Holy Sh@t, what did you do America??

[wil]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

To all the "Obamatons", you will get what you want, or maybe something that you did not expect. To all the Freemen, those with a brain and those that hold true the Constitution of The United States, read this and get ANGRY, PISSED OFF and call your Congressman and speak of your disdain of this attempted violation of your rights as a law abiding citizen of America!!!. I am sure that there will be much more to come.

GovTrack: H.R. 45: Text of Legislation, Introduced in House

For those that are too lazy to read the above link, this is a total RAPE of the Second Amendment by Obama and his "COWARD" Attorney Gereral Eric Holder

Sweet! I'm sure all the Thugs in da Hood will be lining up to make sure their guns are properly licensed.




And um... anybody wanna buy some sweet beachfront property in Fairbanks Alaska?



This part sounds a lot like Mr. Holder will be able to make up laws as his mood strikes ...

SEC. 402. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General- The Attorney General shall issue regulations governing the licensing of possessors of qualifying firearms and the recorded sale of qualifying firearms, consistent with this Act and the amendments made by this Act, as the Attorney General determines to be reasonably necessary to reduce or prevent deaths or injuries resulting from qualifying firearms, and to assist law enforcement in the apprehension of owners or users of qualifying firearms used in criminal activity.

[linemanpaul]

The quote of the day

There is a thin line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

— Oscar Levant

[ckn]

Times article

Barack Obama bets the farm in $4 trillion poker game
The President believes he can change US politics for a generation. If he's wrong he could bankrupt the whole country
Tim Reid

One of the most seductive elements of Barack Obama's ascent to the White House was his unshakeable conviction that he was being called upon, at a time of epochal peril, to bend the arc of history America's way.

Only a candidate possessed with such boldness and self-belief would have challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination two years after leaving the Illinois state senate, promising in his first campaign speech to “transform a nation and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth”.

Only a man who frequently compares himself to America's greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, would declare that when he was elected, “the rise of the oceans will begin to slow”. Only someone who believes that America is on the crest of a dangerous historic wave - and that he “can help guide it” - would have undertaken a glitzy world tour midway through the campaign.

Such ostentatious gambles underscored his promise to transform US governance, and with his intellect and cool temperament made a combination many found thrilling.

In his first month in office he has pushed through an unprecedented $787 billion economic stimulus package, announced plans to save the car industry, stabilise the stricken banking sector and stem the flood of home repossessions.

Then came his near-$4-trillion budget last week. It is a manifesto to usher in a new age of government activism that involves levels of borrowing and spending never before seen in the US and is a document of such staggering ambition and risk that even some of Mr Obama's Democratic supporters are suddenly beginning to feel a little queasy.

A keen poker player, Mr Obama is gambling not only his own presidency, but the future wellbeing of the country. If he pulls it off, they might find room for him on Mount Rushmore. If he fails, he could bankrupt the world's largest economy.

There have been only a few watershed moments in US history, and this is one. In the face of such a dark economic crisis, Mr Obama believes that timidity will beget catastrophe. He believes that the peril of the moment compels him to tackle both the short and long-term financial problems all at once - and quickly.

What he unveiled last week was one of the most audacious agendas announced by a new president. He declared his intention not just to pump trillions of dollars into a short-term rescue for the economy, but also to press ahead with enormously costly plans to trigger a green industrial revolution, transform education and provide health coverage to all Americans. These are issues that have bedevilled Congress and other presidents for decades. Achieving just one would be an extraordinary achievement. Mr Obama wants all three - and fast.

What was most striking about the budget - including that it will explode the federal deficit to $1.75trillion this year, its highest since the Second World War - was that it was a ruthless declaration of how Mr Obama intends fundamentally to change the American social contract, from Right to Left.

Its goal is not just to rescue the economy. It is to crush conservatism, end the age of anti-tax, anti-regulation policies that have been the guiding philosophies of US governance for a generation, and usher in a fresh “epoch”, as his aides call it, of New Deal-Great Society wealth redistribution and central intervention that were repudiated by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago. Much of his agenda will be paid for by a ten-year, $1 trillion tax increase on families earning more than $250,000 a year, beginning in 2011, a move that critics say risks stunting the economic recovery.

Mr Obama and his aides are particularly attracted to the notion, put forward by the Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek, that most of the truly transformative US presidents - and there are only a handful - followed failed ones. They include Thomas Jefferson after John Adams, Lincoln after James Buchanan, FranklinD. Roosevelt after Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan after Jimmy Carter.

