Peoria Progress, a local magazine indicates that 16,683 workers were unemployed in the area as of May, 2010. Those are people of counted by some type of recordings. Unreported are the thousands who are no longer recorded because they are no longer drawing benefits. Many have stopped looking for jobs as the job market is very slow and limited to specialty trained workers.
Average unemployment in the Peoria area for 2009 was 10.1%, not counting those who have stopped looking or have fallen of the record keeping system. One reason housing prices are considered low in Peoria. Home owners should look closely at their property tax bills as many may be paying as public bodies struggle for ways to raise more revenue.
Like higher fines and more stringent enforcement of laws such as speeding despite accidents are occurring less frequently meaning less lives lost in motor vehicle accidents.
Housing sales figures show a slowdown through May. Many homes originally on the market have been removed by the owners because of a lack of buyers. Expect property taxes to show sizable jumps in upcoming years as new non-profit bond supported projects start coming due such as School District #150 new $70 some million. Area schools already collect 61% of all property taxes. (Peoria County collected $25,360,460 last year, all cities, villages and incorporated villages collected $36,516,965 and the Peoria Park District collected a growing $14,954,512 last year).
While the magazine praised the growth in this area, close reading will indicate that most of this growth will not pay taxes. (Massive non-profit OSF only pays $1.1 million in property taxes) such as libraries, park districts, County and City, museums, etc. Plus some of the new businesses opening will take considerable business away from older local businesses such as hotels, grocery stores, restaurants. Yet, some of these projects that are partially funded by taxpayer dollars help take business away from non-taxpayer supported established firms.
Prime upcoming examples are the taxpayer funded East Peoria Bass Pro and the Marriott Hotel.
Peoria Progress paints a rosy picture and much of it is good growth. The magazine does not mention the darker side of Peoria so often pointed out in the Journal Star. Never the less, there is plenty to worry about in the lack of funds for greater growth in both the private and public sector. The magazine does not mention the sorry state of funding for the PRM, District #150 shortcomings and crime.
Friday, July 16, 2010
BP Embarrassing Ad
BP ran another full page ad in the Wall Street Journal showing their empathy to the victims of the disaster created by BP and our government regulators and those "leaders" above them. The ad is an embarrassment to BP as the picture in the ad illustrates the apparent disorganization of the the cleanup crews. Twenty five people "working" a slightly polluted approximate 200 feet of beach with 8 "workers" looking like they were doing some work, 5 were actually holding bags and the other 20standing around or milling around.
"County News", a newspaper for County Officials printed a photo with the caption "Workers clean oil from a Pensacola beach...." with one person actually putting polluted sand in a bag being held buy another person while another dozen or so were milling around with no apparent supervision. Some of these "workers" must have been recruited from some of our highway departments.
From all I've read and seen, this cleanup efforts on the beaches appears pretty disorganized. Since the beaches will continue to be polluted for months (or years) to come, cleanup costs will probably double estimates as the same areas will need reworking over and over.
"County News", a newspaper for County Officials printed a photo with the caption "Workers clean oil from a Pensacola beach...." with one person actually putting polluted sand in a bag being held buy another person while another dozen or so were milling around with no apparent supervision. Some of these "workers" must have been recruited from some of our highway departments.
From all I've read and seen, this cleanup efforts on the beaches appears pretty disorganized. Since the beaches will continue to be polluted for months (or years) to come, cleanup costs will probably double estimates as the same areas will need reworking over and over.
"Joys of Muslim Women" By Nonie Darwish
Forwarded to me by a friend. Read it all as it is true and frightening. We should know that not all Germans were followers of the Hitler either, but he came close to ruling much of the world.
Merle
When you finish reading the e-mail go to this site and read more about who Nonie Darwish really is. (I did and I plan to read her writings)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonie_Darwish
This was written by a woman born in Egypt as a Muslim.
This is not hearsay, and it will scare the life out of you. Make sure you read the paragraph (in red) towards the end.
