Arizona Law: Judge Ignores Rule Of Law

Federal judge blocks key parts of Arizona immigration law SB 1070

A federal judge in Phoenix on Wednesday blocked key provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law from taking effect as scheduled Thursday, granting in part an injunction requested by the Obama administration.

U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton ruled that the injunction would apply to the portion of the state law that requires police to try to determine the immigration status of a person they arrest, stop or detain while enforcing other laws if they reasonably suspect the person is in the United States illegally.

Bolton said in her 36-page ruling that it was "not in the public interest" for Arizona to enforce provisions that preempt federal enforcement of immigration law.

Also put on hold were parts of the law requiring foreigners to apply for or carry certain documents, making it a state crime for undocumented workers "to solicit, apply for or perform work," and mandating verification of the immigration status of any arrested person prior to release, the ruling said.

Illegal Foreigners don't need to apply.

For example, Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 states very clearly that:

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by [an Arizona] law enforcement official…in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable effort shall be made…to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.

This paragraph could not be clearer – the immigration status of individuals who have been arrested for some other crime will only be checked if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that they are an illegal alien. Yet the federal judge reads the second sentence of this paragraph without reference to the first as supposedly requiring that the immigration status of all arrestees must be determined, despite Arizona’s claims to the contrary. In other words, she completely ignores the first sentence and then claims that checking the immigration status of all arrestees would be an impermissible burden on the federal government.

Here, Judge Bolton failed to give the State the respect it was due on this issue. Indeed, it is strong evidence of an activist judge straining to find a way to stop a law that she does not like from a policy (not a legal) standpoint. It is also completely contrary to federal law that specifically requires federal officials to “respond to an inquiry by a…State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual.” (8 U.S.C. §1373). How can Judge Bolton rationally conclude that Arizona is placing an impermissible burden on the federal government to respond to citizenship verification requests when federal law mandates that the feds respond to such requests? The judge’s reasoning is foolish – she is treating the Obama administration’s enforcement priorities (or lack of enforcement priorities) as if they are federal law. Arizona’s law does not conflict with federal immigration law, although it may conflict with the Obama administration’s policies. But policy conflicts do not result in federal preemption. Judge Bolton’s reasoning also conflicts with a very recent First Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Estrada v. Rhode Island, that upheld the right of state law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals detained for other reasons such as a traffic stop, as well as other precedents.

Unlikely Supporter of Arizona Immigration Law

More Post from Wag This Dog.
Barack Obama Screws Smokers Signs Children's Insurance Law.
Financial Oversight Reform President Obama what is in it?
President Obama fires Walpin AmeriCorps Official for doing his job.

Share this post, Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Technorati Tags: Arizona Law

Arizona Immigration law Boycott Fails

FOXNews.com - Arizona Hotels Thriving Despite Boycotts Over Immigration Law

Arizona's tourism industry has a target on its back, but the widespread boycotts over the state's immigration law might not be hitting the mark.

Recent data compiled by a market research group show hotel bookings across the state -- as well as in tourism hot spots Phoenix and Scottsdale -- have been on the rise the past two months.

The numbers could dispel warnings from local officials that Arizona stands to lose a fortune and dampen the chances that cities and organizations will be able to compel the state to reverse its immigration law by choking its economy with a sanctions-style business boycott.

Fundamentally, the boycotts have been unsuccessful," said Barry Broome, president of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council.

The data from hotel industry research firm STR showed that for the state of Arizona, hotel occupancy was up 5.7 percent in May and up 8.3 percent in June compared with the same time a year ago.

In Phoenix, occupancy was up 10.6 percent in June; in Scottsdale, it was up 10.7 percent for the same period. Revenue also was up, with Arizona hotels raking in $148 million last month -- up more than 11 percent from a year ago.

Protesters in Arizona.

June 02, 2010|By Garrett Therolf and Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times

By a 3-2 vote the board moves to suspend county-funded travel to the state, possibly terminate contracts with Arizona-based companies, and divest the county pension fund of Arizona state and municipal bonds. Residents attending the meeting spoke out on both sides of the issue.

After heated debate, Los Angeles County supervisors voted 3 to 2 Tuesday to boycott Arizona in response to the passage of its controversial illegal immigration law, a decision that came the same day the Los Angeles Unified School District condemned the law.

The boycott suspends county-funded travel to Arizona unless the county's chief executive determines that county interests would be seriously harmed. It also calls for a report within two weeks on how the county might terminate contracts with Arizona-based companies and orders the divestiture of Arizona state and municipal bonds by the county's pension fund.

But some of those campaigns ran into glitches along the way, watering down the impact. Los Angeles exempted from the boycott a contract with an Arizona company that provided its red-light cameras. The Los Angeles City Council also is reportedly considering another exemption for airport taxi company Super Shuttle, based in Arizona.

The council is to discuss whether to allow a $1.13-million, one-year contract extension for Scottsdale-based Blue Van Joint Venture, operator of Super Shuttle, which serves Los Angeles International Airport, according to City News Service.

The red light cameras record traffic violations and are intended to deter people from running red lights, causing potentially fatal accidents. The program earned Los Angeles a reported $6 million in 2009. An expansion of the contract, which expires June 30, would cost the city $2.3 million.  

Los Angeles thought by Boycotting Arizona it would hurt them financially. But when it come to money they are the ones who caved.

LA Mayor Backs Arizona Boycott

More post from Wag This Dog.
San Francisco Mayor puts ban on city employee travel to Arizona
Immigration President Obama against Arizona Voters.
Al Sharpton willing to commit civil disobedience in Arizona

Share this post, Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.