Their belief is that these presidents were able to reshape, for at least a generation, the governing philosophy and electoral alignment because the public rejected the era that preceded them. Yet presidents who believe that they are governing at such transformational moments - as Mr Obama does - take bigger risks to achieve momentous change. The stakes he has placed on the table with his budget are extraordinary.

What has begun to trouble some even within his own party is that Mr Obama's pledge to spend the US out of recession, while slashing the budget deficit to $533 billion within four years, already looks recklessly optimistic. Few dispute, even among Republicans, the need for healthcare reform or to wean America off foreign oil. It is the scale of debt that Mr Obama is willing to incur to achieve these goals that is causing such heartburn.

And it is not just Americans who desperately need him to prevail. As Gordon Brown said in Washington this week, while pledging faith in the President's plans, everyone is watching the US economy. The entire developed world is banking on Mr Obama to succeed.

But much of his promise to rein in the deficit rested on a projection that the recession will cease and the US economy grow next year, but nobody can clearly see an end to this slump. The central question - how to stop the banking sector from collapse - is still a work in progress. They prefer huge injections of cash to stop the banks dying - but stop short of nationalisation - while they try to work out how to rid them of at least $2 trillion of toxic assets. There is still a significant chance that the scale of debt involved could devour Mr Obama's presidency.

The markets are so unnerved about Mr Obama's ability to rescue the financial sector, and by the numerous bailouts that have had little effect, that wealth is being destroyed on Wall Street at a rate not seen since the 1930s. The President said on Tuesday that he does not worry about “the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market”, but investors have made it clear that his economic prescriptions have so far failed to reassure them.

Mr Obama also says that much of his programme will be paid for by reducing the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet he has just ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan for a war that his Defence Secretary says will be a long and difficult slog, and he is still groping for a strategy in Pakistan.

“We are always better off on the high wire,” David Plouffe, Mr Obama's campaign manager, said last year. Now Mr Obama is President, watching from below has become both enthralling and terrifying.

Tim Reid is Washington Correspondent of The Times

[linemanpaul]

Some words of wisdom

The world, unfortunately, rarely matches our hopes and consistently refuses to behave in a reasonable manner.

— Stephen Jay Gould

[linemanpaul]

Some good reading

iowahawk: Memo to America's Irresponsible Tea Party Whiners: STFU

iowahawk: I Daresay It Is Time We Deal With the Mutineers Aboard the S.S. Conservatism

[linemanpaul]

Obama, you are President now, get to work as "The Great Uniter"

One Call Obama Didn't Make

By David Nather | March 6, 2009 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There may be plenty of reasons for Senate Democrats’ surprising failure last night to finish up last year’s federal government funding needs. But among other things, the White House has been strangely disengaged from a debate that has now put the Democrats on the defensive over all of the earmarks in the omnibus spending bill.

Case in point: As of yesterday, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, one of the leading critics of the earmarks in the bill, told me President Obama hadn’t called him to see what could be done about Coburn’s concerns. And neither had anyone else at the White House.

Why does that matter? Because Coburn is one of the few senators Obama worked with on significant issues during his short time in the Senate. Yes, their views are in direct conflict on most issues, but Obama did work with Coburn a lot on good-government issues — not just the 2006 law creating a database of federal spending, but contracting issues as well, such as cracking down on non-competitive contracts.

There may not be a wide range of senators who developed real working relationships with Obama, but Coburn is one of the ones who did. If there ever was an antagonist whom Obama should be able to just pick up the phone and call, Coburn should be one of them.

Instead, Obama has left his top aides to argue that the omnibus is simply “last year’s business,” as White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel put it, or “the finishing up of last year’s appropriations legislation,” in the words of White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

“He’s going to have to decide whether he wants to lead on this or not,” Coburn said of Obama. “He can’t just claim that this is last year’s business. That doesn’t make any sense.”

Overall, the White House hasn’t shown much of a sense of urgency about getting the omnibus bill done. In this morning’s “gaggle” with reporters on Air Force One, Gibbs said he wasn’t sure what the legislative affairs team was doing about the Senate’s failure to pass the bill last night.

Granted, Obama has had plenty of other issues on his plate this week, notably yesterday’s health care summit. But ending an uncomfortable debate over earmarks — not to mention avoiding the embarrassment over Democrats’ inability to pass the bill even when they control 58 votes in the Senate — would seem to be a priority, too.

The narrow issue at play right now seems to be Senate Republicans’ insistence on having more time for amendments. So that part is up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But a call from Obama to Coburn — something to assure the Oklahoma Republican that he really is working to cut down on earmarks on future bills — could have had important symbolic value and perhaps stolen some thunder from the Republicans’ “veto the bill” talk.

