At an impromtu press conference in Troy, Michigan today at 12:00pm 

The Detroit News reported that Rick Santorum’s grassroots supporters in Michigan are calling on state Republican Party leaders to reverse their decision to award two statewide delegates to Mitt Romney in Tuesday’s presidential primary.

The GOP credentials committee’s 4-2 decision Wednesday gave Michigan native Romney a 16-14 victory over Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator who believes he and Romney actually tied for delegates. Romney beat Santorum in the popular vote, 41 percent to 38 percent.

But, Santorum’s campaign argues the two statewide delegates should be split up based on an earlier understanding of the primary rules.

During the  press conference at Santorum’s former headquarters in Troy, his supporters predicted there would be hell to pay for GOP leaders if they don’t reconsider their decision to award Romney the delegate win.

Share this:

For the past twenty-five years, Bradley Johnson, a high school math teacher at the Poway School District located in California had been displaying red, white and blue banners in his classroom that contained patriotic phrases such as: “In God We Trust,” “One Nation Under God,” and “God Bless America.”

He displayed the banners pursuant to a 30-year school district policy that permitted teachers to maintain classroom displays of non-curricular messages that reflected their personal opinions and values.  In effect, the school district designated classroom walls as a forum for the expression of the teacher’s private opinions and viewpoints.

However, in 2007 school officials ordered Johnson to remove his banners because they promoted a “Judeo-Christian” viewpoint.

In an outrageous case of double standard, school officials allowed other teachers to display non-Christian religious displays in their classrooms.  These displays included a 40-foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha hung across a classroom, a poster with Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins;” a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X; a poster of the Buddhist leader Dali Lama; and a poster containing the lyrics of John Lennon’s anti-religion song “Imagine,” which begins, Imagine there’s no Heaven.

As a result, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which defends the religious liberty of Christians, filed a federal lawsuit against the school district on behalf of Johnson.

On September 4, 2008, Federal District Judge Robert T. Benitez agreed with the Thomas More Law Center.  He ruled that “Johnson was simply exercising his free speech rights on subjects that were otherwise permitted in the limited public forum created by Defendants” and that there was an “ongoing violation of his First Amendment free speech rights.”

[Read Judge Benitez’s opinion here]

However, the Poway School District appealed the ruling and a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Benitez’s decision ruling that the school district was justified in removing banners that mentioned God, while leaving untouched the Tibetan Prayer flags and the images of Buddha.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This case is a prime example of how public schools across our nation are cleansing our classrooms of our Christian heritage while promoting atheism and other non–Christian religions under the guise of cultural diversity.”

Continued Thompson, “The Ninth Circuit Court’s rationale in allowing the Tibetan Prayer Flags and references to other religions while outlawing America’s patriotic slogans that mention God is unconvincing.  Brad Johnson was simply exercising his free speech rights in a forum created by the school district to inform students of the religious foundations of our nation.”   [Read Ninth Circuit Court opinion here]

Attempts to get a rehearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed, and so the Law Center pursued its only remaining option– a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (appeal) to the United States Supreme Court.   [Read Petition to Supreme Court here]

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, a strong national defense, and an independent and sovereign United States of America. It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website atwww.thomasmore.org.

Share this:

The Top Three candidates will be featured on www.lbrookspatterson.com including their photos, bios, links to their websites and/or other content they would like shared with the public.   Brooks will be promoting the voting process through his website and Social Media Channels:  on twitter – @BrooksPattersonhttp://twitter.com/#!/brookspatterson on Facebook – http://www.facebook.com/LBrooksPatterson and on LinkedIn –  http://www.linkedin.com/in/lbrookspatterson.  The Top Three candidates will also be campaigning for themselves during this process.

Brooks will honor the ‘fab forty’ on February 8, 2012 for the finalé at 7pm in the Marriot hotel located in Auburn Hills, MI where the First Place winner, The Best of the Best, will introduce him at his State of the County address and will receive a year-long pass to all of Mr. Patterson’s 2012 networking/fundraising events.  Deputy County Executive and CIO, Phil Bertolini, will first introduce the winner, and then the winner will give an introduction for Brooks.  The Second Place winner will receive passes to Patterson’s 2012 black tie birthday celebration, 2012 St. Patrick’s Day party and 2012 golf outing.  Third, Fourth and Fifth Place winners will receive passes to Patterson’s 2012 black tie birthday celebration.   Furthermore, all of the ‘Top 40 ‘ will be featured on http://lbrookspatterson.com and will become members of Brook’s Executive Club.

All of the ‘Elite 40’ contestants will be contacted on January 24th, 2012.  The winners will be announced on February 8th at the State of the County Address, on L. Brooks Patterson’s website and through his social media platforms and networks.

For additional information and/or queries, contact Salina at 248.240.1889 or email her at salina@miyanmedia.com.

