The group, Muslim Americans for Obama [MAFO], insists that all of its voter registration activity is non-partisan, despite the fact that its mission statement says it was launched in August 2008 “to provide a vehicle for Muslim-American supporters of Barack Obama to organize and mobilize our fellow citizens to get out the vote to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States.”
<center>———————————-</center>
Robert Spencer is director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He argues MAFO may be skirting the law.
“When they are running these voter registration drives at mosques, really it’s essentially illegal because they are clearly trying to get people to vote for Obama — and that’s in violation of their tax-exempt status,” Spencer charges. “So this is a group that is crossing the line and ought to be disciplined as such.”
Will the Justice Department investigate these allegations? Where is the separation of church and state outcries from the liberals?
The problem, however, is that this is now the third instance of this that I’ve heard of. And now, to make matters worse, a source of mine from within the industry and with close ties to the film tells me that there is an open investigation into at least TEN movie theaters that have apparently attributed sales of An American Carol movie tickets to OTHER MOVIES!
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is investigating a $100,000 state grant from then State Senator Barack Obama for a botanic garden in Englewood.
A $100,000 state grant for a botanic garden in Englewood that then-state Sen. Barack Obama awarded in 2001 to a group headed by a onetime campaign volunteer is now under investigation by the Illinois attorney general amid new questions, prompted by Chicago Sun-Times reports, about whether the money might have been misspent.
The garden was never built. And now state records obtained by the Sun-Times show $65,000 of the grant money went to the wife of Kenny B. Smith, the Obama 2000 congressional campaign volunteer who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association, which was in charge of the project for the blighted South Side neighborhood.
Even though Obama is not under investigation in this probe, this is just one more indication of how he operates. Pet projects Earmarks are given to campaign contributors. Here are more of Obama’s earmarks.
The list included $1 million for a hospital where Mr. Obama’s wife works, money for several projects linked to campaign donors and support for more than 200 towns, civic institutions and universities in Illinois.
This is a reposting of an early 9/11 tribute post.
I have decided to let the following pictures speak for me today. They are why we must fight the evil in this world and share the love of Christ with all we can.
For those of you who wish to donate to the building of a monument to Flight 93, the heros who fought back, please do so HonorFlight93.org site. You will be redirected to the National Parks site who is handling this.
Illinois kindergartners already faced a lengthy to-do list before they could report to school: mandatory vaccinations, tuberculosis tests, physicals and dental exams. This year, they need to stop at the eye doctor too. A new law requires that kindergartners and students new to Illinois schools receive a complete eye exam—to check for everything from astigmatism to glaucoma—performed by an optometrist or physician licensed to perform those tests. Schools may withhold report cards of students who do not show evidence of the exam by Oct. 15. Illinois already required schools to do basic screening of students’ eyesight in kindergarten, 2nd and 8th grades, leading some medical experts and educators to question the merits of the new law. More extensive eye exams undoubtedly will mean earlier detection of vision problems in some children, they say, but will also increase the expense for some financially strapped families. An eye exam typically costs about $50.
Government just keeps on mandating more and more expenses on top of the never ending taxes. These mandates are on top of all the mandates the schools have to perform already. Of course there are some parents who will never take their kids to the doctor, but that is a small minority. Instead of mandating something for everyone, lets find a way to help those parents who don’t help their kids. We just don’t need all of these government mandates. The government does not need to take care of us all.
It is so interesting that so many teachers believe their union is there to protect them. Yet, the union forces them to make contributions in most states with the use of language called “fair share” in the contracts. These forced contributions are then used by the unions for political purposes other than helping improve education or the teachers.
But other expenditures reveal this national NEA cash — which is separate from PAC contributions that must adhere to federal campaign-finance laws — as a fund for various and sundry left-wing political causes. Mr. Antonucci reports that during the current fiscal year the NEA sent the Hawaii State Teachers Association $20,000 to conduct polling on a state constitutional convention. It sent the Massachusetts Teachers Association $60,000 to oppose a state income-tax repeal. And it sent the Florida Education Association $200,000 to oppose property-tax cuts in the Sunshine State. Expect more of the same going forward in a state near you. “Unlike most previous years,” writes Mr. Antonucci, “NEA finished 2007-08 with a surplus of nearly $5.9 million, which means the union will enter the 2008-09 school year with almost $20 million available to spend.” It’s a shame the NEA doesn’t spend as much money and effort trying to improve lousy schools as it does trying to keep taxes high.
Not all teachers agree with the fair share clauses in their contracts and these forced contributions. Infortunately there needs to be a lot more teachers who stand up to the union and the school board to remove the fair share language from their next contract. The following is a letter from a teacher to a school board about their fair share objection. Posted anonymously with permission.