Technorati Tags: Arizona law

Unemployment Extension Passed Paid for by the Taxpayers.

Unemployment Filibuster Broken - ABC News

Boosted by the swearing-in of new West Virginia Sen. Carte Goodwin, the Senate today voted to restore and extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed, ending a lengthy stalemate.

By a vote of 60-40 the Senate succeeded in passing the jobless aid measure just minutes after Goodwin formally became a member of the Senate. Democratic Senators in the chamber erupted in applause when Goodwin cast the decisive vote.

For weeks the Senate had been locked in a standoff on helping the nation's jobless, with both parties supporting an extension of the benefits but disagreeing on how to pay for them. Democrats argued that helping 2.5 million unemployed Americans is an emergency as the country rebounds from recession, but Republicans balked at the bill's $34 billion price tag, contending that adding tens of billions of dollars to the government's soaring deficit is fiscally irresponsible.

Republicans failed on four occasions to offset the cost of the bill with funds from the government's massive stimulus program, while Democrats struck out five times in their attempts to pass the measure. Two Republicans -- Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins -- today sided with Democrats, while Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson backed the GOP's approach.

Harry Reid knows what is best for you.


Dems refuse compromise to extend unemployment benefits

Democrats have been painting Republicans as unsympathetic to the long-term unemployed who will be unable to collect benefits, but Democratic leaders have rejected several offers by the GOP to vote for the bill if at least some of it is paid for.

"My concern is that the Democrats are more interested in having this issue to demagogue for political gamesmanship than they are in simply passing the benefits extension," said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who offered a deal that was rejected by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Voinovich told Reid he would vote for extending benefits if at least half of the extension could be paid for with unused money from the $787 billion stimulus package.

After the bill failed, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., offered a compromise that would extend benefits for two months and pay for it fully with unused stimulus funding. But Reid turned it down.
THE DEMOCRATS WANT THIS AS A POLITICAL TOOL.


Earlier this week President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid both blasted Republicans for blocking the jobless help.


"It's time to stop holding workers laid off in this recession hostage to Washington politics. It's time to do what's right, not for the next election, but for the middle class," President Obama said in the Rose Garden. "We've got to stop blocking emergency relief for Americans who are out of work. We've got to extend unemployment insurance."


But the top Senate Republican countered that it was Democrats who were playing political games at the expense of unemployed Americans.


Democrats don't care about the people just the power.

Should Unemployment Benefits be Extended?

More post from Wag This Dog.
US Recession Over? Unemployment Claims Drop.
President Obama, We're Pointed in the Right Direction with lost of ...
No job growth until after President Obama's four years.

Share this post, Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.


Technorati Tags: Unemployment

San Francisco Mayor puts ban on city employee travel to Arizona

City Insider : City workers banned from official travel to Arizona

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona after the state enacted a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.
The ban on city employee travel to Arizona takes effect immediately, although there are some exceptions, including for law enforcement officials investigating a crime, officials said. It's unclear how many planned trips by city workers will be curtailed.
The move comes amid a cascade of criticism of Arizona's law, which has been denounced by civil rights groups, some police officials and President Obama, who said it threatens to "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Legal challenges are being weighed to overturn it.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom

The ban on city employee travel to Arizona takes effect immediately. If you deify the Mayor and go to Arizona will ypu get fired? More evidence that the Government want to take away your rights and run your life.

Supervisor David Campos and City Attorney Dennis Herrera have called for a boycott of Arizona and businesses based there. If the resolution passes, Herrera will try to identify contracts with Arizona companies that could be legally terminated.

When another state interferes with another state because of it's laws it wrong. Last time this happened we had a civil war.

If the Illegals don't like the laws of Arizona they can move to California.

Arizona SB 1070 Protest Organizers Threaten And Intimidate Photographer - Part 1

More Post from Wag This Dog.
Happy Meal Toys next Target of the Food Police.
Al Sharpton willing to commit civil disobedience in Arizona.
President Obama lied Promises to limit no bid Contracts.

Share this post, Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Technorati Tags: San Francisco, Arizona

Happy Meal Toys next Target of the Food Police.

Happy Meal toys could be banned in Santa Clara County - latimes.com

The latest target in the battle over fast food is something you shouldn't even put in your mouth.

Convinced that Happy Meals and other food promotions aimed at children could make kids fat as well as happy, county officials in Silicon Valley are poised to outlaw the little toys that often come with high-calorie offerings.

The proposed ban is the latest in a growing string of efforts to change the types of foods aimed at youngsters and the way they are cooked and sold. Across the nation, cities, states and school boards have taken aim at excessive sugar, salt and certain types of fats.

Believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the proposal would forbid the inclusion of a toy in any restaurant meal that has more than 485 calories, more than 600 mg of salt or high amounts of sugar or fat. In the case of McDonald's, the limits would include all of the chain's Happy Meals — even those that include apple sticks instead of French fries.

McDonald's Happy Meal bad for children.

Ken Yeager, the Santa Clara County supervisor who is behind the effort, says the toys in kids' meals are contributing to America's obesity epidemic by encouraging children to eat unhealthful, fattening foods.

First the clown, now the toys. What is next?

"This clown is no friend to our children or their health," said Deborah Lapidus of Corporate Accountability International, a group that sponsored the poll and protests outside McDonald's around the country.

"He is a deep-fried Joe Camel for the 21st century," she said.

Many of those surveyed had favorable feelings about red-headed Ronald, yet 47% thought it was time for him to go.

