipulation, anyone who advances the causes so near and dear to us - sealed borders, immigration control, tight fiscal policies and more. The perpetrators are so-called Republicans, because only they have their hands of the levers of power within the party, but who is behind them? We the people are already frothing at the mouth from the indignities heaped on us by the Democrats. This skullduggery within the GOP is clearly over the top, and it has to cease.
A track record like Pullen's is not created by wishful thinking. This man tirelessly works full time for the good of the GOP and the people of Arizona, and continues to do so even after this shameful display of no confidence. Not only does he not draw a dime of salary, he spends his own money to handle expenses. Randy Pullen is a man at the top of his game, and is worth a king's ransom in private industry, yet he has chosen to serve us for no tangible reward at all. What infuriates us is that a small handful of sinister people can endanger the entire state to serve their nefarious agenda.

This was no accident.  We have to wonder who is behind this. Elections do not occur in a vacuum. Much of what is manifested at the ballot box is dictated by hard work and preparation behind the curtain. To unseat someone of Pullen's caliber and accomplishment, and to do it under the radar, requires a well oiled machine of dedicated, undercover operatives. They clearly have done the bidding of those whose interests are served by bringing down anyone of a differing political alignment. Why did this happen?

Fellow citizens, we face grave challenges. The extreme hard left wing of the Democratic Party did not evaporate and blow away in the 2010 midterm election. Moreover, neither are the squishy, go along to get along moderates" of the Republican Party rolling over and playing dead. Both of these groups are hell bent on molding this nation in their image, and it is not one that serves us well. As never before, we have had a glimpse of their rotten plans. We want nothing to do with their vision for America, because it does not include us. It's all about them. Is this what the Founding Fathers envisioned for us? Is this why American soldiers have repeatedly gone to war, giving of their very lives? We think not, and do not intend to sit meekly by the side while scoundrels prevail. If fight we must, fight we will.

Over the next two years, there is an enormous amount of work to be done. Arizona, despite its size, plays a huge role in the national scene. With the 2012 election looming just over the horizon, we need all the help we can get to pull our nation off the rocks, sailing full steam ahead in the right direction. We need people like Randy Pullen at the helm. With campaign hardened experience, proven in battle, Pullen is now forced to the sidelines just when we need our most experienced leaders for the presidential cycle. This is an outrage!

We deserve to know who pulled the rug out from under us and the reasons why.
C O M M O N  S E N S E is determined keep digging until we get to the truth.

American Post-Gazette
Distributed by COMMON SENSE, in Arizona


This should be posted in every school in the USA

Only 31 words – think about it!

Isn't life strange?
I never met one Veteran who enlisted to fight for Socialism.


If Muslims can pray on Madison Avenue, why are Christians banned from praying in public and erecting religious displays on their holy days?

What happened to our National Day of Prayer? Obama says we can't have that, yet Muslims are allowed to block off Madison Ave. in N.Y. and pray in the middle of the street! And, it's a monthly ritual!

Tell me again, whose country is this?

S. Chalkle | E-mail