Share this:

Scott Pruitt Oklahoma Attorney General

The 10th Circuit Court in Denver, Colorado today upheld an injunction against the implementation of Oklahoma SQ 755, a constitutional amendment that instructed judges not to consider foreign laws in their decisions, it included sharia law, I believe, in that it is the religious law or ruling order used in a number of Islamic countries.  The amendment passed overwhelmingly in the fall of 2010.  The amendment reads, in part:

“The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

In their brief, the court seems to ignore the fact that Muneer Awad, the director of Oklahoma’s chapter of CAIR, an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure in the U.S., did not actually demonstrate any direct harm from the amendment (he merely claimed he would be).  The court afreed with him.  Yet, they said the state failed to show a compelling interest based on any problems sharia law has caused and faulted them for it!  So, a problem has to be demonstrated before a law is passed?  Interesting. Nor, did the court even attempt to distinguish sharia practices (Islamic religious guideline) from sharia law. In fact they bought the misleading argument from Awad that such teachings and Quranic dictates comprise the foundation from >which both some clergy and believers have derived the content of their religious obligations. This body of interpretation is referred to as “Sharia law,” and it serves as a guide for Muslims to apply and practice their faith in everyday life, covering topics that include dress, grooming, and social interactions.

This seems to be important to do, in my layman opinion. Awad used the terms interchangeably in his brief, if I recall correctly, which blurs the difference (was this intentional?).  I am pretty sure they are not the same thing.

Mr. Awad claims that the amendment threatens to injure him in several ways, such as condemning his Muslim faith, inhibiting the practice of Islam, disabling a court from probating his will (which contains references to Sharia law {z: sharia?}), and limiting the relief he and other Muslims can obtain from Oklahoma state courts.

Shortly after the law passed Muneer Awad claimed on national TV its success was based on a campaign of fear, hate and violence, a blatantly false statement.

State Sen. Anthony Sykes, who led the Senate’s effort to bring this amendment to a public vote issued a statement (click on January) emphasizing this matter is, and will continue to be, an on-going effort:

“On Tuesday the federal appeals court in Denver attempted to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of by and for the judges, or of by and for the people. How far will the people let them go? This ruling is right along with legalizing abortion and forced busing of school children.”

“The issue raised by this constitutional amendment is very simple – you are either for Sharia law or you are against it.”>“This is just the first battle in an ongoing effort. Although the courts have attempted to silence the voice of the people, I won’t let that happen. I’ll continue fighting to restore government to the people.”

The case goes back to Oklahoma federal court who will decide on the constitutionality of the law, itself. I worry that a court may unwittingly rule in favor of sharia law which will be used by Muslim activists in the future to advance the use of it in the U.S.

A number of other states are also considering bans on foreign laws.

Also See:

Download 10thcircuitruling

Awad brief

Share this:

Photo: Fox News/June 1: House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. listens outside the White House in Washington

WASHINGTON –  Jim Angle of Fox News reported yesterday that the debt talks have taken up reform of entitlements such as Medicare, because that’s where the money is. Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan says, “The failure of Washington to be honest about Medicare, Social Security, and the federal budget threatens the economic security of Americans.”

And some Democrats agree. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md, says, “We are in fundamental agreement that Medicare and Social Security require some reforms to be strengthened. We are in very big disagreement as to how to do it.”

That’s an understatement. Democrats favor tax hikes within Social Security and Medicare, as well as increasing income taxes.

But Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan argues part of the problem in Medicare is the new healthcare law — which claims savings that he doubts will materialize.

Rick Foster, the chief actuary of Medicare has the same concern. He insists, “There is a lot of evidence that suggests some of these payment provisions will not be sustainable in the long range.”

The new law, for instance, will pay providers, including doctors, lower and lower rates. Foster said over time, that could put 40 percent of all providers in the red, raising questions about whether they’d continue to treat Medicare patients.

As Foster puts it, “If at some point our payment rates to providers become less of or significantly less than their cost of providing services, they either will be unwilling or unable to continue providing services.”

Last year, 51 percent of Medicare’s cost was taken out of general revenues, meaning half the cost of Medicare was paid by borrowing money, which is why it’s part of the debt talks.

Social Security does not rely on general revenues, only dedicated taxes. But by 2035, it will run short of money and, by law, it will be forced to cut benefits across the board by 23 percent.

There are many reform proposals for both programs, but Democrats were reluctant to talk about any of them, preferring instead to talk about taxes.

“It’s so important from our perspective to have balance and also look at some, you know, the revenue picture,” says Van Hollen. He adds, “And look at some of the folks that did get big tax breaks not that long ago.”

So two things are clear. One, entitlement programs are in trouble. And two, the discussion of them is very much like the discussion on the debt ceiling — spending cuts versus increased taxes.