So now the Government wants to run your life since you can't runs yours or your kids.

Joe Camel

Daily smoking rates began increasing steadily again in 1988, the same year R.J. Reynolds introduced Joe Camel in its advertising for Camel cigarettes, the CDC said.

"After Joe Camel was introduced, then the promotional-type strategies kicked in," rewarding
smokers with coupons and trinkets that encouraged them to buy more cigarettes, Giovino said. "A lot of parents weren't aware of Camel cash and that stuff, but kids were."

Joe Camel was retired last year, after critics including President Clinton said the character was
a blatant example of cigarette marketing aimed at children.

Despite laws designed to keep cigarettes away from kids, 34 percent of U.S. high school students and 15 percent of middle school students use tobacco products, government health officials say.

Those figures mean more than 3 million kids between the ages of 12 and 17 are lighting up, according to
the national survey by the Centers for Disease Control's Office of Smoking and Health.

Joe is gone and teens are still smoking.

Ronald and the toys will be gone and kids will still be eating Happy Meals.

Just more Government control and less personal freedom.

Should Ronald McDonald Retire? The liberals want to run your life.

 More post from Wag This Dog.
Immigration President Obama against Arizona Voters.
Obama presures Congress for jobs bill as Stimulus program fails.
US economy rebounds growth dismal and poor.

Share this post, Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to ant post.

Technorati Tags: Happy Meal, Toys

Al Sharpton willing to commit civil disobedience in Arizona.

Sharpton vows to protest Arizona immigration bill

The Rev. Al Sharpton says he's ready to travel to Arizona and march in the streets to protest the state's new immigration law.

Sharpton joined Lillian Rodriguez Lopez from the Hispanic Federation in New York City on Sunday to speak out against the law. They say activists are prepared to commit civil disobedience to fight it.

Rev Al Sharpton protesting.

The Rev. Al Sharpton has incited civil disobedience in the past.


TAWANA BRAWLEY RAPE  ALLEGATIONS

Tawana Brawley (born 1972) is an African American woman from Wappinger, New York. In 1987, at the age of 15, she received national media attention in the US for accusing six white men, some of whom were police officers, of having raped her. Sharpton generated a national media sensation. Claimed officials all the way up to the state government were trying to cover up defendants in the case because they were white. Specifically, they named Steven Pagones, an Assistant District Attorney in Dutchess County, as one of the rapists, and a racist, among other accusations.

Brawley claimed she had been repeatedly raped by a group of white men but could provide no names or descriptions of her assailants. She later told others that there had been no rape, only other kinds of sexual abuse. Forensic tests found no evidence that a sexual assault of any kind had occurred. There was no evidence of exposure to elements, which would be expected in a victim held for several days in the woods at a time when the temperature dropped below freezing at night.

In 1998, Pagones was awarded $345,000 (he sought $395 million) through a lawsuit for defamation of character that he had brought against Sharpton, Maddox and Mason. The jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones. The $65,000 portion of the judgment assigned to Al Sharpton was paid for him in 2001 by supporters.

CROWN HEIGHTS RIOT

The Crown Heights Riot was a three-day riot that occurred in August 1991 in the Crown Heights neighborhood in the New York City borough of Brooklyn. The riots began on August 19, 1991 after the child of two Guyanese immigrants was accidentally struck by an automobile in the motorcade of
a prominent Hasidic rabbi.

In his eulogy at the funeral, the Rev. Al Sharpton made comments about "diamond dealers" and commented "it's an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights." In addition, a banner displayed at the funeral read "Hitler did not do the job".

For three days following the accident, numerous African Americans and Caribbean Americans of the neighborhood, joined by growing numbers of non-residents, rioted in Crown Heights. In the rioting of the ensuing three days, many of the rioters "did not even live in Crown Heights."

On June 11, 1992, after the Anti-Defamation League accused Sharpton of helping to incite anti-Semitism in the Crown Heights conflict, Sharpton scoffed, "You don't even have a direct quote from me that anyone can call anti-Semitic." Sharpton has also reminded people that he never participated in the looting and riots that followed Cato's death. In a June 29, 2003, Washington Post article, however, Sharpton took a more apologetic stance: When questioned about his past abrasive comments (which included calling blacks who disagreed with him "yellow niggers"), he said, "I've grown … I'm not as brash. There are ways I look at life now that I would not have when I was a younger man from the ghetto."

DUKE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS RAPE ACCUSATION CASE

Crystal Gail Mangum, a black student at North Carolina Central University who worked as a dancer and escort, falsely accused three white Duke University students, members of the Duke Blue Devils men's lacrosse team, of raping her at a party held at the house of two team's captains in Durham, North Carolina, USA on March 13, 2006.



BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Two Duke lacrosse players have been arrested and charged with rape among other violent crimes. They are free on $400,000 bail. As you may know, the students attended a party where a stripper hired by the lacrosse team said she was raped. With us now civil rights activist Reverend Al Sharpton. Is this a racial issue?

REV. AL SHARPTON, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST:

I think that there are certainly a lot of racial factors. Whether it is directly in the case, we'll see, because some reports said that there was racial language used. But I think that when you look at the racial atmosphere, when you look at the fact that there again were the allegations of racial statements, when you look at a lot of people feeling that they have been treated differently, where this girl has basically had a character charged in the media, there is a lot of racism that's in the air. Having said that, I commend a lot of the blacks and whites who stood vigil and to come together in that community to stand up for this girl. So I think in the midst of this, there is some good.

