Donate to Illinois Tea Party
3 Action Alerts Require your Action
Sort Information by Topic
- CUB: Illinois residents waste $1.4 billion on data plans: bit.ly/16gYviS 3 hours ago
- RT @ILOpportunity: [VIDEO] members of @ilhousegop and @ILSenateGOP at a press conference in support of real pension reform. http://t.co/DAD… 3 hours ago
- RT @DanielleforIL: @IllinoisTea @seanhannity @ilhousegop @ILSenateGOP @ILSenDems need true #pensionreform in #HB3303 -does more than any o… 3 hours ago
Illinois Tea Videos
US National Debt Clock
Washington Times -
A week into the immigration debate, the Senate has finally set up showdowns Tuesday afternoon on some of the biggest questions, including whether to build the full 700-mile fence Congress approved seven years ago, but never followed through on.
Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, has offered an amendment that would require 350 miles of two-tier border fencing be built before illegal immigrants can gain legal status, and for another 350 miles to be built before they can get green cards.
Seven years ago, during a previous immigration debate, Congress — including then-Sen. Barack Obama — voted overwhelmingly to build that much two-tier fencing along the 1,950-mile U.S.-Mexico border. But in 2007 Congress quietly backed off and gave the Bush administration the authority to cut the number of miles, and to scrap the two-tier fence.
Instead, the border now has 651 miles of barriers, and only 352 miles of that is an actual fence to keep pedestrians out. The other 299 miles are vehicle blockades that still allow wildlife, and people, to cross unhindered.
Homeland security officials say they are comfortable with the amount and mix of fencing, but many lawmakers say more is needed — and Mr. Thune’s amendment will give them a chance to have a say.
Still, it is expected to fail as the Gang of Eight senators who wrote the immigration bill defends the core of its deal, which is to offer quick legal status to illegal immigrants but withhold full citizenship rights until after more money is spent on security. They argue that waiting until 350 miles of full fence is built would delay legalization too long.
Daily Caller -
Conservative activists are planning to storm Capitol Hill on Wednesday for what they are predicting will be “the largest Tea Party protest since 2010.”
The protest — drawing tea partiers like TV host Glenn Beck and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul — is in response to the Internal Revenue Service’s recent admission that it has been specifically targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny.
The gathering on the West Lawn of the Capitol is being called the “Audit the IRS” Rally.
“At noon tomorrow, we are going to tell the world about how the IRS tried to crush the Tea Party movement,” organizers with the Tea Party Patriots organization said in an email to supporters.
“Thousands of volunteers will rally in the largest demonstration of Tea Party support since 2010.”
Others expected to appear at the rally include Republican senators like Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp.
A number of representatives from local tea party groups who claim to have been unfairly targeted by the IRS are also expected to partake in the rally.
Groups like the Tea Party Patriots, which is organizing Wednesday’s rally, frequently sponsored similar protests in 2010, when the tea party movement was at its height.
The Blaze -
After Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “ObamaCare,” many wondered if there could be a yet-unknown reason why the Republican-nominated justice made the unexpected decision.
On the Glenn Beck radio program Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) explained why he believes Roberts was intimidated into changing his vote late in the process, as laid out in his new book Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare.
Lee’s argument is not based on the NSA or its monitoring of the nation’s communication. Rather, Lee said, there are indications that Roberts originally intended to vote against the act, but that a public “campaign of intimidation” made him change his mind.
First, the senator claimed “the opinion was written in a way to suggest he switched his vote,” and that the dissenting opinion reads like it was originally written as the majority. He added that several news outlets reported that Roberts did change his vote, based on insider information.
Not only that, he said, but the court performed an unusual feat of “legal gymnastics” in upholding the legislation, particularly with regard to whether the fines incurred are or are not taxes. They had to re-write sections of the the bill not once, but twice.
Lee continued to say that he has “no evidence” that Roberts was being blackmailed, but said that doesn’t mean Roberts wasn’t under any kind of “direct pressure.”
‘KKK-TYPE OF INTIMIDATION’: KANSAS SEC. OF STATE TARGETED BY MOB ASKING PROSECUTORS TO CONSIDER USING ‘KLAN LAWS’
The Blaze -
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) compared the tactics used by hundreds of protesters who marched on his home over the weekend to “KKK-type of intimidation” on the Glenn Beck radio program Tuesday.
Targeted for his work on combatting illegal immigration, Kobach has certainly faced opposition in the past, but it has always been in public locations. Now, he says, “the left has crossed a line” by surrounding his home.
Kobach said he is asking prosecutors to look into how the mob may have violated civil rights laws, explaining: “They’re called the Klan Laws…a set of laws that say you cannot intimidate an official by trespassing on his property threatening violence, [and] you cannot intimidate an individual by threatening violence so that they don’t vote or don’t exercise their civil rights.”
After Beck noted that Martin Luther King, Jr. faced similar intimidation tactics, Kobach agreed: “This is exactly — they’re just not wearing white cloaks — but this is exactly KKK-type of intimidation.”
The secretary of state proceeded to describe what he has learned about the protesters, organized by a group called “Sunflower Community Action.” He said the group rose to prominence around the time ACORN shut down, has “lots of money,” and at least one full-time, paid community organizer.
And what’s unique about this protest, he noted, is that it seems to have been designed specificallyto intimidate him. It wasn’t staged in a public place, where there would be guaranteed press. It happened in a suburban neighborhood where he and his family would have been isolated (though thankfully they were out of town at the time).
Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft now say the government has requested data on tens of thousands of its customers.
On Sunday, Apple revealed that it has received between 9,000 and 10,000 requests for information on customer accounts or devices from federal, state, or local authorities over a six-month period; Facebook says it received government surveillance requests over a six-month period affecting a total 18,000 to 19,000 Facebook accounts; Microsoft says it received 6,000 to 7,000 criminal and national security warrants and subpoenas involving some 31,000 accounts.
In the wake of National Security Agency (NSA) leaker Edward Snowden’s allegations and revelations, technology giants like Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft have scrambled to quell customer concerns over privacy and government access to their private accounts.
The companies requested that the government allow them to release data on how many user accounts U.S. law enforcement has requested access or information on.
LA State Senator switches to the Republican Party: Is Elbert Guillory the next conservative superstar?
On Laura Ingraham’s Tuesday radio show, outgoing Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann predicted that although Speaker of the House John Boehner has vowed to adhere to the Hastert Rule to pass immigration reform, “there’s still a loophole that the speaker might allow himself.”
Following the Hastert Rule would mean Boehner would not hold a vote on a bill that lacks the support of a majority of the Republican caucus. Bachmann said while Boehner will likely follow it with the version of the bill that originates in the House, once it goes to committee to reconcile differences between the House bill and the Senate’s version, all bets are off.
“I don’t think we have a definitive on that yet,” Bachmann said. “I think there’s still a loophole that the speaker might allow himself — that he won’t hold himself to the Hastert rule. In the shorthand, this is what I think is going to happen — the very bad bill is going to be in the Senate. We’re going to have a Trojan Horse bill that will look very good. It will look like border security in the House. Conservatives will vote for it in the House. Both bills will go to conference committee. The guts will get pulled out of the good bill. Amnesty will get put in. The Senate will pass it. It will go to the House. Nancy Pelosi will deliver all of the Democrat votes and all John Boehner has to do is deliver the committee chairs that hold the gavel.”
Illinois Review -
Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down one of its first major decisions of this term, striking down Arizona’s measure requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Media reports are already off base in interpreting this decision, says Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky. Here are three things to know about the decision.
1. This is not a voter ID decision. This decision has to do with voter registration, not the act of voting. Von Spakovsky explains:
In 2004, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum that had two major components: voter ID for in-person voting and a requirement that anyone registering to vote provide proof of citizenship. The voter ID provision was not before the Supreme Court and is alive and well in Arizona. (emphasis added)
Although it did not strike down the provision that requires a photo ID for in-person voting, von Spakovsky said “the Supreme Court came down on the wrong side of election integrity” with this ruling.
2. Federal law already mandates that a person must be a U.S. citizen to vote. The Court’s ruling does not mean that requiring proof of citizenship is bad or wrong. In fact, people are supposed to vote only if they are citizens.
The Court ruled the way it did because there is already a federal law requiring people to affirm that they are U.S. citizens when they register to vote. Most people register using the federal mail-in form under the “Motor Voter” law. The majority of the justices said that federal requirement “preempts” Arizona’s requirement, which simply means the federal law comes first.
But Arizona residents can register to vote using the federal form or a state form. Von Spakovsky notes that “Arizona can continue to require proof of citizenship for anyone who registers using the state form.”
3. States do determine the qualifications of their voters. If Arizona has information about a voter that shows he or she is not eligible to vote, then the state still decides who is a legitimate voter. Von Spakovsky says:
The Court specifically noted that under our Constitution, states have the exclusive right to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, and Arizona can deny registration to anyone who submits a federal form if it has other information in its possession that establishes the ineligibility of the applicant.
Making sure that only U.S. citizens are voting is vital to the integrity of American elections. This Supreme Court decision basically kept the status quo, and meanwhile,voting reforms are needed.
Illinois Review -
UPDATE: US Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan granted Attorney General Lisa Madigan an extension Tuesday am. Madigan has until July 22 to determine whether she will appeal the Shepard/Moore ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
CHICAGO – Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office has been so busy, that it hasn’t had a chance to make a decision on whether to appeal a federal court ruling to implement concealed carry in Illinois. She’s asked the US Supreme Court for yet another extension - AP reports:
After years of futile efforts by gun-rights supporters, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decreed in December that Illinois’ ban on the carrying concealed weapons is unconstitutional. The court ruled it violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Illinois is the only state that prohibits concealed carry.