The rise of Islam Fundamentalism in Europe, Africa and the United State of America has been generally unreported in the liberal media and under-played by pacifists, the Obamanites and multicultural tolerance. I've blogged on this subject several times. Locals seem to have forgotten we had a convicted Muslim terrorist living in Peoria attending school at Bradley.
Are we naive enough that he did not or still has friends who may not be Muslims by birth but have similar beliefs living in or traveling to and from Peoria?
Merle
Joys of Muslim Women
by Nonie Darwish
In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child.
Consummating the marriage by 9. The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave)
and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.
Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce. To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.
Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family
has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will'
and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.
The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.
The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.
In the West World ( America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a
divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters
and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and
their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.
By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.
Ripping the West in Two. Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose
Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.
She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.
Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978,
when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel . He was a high-ranking
Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .
When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family
an elevated position in Muslim society.
But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing.
She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.
In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.
For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization
will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic
law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.
Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East
and eventually in the world.
While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics -
one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side
of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.
While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God,
Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.
It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being
Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West,
such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.
While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are
being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.
(In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President by themselves!
Rest assured they will do so. You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA: Dearborn
Michigan is one... and there are others...)
I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized,
unless each of us sends it on!
It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful.. some may be but they
have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam.. the peaceful support the warriors with their finances and
own kind of patriotism to their religion. While America is getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from
the lives of children the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America ..
This is your chance to make a difference...! Pass it on to your email list or at least those you think will listen..
Merle
When you finish reading the e-mail go to this site and read more about who Nonie Darwish really is. (I did and I plan to read her writings)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonie_Darwish
This was written by a woman born in Egypt as a Muslim.
This is not hearsay, and it will scare the life out of you. Make sure you read the paragraph (in red) towards the end.
The rise of Islam Fundamentalism in Europe, Africa and the United State of America has been generally unreported in the liberal media and under-played by pacifists, the Obamanites and multicultural tolerance. I've blogged on this subject several times. Locals seem to have forgotten we had a convicted Muslim terrorist living in Peoria attending school at Bradley.
Are we naive enough that he did not or still has friends who may not be Muslims by birth but have similar beliefs living in or traveling to and from Peoria?
Merle
Joys of Muslim Women
by Nonie Darwish
In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child.
Consummating the marriage by 9. The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave)
and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.
Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce. To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.
Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family
has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will'
and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.
The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.
The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.
In the West World ( America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a
divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters
and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and
their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.
By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.
Ripping the West in Two. Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose
Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.
She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.
Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978,
when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel . He was a high-ranking
Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .
When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family
an elevated position in Muslim society.
But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing.
She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.
In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.
For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization
will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic
law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.
Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East
and eventually in the world.
While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics -
one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side
of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.
While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God,
Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.
It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being
Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West,
such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.
While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are
being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.
(In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President by themselves!
Rest assured they will do so. You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA: Dearborn
Michigan is one... and there are others...)
I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized,
unless each of us sends it on!
It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful.. some may be but they
have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam.. the peaceful support the warriors with their finances and
own kind of patriotism to their religion. While America is getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from
the lives of children the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America ..
This is your chance to make a difference...! Pass it on to your email list or at least those you think will listen..
Comments on This Site
As I've blogged previously, no anonymous comments will be printed on this site. They are all deleted. You should have guts enough to say who you are.
Evidently you "anonymous" don't.
Evidently you "anonymous" don't.
The Crooked Line to the White House
Passed on me by a friend but I had learned of this dirty deal at least a year ago. Two products I would never knowingly buy. Chrysler and GM. The "line" from the White House in 2012 should be straight out. And all the Democrats and a few Republicans like Snowe straight out this November.
Merle
Sooner or later it will all come to light!
Chrysler's Railroad
This could be a scandal of epic proportions and one that makes Nixon's Watergate or Clinton 's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by comparison. Why was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the Chrysler Corporation were to be closed?
Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straits and federal government "graciously" offered to "buy the company" and keep them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs."
Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "Too big to fail," same story with GM.
The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and GM. Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar - literally, that's what his title is.
Rattner is the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM.
Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler 'had made this
list of dealerships'. Not true!
The Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox News and a host of other news agencies discovered that the list of dealerships was put together by the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no one other than Mr. Steve Rattner.
Now the plot thickens.
Remember earlier we said that there was neither rhyme nor reason why
certain dealerships were closed?
Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down.
Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed
the connection.
Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government,
788 had donated money, exclusively to Republican political causes,
while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only
"Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700
to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This
same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign.
Does that seem a little odd to you?
Steve Rattner is the guy who put the list together. Well, he happens
to be married to a Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former
national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As
such, she has access to campaign donation records from everyone in the
nation- Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky
"coincidence," we're certain.
Then comes another really wacky "coincidence."
On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happened
in Arkansas , North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri . It seems that
Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns
a chain of dealership in that region, partnered with a fellow by the
name of Robert Johnson.
Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and
was a huge Obama supporter and financier.
These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of
RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their dealerships were
ordered closed - not one!
While all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were!
Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and
Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus by pure luck, these two major
Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their
zone.
Isn't that amazing?
Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a
dozen or so other web-based news organizations; this isn't being made
up.
Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are mistaken. Under
the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal
government and the United Auto Workers union!
Fiat owns 20%.
The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded on the stock market. Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the auto industry.
As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and being as how this used to be the United States of America , it would appear that the president has the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs just because they don't agree with his political agenda.
This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now,
in our back yard.
There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the
"Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or to any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done.
Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever
wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the
phone to your national senator or representative in the House and
demand an investigation into this.
Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Car Czar No More
An amazing thing happened as this story was going to press. Obama's Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom.
According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and
spend time with his family."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future."
By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar
pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York ....
Uh-oh!
But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation.
And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really? Again, that couldn't have anything to with his resignation-that's ridiculous! Like CBS said, this guy just wants to "spend more quality time with his family."
Obama has 32 personally appointed "czars" who answer to no one but him, all of whom are acting without any Constitutional authority.
But hey, we're sure they all have "unique skills,"......as Tim
Geithner likes to say!
SOOOOO.HOWS THE CHANGE WORKING FOR YOU?..
Check it out at the following websites.....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-auto-policy-All-in-the-Democratic-family-44414452.html
This goes beyond corruption in high places - to gross criminal actions on the part of our government! I hope you will spread this far and wide, and hopefully the taxpaying public will demand some of that transparency we were promised......followed by criminal prosecution of the perpetrators!
What a crooked government, we have!!!!! Vote 'em all out ... November, 2010!
Merle
Sooner or later it will all come to light!
Chrysler's Railroad
This could be a scandal of epic proportions and one that makes Nixon's Watergate or Clinton 's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by comparison. Why was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the Chrysler Corporation were to be closed?
Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straits and federal government "graciously" offered to "buy the company" and keep them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs."
Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "Too big to fail," same story with GM.
The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and GM. Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar - literally, that's what his title is.
Rattner is the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM.
Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler 'had made this
list of dealerships'. Not true!
The Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox News and a host of other news agencies discovered that the list of dealerships was put together by the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no one other than Mr. Steve Rattner.
Now the plot thickens.
Remember earlier we said that there was neither rhyme nor reason why
certain dealerships were closed?
Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down.
Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed
the connection.
Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government,
788 had donated money, exclusively to Republican political causes,
while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only
"Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700
to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This
same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign.
Does that seem a little odd to you?
Steve Rattner is the guy who put the list together. Well, he happens
to be married to a Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former
national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As
such, she has access to campaign donation records from everyone in the
nation- Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky
"coincidence," we're certain.
Then comes another really wacky "coincidence."
On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happened
in Arkansas , North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri . It seems that
Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns
a chain of dealership in that region, partnered with a fellow by the
name of Robert Johnson.
Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and
was a huge Obama supporter and financier.