O'REILLY:  Why are we standing up for the girl if there is the possibility, based upon evidence, that the girl may have fabricated the story? Why don't we all pull back and let the authorities investigate and let the legal system work?

SHARPTON: Well, first of all, the authorities have charged there was a crime, so they are not saying that at all. Second of all, people on any side of an argument have the ride to advocate on behalf of who they believe. Thirdly, I think that when the prosecutors went forward, they clearly have said this girl is the victim, so why would we be trying the victim and not the...


Under every rock and behind every tree Rev. Al Sharpton is looking for a racist. Now he is going to Arizona and looking for more racist. Hay Al, just look in the mirror.

Bill O'Reilly And Rev. Al Sharpton On "Racism" Over Health Care Bill !!!

More post from Wag This Dog.
China snubs President Obama and Hillary Clinton in Copenhagen.
Bank of America trying to get Government Obama off it's back.
First human embryonic stem cell under Obama's policy.

Share this post, Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag this Dog, Link to any post.

Technorati Tags: Arizona, Al Sharpton

Obama Knew Holder's Decision to Award Five Sept. 11 Conspirators

PostPartisan - Holder's decision is embarrassing and offensive

Two weeks ago, in the Friday news black hole with President Obama safely on the way to Asia, Attorney General Eric Holder announced his decision to award five Sept. 11 conspirators, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the full rights of American citizens at a federal trial. Holder perhaps hoped the tides of the cable cycle would wash the news away. They haven’t, for a number of reasons.

We have learned since the announcement that Holder apparently did not consult Obama before deciding to bring the Sept. 11 terrorists back to Ground Zero. No further evidence is necessary that Holder regards the war on terrorism as a law enforcement matter. In a decision with obvious national security implications, the attorney general consulted with neither the commander in chief nor the secretary of defense. He employed a process that might be more appropriately applied to the trial of a mafia kingpin or a serial killer.

Eric Holder Attorney General

Do you beleive that Eric Holder apparently did not consult President Barack Obama before deciding to bring the Sept. 11 terrorists back to Ground Zero with President Obama safely on the way to Asia? So we are to believe that Attorney General Eric Holder did this behind the President's back. Do you believe this?

This is how I know that President Obama knew about the decision of Eric Holder.

  Obama was asked, in June 2008, how he could be sure the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies are not crucial to protecting U.S. citizens. Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest
those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

"And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it
comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims. ...

"We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws," Obama said. Obama agreed with the Supreme Court ruling last week that detainees in
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their indefinite imprisonment in U.S. civilian courts.

So you can see by the very words of President Obama, Eric Holder was for-filling the very desires of his President. 

More post from Wag This Dog.
GM Chevrolet Volt Electric Car get 300 Miles a day for $40,000.
Will GM, Chrysler go Forward ro President Obama's Iraq?
Past Global Warming Shows Lack Of Knowlege in Climate Change.

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.
Technorati Tags: Ground Zerro

Rep. King Joins 9/11 Familes to Oppose Gitmo 9/11 Trial

Taxpayer will pay for Freddie Mac $5 Billion Loss Third Quarter

Freddie Mac posts $5 billion loss - Yahoo! News

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Freddie Mac (FRE.N) (FRE.P), the second largest provider of U.S. residential mortgage funding, on Friday posted a loss of $5 billion in the third quarter and predicted it would need more government support amid a "prolonged deterioration" in housing.
Increases in the value of securities Freddie Mac held over the period helped buoy its net worth, however, erasing its need to tap government funds for a second straight quarter to stay solvent while continuing to buy and guarantee home loans.
Including a $1.3 billion dividend payment on senior preferred stock bought by the Treasury in previous quarters, Freddie Mac's third-quarter loss increases to $6.3 billion.
The home funding company's loss comes amid a rise in provisions for credit losses to $7.6 billion in the quarter, up 46 percent compared with the previous quarter, as delinquencies worsened on loans it guarantees. Provisions will remain high this quarter, it added.

Federal Government making us give more of our future wages.

On September 7, 2008, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), James B. Lockhart III, announced his decision to place two Government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation), into conservatorship run by the FHFA.

At the same press conference, United States Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, stated that placing the two GSEs into conservatorship was a decision he fully supported, and that he advised "that conservatorship was the only form in which I would commit taxpayer money to the GSEs." He further
said that "I attribute the need for today's action primarily to the inherent conflict and flawed business model embedded in the GSE structure, and to the ongoing housing correction."
In 1970, FMae was privatized so as to remove it from the federal budget and Freddie Mac was established the same year. As government sponsored organizations (GSEs), neither paid local or state taxes, they were exempt from Securities and Exchange registration and fees, they were permitted to operate with lower reserves than banks, and they could each borrow up to $2.5 billion directly from the U.S. Treasury at low interest. The faith that they were backed by the government and operated so cheaply gave them access to massive sums of low-interest money looking for both profits and security.

This proved so profitable that banks and other lenders packaged their loans into bonds, sold them on the market for that quick profit (especially the agent rake offs), loaned out those replenished funds,
and did this over and over again with riskier and riskier loans as housing prices climbed higher and higher and security requirements werelowered to essentially nonexistence.

What It Could Mean for You

The ramifications of this history are many. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fail and can't back loans
anymore, interest rates will go up.
Banks won't be originating as many loans because they don't have the guarantees they once did.
This means the number of homebuyers will drastically shrink, both because banks won't be authorizing as many mortgage loans and because the ones they do authorize will be out of reach for many homebuyers (higher down payments, higher interest rates, smaller loan amounts).
If the government completes a bailout, as looks more and more like the case, it would use taxpayer money to pay for buying stocks in the companies. It could cost up to $1 trillion in taxpayer money, which likely means higher taxes.
More importantly, it could damage the creditworthiness of the United States, making future loans to the government more difficult to obtain.
With the national deficit at nearly $10 trillion, the only thing going for the US is its credit rating. And when that goes....

Obama and Democrats are Responsible: Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac

More post from Wag this Dog
Ferderal Government will Loose Billions from General Motors and Chrysler
President Obama Grew Deficit by $181 billion in July
Obama Misleading and Outlandish about Health Care Reform

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link ti any post.
Technorati Tags: Freddie Mac

Federal Government will Loose Billions from General Motors and Chrysler.

U.S. 'Unlikely' to Recoup Auto Outlay, Panel Finds - washingtonpost.com

The federal government is unlikely to recoup all of the billions of dollars that it has invested in General Motors and Chrysler, according to a new congressional oversight report assessing the automakers' rescue.

The report said that a $5.4 billion portion of the $10.5 billion owed by Chrysler is "highly unlikely" to be repaid, while full recovery of the $50 billion sunk into GM would require the company's stock to reach unprecedented heights.
"Although taxpayers may recover some portion of their investment in Chrysler and GM, it is unlikely they will recover the entire amount," according to the report, which is scheduled to be released Wednesday.

Great car of the past. Will future cars be loved this way?

We were told by the Treasury Department, just four months ago, that the United States would recover most of its planned $50 billion investment in General Motors within 5 years. And if the government-monitored corporate reorganization fails and GM sputters again, the government investment in the company will be lost.
Now it's starting to look like the US government is going to loose $50 billion dollars or are we loosing $50 billion dollars. How did President Obama believe that we would get our money back from the car companies?
During the boom years, the annualized figure for car sales in the United States hovered around 16 million. Recently, it has fallen to between 9 million and 10 million on an annualized basis. To get our money back President is betting that the US auto market will rebound to 16 million by 2012. A 40 percent increase in just 3 years in this economy? Is President Obama willing to bet the house?
For the United States to fully recover its investment, the value of General Motors stock will have to reach levels it has never before attained. "It's very unlikely" that the government will recover its money, said
David Whiston, auto equities analyst at Morningstar. "GM will be a smaller company after the bankruptcy and there are going to be more foreign automakers entering the market that will make GM's efforts more
difficult."

As the auto rescue has unfolded, the question of whether the government will be repaid has taken on increasingly political overtones, as partisans debate whether the Bush administration or the Obama
administration has handled the industry better. We shall see.
More post from Wag This Dog.
GM Chevrolet Volt Electric Car gets 300 Miles a day for $40,000.
President Obama Grew Deficit by $181 billion in July.
Will GM, Chrysler go Forward or President Obama's Iraq?


Technorati Tags: GM, Auto

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

05.07.09 Sen. Corker Discusses News that Chrysler Won't Repay $7 Billion Taxpayer Loan

President Obama Grew Deficit by $181 billion in July.

TheHill.com - Deficit grew by $181 billion in July

Spending through July of 2009 has increased by $530 billion, which is 21 percent over the same period in 2008. The bailout money for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae accounted for almost half of the spending increase. Unemployment benefits have more than doubled, Medicaid spending has grown by a quarter and Medicare spending has increased by 11 percent.

Tax revenue for the first three quarters of 2009 has fallen by approximately $350 billion, or 17 percent compared to the same period last year, due mostly to the effects of the recession on payroll, income and corporate taxes. A third of the decline is due to tax breaks in the stimulus, including the middle-class tax cut that President Obama campaigned on during last year's election.

The independent budget scorekeeper has projected the deficit to reach $1.8 trillion by the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The deficit in 2008 reached $455 billion, which was a record at the time.

President Obama "Spendaholic".


The latest deficit projections come as Democrats in Congress and the White House are pushing for healthcare reform criticized by Republicans as too costly. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stressed during a town-hall meeting in Colorado this week that the healthcare bill won't add to the
deficit or restrict benefits and instead will increase access to care.

I guess Nancy Pelosi is smarter than the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Which said the bill expected to cost roughly $1 trillion over the next decade. Nancy said the bill won't add to the
deficit.

As if healthcare spending weren't already a train wreck in the making, it's projected to nearly double by 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced today. That means it'll reach a whopping $4.3 trillion and account for 19.5 percent of our gross domestic product, up from 16.3 percent
now.

The Obama campaign maintain that they've figured out how to pay for their proposals without worsening the deficit. The problem is that given the difficulties we already face—that $4.3 trillion—their mechanisms to finance these programs just aren't very convincing. That's like saying you're going to pay for a weight-loss program with the money you'll save on groceries once you're slim.

The final presidential debate: Deficit spending, health care, and more

SCHIEFFER: We found out yesterday that this year's deficit will reach an astounding record high $455 billion. Some experts say it could go to $1 trillion next year.
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it's important for the American public to understand that the $750 billion rescue package, if it's structured properly, and, as president, I will make sure it's structured properly, means that ultimately taxpayers get their money back, and that's important to understand. But there is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some
adjustments. Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. I haven't made a promise about...
SCHIEFFER: But you're going to have to cut some of these programs, certainly.
OBAMA: Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional
cut so that it matches. And some of the cuts, just to give you an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn't -- under the Medicare plan -- it doesn't help
seniors get any better. It's not improving our health care system. It's just a giveaway. We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don't work. And I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page, programs that don't work, we should cut. Programs that we need, we should make them work better.
But what is absolutely true is that, once we get through this economic crisis and some of the specific proposals to get us out of this slump, that we're not going to be able to go back to our profligate ways. And we're going to have to embrace a culture and an ethic of responsibility, all of us, corporations, the federal government, and individuals out there who may be living beyond their means.
President Obama speaking out of both side of his mouth.

More post from Wag This Dog.
Democrats say Bush Likely to pay.
No Job Growth until after President Obama's four years.
Polls Show Public Wary of Deficit and Obama's Economic Intervention.


Technorati Tags: Deficit

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post

Bush Has Doubled National Debt with Deficits

President Obama, We're Pointed in the Right Direction with lost of Quarter Milliom Jobs and People Giving Up.

Job Losses Slow, Signaling Earliest Days of a Rebound - NYTimes.com

The most heartening employment report since last summer suggested on Friday that a recovery was under way — and perhaps gathering steam — despite the reluctance of the nation’s businesses to resume hiring or even stop shedding jobs.

Employers eliminated 247,000 jobs in July, a huge number by the standards of an ordinary recession, but the smallest monthly loss since last August, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. And the unemployment rate, rising for months, actually ticked down, to 9.4 percent from 9.5 percent in June, mainly because so many people dropped out of the hunt for work, ceasing to list themselves as unemployed.

Unemployment Line.

Suggested on Friday that a recovery was under way — and perhaps gathering steam but never in the 61 years of record keeping has one-third of the unemployed, currently 14.5 million people, been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

The unemployment rate, rising for months, actually ticked down, to 9.4 percent from 9.5 percent in June,
More than 400,000 who had been looking for work dropped out of the labor force in July, if all those people had continued to look for work, then the unemployment rate last month would have ticked up, to 9.7 percent,” said Nigel Gault, chief domestic economist at IHS Global Insight.

After months of painful job losses, the Obama administration was clearly relieved at the brightening picture. Through July, 6.7 million jobs have disappeared since the recession began in December 2007, with manufacturers accounting for nearly one-third of the loss. But manufacturing losses in July eased to
52,000, largely because of a fluke in the auto industry.

"The worst may be behind us," President Barack Obama declared. "Today, we're pointed in the right direction." If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included the unemployment rate would have been 16.3 percent in July. All told, 14.5 million were out of work in July.

 Analysts say companies will keep cutting jobs probably through the rest of this year, though the pace of layoffs should continue to taper off. The beginnings of recovery could actually push the unemployment rate higher, since far more people would be energized to look for work again.

So President Obama, don't count your chickens before they hatch. It is like saying you are getting better because your cancer is not growing as fast.Your not getting better when your cancer slows in growth but until it's in remission.

An elevated unemployment rate could become a political liability for Obama when congressional elections are held next year. Ronald Reagan's GOP lost 26 House seats in the midterm elections in 1982.

More Post form Wag This Dog.
President Obama says Lost Auto Jobs Gone Forever.
Report, Biofules will not Replace Oil.

PETA Angry at President Obama Executing a fly.

Technorati Tags: Unemployment

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Unemployment Hits 16.5% (U6) Unbelievable

Will GM, Chrysler go Forward or President Obama's Iraq?

Obama's sobering message to Detroit | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

President Barack Obama, in his first visit to Michigan as chief executive officer of the outfit that now owns most of General Motors Co., did not declare victory Tuesday in the bailout of Detroit's auto industry.

"It was the right thing to do," he said of extending more than $50 billion in federal loans to give the companies a shot at surviving as leaner outfits with new management.

Obama expects GM, Chrysler Group LLC and the rest of Detroit's auto industry to go forward under their own power, without further support from Uncle Sam.

American Classic Cars

Some scary what-if questions still linger. What if the reborn GM or Chrysler-Fiat don't succeed? What if auto parts suppliers keep failing? Will Obama ride to the rescue with more taxpayer cash?

Can you imagine if a president of a corporation went in front of it's board and said, in order for us to sell more, we must put our products in fewer stores. Insane? Yes, but this is what we are with the Auto industry. It doesn't make sense to force dealerships to close, throwing more people out of work. The average dealership has about 50 employees, meaning the closing of 2,000 dealership could cost more than 100,000 jobs nationwide.

They say cutting the dealerships allows the surviving dealers to sell and service more vehicles, making them more profitable in a way that allows them to spend money on the advertising and their facilities
needed to attract sales.

Let's see, to make a company profitable borrow money you can't pay back, cut your production in half and sell your product in fewer outlets in order to make those outs more profitable. I thought the auto maker was suppose to be more profitable.
Obama had initially expected the entire process to take about 60-90 days. But a new GM has now emerged in around just 40 days since it filed for Chapter 11 on June 1 in the biggest failure of a U.S.
manufacturing company in history.
Chrysler also filed for Chapter 11 at the end of April and completed the sale of its assets to Italian
car maker Fiat SpA within about 40 days.
So now we are making fewer of the same product by the same people with less place to sell them and now the Auto Makers will be a success. President Barack Obama you now own this. Your Iraq.

More post with Wag This Dog.
Democrat's Culture of Corruption over shadow Republicans.
President Obama pledges co=operation with Canada for Oil.
Republicans Rejecting Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan.


Technorati Tags: auto industry

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

China's thriving auto industry -- 22 April 2008

President Obama says Lost Auto Jobs Gone Forever.

Obama to say some lost auto jobs not coming back | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will say in Michigan, a state hard-hit by the downturn in the car industry, that some auto industry jobs that have been lost will not be returning.

"(The) hard truth is that some of the jobs that have been lost in the auto industry and elsewhere won't be coming back," Obama will say, according to prepared remarks released by the White House.
"They are casualties of a changing economy. And that only underscores the importance of generating new businesses and industries to replace the ones we've lost, and of preparing our workers to fill the jobs they create," Obama says in the remarks.

Henry Ford. Do you see the driving gloves?

Importance of generating new businesses and industries. Who will create these new businesses or industries. The Government? Which business has the Government created? None, they hinder the growth of Business. This is the line that not only President Obama is using but every Politician since the begining of our Country.


Out of 123,000 North American GM workers, 20,000 are scheduled to lose their jobs.
According to Peter Whoriskey in the Washington Post, "the number of cars that GM sells in the United States and builds in Mexico, China and South Korea will roughly double."


So we are going to double the builds of cars in Mexico, China and South Korea and lay off many auto makers in the rust belt. The jobs that have been lost in the auto industry and  won't be coming back are going to Mexico, China and South Korea.


As rescue attempts go, the Obama administration and its Auto Task Force are pursuing a peculiar course: They seem intent on keeping General Motors and Chrysler afloat as corporate entities by tossing more U.S. workers overboard.


On top of all that, job losses will balloon with the closing of more than 1,100 GM and 789 Chrysler dealerships, eliminating tens of thousands more jobs. “The stimulus package spends $800 billion to create jobs, while billions in loans to GM are conditioned on eliminating them.”


After months of the UAW trying to avoid a fight with Obama, in early May it began openly challenging the use of taxpayer loan money to finance the outsourcing of jobs. “We believe (GM) should have an obligation to build in this country the vehicles it will be selling in the U.S. market, thereby maintaining the maximum number of jobs in the United States,” UAW legislative director Alan Reuther wrote to the Senate.


US President Barack Obama will say in Michigan that some auto industry jobs that have been lost will not be returning. Because the good jobs are going over seas.

More post from Wag This Dog.
No job growth until after President Obama's four years.
Barack Obama asked his Cabinet to save $100 million over time.
A Thousand people Protest Obama Stimulus Plan in 35 Degree St. Louis Weather.


Technorati Tags: Government Motors, Auto Makers

Enjoyed this Post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Bankrupt GM Begins Slashing Jobs

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's comment “Castrate White Males”

Obama Says Sotomayor’s “Castrate White Males” Comment Taken Out of Context | Carbolic Smoke Ball

WASHINGTON – President Obama said that comments by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in a 2004 speech in which she called for the “castration of all white males until they are no longer dominant,” have been “taken out of context” by right wing ideologues.

In the speech delivered to the San Juan chapter of NOW, Sotomayor said, “I want to be perfectly clear about this next comment so that there is no mistaking my words to mean something other than what they plainly say: the time has come to end white male oppression by castrating every white male until they are no longer dominant in Western culture. That means forcible removal of their testicles. I realize the brutality of  my comment, and I don’t know how to say it more clearly.”

It was revealed that Sotomayor used precisely the same language in seven other speeches.

Castration Tool

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs agreed with President Obama that the
statement “has been taken out of context,” and added that Sotomayor
“certainly did not mean” that white males should be castrated.

Out of the Heart the Mouth speaks. Now do you believe she is a Racist?  It's a racist comment!

More post from Wag This Dog.
Judge Sonia Sotomayer too Liberal for the Supreme Court.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor Racist or Just Wrong more than 60% of the time.

Technorati Tags: Castration, Judge Sotomayer

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Jesse Jackson on Barack Obama * I wanna cut his nuts off!

Judge Sonia Sotomayor too Liberal for the Supreme Court.

"Where Policy Is Made": Sotomayor's Court Comment Explained

The ubiquitous conservative attack on Judge Sonia Sotomayor stems from a statement she made at a conference at Duke University Law School in 2005, in which she described the role appellate justices have in forming policy

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made," she said, laughing a bit through the next part: "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I know."

The remarks, four years later, have hit the central nerve of the conservative psyche. Figures within and outside the GOP have already announced -- even before Sotomayor was tapped to be Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court -- that they would be painting her as an activist from the bench.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Soon after the inauguration of Bush as president in January 2001, many liberal academics became worried that he would begin packing the federal judiciary with conservative jurists. Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman wrote an article in the February 2001 edition of the liberal magazine The American Prospect that encouraged the use of the filibuster to stop Bush from placing any nominee on the Supreme Court during his first term. In addition, law professors Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago) and Laurence Tribe (Harvard), along with Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center,
counseled Senate Democrats in April 2001 "to scrutinize judicial nominees more closely than ever." Specifically, they said, "there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or
erudite."

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.^[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown. Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.

On July 12, 2005, Bush met at the White House with the party leaders and ranking Judiciary Committee members from the two major parties — Republicans Bill Frist and Arlen Specter, and Democrats Reid and Patrick Leahy — to discuss the nomination process. During the meeting, the Democrats offered the President the names of three "moderate" Hispanic federal judges that they could accept: Sonia Sotomayor of the Second Circuit, Edward Prado of the Fifth Circuit, and Ricardo Hinojosa, a district court judge from Texas. Reid later told the press he was disappointed that the President had not chosen to discuss his own choice of possible candidates with the Democrats. In the conservative magazine National Review, the three candidates suggested by the Democrats were quickly dismissed as being offered in bad faith because they were too liberal for a conservative president to seriously consider.

So the Democrats can filibuster ten conservative judges, just because they where too conservative? That is because the Democrats believe that judges can make law. Example Roe vs Wade. Law made by the Supreme Court. On the grounds that President Bush thought that Judge Sonia Sotomayor was too Liberal. And we the Conservative Right thinks she is too Liberal. The Republicans should Filibuster her nomination.

More Post from Wag This Dog.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor Racist or Just Wrong more than 60% of the time.
No job growth until after President Obama's four years.
A Thousand People Protest Obama Stimulus Plan in 35 degree St. Louis Weather.



Technorati Tags: Judge Sotomayor, Supreme Court

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor--courts make policy long clip

Just like President Bush, Obama wants to send unarmed National Guard Volunteers to Mexican Border.

Obama Mulls Sending National Guard to Border | NBC Bay Area

With drug-related violence growing along the Mexican border, the U.S. is considering  deploying troops to the Southwest, according to a Department of Homeland Security official.

Senior officials say the Obama administration is developing plans to seek up to 1,500 National Guard volunteers to help combat the drug war along the Mexican border.

“You can’t fight this war with just one hand,” President Barack Obama has said. “You can’t have Mexico making an effort and the United States not making an effort.”

I think we should send the boy scouts for this job.

Gov. Janet Napolitano on Thursday signed an agreement for Arizona to participate in a federal plan to deploy 6,000 National Guard soldiers in the four southern border states to help curb illegal immigration,
with 300 Arizona National Guard soldiers set to participate beginning in mid-June. The National Guard troops will be used for engineering, road and fence building, transportation, logistics and surveillance, reconnaissance and port-of-entry duties but not direct law enforcement.

Why did President Bush do this? Bush promised funding in his plan to send up to 6,000 National Guard
troops to Arizona and the three other states along the U.S.-Mexico border to perform support duties that would free up federal authorities to focus on border security until more Border Patrol agents are hired and trained.

Now why does President Obama want to send the National Guard to the Mexican boarder?

President Barack Obama has said. “You can’t fight this war with just one hand, You can’t have Mexico making an effort and the United States not making an effort.”

Senior administration officials said the Guard program will last no longer than a year, a one year effort,
would draw on National Guard volunteers from the four border states. The program would mainly seek out guard members for surveillance, intelligence analysis and aviation support. Guard units would also supply ground troops who could assist at border crossings and with land and air transportation.

Now here is the real reason President Obama is doing this. President Barack Obama promised his Mexican counterpart, Felipe Calderon, that the United States would help with the escalating drug war. So now President Obama is throwing Mexican president Calderon a bone.

More post from Wag This Dog.
President Obama fires Walpin AmeriCorps Official for doing his job.
Judge Sonia Sotomayer Racist or just wrong more than 60% of the time.
No job growth until after President Obama's four years.

Technorati Tags: National Guard, Mexican Border

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Obama To Send 1,500 Unarmed Guardsmen To Protect Border

No job growth until after President Obama's four years.

White House Forecasts No Job Growth Until 2010 - NYTimes.com
President Obama’s chief economics forecaster said on Sunday that the country was not likely to see positive employment growth until 2010, even if the economy began to grow later this year.
Speaking on C-SPAN, Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said that she expected the G.D.P. to begin growing in the fourth quarter of this year. Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, made a similar prediction last week.

President Barack Obama bringing hope to the whole world.

Ms. Romer said that she expected the economy has to grow at a rate of about 2.5 percent before unemployment will fall. A reasonable estimate for the G.D.P.’s growth rate in 2010, she said, is three percent. But Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton said on Sunday that the rate of growth would have to be higher — 4.5 percent — to reverse rising unemployment.

If this is the truth, and Robert Reich should know, we will not have job growth until after 2010. Before this happen the unemployment rate could reach 9.5 percent. The underemployment rate, which counts people who are working part time because their hours have been cut and those who have given up looking for jobs, reached 15.8 percent.

President Obama called the April jobs numbers showing the nation lost another 539,000 jobs last month "encouraging" yet still a "sobering" economic toll. We should expect further job losses in the months to come. Maybe next month it will be encouraging that we only lose 439,000 jobs.

The president's event today focused on a new call by the administration to help unemployed workers gain new skills and education while they are looking for a new job. Question; Who is going to teach these new 3 million people new jobs skills? Are you going to send all these people to a trade school? Is the government going to pay for their schooling too?

"Now is the time to change unemployment from a period of 'wait and see' to a chance for our workers to train and to seek the next opportunity. That's why the next step is to make it easier for them to receive Pell Grants." A grant they will never have to pay back.

Let's see if I know my math. 3 million receiving about 3 thousand dollars a year, 9 billion?
And no guarantee of a job because there is fewer jobs out there until after 2010.

We have seen this before under President Jimmy Carter.The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time
of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totalled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. President Carter more than doubled the deficit in his four years, spending money on the economy. The unemployment more than doubled in his four years.

Now President Obama is heading in that same direction. No matter how many pretty words that he says or education programs he come up with, their need to be jobs created. To create jobs you must follow the model that President Reagan gave us. Not those of President Jimmy Carter.

More post from Wag This Dog.
Barack Obama asked his Cabinet to save $100 million over time.
President Barack first Overseas visit, faces a Defiant World.
Barack Obama screws Smokers sign children's Insurance law.

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.


Technorati Tags: Unemployment, Jobs

Job Losses Worst Since 1974, Unemployment Jumps