Dear Board Members: As all of you know, this year the teacher contract expires and is up for renegotiation. I am communicating with you directly because the teacher’s union, though permitted by law to act as my representative, in no way represents me. Shortly after accepting employment with the district in 1990, I resigned my membership in the union, and I have remained nonunion ever since. Prior to 1995, union membership and paying dues to the union were completely voluntary. The union stood or fell based on the willingness of each teacher to join and contribute to it. In 1995, however, the union leadership convinced the school board to agree to a contract provision mandating either union membership or the payment by nonmembers of an “agency fee” – a fee the union set at 100% of union dues (making the absurd claim that all union dues are spent solely on collective bargaining). The union calls this kick back arrangement “fair share.” There is nothing fair about “fair share,” however, and in twenty-two states such coercive kick back schemes are illegal. While the union might argue that it negotiates for all so all should be forced to pay, this is a “catch-22” argument since no one is allowed to negotiate for themselves. By law, a simple majority of the teachers can compel the rest to accept union representation. This is unfair enough, but now with “fair share,“ they can also force all teachers to pay the union whatever it demands. If the union truly resents having to negotiate for nonmembers, they should surrender their power to act as the exclusive bargaining agent and allow nonmembers to make their own agreements with the board. The union is not about to do this, however, since that would shatter their monopoly power (over both the board and the teachers) and open the door to freedom of contract and to market competition. The fact is fair share is an attack upon the rights of all who work in the district – not just nonunion employees. Since the imposition of coerced payment, the NEA and IEA have repeatedly raised annual dues. The national and state organizations have then used much of this new money to both pad their payrolls and to engage in rather dubious political activity having nothing to do with collective bargaining. They can do this with relative impunity because they know with “fair share” in place in many districts, they now have a captive membership and a guaranteed cash flow to fund more power grabs and to further promote their political agendas. Individual union members (but notably not nonmembers) can make a feeble protest by voting in union elections, of course, but thanks to the efforts of a union negotiating team in the 1990’s (probably acting at the behest of the state and national organizations), District [snip] teachers lost the ultimate leverage – the right to leave the union and take their financial contribution with them. Of course, individual members are still nominally free to leave the union and pay an agency fee, and they even have the right to challenge that agency fee before the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board [snip], but facing the legal and bureaucratic obstacles “fair share” places in their path, most teachers have simply given in. When “fair share” was first put in place, there were, as I recall, some two dozen teachers who were not members of the union. Now, as far as I can tell, that number is down to [snip]. With a new (and perhaps more militant) union leadership taking over this year and tighter budgets in prospect, the possibility of a teacher strike looms. Should a strike occur, I will not support it and will stand ready to report for duty. I will have that freedom because I am not a union member. (Illinois law permits the union to impose legally enforceable fines on members who defy a strike.) I believe it is in the board’s interest and in the interests of the district’s taxpayers to insist on the removal of the “fair share” provision from the next contract. This would empower individual teachers who are so inclined to move against the union and break the back of any strike. Even in the absence of a strike, the presence of a substantial number of nonunion teachers will put pressure on the union to be more flexible in its demands. In short, there is no benefit to the district for the board to empower the union to coerce teachers it allegedly represents and every reason for the board to insist on the restoration of individual teacher rights to freedom of association. I knew a member of the negotiating team that first got the board to give in on “fair share.” (Previous boards had always upheld teacher rights and said “no.”) She told me that the team was surprised the board gave in and that it was certainly not a priority or something at the time they were willing to strike over or even hold up an agreement over. According to my colleague, the board placed it on the table, and the union took it. No doubt this year’s union negotiators will squawk should the board now insist on removing “fair share.” They will make the same fallacious arguments that everyone should be made to pay for their “services.“ Fair share is not about payment for services, however, but about control and power. Unable in the past to get all teachers to knuckle under and pay up voluntarily, the union coerced the board into forcing teachers to pay and thereby the board greatly enhanced the union’s power. I am hopeful that this year’s negotiations provide an opportunity to remedy this past injustice and produce a contract that respects the rights of all teachers. Perhaps it is only me that feels so strongly about this, and if that be true, the union has nothing to worry about in giving up its coerced dues. [snip] If, on the other hand, the union knows that many teachers, if given the opportunity, would opt out and withdraw support for the union’s political agenda, then the union has every reason to fight the end of “fair share.” It would be interesting to see how confident the union is in the depth of its rank and file support, and whether the union reps really want to try and make the argument that the teachers they represent want to be forced to pay.
<blockquote>
When the <b>young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him</b>. They <b>never questioned</b> who <b>his friends</b> were or <b>what he really believed</b> in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said “Praise the Lord.” And when the young leader said, “<b>I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,” everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel!”</b>
But nobody asked about the change, so <b>by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him</b>. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.
Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
Powered by FireStats