Instead, that debate will now drag on into next week. By trying to duck the issue, Obama and his team have guaranteed they will have to live with it for a while longer.

CQ Politics | Balance of Power - One Call Obama Didn't Make

[linemanpaul]

Obama the superhero can tell the difference between rare, medium, or well done Taliban, so he and Karzi want to sit down with some "medium Taliban" , you know the ones that will kill you gently not like the "well done" Taliban

Karzai welcomes Obama call to reach out to Taliban


By HEIDI VOGT, Associated Press Writer Heidi Vogt, Associated Press Writer – 21 mins ago
Afghan president Hamid Karzai speaks during a ceremony to mark the International AP – Afghan president Hamid Karzai speaks during a ceremony to mark the International Women's Day on Sunday, …

KABUL – President Hamid Karzai on Sunday welcomed President Barack Obama's call to identify moderate elements of the Taliban and encourage them to reconcile with the Afghan government.

Obama's call "was good news because this has been the stand of the Afghan government," Karzai told a gymnasium full of Afghan women during a speech to commemorate International Women's Day.

Obama said in an interview with The New York Times published Sunday that there may be opportunities to reach out to moderates in the Taliban, but the situation in Afghanistan is more complicated than the challenges the American military faced in Iraq.

"There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani region," Obama said, while cautioning that solutions in Afghanistan will be complicated.

U.S. troops were able to persuade Sunni Muslim insurgents in Iraq to cooperate in some instances because they had been alienated by the tactics of al-Qaida terrorists.

Karzai warned that there are Taliban fighters who are beyond reconciliation — those who have joined with al-Qaida, for instance. But he said talks should go forward "with those who are afraid to come back to their country, or who feel they have no choice but to stay with the Taliban for various reasons. They are welcome."

Obama cautioned that Afghanistan is a less-governed region than Iraq with a history of fierce independence among tribes, creating a tough set of circumstances for the United States to deal with.

Obama last month ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan to bolster the record 38,000 American forces already in the country. Obama has promised to increase the U.S. focus on Afghanistan and away from Iraq, as the U.S. begins to draw down its forces there.

In the latest violence, a roadside blast killed a NATO service member and wounded two U.S. coalition members in eastern Afghanistan Sunday, the NATO-led force said. The alliance did not disclose the troops' nationalities or the exact location of the attack, but the majority of troops in eastern Afghanistan are American.

Another roadside blast in central Ghazni province hit a police vehicle, killing six policemen and wounding another six officers, said Ismail Jahangir, the spokesman for the provincial governor.

A joint Afghan-coalition patrol, meanwhile, killed two Afghan policemen late Friday who opened fire on their team in northeastern Kapisa province, the coalition said in a statement Sunday.

The joint patrol, which was on foot, attempted to identify themselves as friendly forces to the police without success, the statement said. "In self-defense, the patrol returned fire killing two individuals," it said.

The string of deaths continues an upward spike in violence that has spread throughout Afghanistan the last three years even as Obama's administration is trying to come up with a new approach to dealing with the Afghan war

Karzai welcomes Obama call to reach out to Taliban

[linemanpaul]

Laughter is always good medicine







And many more at

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/03/...ay-funnies-32/

[linemanpaul]

Be afraid and on Alert!!!

chicagotribune.com
Militant threat from Pakistan alarms U.S.
Officials see indication of presence within United States

By Josh Meyer

Washington Bureau

March 8, 2009
Click here to find out more!

WASHINGTON — The Mumbai terrorist siege and other recent plots and attacks have stoked alarm among U.S. officials that the next strike on U.S. soil is less likely to come from traditional Al Qaeda operatives than from virtually unidentifiable Pakistani militants who enjoy easy access to the United States and already have a significant presence here.

But U.S. efforts to identify and thwart the growing threat posed by the Pakistani extremists—both inside the United States and against American interests overseas—are being undermined by the government of Pakistan, which has a long history of close ties to the militant organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba that are radicalizing, training and funding extremists, according to current and former U.S. and Western counterterrorism officials.

Even before the gunfire in Mumbai stopped last November, the FBI and other U.S. agencies went on red alert, searching for any evidence of plotters in the United States.

Although they did not find any direct connections, authorities did find troubling evidence of the group's continued presence on U.S. soil, including fundraising and support cells that are well-hidden within the large numbers of the Pakistani diaspora.

"We were not concerned as much about an attack the next day but about LT-tied individuals in the country that we need to be concerned about. And there have been people here that fit that description," said Juan Zarate, the deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism in the Bush administration, who played a key role in assessing the domestic threat posed by Pakistani militants. That threat has become one of the most crucial national security and diplomatic challenges for the new Obama administration and Congress.