Share this:

Capitol Hill Photo By Mike Mulvihill

WASHINGTON DC — Top lawmakers from both sides of the aisle will meet again Wednesday with President Barack Obama as the partisan tone of debt ceiling talks becomes sharper.

CNN reported that the exchanges escalated during a nearly two-hour session at the White House Tuesday as GOP leaders once again refused to consider any tax hikes and Obama warned that, absent a deal, he can’t guarantee older Americans will continue receiving Social Security checks next month.
“There may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” Obama said in a CBS News interview.

“We can’t guarantee — if there were a default — any specific bill would be paid,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday afternoon.

What if the U.S. reaches debt limit? Dems: American people will end up paying McConnell: ‘Smoke and mirrors’ Behind the scenes of debt negotiations

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, said that during Tuesday’s session, Obama presented more details of his proposed cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare, and that Republicans supported what they heard. However, Cantor reiterated GOP opposition to higher taxes, which is the main sticking point to a deal.

According to a senior Democratic official familiar with the discussions, the mood after the meeting was weary as participants were tired of hearing the same talking points from both sides.

While no breakthrough occurred, Obama reiterated that potential consensus exists for more than $1.5 trillion in spending cuts negotiated in previous talks led by Vice President Joe Biden, but that he wanted increased tax revenue as part of an agreement.

Gergen: Why Obama’s pushing for a mega-deal
Administration officials have warned that a failure to raise the current $14.3 trillion ceiling by August 2 could trigger a partial default. If Washington lacks the money to meet its bills, interest rates could skyrocket and the value of the dollar could decline, among other things.

In a letter to Obama and legislators, leading business associations urged them to put aside hard-line partisan positions in order to reach a deal.
“Our political leaders must agree to a plan to substantially reduce our long-term budget deficits with a goal of at least stabilizing our nation’s debt as a percentage of GDP (gross domestic product) — which will entail difficult choices,” said the letter from the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the Financial Services Forum, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Partnership for New York City.

“Now is the time for our political leaders to put aside partisan differences and act in the nation’s best interests,” the letter concluded. “We believe that our nation’s economic future is reliant upon their actions and urge them to reach an agreement. It is time to pull together rather than pull apart.”
Asked by reporters about the letter, Carney responded: “We couldn’t have said it better and we agree.”

Can debt deal be negotiated by August? Carney: Need to decide what bills to pay House GOP slams Dems’ plan McCain: Obama switching to ‘scare game’
RELATED TOPICS
National Economy
National Debt
Barack Obama
Negotiators have been debating trillions of dollars in possible savings over the next decade, a response to GOP demands for significant spending cuts in exchange for any debt ceiling increase.

In the CBS interview, Obama noted that former President Ronald Reagan compromised on increasing tax revenue, and wondered why Republicans today remain so adamantly opposed.

“The question is, if Ronald Reagan could compromise, why wouldn’t folks who idolize Ronald Reagan be willing to engage in those same kinds of compromises?” Obama said.

As the rhetoric intensified, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner warned that time is running out. The secretary said he wants to see a deal to raise the debt limit and cut projected spending by the end of this week — or next week at the latest — so that Congress will have enough time to turn the deal into law.

“We know we don’t have a lot of time,” Geithner said. “Default is not an option.”

Before meeting with Obama at the White House, Senate Republicans offered a fallback option to the debt ceiling impasse, proposing three short-term increases in the amount the government can borrow while at the same time registering the disapproval of Congress for such a move.
The proposal would give Obama power to raise the debt ceiling, but also would require three congressional votes on the issue before the 2012 general election. Obama said Monday he would reject any short-term extension of the debt ceiling, as called for in the Senate Republican plan.
Senate Republicans propose debt ceiling fallback option.

After Tuesday’s negotiating session at the White House, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois told CNN that the Republican plan was being discussed “as one of the options.”

Noting that Republicans have pushed for decisive action on debt reduction, Obama urged them to compromise from their blanket refusal to end Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

The president said he’d be willing to push Democrats to do something they don’t like — reform Medicare and other entitlement programs that are the party’s political legacy — in an effort to reach his goal of trimming the deficit by $4 trillion.

Monday’s meeting with Hill leaders included a detailed review of a possible smaller deal based on terms that emerged from the Biden talks.
Republicans demand that spending cuts must exceed any debt ceiling increase, and Obama argued that that bridging the difference between the spending cuts agreed to in the Biden talks and the debt ceiling total he wants would require raising revenue, Democratic sources said.

Negotiators are trying to salvage a deal after Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, pulled back over the weekend from Obama’s preferred $4 trillion plan. The deal reportedly fell apart over a dispute regarding eventual tax increases for the wealthiest Americans by allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012.