These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of
RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their dealerships were
ordered closed - not one!
While all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were!
Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and
Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus by pure luck, these two major
Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their
zone.
Isn't that amazing?
Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a
dozen or so other web-based news organizations; this isn't being made
up.
Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are mistaken. Under
the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal
government and the United Auto Workers union!
Fiat owns 20%.
The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded on the stock market. Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the auto industry.
As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and being as how this used to be the United States of America , it would appear that the president has the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs just because they don't agree with his political agenda.
This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now,
in our back yard.
There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the
"Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or to any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done.
Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever
wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the
phone to your national senator or representative in the House and
demand an investigation into this.
Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Car Czar No More
An amazing thing happened as this story was going to press. Obama's Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom.
According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and
spend time with his family."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future."
By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar
pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York ....
Uh-oh!
But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation.
And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really? Again, that couldn't have anything to with his resignation-that's ridiculous! Like CBS said, this guy just wants to "spend more quality time with his family."
Obama has 32 personally appointed "czars" who answer to no one but him, all of whom are acting without any Constitutional authority.
But hey, we're sure they all have "unique skills,"......as Tim
Geithner likes to say!
SOOOOO.HOWS THE CHANGE WORKING FOR YOU?..
Check it out at the following websites.....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html
This goes beyond corruption in high places - to gross criminal actions on the part of our government! I hope you will spread this far and wide, and hopefully the taxpaying public will demand some of that transparency we were promised......followed by criminal prosecution of the perpetrators!
What a crooked government, we have!!!!! Vote 'em all out ... November, 2010!
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Arizona Immigration New Law and Ann Coulter
No, Ann Coulter is not a nut as many Democrats politicians and Blago and Obama supporters, describe her. Too many Democrats politicians and bureaucrats are nuts starting at the top.
One major wish, too late now, that I was younger and lived in Arizona and was active in politics as a conservative, common sense, independent Republican.
Merle
SHARE THIS: Share121 1700diggsdiggSign-Up
So I guess all that hysteria about the Arizona immigration law was much ado about nothing. After months of telling us that the Nazis had seized Arizona, when the Obama administration finally got around to suing, its only objection was that the law was "pre-empted" by federal immigration law.
With the vast majority of Americans supporting Arizona's inoffensive little law, the fact that Obama is suing at all suggests that he consulted exclusively with the craziest people in America before filing this complaint. (Which is to say, Eric Holder's Justice Department.)
But apparently even they could find nothing discriminatory about Arizona's law. It's reassuring to know that, contrary to earlier indications, government lawyers can at least read English.
Instead, the administration argues, federal laws on immigration pre-empt Arizona's law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
State laws are pre-empted by federal law in two circumstances: When there is a conflict -- such as "sanctuary cities" for illegals or California's medical marijuana law -- or when Congress has so thoroughly regulated a field that there is no room for even congruent state laws.
If Obama thinks there's a conflict, I believe he's made a damning admission. There's a conflict only if the official policy of the federal government is to ignore its own immigration laws.
Only slightly less preposterous is the argument that although Arizona's law agrees with federal law, Congress has engaged in "field pre-emption" by occupying the entire field of immigration, thus prohibiting even harmonious state laws.
Field pre-emption may arise, for example, in the case of federal health and safety laws, so that manufacturers of cars, medical devices and drugs aren't forced to comply with the laws of 50 different states to sell their products nationally.
And yet, just over a year ago, the Supreme Court held that there was no "field pre-emption" even in the case of an FDA-approved anti-nausea drug because Congress had not explicitly stated that state regulation was pre-empted.
The drug, Phenergan, came with the warning that, if administered improperly (so that it enters an artery), catastrophe could ensue.
In April 2000, Phenergan was administered improperly to Diana Levine -- by a clinician ignoring six separate warnings on Phenergan's label. Catastrophe ensued; Levine developed gangrene and had to have her lower arm amputated.
Levine sued the health center and clinician for malpractice and won.
One major wish, too late now, that I was younger and lived in Arizona and was active in politics as a conservative, common sense, independent Republican.
Merle
SHARE THIS: Share121 1700diggsdiggSign-Up
So I guess all that hysteria about the Arizona immigration law was much ado about nothing. After months of telling us that the Nazis had seized Arizona, when the Obama administration finally got around to suing, its only objection was that the law was "pre-empted" by federal immigration law.
With the vast majority of Americans supporting Arizona's inoffensive little law, the fact that Obama is suing at all suggests that he consulted exclusively with the craziest people in America before filing this complaint. (Which is to say, Eric Holder's Justice Department.)
But apparently even they could find nothing discriminatory about Arizona's law. It's reassuring to know that, contrary to earlier indications, government lawyers can at least read English.
Instead, the administration argues, federal laws on immigration pre-empt Arizona's law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
State laws are pre-empted by federal law in two circumstances: When there is a conflict -- such as "sanctuary cities" for illegals or California's medical marijuana law -- or when Congress has so thoroughly regulated a field that there is no room for even congruent state laws.
If Obama thinks there's a conflict, I believe he's made a damning admission. There's a conflict only if the official policy of the federal government is to ignore its own immigration laws.
Only slightly less preposterous is the argument that although Arizona's law agrees with federal law, Congress has engaged in "field pre-emption" by occupying the entire field of immigration, thus prohibiting even harmonious state laws.
Field pre-emption may arise, for example, in the case of federal health and safety laws, so that manufacturers of cars, medical devices and drugs aren't forced to comply with the laws of 50 different states to sell their products nationally.
And yet, just over a year ago, the Supreme Court held that there was no "field pre-emption" even in the case of an FDA-approved anti-nausea drug because Congress had not explicitly stated that state regulation was pre-empted.
The drug, Phenergan, came with the warning that, if administered improperly (so that it enters an artery), catastrophe could ensue.
In April 2000, Phenergan was administered improperly to Diana Levine -- by a clinician ignoring six separate warnings on Phenergan's label. Catastrophe ensued; Levine developed gangrene and had to have her lower arm amputated.
Levine sued the health center and clinician for malpractice and won.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Peoria Police Profiling
I've blogged twice on this subject; "Profiling", 8/13/06 and "Profiling; is More Better Than Less?", 8/17/06. Even liberal Columnist Leonard Pitts wrote on 8/13/06 that Inconvenience OK for tighter Security and Columnist Kathleen in a column in the JS on 8/17,06 wrote that "Profiling simply makes sense", plus a WSJ article 8/17/06, Profiles in Terror, a Detailed Look at al Quaeda's Founders and the U.S. Agents Who Saw the Threat".
Even renowned writer black Thomas Sowell wrote back in March 2005 wrote, "Too many lives are at risk today from people already INSIDE this country to be paralyzed by the politically correct rhetoric of those who decry 'racial profiling'".
Also, highly respected black writer and political activist, Michell Malkin wrote in 2005, "It is entirely appropriate to take into account nationality when deciding which foreigners present the highest risk."
Most of these people bent on destroying each other in Peoria are "foreign" to our culture. Poverty, it has been proven over and over, is no excuse for these acts of violence. Education is free. So are food and clothing. And shelter. The court system, our security systems, our jails and prisons are not. Counseling is basically free.
Color and demeanor, location and suspicions matter. Take all appropriate action to protect the bulk of the peace loving society, profiling or not.
Even renowned writer black Thomas Sowell wrote back in March 2005 wrote, "Too many lives are at risk today from people already INSIDE this country to be paralyzed by the politically correct rhetoric of those who decry 'racial profiling'".
Also, highly respected black writer and political activist, Michell Malkin wrote in 2005, "It is entirely appropriate to take into account nationality when deciding which foreigners present the highest risk."
Most of these people bent on destroying each other in Peoria are "foreign" to our culture. Poverty, it has been proven over and over, is no excuse for these acts of violence. Education is free. So are food and clothing. And shelter. The court system, our security systems, our jails and prisons are not. Counseling is basically free.
Color and demeanor, location and suspicions matter. Take all appropriate action to protect the bulk of the peace loving society, profiling or not.
NAACP - Anti-Tea Party?
First, let me state that I stand firmly behind what the tea Party people are accomplishing. Of course there are always some radicals involved in any movement. To name a few; the NAACP, ACORN, ACLU, CAIR, all unions, environmentally concerned groups, who have more than their share of nuts, all political parties especially the Democrats and their "leadership" starting at the top in D.C. and spreading through out the party; all have nutty radicals involved.
Many, like the ones specifically mentioned above, have more than their fair share.
At the point of being more than radical and nutty, some such as I've blogged on before are AN EXTREME DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY.
November should bring change. If not???
Many, like the ones specifically mentioned above, have more than their fair share.
At the point of being more than radical and nutty, some such as I've blogged on before are AN EXTREME DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY.
November should bring change. If not???
Dr. Seuss Book - A New Correct Version
Forwarded to me by a dear friend.
Merle
A new, updated, Dr. Seuss book.
I do not like this Uncle Sam,
I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks,
or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like this speaker, Nan ,
I do not like this 'YES WE CAN.'
I do not like this spending spree,
I'm smart, I know that nothing's free.
I do not like your smug replies,
when I complain about your lies.
I do not like this kind of hope.
I do not like it, nope, nope, nope!
Merle
A new, updated, Dr. Seuss book.
I do not like this Uncle Sam,
I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks,
or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like this speaker, Nan ,
I do not like this 'YES WE CAN.'
I do not like this spending spree,
I'm smart, I know that nothing's free.
I do not like your smug replies,
when I complain about your lies.
I do not like this kind of hope.
I do not like it, nope, nope, nope!
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Rhode Island and Immigration Law
I believe this to be true. If so, why not????
Merle
Something Very interesting on Immigration = United States v. Rhode Island
United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island? (my Home State. Bob Langevin - Thanks Bob.)
Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegal's to the feds for deportation. Besides the usual profiling blather, critics have trotted out the now familiar saw that such procedures hamstring police because they make immigrants afraid to cooperate. But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law professor William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I'm derelict in my duties to look the other way.”
If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn't the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn't even gone into effect yet.
Could it be because — as we've discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?
I belive this to be true. If so, why????
Merle
Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?
So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect.
Merle
Something Very interesting on Immigration = United States v. Rhode Island
United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island? (my Home State. Bob Langevin - Thanks Bob.)
Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegal's to the feds for deportation. Besides the usual profiling blather, critics have trotted out the now familiar saw that such procedures hamstring police because they make immigrants afraid to cooperate. But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law professor William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I'm derelict in my duties to look the other way.”
If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn't the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn't even gone into effect yet.
Could it be because — as we've discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?
I belive this to be true. If so, why????
Merle
Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?
So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Welfare State Expansion - Good Grief
Did you ever wonder why the the Federal government(or any government for that matter)can never control its spending? Here, another one in a million "feel good" ideas, is why-somebody sees a need to fix a problem that should be entirely the responsibility of the parents, that is, a good lunch provided at school. So, naturally, the Federal government must step in and use the taxpayers money to provide the lunch to impoverished children who otherwise would starve to death at school. And guess what, not only will the program never end, despite the huge obesity problem being suffered by our children today, but the program will expand exponentially to cover all children, will soon include breakfast and mid-afternoon snacks, take home sacks in case there is not enough truly nutritional food at home, the age limit will steadily increase until 28 year olds qualify for free lunches, etc. I still have yet to see a single article that suggests, let alone supports the notion that children are starving in the US and that the taxpayers have no recourse except to fund another multi billion dollar welfare program. And, of course, an unelected government official gets to decide to spend the money. Will it never end?
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/07/federal_government_eying_free.html
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/07/federal_government_eying_free.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)