"We are and should be concerned about the threat LT poses, given its global network," Zarate said of Lashkar, using a popular acronym for the group, which means "army of the pure." "It doesn't just reside in South Asia. It is an organization that has potential reach all over the world, including the U.S."

Washington must now weigh how far it should push Pakistan to dismantle not only Lashkar-e-Taiba and similar groups but also the elements within Islamabad's military and intelligence agencies that created them and that U.S. officials believe continue to maintain strategic alliances with them in an effort to protect Islamabad's interests in South Asia.

U.S. and allied intelligence shows that potentially many tens of thousands of Pakistanis have been trained in Lashkar's guerrilla camps in Pakistan, many of whom have gone on to work with Al Qaeda. That includes a small number of U.S. residents, some of whom are believed to have returned to the United States. Nearly a dozen Americans, including many members of the so-called Virginia jihad network, have been convicted in U.S. courts of training at Lashkar camps and conspiring to provide material support to the group.

Evidence confiscated from other, often computer-savvy young militants, shows a Lashkar interest in the Washington area, New York, California, Georgia and other locations, according to interviews and court testimony.

But authorities say their far greater concern is the thousands of disaffected Westerners and Pakistanis in Britain and other "visa waiver" countries in Europe who travel frequently to Pakistan. An unknown number of those have trained in Lashkar camps and, after getting indoctrinated in its hatred of the West and returning home, they are free to travel to the United States with virtually no background check.

Bruce Riedel, a former South Asia specialist for the CIA and National Security Council, said in an interview after the Mumbai attacks that he believes such a "global jihadist syndicate" of disaffected young Pakistanis is the most likely mechanism for launching an attack on U.S. soil.

Riedel, who is now chairman of the Obama administration's Pakistan-Afghanistan strategy review, said Mumbai was only the latest of several attacks by such militants on soft targets frequented by Americans, including hotels in Kabul, Afghanistan, and Islamabad.

FBI Director Robert Mueller also highlighted the concern in a recent speech, saying U.S. authorities fear a Mumbai-style commando attack here and that such militants from "less well-known terrorist groups ... are merely an e-ticket away from the United States."

FBI intelligence chief Donald Van Duyn recently told Congress that the bureau was investigating "a limited number" of people in the U.S. with suspected links to Lashkar but that there was no evidence the group had an organized U.S. presence.

But Van Duyn and his intelligence counterpart at the Department of Homeland Security, Charles Allen, testified that they were so worried about domestic Mumbai-style attacks that they have briefed state and local law enforcement agencies, and the managers of thousands of hotels, public transportation hubs and other locations on how to protect their facilities.

A joint threat assessment done by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security before President Barack Obama's inauguration warned: "A group of well-armed terrorists, likely equipped with automatic weapons and explosives, could assault their target forcibly with the intention of taking hostages."

Authorities say Lashkar is in many ways a bigger threat than Al Qaeda, whose leadership is on the run from numerous CIA airstrikes in the Pakistani tribal areas.

Because Lashkar's trained foot soldiers are either locally based Pakistanis or those visiting from Europe, they are virtually invisible to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials. That is exacerbated by the Pakistani government's extreme reluctance to cooperate with the United States, Britain and other allies in going after Lashkar, Jaish-e-Mohammed and other militant groups, Riedel and others say

Militant threat from Pakistan alarms U.S. -- chicagotribune.com

[ckn]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

Be afraid and on Alert!!!

Absolutely not. Yes, be alert but don't be afraid.

Being afraid does two things:

1. gives the terrorists a victory without doing a thing, and
2. gives the government the "public backing" to remove even more of your civil liberties

Remember, in the USA*:

- you are about 100 times more likely to die crossing a suburban road than in a terrorist incident
- you are more likely to die putting up or fixing Christmas decorations than in a terrorist incident
- you are more likely to die on the toilet from a blood pressure heart attack than you are in a terrorist incident.

Yes, be vigilant but never afraid or you're allowing the terrorists to win.

* stats were on a news program last year from the last two decades and include deaths from the 9/11 atrocity along with other civil terrorists such as the Oklahoma federal building bombing in 1995.

[linemanpaul]

ckn
You are absolutly correct do not be afraid

[linemanpaul]

Hairplug Joe, said his boss would be tested early in his adminstration, and here we go

US protests 'harassment' by Chinese vessels

WASHINGTON – Chinese ships surrounded and harassed a Navy mapping ship in international waters off China, at one point coming within 25 feet of the American boat and strewing debris in its path, the Defense Department said Monday. The Obama administration said it would continue naval operations in the South China Sea, most of which China considers its territory, and protested to China about what it called reckless behavior that endangered lives.

At one point during the incident Sunday the unarmed USNS Impeccable turned fire hoses on an approaching Chinese ship in self defense, the Pentagon said. At another point a Chinese ship played chicken with the Americans, stopping dead in front of the Impeccable as it tried to sail away, forcing the civilian mariners to slam on the brakes.

"We view these as unprofessional maneuvers" and a violation of international law, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

The incident had overtones of spycraft, but the U.S. ship is not, strictly speaking, a spy ship. It maps the ocean floor with sonar, compiling information the Navy can use to steer its own submarines or track those of other nations.

The Impeccable was specifically designed to augment the Navy's anti-submarine capability, although military spokesmen would not be specific about the ship's duties when it was surrounded.

A Pentagon accounting of the confrontation documents the actions of the startled and cornered American crew as a Chinese vessel closed to within 25 feet. Pictures released by the Navy give a sense of the surreal scene: The Chinese mariners had stripped to their underwear following the blast by the Impeccable's fire hoses.

Whitman called that "immature," and said the confrontation was the most aggressive of a series of incidents recently in the same area.

Impeccable's crew radioed to tell the Chinese ships that it was leaving the area and requested a safe path to navigate, the Pentagon said.

But two of the Chinese ships stopped directly ahead of the Impeccable, forcing it to an emergency stop, the U.S. account said. The Chinese also dropped pieces of wood in the water in Impeccable's path.

The incident came just a week after China and the U.S. resumed military-to-military consultations following a five-month suspension over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. And it came as Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi was due in Washington to meet with U.S. officials.

"We're going to continue to operate in those international waters, and we expect the Chinese to observe international law around that," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

A protest was lodged with the Chinese government by the U.S. Embassy in Beijing over the weekend and was repeated to a Chinese defense attache at a Pentagon meeting Monday.

In Beijing, Chinese officials did not immediately respond to voicemail messages and e-mail regarding the U.S. allegations.

Pentagon officials said the incident followed "increasingly aggressive" acts by Chinese ships against the Impeccable on Wednesday and Saturday and against the USNS Victorious surveillance ship on Thursday while it operated in the Yellow Sea.

The Chinese ships included a Chinese Navy intelligence collection ship, a Bureau of Maritime Fisheries Patrol Vessel, a State Oceanographic Administration patrol vessel and two small Chinese-flagged trawlers, officials said.

China views almost the entirety of the South China Sea as its territory. China's claims to small islets in the region have put it at odds with five governments — the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.

Pentagon officials said the close encounter followed these other incidents last week:

_On Wednesday, a Chinese Bureau of Fisheries Patrol vessel used a high-intensity spotlight to illuminate the Victorious, an ocean surveillance ship, as it operated in the Yellow Sea, about 125 nautical miles from China's coast, the Pentagon said. The next day, a Chinese Y-12 maritime surveillance aircraft conducted 12 fly-bys of Victorious at an altitude of about 400 feet and a range of 500 yards.

_On Thursday, a Chinese frigate approached USNS Impeccable without warning and crossed its bow at a range of approximately 100 yards, the Pentagon said. This was followed less than two hours later by a Chinese Y-12 aircraft conducting 11 fly-bys of Impeccable at an altitude of 600 feet and a range from 100-300 feet.

_On Saturday, a Chinese intelligence collection ship challenged Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio, calling her operations illegal and directing Impeccable to leave the area or "suffer the consequences."

Sunday's incident near Hainan Island is reminiscent of a much more dramatic foreign policy crisis with China that played out in the same area. The forced landing of a U.S. spy plane and China's seizure of the crew in April 2001 came just four months into President George W. Bush's tenure.

___

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.

US protests 'harassment' by Chinese vessels

[linemanpaul]

How about this stimulus for all, the Senate removed the "E- Verify" provision from the Stimulus Bill and this will be the end result

Illegal immigrants might get stimulus jobs, experts say


By William M. Welch, USA TODAY
LOS ANGELES — Tens of thousands of jobs created by the economic stimulus law could end up filled by illegal immigrants, particularly in big states such as California where undocumented workers are heavily represented in construction, experts on both sides of the issue say.

Studies by two conservative think tanks estimate immigrants in the United States illegally could take 300,000 construction jobs, or 15% of the 2 million jobs that new taxpayer-financed projects are predicted to create.

They fault Congress for failing to require that employers certify legal immigration status of workers before hiring by using a Department of Homeland Security program called E-Verify. The program allows employers to check the validity of Social Security numbers provided by new hires. It is available to employers on a voluntary basis.

"They could have deterred this, but they chose not to," said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies.


He said a federal requirement that employers use E-Verify would have reduced, if not eliminated, the hiring of immigrants in this country illegally.

An advocacy group for immigrants, illegal and legal, did not disagree with the 300,000 estimate. Camarota says the estimate is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and other independent findings that 15% of all construction workers in the USA are either illegal immigrants or lack the status of legal immigrant authorized to work.

But Jorge-Mario Cabrera, director of education for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, said it is impossible to predict with certainty because it is unknown how many jobless immigrant construction workers may leave the U.S., frustrated by the economic recession, before the new spending produces jobs.

He questioned the Center for Immigration Studies' motives.

"Those are fear tactics. … 'The immigrants are here to take your job,' " Cabrera said. "I think that we really should be focusing on economic progress for all."

The center is a Washington policy organization that, its website says, "seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted." Cabrera says his group believes unauthorized immigrants working in this country contribute to the economy.

A similar hiring estimate was produced in a report in February by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Senior research fellow Robert Rector wrote, "Without specific mechanisms to ensure that workers are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants authorized to work, it is likely that 15% of these workers, or 300,000, would be illegal immigrants."

The version of the stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives included a provision requiring employers to check immigration status with the E-Verify system before hiring. The Senate did not include such a provision, and it was not in the version sent to President Obama. The Obama administration has delayed until at least May 21 a Bush administration executive order requiring federal contractors to use the E-Verify system in hiring. It had been scheduled to take effect in January. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit seeking to block the requirement, joined by the Associated Builders and Contractors and other business organizations.

The business groups and immigrant advocacy groups argue that the E-Verify database is riddled with errors that could result in millions of workers being wrongly identified as not authorized for work. They say requiring its use before hiring would impose a cost burden on employers and open them to lawsuits.

Camarota said illegal immigrants working in construction are concentrated in California, Arizona and Texas along the border with Mexico, as well as Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina and Georgia.

Illegal immigrants might get stimulus jobs, experts say - USATODAY.com

[linemanpaul]

Both the "Messiah" and Hairplug Joe are supporters of the Legislation, seems like some payback for the union support during the campaign.

Union Recognition - Secret Ballot Elections and Card Check Schemes
The "Employee Free Choice Act"--better known as the Card Check bill--is a proposed law that would change how unions are allowed to organize workers in the United States. Big labor unions like the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and the Change to Win Coalition spent heavily during the 2009 election, and are pushing Congress to approve this law. Union membership has been declining--currently about 7.5 percent in the private sector--and they hope this law will change the rules and reverse that trend.

The U.S. Chamber strongly opposes this legislation. There are three problems with Card Check:

1. Eliminating the Private Ballot

Card Check would effectively eliminate private voting.
Under the existing law today, workers have a chance to vote for or against unionization in a private-ballot election that is federally supervised. Under Card Check, if more than 50% of workers at a facility sign a card, the government would have to certify the union, and a private ballot election would be prohibited--even if workers want one.

By forcing workers to sign a card in public--instead of vote in private--Card Check opens the door to intimidation and coercion. Over 70% of voters agree that a private election is better than card check.


2. Government Arbitration and Control

Card Check could put government regulators in charge of private business decisions.
Once a union is certified, the business and union would only have 120 days to reach agreement, before facing the prospect of being forced into binding arbitration. This means a panel of government arbitrators who may have no understanding of the business could impose a two year contract deciding all workplace terms--without any vote by the company or its employees.

By placing government regulators in charge of a two-year decision, business flexibility is limited--at a time in our history when it is needed most. A recent poll found that 75% of voters believe government arbitrators should not decide the conditions of a union contract.


3. Harsh New Penalties for Businesses

Card Check would unfairly punish businesses.
Card Check would impose harsh new penalties on businesses--but not on unions--for violations during the union recognition process. This is unfair, and potentially disastrous for small or medium businesses, who are not familiar with unionizing campaigns or the National Labor Relations Act. If Card Check passes, many of these businesses would be facing unionization for the first time.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce - The Employee Free Choice Act - the "Card Check" Bill

[linemanpaul]

And the Commander in Training want these Bastards released and Gitmo closed. I would suggest since he is a Great Community Organizer, maybe they could move into his neighborhood, they sound like great neighbors.

(CNN) -- Five Guantanamo prisoners accused in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the U.S. staunchly defended their actions, calling the operation "blessed" and "great" and the accusations against them "badges of honor."
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is shown in a courtroom sketch at Guantanamo Bay in January.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is shown in a courtroom sketch at Guantanamo Bay in January.

"You are the last nation that has the right to speak about civilians and killing civilians," the five said in a response this month to the U.S. government's war crimes charges.

"You are professional criminals, with all the meaning the words carry," the response said. "Therefore, we will treat you the same. We will attack you, just like you have attacked us, and whomever initiated the attacks is the guilty party."

The six-page response from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who plotted the attacks, and four others castigates the actions of the United States and its allies in the Middle East and calls the United States "the terrorist country number one in the world."

The military commission set up to hear the men's cases at the Guantanamo Bay inmate facility received the signed document Thursday, and a military judge ordered its release on Monday.

The five are members of the al Qaeda terror network. Mohammed, who has taken credit for planning the attack, and the four other prisoners call themselves members of the 9/11 Shura Council.

"With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims," the response stated.

Reacting to the charges of "attacking civilians," "attacking civilian objects" and "deliberately causing grave bodily harm," the five asked who really pursued such actions. "Is it us, or is it you?"

It ties the United States to attacks in "Palestine and Lebanon by providing political, military, and economic support to the terrorist state of Israel, which in turn, is attacking unarmed innocent civilians." It also noted American actions in Iraq and the dropping of atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

As for "crimes in violation of the law of war," it cites Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Lebanese land and the displacement of Palestinians, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and the mistreatment of prisoners at places such as the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Answering another accusation, hijacking and/or endangering a vessel or an aircraft, the five said, "if you do not respect the innocent in our countries, then we will do the same, by exposing you to danger and hijacking in the air, at sea and at land."

Quranic verses were cited in the filing, and the men underscored their defense of "oppressed" Muslims.

"Our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of God: the Jews, Christians and pagans. With God's willing, we are terrorists to the bone."

It also predicts that the United States "will fall, politically, militarily and economically."

"Your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day," the court filing said.

"We ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America, and to place our nineteen martyred brethren among the highest peak in paradise," the response said, in reference to the al Qaeda militants who hijacked the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center's twin towers in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania.

Nearly 3,000 people were killed in the attacks.

Gitmo prisoners defend 'blessed' 9/11 attack - CNN.com

[linemanpaul]

Did Obama promise there would be no lobbyists in his administration?, LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!!!

Obama White House Discloses Two More Lobbyist Waivers Granted

March 10, 2009 8:28 PM

The White House Tuesday evening disclosed that almost three weeks ago the Obama administration granted ethics wavers for two additional officials who had previously worked as lobbyists. On February 20 the administration signed waivers for Jocelyn Frye, former general counsel at the National Partnership for Women & Families, and Cecilia Muñoz, the former senior vice president for the National Council of La Raza, allowing them to work on issues for which they lobbied.

These two are in addition to deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist whose waiver was granted two days after President Obama announced on January 21 what he heralded as the most sweeping ethics rules in American history -- ones that would "close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely."

The Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel requires that lobbyists who become members of Obama administration will not be able to work on matters they lobbied on for two years, or in the agencies they lobbied during the previous two years. Out of approximately 800 executive branch appointments, three waivers have been granted, the Obama administration said.

Not all of the former lobbyists entering the administration have required the formal waivers; the White House has also required incoming administration officials who worked as lobbyists to write letters of recusal, indicating issues that they will stay away from dealing with because of their previous jobs. But those letters of recusal have not yet been disclosed.

Frye's waiver, signed by Norm Eisen, the special counsel to the President and designate agency ethics official, states that it's "in the public interest to grant the waiver because Ms. Fry's expertise in the areas in which she acted as a registered lobbyist is essential to her service to the Office of the First Lady." Frye, director of policy and projects in the Office of the First Lady, has "a particular focus on women, families and on engagement with the greater D.C. community," the White House says. Having directed the National Partnership’s Workplace Fairness Program in her previous job, she focused on "employment and gender discrimination issues, with a particular emphasis on employment barriers facing women of color and low-income women."

Muñoz's waiver was granted also in the public interest "because Ms. Munoz's knowledge and expertise are vital to the functioning of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs," Eisen wrote. As director of intergovernmental affairs in the Executive Office of the President, Muñoz is chief liaison to the Latino community, in addition to coordinating with state and local governments. signed by Norm Eisen, the special counsel to the President and designate agency ethics official, states that it's "in the public interest to grant the waiver because Ms. Fry's expertise in the areas in which she acted as a registered lobbyist is essential to her service to the Office of the First Lady."

"We took the rare step of granting the waivers to Ms. Frye and Ms. Muñoz because of the importance of their respective positions and because of each woman’s unequalled qualifications for her job," Eisen said. "Each is a leading substantive expert on the relevant issue areas and each also has long-standing relationships with constituencies important to their respective offices."

Political Punch: Obama White House Discloses Two More Lobbyist Waivers Granted

[wil]

the White House has also required incoming administration officials who worked as lobbyists to write letters of recusal, indicating issues that they will stay away from dealing with because of their previous jobs. But those letters of recusal have not yet been disclosed.

That cracks me up.


I am reminded of the reaction from Susan when George Costanza (when trying to frighten Susan into calling off their engagement/wedding) asked her to sign a prenuptual agreement.

George: Listen... there's something that's been on my mind and we haven't really talked about it. It's kind of important to me.
Susan: What is it?
George: Well... I put a lot of thought into this and I think I would like you to sign a prenuptial agreement.
Susan: A pre-nup?
George: Yeah.
Susan: [bursts out laughing]
George: What's so funny?
Susan: You don't have any money. I make more money than you do. Ha ha. Yeah, gimme the papers I'll sign 'em.


............


PRESIDENT OBAMA FULFILLING HIS PROMISE TO HAVE NO LOBBYISTS IN HIS ADMINISTRATION: Listen... there's something that's been on my mind and we haven't really talked about it. It's kind of important to me.
FORMER LOBBYIST ENTERING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: What is it?
OBAMA: Well... I put a lot of thought into this and I think I would like you to sign a letter of recusal indicating issues that you will stay away from dealing with because of your previous jobs.
LOBBYIST: A letter of recusal?
OBAMA: Yeah.
LOBBYIST: [bursts out laughing]
OBAMA: What's so funny?
LOBBYIST: You're pals with the company I "used to" work for anyway. OK, I won't push for anything that helps my "former" cause. Ha ha hahaaaaaaaa. Yeah, gimme the papers I'll sign 'em.

[ckn]

"There's nobody there" - Independent article (Remember, this is the newspaper widely heckled late last year for being overly sympathetic to Obama and his campaign)

Cabinet chief: Obama team 'unreachable'
By Amol Rajan and Nick Clark
Wednesday, 11 March 2009

Last week, it was all smiles and handshakes as Gordon Brown and President Barack Obama put on a show of unity in Washington.

But yesterday, Sir Gus O'Donnell, Britain's most senior civil servant, exposed transatlantic tension when he protested that Downing Street was finding it "unbelievably difficult" to plan for next month's G20 summit in London because of problems tracking down senior figures in the US administration. "There is nobody there. You cannot believe how difficult it is," the Cabinet Secretary told a civil service conference in Gateshead.

Last night Downing Street insisted the comments – reported on the Whitehall and Westminster World website – had been taken out of context. It added that Britain and the US had established a "very good and close working relationship" in the run-up to the G20 conference in London on 2 April. The Cabinet Secretary's undiplomatic language follows an outwardly-successful 48-hour visit by Mr Brown to Washington, which included talks with the new President and an address to the US Congress. The Prime Minister secured Mr Obama's backing for moves to kick-start the global economy, which he hopes to use to prompt other G20 leaders to support the fiscal stimulus package.

But Sir Gus's remarks will leave ministers smoothing feathers in the new administration, whose support is vital for agreement at the summit.

He made them as he stressed the importance of a permanent civil service rather than the US practice of filling posts when a new President is elected. He said it would be "madness" to introduce a similar system in Britain, because of the need for continuity in major projects such as the 2012 Olympics.

"You get to a certain point, and you can't go any further," Sir Gus said. "A whole new bunch of people come in who probably haven't been in government before." Fifty days after President Obama was sworn in, every senior post in the US Treasury Department remains vacant, with the exception of Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, who should have 17 deputies. The vacuum has prompted complaints that it is struggling to deal with the most severe downturn since the 1930s.

Mr Brown's official spokesman said: "[Sir Gus] was explaining the benefits of the British system of having a permanent civil service. We have a very good and close working relationship with the United States on G20 and other issues. I think last week what you saw was an administration fully engaged on the G20. That is the sense we got."

The Cabinet Secretary's comments were removed from the website after the Government protested.

How can you NOT prioritise filling your Treasury Dept during the worst economic downturn for decades? I simply don't understand that at all...

[linemanpaul]

How can you NOT prioritise filling your Treasury Dept during the worst economic downturn for decades? I simply don't understand that at all.

..

Ckn, they are clueless as to the way to repair the economy, now that Obama won and is responsible for the economy He and Geithner don't know whether shit or peel onions

[wil]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

..

Ckn, they are clueless as to the way to repair the economy, now that Obama won and is responsible for the economy He and Geithner don't know whether shit or peel onions

Plus the word is out that they have their quota of tax cheats already so the applications have dried up.