The president insisted Monday that he is not looking to raise any taxes until 2013 or later. He claimed he has “bent over backward to work with the Republicans” and not force them to vote on any revenue hikes in the short term — a politically toxic move for the GOP’s conservative base.
In exchange, Obama said, he wants to ensure that the current progressive nature of the tax code is maintained, with higher-income Americans assessed higher tax rates.

At the heart of the GOP resistance is a bedrock principle pushed by conservative crusader Grover Norquist against any kind of tax increase. A pledge pushed by Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform, has been signed by more than 230 House members and 40 senators, almost all of them Republicans say Alan Silverleib and Tom Cohen, of CNN.
The saga continues…

Share this:

Hotline/zazzle.com

MEMPHIS, TN –  Mayor AC Wharton and other city officials soon will have a direct line to decision makers in Washington.

Memphis is one of six cities chosen for a White House pilot project called “Strong Cities, Strong Communities,” designed to allow local officials to dictate what they need from the federal government, said John Porcari, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, who was in Memphis for the announcement Monday.

“We bend programs to fit local needs, not the other way around,” Porcari said. “It’s a bottom-up approach instead of a top-down approach.”

Amos Maki  reported that the program will embed federal officials inside city government. Representatives from the departments of Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Justice, Treasury, Labor and the Small Business Administration will live and work in Memphis as part of the project.

“We have people across the federal government clamoring to be a part of this,” said Porcari.

The other cities included in the project are Detroit; Chester, Pa.; Fresno, Calif.; Cleveland, Ohio and New Orleans. All six have been hard-hit by the recession.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said Monday in Detroit that the pilot cities were selected on the basis of economic need, local leadership, potential for economic growth and geographic diversity.

Detroit Mayor Dave Bing said he’s excited to receive a different kind of investment from the U.S. government — human capital — rather than the monetary funding that in the past hasn’t always been managed efficiently by city leaders.

“One of the things that’s happened historically with Detroit is that we’ve gotten financial support and we’ve not managed the finances very, very well,” Bing said.

Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Barack Obama, said on a conference call that the program is “not a new grant funding program, but a new way of working together.” The program will be tailored around each city’s individual needs, she added.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy director for the president, added: “We’re providing assistance and support, not a mandate.”

In Memphis, Porcari met with local business officials Monday afternoon and got a tour of the FedEx World Headquarters.

The city’s Office of Talent and Human Capital, under director Douglas Scarboro, helped spearhead Memphis’ inclusion in the program.

“As a result of this distinction, Memphis will have the support of a federal implementation team to actualize strategies for making Memphis a city of choice,” Scarboro said.

The office was created in 2010 by Wharton to help attract or retain talented professionals.

“With the major activities in cities — education, health care, transportation, housing — all driven by federal policy, we must develop strategies that coordinate efforts, reduce bureaucracy, avoid duplication, and make it easier to link up with federal government in a way that ensures efficiency and accountability,” Wharton said.

–The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Share this:

Oakland County Executive (MI), L. Brooks Patterson

Video Interview with Oakland County (MI) Executive, L. Brooks Patterson, on the patio at Mon Jin Lau in Troy, MI on June  13, 2011.  RE: After work event for Young Professionals sponsored by the DMC – Detroit Medical Center.  The purpose is to pick 40 under 40 for a contest to choose the best over-all businessmen and women who encompass success, leadership skills, community involvement, integrity and cutting-edge ideas….

Share this:

CBS NEWS/(AP Photo/Andy Manis)

(AP)  MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed Republican Gov. Scott Walker a major victory on Tuesday, ruling that his polarizing union rights law can go into effect.

In a 4-3 decision, the court said Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi overstepped her authority when she said Republican lawmakers violated the state’s opening meetings statutes in the run-up to passage and declared the union rights law void.

The law, which eliminates most of public employees’ collective bargaining rights and requires them to pay more for their health care and pensions, sparked weeks of protests when Walker introduced it in February. Tens of thousands of demonstrators occupied the state Capitol for weeks, thrusting Wisconsin to the forefront of a national debate over labor rights.

Walker claimed that the law was needed to help address the state’s $3.6 billion budget shortfall and give local governments enough flexibility on labor costs to deal with deep cuts to state aid.

Democrats saw it as an attack on public employee unions, which usually back their party’s candidates. Democratic state senators fled to Illinois to try to prevent a vote on the measure, but Republicans got around the maneuver by convening a special committee to remove fiscal elements from the bill and allow a Senate vote with fewer members present. Walker signed the plan into law two days later.

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit the next week claiming Republicans didn’t provide the proper public notice of the meeting in violation of state law. Sumi first issued a temporary order blocking publication of the collective bargaining law while she weighed his arguments and then last month declared the law void.

Attorneys for the state Department of Justice, representing the Republicans who control the Legislature, asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case directly, in part to speed the process. Walker counted on the law being in effect in the budget he put forward for the fiscal year that starts July 1.

Ozanne had urged the court to let the case work its way through the usual appeals process.

Share this: