Monday, January 31, 2011

Documents Reveal Collusion Between Justice Department and ACLU in Arizona Lawsuit


Thursday, January 27, 2011, 5:10 PM EST - posted on NumbersUSA

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information request reveal that the Department of Justice colluded with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) while preparing its lawsuit against Arizona and the state's immigration enforcement law. Emails between the two organizations that were obtained by Judicial Watch revealed information sharing and strategy discussions.

One email exchange obtained by Judicial Watch involved the leader of the ACLU's Immigrants' Right Project, Lucas Guttentag, and the Deputy Solicitor General, Edwin Kneedler. The email exchange revealed that the two men had met briefly to discuss their respective cases and discussed district court rules and legal strategies.
Another email exchange revealed a conversation between ACLU staffers and the Assistant U.S. Attorney Josh Wilkenfeld who signed the government's pleadings in the lawsuit against Arizona.

“It is one thing to share the ACLU’s disrespect for the rule of law but it is quite another to collude with the organization on a prosecutorial strategy against the State of Arizona. Frankly, these new documents show it is hard to tell where the ACLU ends and the Justice Department begins,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama Justice Department is supposed to be an independent, nonpartisan law enforcement agency. Many Americans will be disturbed, though maybe not surprised, to find that Eric Holder’s Justice Department is colluding with one of the most leftist organizations in the nation. We know whose ‘side’ this Justice Department in on when it comes to the enforcement of our immigration laws."
To read the documents obtained by Judicial Watch, visit their website at http://JudicialWatch.org.

Comment:

I just can't believe this! It can't be true! The government would never lie to the people. They only want what's in our best interests, right? In case anyone can't tell, I'M BEING SARCASTIC!!!

It doesn't surprise me at all. ZOG has never stopped at anything to get what it wants, and it never will. That's why this whole filthy system has to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up the National Socialist way.

However, they way things are going, I doubt we'll have to tear anything down. The corruption is so wide spread, the system is bound to collapse in on itself without any help from us. In my mind, it's inevitable. The only question is, "When will it collapse?"

If the ANP is unable to gain any real political power, then collapse is inevitable. If that day ever comes, we must be ready to pick up the pieces and build a new National Socialist Fatherland for our Folk.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

IMPORTANT NEWS!

Comrades, for those of you who keep up with Chairman Suhayda's ANP Reports, and Comrade Bowles's blog, this is old news. But when I first read this, I thought it was so important, that I wanted to repost it here to make certain everyone gets to see it.

It's just simply outstanding, and shows that all these other groups calling themselves National Socialists are making very little progress. So please forgive me if you've already read this.

Friday, January 21

American Nazi Party Activist Elected To Top Union Office! ANP Fights For White Workers!

An activist in the American Nazi Party has been elected to a top union position in one of America's largest unions and by beating a Marxist union officer candidate as well. The American Nazi Party is a political party representing White working people and this election victory confirms its commitment to improving the lives of White American workers (just like the NSDAP did for German workers in the 1930's) and running stealth candidates in all kinds of elections.

ANP Chairman Rocky Suhayda said this in his latest web report:

"Comrades, my "rant" today is simple - we NEED to CHANGE from the rut of the past , in APPEARANCE and ATTITUDE - and to "BLEND IN" more with the masses, IF we seek to be accepted by them. Look, being so "ODD and DIFFERENT" from our own people, is only going to put a "BLOCK" between us, from even getting to first-base with our message. And this IS a situation that we CAN change and adapt to.

IF we LOOK and ACT "NORMAL" - the average White man and woman will more readily at LEAST listen and consider our opinions - IF we appear ALIEN to THEM ( right off the bat ), how do you think that THEY will view US?"

Basically, this advice was well heeded and this is why the ANP scored this big union election victory and wannabe groups like the NSM continue to be victory-less in any kind of attempt at winning elective office.

COMMENTATE: ANP leaders and activists will meet in early May 2011 to network and formulate new ideas and tactics for the American Nazi Party to achieve political victory in the USA.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Woman Has Been Sticking It To Judeo-Capitalist Banksters For 25 Years!


Patsy Campbell could tell you a thing or two about fighting foreclosure. She's been fighting hers for 25 years.

The 71-year-old retired insurance saleswoman has been living in her house, a two-story on a half-acre in a tidy middle-class neighborhood here in central Florida, since 1978. The last time she made a mortgage payment was October 1985.

And yet Campbell has been able to keep her house, protected by a 105-pound pit bull named Dodger and a locked, rusty gate advising visitors to beware of the dog.

"They're not going to take this house," says Campbell. "I intend to stay in this house and maintain it as my residence until I die."

Campbell's foreclosure case has outlasted two marriages, three recessions and four presidents. She has seen seven great-grandchildren born, plum real-estate markets come and go and the ownership of her mortgage change six times. Many Florida real-estate lawyers say it is the longest-lasting foreclosure case they have ever heard of.

The story of how Campbell has managed to avoid both paying her mortgage and losing her home, which is assessed at more than $203,000, is a cautionary tale for lenders that cut corners and followed sloppy practices when originating, processing and servicing mortgages. Lenders are especially vulnerable in the 23 states, including Florida, that require foreclosures to be approved by a judge.

Campbell has challenged her foreclosure on the grounds that her mortgage was improperly transferred between banks and federal agencies, that lawyers for the bank had waited too long to prosecute the case, that a Florida law shields her from all her creditors and for dozens of other reasons. Once, she questioned whether there really was a debt at all, saying the lender improperly separated the note from the mortgage contract.

She has managed to stave off the banks partly because several courts have recognized that some of her legal arguments have some merit — however minor. Two foreclosure actions against her, for example, were thrown out because her lender sat on its hands too long after filing a case and lost its window to foreclose.

Campbell, who is handling her case these days without a lawyer, has learned how to work the ropes of the legal system so well that she has met every attempt by a lender to repossess her home with multiple appeals and counteractions, burying the plaintiffs facing her under piles of paperwork.

She offers no apologies for not paying her mortgage for 25 years, saying that when a foreclosure is in dispute, borrowers are entitled to stop making payments until the courts resolve the matter.

"This is every lender's nightmare," says Robert Summers, a Stuart, Fla., real-estate lawyer who represents Commercial Services of Perry, an Iowa-based buyer of distressed debt, which own Campbell's mortgage and has been trying to foreclose. "Someone defending a foreclosure action can raise defenses that are baseless, but are obstacles for the foreclosing lender," he says, calling the system "an unfair burden" for lenders.

While Campbell's is an extreme case, more homeowners in trouble are starting to use similar tactics and are hiring defense lawyers to challenge their foreclosures, hoping to drag out the foreclosure process long enough to reach a settlement with the lender.

Nationwide, there were 2.1 million mortgages in some stage of foreclosure as of October, according to research firm LPS Applied Analytics. The average loan in foreclosure — the process typically starts when a loan becomes 90 days past due and a bank files a complaint — had been in default for 492 days as of October, up from 289 days at the end of 2005, according to LPS. In Florida, one of the states where foreclosures are handled by courts, the average loan in foreclosure has been delinquent 596 days.

Okeechobee County, a rural jurisdiction of 40,000 known for bass- and perch-fishing festivals, hasn't experienced a foreclosure problem as intense as in many coastal regions of the state. Campbell's house — which has vinyl siding, boards over the windows (to protect it from storm damage, she says), a crumbling backyard swimming pool and an old sedan rusting in the driveway — stands out among the manicured lawns, stucco ranch houses and cattle pastures interspersed among the houses.

In the town of Okeechobee, the county seat, signs of a local economy dependent on agriculture abound: stores selling prefab barns, animal feed and lumber line State Road 710 leading into town.

Brian Whitehall, Okeechobee's city administrator, says unemployment in the area is hovering around 14.5%, slightly higher than the statewide average of 12% in September. Foreclosure filings have nearly doubled each year since the state's housing market peaked in 2006, with 617 filed in 2009. But the national housing slump and the area's economic woes aren't immediately apparent in Okeechobee's quiet neighborhoods.

"We're not like the Port St. Lucies of the world, where entire subdivisions are empty and it's like a ghost town," Whitehall says.

Court records outline the rocky road Campbell's loan has taken over the past 32 years. In 1978, Paul Campbell purchased the house on Southwest 19th Lane, a few minutes' drive from the small pharmacy he owned, using a $68,000 mortgage from First Federal Savings and Loan of Martin County. He married Patsy in 1980, and died later that year from emphysema, leaving the property to his wife.

In 1985, Patsy Campbell stopped making mortgage payments because of an illness that caused her to lose income and get behind on her bills, she says.

By then, the savings-and-loan crisis had begun to take hold. First Federal merged with First Fidelity Savings and Loan, which assumed ownership of the Campbell loan. In 1987, First Fidelity sold the mortgage to American Pioneer Savings Bank, an Orlando-based lender that collapsed in the early 1990s.

The loan would change hands four more times, and four different lenders would try to foreclose on her. But every lender that held her loan either merged or collapsed. Each time ownership of the lender changed, the foreclosure case against Campbell would be dropped.

The loan eventually made its way to the Resolution Trust Corp., the federally owned asset manager that liquidated assets of insolvent S&Ls, and later to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

In June 1998, the FDIC sold the mortgage to Commercial Services of Perry, which filed to foreclose in 2000. After another illness, Campbell deeded the house to her daughter, Deborah Pyper. Years later, after Campbell recovered, the house was deeded back to her. Pyper declined to comment.

Campbell's early briefs in the case were strongly worded and colorful, drafted with the help of a now-retired Okeechobee County lawyer.

The briefs presented dozens of reasons why Campbell thought the bank didn't have the right to her house: Paul Campbell's signature was forged on the original mortgage, she said, and the original sellers never received money from the bank. At other times, she said the mortgage was never properly conveyed between banks and federal agencies, and she demanded paperwork that they were unable to immediately produce.

Attorneys' fees and court costs from previous cases hadn't been paid, or the amounts were wrong, she argued. One brief said, "Defendant Campbell specifically denies the existence of any 'debt.'"

In 2007, a trial-court judge tossed out all but two of Campbell's defenses, calling the case an "unnecessary paper chase which has been an unproductive and unnecessary use of judicial resources."

Commercial Services paid a court-determined amount to settle court costs from previous cases, and moved to take the foreclosure to trial, with a date set for early October 2010.

In response, Campbell filed for bankruptcy, effectively blocking the foreclosure until a stay is lifted by a bankruptcy-court judge.

Her filing lists $225,000 in real-property assets, and lists a secured creditor's claim of $63,801, which is equal to the unpaid principal on her mortgage. In previous court arguments, she had maintained that no lender held a secured claim against her because the note was improperly assigned.

A stern, confident woman who can quote Florida civil-procedure statutes by reference number, and who adores cooking Southern food and listening to classic Grand Ole Opry-era country music, Campbell steadfastly believes she is right. Her most recent argument in the case is that under Florida homestead law, the bank can't seize her house because it is exempt from liens and forced sales.

"Commercial Services of Perry is in the business of doing this. They win some, they lose some," she says. "If they had a case, they would have already won it, years ago."

She maintains that at this point, no one owns her mortgage note, and that because of fraud and paperwork mistakes by the banks that transferred it over and over again in the 1990s, the debt has been made void.

Summers, the lawyer for the lender, calls the case "the foreclosure from hell." He says Campbell has appealed the case seven times since he took it on in 2000, and all of her arguments are just stalling tactics.

"It's almost like clockwork. You know you're going to get another three-inch stack of documents every month or so, and you have to take the time to read through it," Summers says. "That is a burden on the courts, a burden on lawyers to decipher it, and it has enough meat in it that it's not all void."

For example, according to Summers and to court filings, in 2007, when a judge remanded the case to the trial court, a court clerk failed to issue a mandate establishing the lower court's jurisdiction. Campbell appealed the case on those grounds.

The bankruptcy should take about four months to adjudicate, Summers says, at which point he intends to take the foreclosure to trial. According to Commercial Services of Perry's latest filings, Campbell owes the $63,801 in principal plus $148,000 in interest.

"All she's got to do is pay what she owes: the principal, the interest, plus court costs and attorneys' fees," Summers says. "But she doesn't get a free ride."

Comment:

Perhaps Mrs. Campbell is being a leech and trying to get a free ride, which is one of the biggest problems in this country these days. However, I love to see someone sticking it to the Judeo-Capitalist Banksters. After all, they stick it to us whenever they can.

BTW, California does not require foreclosures to be approved by a judge. Typical of the Fool's Golden State. We're more at the mercy of the Banksters than those that do require judicial approval.

Friday, January 28, 2011

A Mom Goes To Jail For Sending Her Kids To A Safer School

Kelley is a single mom in Akron, Ohio who was sentenced to 10 days in jail and 3 years probation for sending her kids to a safer school in her father's neighboring district, instead of the violence-plagued district where she lives.

Kelley was interviewed from jail on Good Morning America yesterday. Time Magazine and the New York Times columnist Nick Kristof shined more light on the cause.

It seems that Kelley lied about where her children lived, using her father's address instead of hers, because he lived in a safer school district. When the school found out, she was ordered to send her kids to the school in her district. She flatly refused to comply and was arrested, tried, and jailed.

But it's not over for her. She is currently attending college working towards her teaching credential. If this conviction stays on her record she will not be allowed to teach in the state of Ohio where they have a law which prohibits anyone who has been convicted of ANY crime, even one of a non-sexual nature, that involves children. She's just a few credits away from finishing her teaching degree and clearly passionate about education.

A petition has been circulated and sent to Ohio Governor John Kasich demanding that he pardon Kelley.

The judge in Kelley's case said that the harsh penalties for telling district officials that her children lived with Kelley's father, when in fact they lived with her in a different town, will serve as a message to other parents considering a similar move.

Ohio should be working to improve all schools, instead of punishing parents whose children are trapped in unsafe, ineffective schools.

As a former teacher, I know you would all be appalled if you knew what was going on in our schools and why. All schools have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to drugs and weapons. If a student violates those policies, he is immediately expelled. However, it is more difficult with other things. Students who commit other offenses are allowed to stay in school unless they've committed multiple offenses. For example, a student who beats up two or three other students would be suspended for a few days and his parents fined, then allowed back. He would have to be suspended several times before being expelled because of some misguided notion that there is "no such thing as a bad boy (or girl)." Father Flannigan, founder of Boy's Town said that, and it's one of the biggest loads of BS I ever heard.

Here is a typical scenario in California: A student punches a teacher in the stomach. Especially if the teacher is male, he is encouraged by the school NOT to press charges. The student is suspended for a few days, and is right back in school. They'll probably not return that student to that teacher's class, but he will still be back in school. If the teacher insists on pressing charges, that teacher may find himself looking for a new job by the summer if he's not tenured.

Another reason for bending over backwards to keep these young thugs in school is money. For every student that leaves the school for whatever reason, the school loses money. The thing is, these "students" don't want to be there at all. They have no interest in school, and refuse to get with the program. These hooligans prevent the kids who want an education from getting the most they can out of school. A child can't do his best if he's constantly worried about being victimized.

We have to remove all students from regular public schools who will not get with the program. We need to set up more schools for these hoodlums where they can be handled properly, and kept away from the good kids. But there's a problem with that. A Federal law called Title Nine prevents segregating students, except those who have been designated as Special Needs kids like the mentally retarded, autistic, and physically handicapped. Non-special needs kids have to commit multiple offenses (not counting drugs and weapons which are zero-tolerance) before they can be removed from the regular school system and sent to continuation schools. In other words, they have to do a lot of damage before we can act, and the majority of our kids suffer because of a few.

Comrades, in a National Socialist state, this would not be the case. Any student who refuses to get with the program would be removed quickly, and sent to a re-education school where they would not be able to harm the other children while they were being rehabilitated. Someplace less than Juvenile Hall, but more than an ordinary continuation school. If they still don't get with the program, then more drastic action would be taken.

Basically, a National Socialist state would not allow a few troubled children to victimize all the rest. Don't get me wrong. We have to help these troubled kids. But we mustn't allow them to prey on their classmates either.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Where I Stand On Elections

As we all know comrades, voting is mostly a farce in this country. Two hundred years ago - even 150 years ago it may have been important, but now it's all a charade. For the most part, I don't bother, but there are a few exceptions.

When it comes to Federal elections like president, congressmen, and senators, I have nothing but utter contempt. In keeping with the farcical nature of elections, and to amuse myself, if I have time on election day, I'll go and cast my vote for a joke candidate like Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin.

I do the same for governor, state senators, and assemblymen. Under certain circumstances, with local offices, I might vote for an actual candidate. It just all depends on the issues at hand, and the office in question, and who's running. But for the most part, it's a waste of time in my book.

Naturally if the candidate is National Socialist, that changes everything, unless the candidate is NSM. Under the circumstances, considering their leadership and affiliation with the "Joy Of Satan" cult, I could never in good conscience vote for an NSM candidate. But if there is a true National Socialist candidate on the ballot, we must do everything we can to support him or her.

I do pay attention to elections. In the last election, although I didn't vote for either governor, senator, or congressman, I was hoping that Senator Boxer would lose. What does it matter, you say? They're all alike! Absolutely. But Boxer has been in office over 20 years. Time for her to go and let some other crooked politician get their chance at making their fortune by standing on the backs of the workers. Even though they are all the same, no one individual should be allowed to make a life's career out of one office. I publicly said that about one of my opponents in the school board election. Kazalunas (yes, Mexican) was Board Chair and a member for 20 years. TOO LONG - PERIOD! My first choice naturally was to win. My second choice was for him to lose. I got my second choice. He lost. However, I would have loved for us both to have won. He hates my guts and I would have loved to have seen his face when he found out he was going to have to serve on the board with me. That would have been just priceless.

Now as to propositions, that's a little different. Propositions give the people a more direct say in what does or does not become law. If ZOG wants to stick us with a new tax or fee in the form of a Proposition, you better bloody well believe I'll be at the polls voting a most definite NO! Some of you may say if ZOG can't get money from us that way, they'll find another. I'm sure they will. But the point is, if ZOG is going to take my money, they're going to have to fight me for it. I'm not going to freely open my wallet and hand over my hard earned money to a government that is incapable of managing the money it already has.

Because of propositions, California still does not have Gay marriage. Our politicians must bring in the budget on time or their pay and benefits will be suspended. Our motor vehicle registration will not be raised to pay for state parks. The money will now come from increased entry fees. Sure, ZOG still gets their money, but only those who use the parks will pay. Those of us who don't will not have to. I don't use the parks. I shouldn't have to pay. If you use them and don't like the increased fees, I'm sorry but it's TS. You use, you pay. I don't use, so I don't pay. Fair is fair. Speaking of fair, another smoker's tax was defeated because of a proposition back in 2008. This tax would have gone for childhood programs. Smokers only make up 25% of California's adult population. Why should 25% pay for programs that will benefit 75%, who pay nothing? Again, fair is fair.

Well, that's basically my stand on elections. It's all a ridiculous game that ZOG plays to make us think we have a say in who our leaders will be. There may be exceptions in local elections, but I take that on a case-by-case basis. The propositions are different. They give the people a direct say. Sure, if ZOG doesn't get their way through a proposition, they'll find another way. But if ZOG proposes a new tax or fee, are you going to not vote and open up your wallets if it does pass? ZOG will get their money one way or another, and sooner or later (better later than sooner). However, I work hard for my money. I'm not giving it up to ZOG or anyone else without a fight.

Alright comrades, let's make some comments on this one. Do you basically agree with me, or disagree?

BTW, I voted Marge Simpson for senator, Barney Gumble (the drunk on The Simpsons) for congress, and Peter Griffin for governor. Why not? At least Peter is a family guy! LOL

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

I Know Manure When I Smell It...

Comrades, in a small suburb of Los Angeles, we have the Bandini Fertilizer factory. There is a huge mound of the stuff there which can be smelled for blocks around. It's known as Bandini Mountain. As I listened to King Kong Obongo's State Of The Union Address, it smelled so bad, I was wondering if it was being televised from Capitol Hill, or Bandini Mountain. P.U.! What a stink! I'm still feeling a little queasy.

I should remind everyone that I was propaganda director for another organisation. Comrade Bowles once referred to me as a "Spin Master", and he was right. I did a pretty good job at it, so I can smell when baloney is being sliced, and Obama was slicing it big time.

Time out for a joke. What's the difference between a propaganda director and a press secretary? A propaganda director slices the baloney, and a press secretary serves it!

All humour aside, I'm pleased to announce that everything in this country is in just wonderful shape. The war in Afghanistan is winding down, we're coming out of the depression, and people are getting back to work. This is still the land of opportunity, and anyone can succeed if they are willing to try. Well, that's what the Kenyan said at any rate. Of course the manure was getting deeper with every word he spoke.

Here's just a few things he conveniently forgot to mention about the past year:

Unemployment is at a record high. If you count agricultural workers (which the U.S. Dept. Of Labor always fails to do for some reason) is at nearly 20%. Obama is claiming employment is up. Hah! That's a crock. Employment always goes up around holiday time. It's called seasonal jobs. As soon as the holidays are over, those jobs are gone. Also, as tax time approaches, trained tax preparers find seasonal jobs in that profession. But after April...Also, we are nearing inventory time. Companies are hiring inventory takers, but as soon as the inventories are taken, bye bye to those jobs as well.

Forty percent of White males with a high school diploma, but no college are unemployed.

The United States allowed over 20 million immigrants to stay in the country ILLEGALLY. Notice how he was kind of ambiguous about the immigration situation?
He talked about enforcing the law, and addressing "undocumented workers living in the shadows." We all know what he means by that: AMNESTY. He was too smart however to use the "A" word, considering the current anti-amnesty attitude of the people today.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs were outsourced to Third World countries such as China, India, and Mexico. Judeo-Capitalists continue to profit, while the workers continue to get poorer.

Student test scores have fallen nationwide. Scores are nothing short of dismal, due in part to the "dumbing down" of the curriculum to accommodate the children of immigrants, both legal and illegal who speak poor or no English.

Tuition at public colleges and universities have been raised.

Social Security and disability benefits will be cut.

Real Estate is still at an all time low.

The crime rate of non-Whites is five times higher than that of Whites, despite the fact that they have greater educational and employment opportunities than ever before.

U.S. Border Patrol agents and the National Guard have been ordered NOT to fire across the border at Mexican drug traffickers OR troops - even if they fire at them across the border first.

American citizens have been ordered to stay out of certain public lands along the southern border because of the dangers from drug traffickers and illegal immigrants.

More of our rights have been taken away in the name of National Security in the form of even more intrusive security procedures at airports.

The above mentioned security procedures will in the next few years be expanded to include trains, boats, and busses.

It has been proposed (not made a law yet, just proposed) that public criticism of the president be considered an act of sedition.

It has been proposed (not a law yet) that the military oath be changed so that soldiers swear allegiance only to the president, and all mention of upholding and defending the constitution be omitted.

Aid to Israel will be increased, as will sanctions against its enemies.

Although he said the war in Afghanistan will be over by summer, that still remains to be seen.

Comrades, I could go on and on. The country is in the worst shape it has ever been in. Conditions are approaching that of the Wiemar Republic just prior to World War II. I see no signs of things improving. Indeed, I see things continuing to deteriorate.

This country is suffering from a cancer that's eating it from the inside out, and it's too late for any treatments. The only solution is to tear down what's left, and rebuild from scratch using National Socialist principles. Such a task would be monumental, but the ANP stands ready. To meet that challenge, we need everyone to pull together. We need all good National Socialists to resign their ineffective little factions, and join with America's only true National Socialist Party, the ANP. And you Lone Wolves: What can you hope to accomplish alone? In unity there is strength. The larger the unity, the greater the strength.

All egos must be put aside. Those of us who were "big fish in a small pool" have to learn to work in unison with the whole if we are to achieve success. I'm a perfect example. I used to be a big fish in a small pool. Now I'm, well maybe not a small fish, but a medium fish in a big pool. I'm sure my contributions will be more valuable. None of us should be in this Struggle just to make ourselves feel important. It's the work we do that counts, and not some meaningless title. What's the use in being a general in some group that has no followers. I played that game for awhile. I knew all along it was a game. OK, game time is over. Time to go to work.

Let's not forget the Fuhrer's analogy of the Eight Cripples.

BTW, when Obama proudly announced the end of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and said Gays can now serve openly in the military, there was a thunderous applause - from most. The cameras focused in on some of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff. Those Generals and Admirals didn't look very happy, and none of them applauded. One of them looked to me like he wanted to start booing. Too bad he didn't have the balls to do it. I would have applauded HIM if he had!

Hail Victory! Heil Hitler!

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Rahm Emmanuel Disqualified In Chicago's Mayoral Election!


Just days ago, Rahm Emanuel seemed to be steamrolling the entire field of candidates for Chicago mayor. He had millions in the bank, a huge lead in the polls and abundant opportunities to show off his influence, including meeting with the visiting Chinese president.

But on Monday, the former White House chief of staff was waging a desperate bid to keep his campaign alive after an Illinois appeals court kicked him off the ballot for not meeting a residency requirement. The surprise decision threw the race into disarray with less than a month to go.

Emanuel's lawyers quickly sought help from the Illinois Supreme Court, asking the justices to stay the appellate ruling and to hear an appeal as soon as possible. But time was running short, since the Chicago Board of Elections planned to begin printing ballots without Emanuel's name within days.

"I have no doubt that we will in the end prevail at this effort. This is just one turn in the road," Emanuel said, adding that the "people of the city of Chicago deserve the right to make the decision on who they want to be their next mayor."

Emanuel's rivals, who have been overshadowed by his name recognition and deep pockets, immediately sought to take advantage of the threat to his candidacy, asking voters to take another look at their campaigns.

The three members of the appeals court panel, all fellow Democrats, ruled 2-1 to overturn a lower-court ruling that would have kept his name on the Feb. 22 ballot. Early voting was set to begin in just a week, on Jan. 31. And absentee ballots were scheduled to be sent out in days.

The election board chairman, Langdon Neal, said there wasn't much time left to print ballots. Early voting was set to begin in just a week, on Jan. 31.

The residency questions have dogged Emanuel ever since he announced his candidacy last fall. Those challenging Emanuel have argued that he does not meet the one-year residency requirement because he rented out his Chicago home and moved his family to Washington to work for President Barack Obama for nearly two years.

Emanuel has said he always intended to return to Chicago and was only living in Washington at the request of the president. He moved back to Chicago in October after he quit working for Obama to campaign full-time for mayor.

Emanuel is one of several candidates vying to replace Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who did not seek a seventh term.

The Chicago Board of Elections and a Cook County judge have both ruled in favor of Emanuel, a former congressman, saying he did not abandon his Chicago residency when he went to work at the White House.

Before Monday's ruling, the attorney who represents two voters objecting to Emanuel's candidacy had little luck trying to keep him off the ballot.

"Have I stood down at all? No, I've been confident all along because that's the law," Attorney Burt Odelson said Monday. He said he welcomed a hearing by the state Supreme Court.

Emanuel's three main rivals — former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, former schools President Gery Chico and City Clerk Miguel del Valle — have been critical of him during the race, calling him an outsider who doesn't know Chicago.

Monday's decision had the potential to reset the race, and the candidates seized the moment to ask for votes.

"I'm extending a hand of friendship to all the Chicagoans who have been supporting Mr. Emanuel and all those who haven't made their minds up yet," Braun said.

Del Valle said Monday's court decision bodes well for the other candidates and voters who may have thought the race was a foregone conclusion because Emanuel had raised so much money.

"Now voters see there's an opportunity to look at the field and give candidates either a second look or in some cases a first look. People are going to pay more attention to the other candidates," del Valle said.

Emanuel appeared to get a big boost last week when his campaign announced he raised more than $10 million and was endorsed by former President Bill Clinton during an event in Chicago.

A Chicago Tribune/WGN poll also released last week showed Emanuel with the support of 44 percent of those surveyed. The same poll found 21 percent of registered voters questioned preferred Braun. Sixteen percent favored Chico and 7 percent supported del Valle.

Sara Grosby, 58, said she was shocked by the court ruling. She was leaning toward voting for Emanuel, but now must reconsider the other candidates.

"In my opinion, he already was a civil servant, working for Obama. I would think the court could cut him some slack," said Grosby, an aviation security worker at O'Hare Airport.
___

Associated Press writers Don Babwin, Karen Hawkins, Tammy Webber, Sophia Tareen and Michael Tarm contributed to this report.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Comment:

If any Chicagoans are breathing a sigh of relief, I wouldn't. Just look who we're talking about. Former Chief-Of-Staff and good buddy of King Kongo Obongo. If there is any way to get around this, he'll find it. And if he can't find a way, he'll make a way somehow. After all, he's wealthy, influential, Jewish, and a personal friend of many Israeli government officials. If there's any way in hell to do it, he'll get on that ballot.

Even if he doesn't, he can still run as a write-in. You think write-ins never win major elections? Tell that to Alaska!

Besides, as one of "The Chosen", he probably feels that the law doesn't apply to him, just us inferior Gentiles. Putting Emmanuel in the mayor's office will be just one more nail in America's coffin. However, Chicago's White Working Class will naturally suffer the most, as usual.

Comrades, I'll bet cash money on this. Emmanuel isn't through. He's got the influence and the money to win this election, ballot or no ballot. Decent White Chicagoans have a Goliath to slay. Disclaimer: I meant politically, not literally!

I realise most of us have no faith left in our political system - especially voting. But if there is anything we can legally do to keep this enemy of the Aryan Folk out of office, then we should do it. Register as a National Socialist and vote against Emmanuel. We must show ZOG that we mean business now. We're no longer just going to sit about and bitch and complain, and do little else. We're going to start voting against these traitors, and more importantly, start running our own candidates in 2012. BTW, don't forget, if there is a National Socialist candidate running in your area, you can't vote for him or her if you aren't registered.

FYI, not registering will NOT keep you off the jury duty selection list. Also, at least in California, jury duty lists are no longer drawn from voter registration. This was done so that people will not fear being called for jury duty if they do register. Check your county's registrar of voters to find out if jury duty lists are drawn from voter registration in your state.

Monday, January 24, 2011

I'm Very Disappointed!

Folks, this message is directed at Official ANP Supporters, and then only SOME of them. This is not a criticism of our friends and guests, just Official Supporters.

Comrades, in the January 4th ANP Report, Chairman Suhayda made a simple request. If you've read the report, you know already know what I'm talking about. He asked all Supporters to submit relevant questions about 21st Century National Socialism to him so he could answer them in upcoming Reports. He said he would base his answers on the teachings of our Fuhrer.

If you've read his last ANP Report, you should know that not a single Supporter responded to this request. FOR SHAME! It was not a huge request. It would have only taken 15 minutes to boot up your computer, log on to the internet, go to your email, and write a question and send it. Less time if you have DSL. This poor response is absolutely disgraceful.

Now you might say, "I don't have any questions. I know it all, or at least enough to perform my duties."

OK, maybe you do, and maybe you don't. But that wasn't the point of the request. It was so Chairman Suhayda could answer real questions from real people to inform NEWBIES to the website on what we're all about.

Next you might say, "Well, if no one sent in any questions, that means you didn't either. What's up with that?"

I'll tell you. I purposely did not send in a question. Suppose I had, and the Chairman printed it in the last report. How was I to know whether others had sent in a question, and I was just the first one he answered, especially if he didn't mention I was the only one? I wanted to see if any of you would do as he asked.

Sure, Comrades Kozak, Bowles, Hess, Davenport, and Vondenberger didn't either. I don't mean to blow my own horn, but we already do so much. MUST WE DO EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME?

Don't get me wrong. I'm honoured to do everything I can for our Struggle, but it just galls me to see so many people sit around on their asses doing nothing, and leaving it all up to a few. Are you just talkers, or doers? For example, it's now January 24. Have you given out your literature for the month? I have. Now I don't have to worry about it until next month.

How many of you are thinking, "I have a job and a family. They take up so much time. I send in my pledge every month. Isn't that enough?"

Yes, if you truly don't have the time. The ANP appreciates every contribution our supporters give.

Or you might also say, "I'm out of work. Making 200 copies every month, plus the gas I'd use up in going to the copy store and in distribution is just too much right now."

However, Chairman Suhayda has a program where Supporters who have more money than others can send in a little extra and instruct that it be earmarked for others who are financially strapped at the moment and need help with copies and such. If money is a problem, write and ask him if there's help available.

You may also be extremely busy with work and your families. That's cool too. Families first. But when the Chairman asks you to do a simple thing that takes only a few minutes and doesn't cost a penny, what's your excuse for that?

Some of you feel you really don't have the time. Let me ask you, how many of you watched the football playoffs today? You had time for that, but not the time to send in a question. Tsk, tsk.

"But I work hard. I deserve to relax and watch the game," some will say.

I can't stand professional sports because they've become so anti-White, but if you do, I make no judgment. It's a matter of priorities. Your priority was the game first. Personally, I feel that's the wrong priority, but that's just my unofficial opinion. But you could have sent in a question during half-time. Half-time shows (if they have one) usually suck anyway.

Well, I've nagged enough. To everyone who does NOT neglect their Party responsibilities, I apologise. It's just that some people need to be pushed every now and again. I try and be reasonably tactful about it, but for those of you who are not living up to your responsibilities, and you know who you are, let's try and do better from now one. Thank you all.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

The New Pledge Of Allegiance

I heard that there are some people in Washington that claim the Pledge Of Allegiance is outdated. It seems that they have come up with a new pledge to reflect the New World Order.

I pledge allegiance to the logo of the Corporate States Of America,
And unto Wall Street for which it stands.
One company, without God,
Diversified, with liberty and justice for a few.

Comment:

OK, I made that up. But it's true, isn't it?

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Path Is Sought for States to Escape Debt Burdens

Plans being drawn up to let states declare bankruptcy

Pensioners and investors in state bonds could lose out


Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee Sen. John Cornyn joins fellow GOP leaders for a news conference in the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6 in Washington, DC. (©Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, has asked the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, about the possibility of drawing up a bill allowing states to go bankrupt.

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
The New York Times
updated 1/21/2011 7:39:56 AM ET 2011-01-21T12:39:56

Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.

Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.

But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.

Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care.

Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides.

Bankruptcy could permit a state to alter its contractual promises to retirees, which are often protected by state constitutions, and it could provide an alternative to a no-strings bailout.

Along with retirees, however, investors in a state’s bonds could suffer, possibly ending up at the back of the line as unsecured creditors.

“All of a sudden, there’s a whole new risk factor,” said Paul S. Maco, a partner at the firm Vinson & Elkins who was head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Municipal Securities during the Clinton administration.

For now, the fear of destabilizing the municipal bond market with the words “state bankruptcy” has proponents in Congress going about their work on tiptoe.

No draft bill yet

No draft bill is in circulation yet, and no member of Congress has come forward as a sponsor, although Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, about the possibility in a hearing this month.

House Republicans, and Senators from both parties, have taken an interest in the issue, with nudging from bankruptcy lawyers and a former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, who could be a Republican presidential candidate.

It would be difficult to get a bill through Congress, not only because of the constitutional questions and the complexities of bankruptcy law, but also because of fears that even talk of such a law could make the states’ problems worse.

Lawmakers might decide to stop short of a full-blown bankruptcy proposal and establish instead some sort of oversight panel for distressed states, akin to the Municipal Assistance Corporation, which helped New York City during its fiscal crisis of 1975.

Still, discussions about something as far-reaching as bankruptcy could give governors and others more leverage in bargaining with unionized public workers.

“They are readying a massive assault on us,” said Charles M. Loveless, legislative director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “We’re taking this very seriously.”

Mr. Loveless said he was meeting with potential allies on Capitol Hill, making the point that certain states might indeed have financial problems, but public employees and their benefits were not the cause.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report on Thursday warning against a tendency to confuse the states’ immediate budget gaps with their long-term structural deficits.

“States have adequate tools and means to meet their obligations,” the report stated.

No state is known to want to declare bankruptcy, and some question the wisdom of offering them the ability to do so now, given the jitters in the normally staid municipal bond market.

Slightly more than $25 billion has flowed out of mutual funds that invest in muni bonds in the last two months, according to the Investment Company Institute.

Many analysts say they consider a bond default by any state extremely unlikely, but they also say that when politicians take an interest in the bond market, surprises are apt to follow.

Mr. Maco said the mere introduction of a state bankruptcy bill could lead to “some kind of market penalty,” even if it never passed. That “penalty” might be higher borrowing costs for a state and downward pressure on the value of its bonds. Individual bondholders would not realize any losses unless they sold.

Last-minute plea for cash?

But institutional investors in municipal bonds, like insurance companies, are required to keep certain levels of capital. And they might retreat from additional investments. A deeply troubled state could eventually be priced out of the capital markets.

“The precipitating event at G.M. was they were out of cash and had no ability to raise the capital they needed,” said Harry J. Wilson, the lone Republican on President Obama’s special auto task force, which led G.M. and Chrysler through an unusual restructuring in bankruptcy, financed by the federal government.

Mr. Wilson, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for New York State comptroller last year, has said he believes that New York and some other states need some type of a financial restructuring.

He noted that G.M. was salvaged only through an administration-led effort that Congress initially resisted, with legislators voting against financial assistance to G.M. in late 2008.

“Now Congress is much more conservative,” he said. “A state shows up and wants cash, Congress says no, and it will probably be at the last minute and it’s a real problem. That’s what I’m concerned about.”

Discussion of a new bankruptcy option for the states appears to have taken off in November, after Mr. Gingrich gave a speech about the country’s big challenges, including government debt and an uncompetitive labor market.

“We just have to be honest and clear about this, and I also hope the House Republicans are going to move a bill in the first month or so of their tenure to create a venue for state bankruptcy,” he said.

A few weeks later, David A. Skeel, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, published an article, “Give States a Way to Go Bankrupt,” in The Weekly Standard. It said thorny constitutional questions were “easily addressed” by making sure states could not be forced into bankruptcy or that federal judges could usurp states’ lawmaking powers.

“I have never had anything I’ve written get as much attention as that piece,” said Mr. Skeel, who said he had since been contacted by Republicans and Democrats whom he declined to name.

Fear of bankruptcy 'panic'

Mr. Skeel said it was possible to envision how bankruptcy for states might work by looking at the existing law for local governments. Called Chapter 9, it gives distressed municipalities a period of debt-collection relief, which they can use to restructure their obligations with the help of a bankruptcy judge.

Unfunded pensions become unsecured debts in municipal bankruptcy and may be reduced. And the law makes it easier for a bankrupt city to tear up its labor contracts than for a bankrupt company, said James E. Spiotto, head of the bankruptcy practice at Chapman & Cutler in Chicago.

The biggest surprise may await the holders of a state’s general obligation bonds. Though widely considered the strongest credit of any government, they can be treated as unsecured credits, subject to reduction, under Chapter 9.

Mr. Spiotto said he thought bankruptcy court was not a good avenue for troubled states, and he has designed an alternative called the Public Pension Funding Authority. It would have mandatory jurisdiction over states that failed to provide sufficient funding to their workers’ pensions or that were diverting money from essential public services.

“I’ve talked to some people from Congress, and I’m going to talk to some more,” he said. “This effort to talk about Chapter 9, I’m worried about it. I don’t want the states to have to pay higher borrowing costs because of a panic that they might go bankrupt. I don’t think it’s the right thing at all. But it’s the beginning of a dialog.”

This article, headlined " Path Is Sought for States to Escape Debt Burdens," first appeared in The New York Times.

Comment:

Comrades, when an individual working class person is drowning in debt, bankruptcy may be the solution. After all, the banks have no compunction about screwing us over when it suits them, so we should not feel guilty about getting out of our debts through any legal means necessary.

If a state were to declare bankruptcy, that's different. Why? It's true that it would relieve the state's debts to banks, finance companies, and other big corporations. Unfortunately, the working class gets screwed as well. But what's unusual about that? We've always gotten the shaft since the day money was first invented. The White Working Class has more to lose than anyone. But it's the same old story. Nothing changes.

If states are allowed to declare bankruptcy, you can kiss your pensions goodbye. I'm not talking about the big boys in the state government. They're all well to do and can easily go without their pensions. But what about the average state worker? They worked their entire lives for the state, and this is their reward. "Sorry everyone. The state is broke so you get no pensions. BTW, have a nice retirement." That just made me think. If California declares bankruptcy, and if this bill passes and is not declared unconstitutional, you better bloody well believe they will, do you suppose Governor Clown will forfeit his pensions? Remember, having held several political offices, he has several pensions coming to him.

How about people who invested in state bonds? They trusted their states with their savings, and now they're getting the shaft. Personally, I say anyone who buys state bonds deserves to lose their money. Investing with the state is investing in nothing but incompetence and corruption. You have as much chance of coming out ahead as you do playing roulette. Well this time, every one's number is coming up black 13.

California, like most other states refuses to live within it's means. For every dollar California takes in, it spends $1.50. This is unsustainable, and inevitably will end up in total collapse. If California gets a bankruptcy, will it change it's ways? I doubt it. Not only will reckless spending continue, but it will increase. It's the same with people. How many of you live pay-check-to-pay-check? Then you get a big raise. Do you save the extra money? Of course not! Now you can afford that new SUV you've been wanting, and you're back to living pay-check-to-pay-check again. Of course, you work hard. You deserve nice things, right? WRONG! You only deserve them if they are within your means. If you have to live month-to-month, then you're living beyond your means, and you're setting yourself up for disaster. We all deserve nice things. I deserve a nice new Harley. I can't afford one, so I don't have one. Hell, I even had to sell my 20 year old Sportster because I couldn't afford the repair bills, and I wasn't about to just let it sit in my shed for perhaps years before I could come up with the $2000 for repairs. I live within my means. After Christmas expenses, I owe about $400. How much do you owe?

Remember, except for emergencies like car repairs, medical expenses, and children's necessities, if you can't afford to pay cash, then you can't afford it in the first place. The federal and state governments live on credit. They borrow from Peter to pay Paul, make interest only payments, and keep on charging. That's plain crazy! Eventually, you'll run out of credit, yet your creditors will still want their minimum payments, and you'll have no credit to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. That means financial collapse. That's exactly how the government works, and unless they change their ways, they are doomed to permanent financial disaster.

Our Fuhrer created a stable German currency, and a sound national economy. Germany lived within their means. If they couldn't make something themselves, then they did without. They freed themselves from the Judeo-Capitalist banksters. That's why it was imperative to people like the infamous Rothschild banking cartel that National Socialism be destroyed at all costs. For the most part, they succeeded. Now look at the results. The world is more enslaved to them through financial debt than ever before. It seems that very few ever learn from their mistakes.

"Those who do not remember the past, are condemned to relive it." - Santyana.

Friday, January 21, 2011

More than a million immigrants land U.S. jobs

Stepped-up enforcement is not deterring trend of foreign-born employment

By Ed Stoddard
Reuters

DALLAS — Over the past two years, as U.S. unemployment remained near double-digit levels and the economy shed jobs in the wake of the financial crisis, over a million foreign-born arrivals to America found work, many illegally.

Those are among the findings of a review of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data conducted exclusively for Reuters by researchers at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston.

Often young and unskilled or semi-skilled, immigrants have taken jobs Americans could do in areas like construction, willing to work for less wages. Others land jobs that unemployed Americans turn up their noses at or lack the skills to do.

With a national unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, domestic job creation is at the top of President Barack Obama's agenda and such findings could add to calls to tighten up on illegal immigration. But much of it is Hispanic and the growing Latino vote is a key base for Obama's Democratic Party.

Many of the new arrivals, according to employers, brought with them skills required of the building trade and found work in sectors such as construction, where jobless rates are high.

"Employers have chosen to use new immigrants over native-born workers and have continued to displace large numbers of blue-collar workers and young adults without college degrees," said Andrew Sum, the director of the Center for Labor Market Studies.

"One of the advantages of hiring, particularly young, undocumented immigrants, is the fact that employers do not have to pay health benefits or basic payroll taxes," said Sum.

From 2008 to 2010, 1.1 million new migrants who have entered America since 2008 landed jobs, even as U.S. household employment declined by 6.26 million over that same period.

But in a sign of the times, the pace of job growth for new arrivals has also slowed, to an average of 550,000 a year from 2008 to 2010 from over 750,000 a year from 2000 to 2008.

Sum said it was fair to estimate that around 35 percent of these workers were undocumented or illegal.

Many immigrants acquired jobs in traditional low-wage work associated with foreign, undocumented and especially Mexican labor: hotels and food services, retail trade, sanitation, cleaning and construction.

There are a number of programs by which the United States lets foreign workers into the country to fill gaps in its domestic labor market but employer groups complain little is done in this area for legal, unskilled workers.

"There is basically no unskilled immigration that is legal. There are basically no provisions in the law for unskilled immigrants," said Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business.

Farm workers in particular argue that Americans would not do the tough field work that is rife with undocumented workers, titling one recent union campaign "Take Our Jobs". The slogan meant that if Americans wanted their jobs, then take them. But it is likely they don't.

Immigrant hiring also comes despite stepped-up workplace enforcement against companies that hire illegal immigrants and the rapid expansion of the online E-verify system used by employers to check immigration status.

Some of those who entered the country since 2008 were employed in sectors that generally require a high level of skills and education, such as finance and insurance.

But the 28,500 new arrivals since 2008 who found work in the finance and insurance sector only comprised 2.6 percent of the 1.1 million migrants. Over 90,000 of the newcomers since 2008 got work in health care and social services, a fast-growing sector where skills are in demand.

Young, educated and willing to work

But the demographic profile of the immigrants who are still landing jobs is slanted to the young, uneducated, unskilled or semi-skilled. Accommodations and food services, for example, was a sector that employed over 144,000 new arrivals -- the biggest group of employed new immigrants. These would be jobs such as hotel maids and dishwashers.

The unemployment rate for all Americans without a high school diploma in this age group is about 27 percent to 29 percent -- a level that Sum says is "Depression scale." And in sectors such as construction the unemployment rate is almost 21 percent.

Asked about hiring, industry sources say there is little.

"What hiring? Our guys laid off another 16,000 people in December," said Brian Turmail, spokesman for the Associated General Contractors of America.

Yet the analysis by Sum and his colleagues shows that over 86,000 foreign-born workers who arrived in America since 2008 have been employed in the construction sector.

Sum said the whole situation was creating a deeper domestic labor glut at the bottom of the workforce ladder, depressing wages and sharpening already widening income disparities.

But Ezequiel Arvizu, the compliance and diversity representative with federal contractor Sundt Construction in Arizona, said his company had hired new arrivals over the past three years simply because they often have experience that native-born Americans lack.

"People often think construction is unskilled but the trades are very skilled and we need cement masons, carpenters, equipment operators," he told Reuters in a phone interview.

"We are looking for qualified candidates and it just so happens that some of the candidates who we select are legal immigrants. It means they have the skills we are looking for," he said.

Comment:

This appalling trend would NEVER happen in a National Socialist state. An NS government would see to it that citizens born in the country would have first crack at all jobs, naturalised citizens second, and legal non-citizens LAST. We wouldn't have to be concerned about illegal aliens, as their presence wouldn't be tolerated in the first place.

The current economic situation demonstrates that a National Socialist government is desperately needed. The ANP is the best chance we have of achieving that goal.

It's just a pity that there are so many smaller groups out there calling themselves National Socialist, yet all pulling in different directions. Many of these groups are mostly the type of people we can well do without. However, each group has a few worthwhile members. If we could weed out the undesirables, and then unite with the rest, then we could really start to accomplish huge things.

Don't get me wrong. The ANP is making great progress. But if we could join with the few good men and women of the other factions, we'd do even better.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

America's 20 Rudest Cities


Comrades, I thought it might be nice to lighten up for a night. When I came across this story, I thought it an interesting piece of trivia. As someone who lives in California, it doesn't surprise me that Los Angeles wins the prize. Rudeness is mainly caused by mistrust. Studies have shown that the more multicultural a city is, the more mistrust there is. Here in California, most people treat their house and property like an island and defend it from all outsiders. Neighbourhoods like in the East are pretty much non-existent out here - at least in the larger cities. Block parties are rare. I have lived in California for 42 years. I have moved a grand total of nine times.

I have never seen one single welcome wagon. I've never even heard of one here. Most Californians don't even know that welcome wagons are real things. To them, it's just something they've heard about on sitcoms. Sad but true.


When comedian Jim Dailikis moved to New York City from Australia several years ago, he expected a city full of rude, abrasive people. But New Yorkers didn’t really live up to the stereotype, he says. “They’re friendly, but they have a different way of showing you,” he says. As he now says in his act, “I love New Yorkers—they stab me in the front.”

New Yorkers have long battled an image of being surly, but in Travel+Leisure’s survey, they have something to celebrate. The annual America’s Favorite Cities survey asked readers to rate 35 cities on 54 features, including affordable hotels, great restaurants, romance potential, and the overall personality of the locals. In the contest for least friendly locals, New York City was not voted as the rudest city in America—which means someone else now wears the championship belt in Rude.

So which city is it? A major contender is our nation’s capital, which came in at No. 5. Paula Ford, a marketing director in Tampa, recalls the time when she was an intern in Washington, D.C., and fainted while riding to work on the Metro. “When I came to, I was slumped over, hanging out of my seat,” she says. “Nobody said anything to me or offered to help.” The Atlanta native says she would have gotten better treatment back in Georgia. “I would have had a circle around me, offering me a Coke, a wet towel, or asking to call someone. I think what happened to me definitely reflected the vibe of D.C.”

Slideshow: America's rudest cities

Indeed, Atlanta fared better in the AFC survey—though ranking only at No. 11. But there is something to that idea of southern charm: Nashville, Savannah, and Charleston, S.C., all ranked as the least rude of the 35 cities in the survey.

They’re also smaller towns, which might give off a friendlier vibe. When we zeroed in on the 20 rudest cities, we saw that population counts: the more congested the metropolis, the rougher the attitude. That brusque image of northeasterners only goes so far, however: five out of the 10 rudest are along the Northeast Corridor, but what is Dallas’s (No. 10) excuse?

Interestingly, two cities whose main industry is tourism—and, presumably, hospitality—landed in the Top 10 of Rude, too: Las Vegas and Orlando. In their defense, one has to wonder: did visitors get flack from actual locals, or just other visitors who were throwing sharp elbows to get a picture with Minnie?

Sometimes, too, there may be a disconnect between what seems to be rudeness and what is perhaps just a different manner. Travel guide author Gail Lecht recalls jaywalking across Michigan Avenue after she had just moved to Chicago. “I hadn’t noticed a cop at the crosswalk,” she says, “and he flagged me down, presumably to ticket me or yell at me. Turns out, he only wanted to say, ‘Have a nice a day.’”

Copyright © 2011 American Express Publishing Corporation

America's 20 Rudest Cities

* Los Angeles (pictured above)
* New York
* Philadelphia
* Miami
* Washington, D.C.
* Boston
* Baltimore
* Las Vegas
* Orlando
* Dallas/Fort Worth
* Atlanta
* Phoenix/Scottsdale
* Memphis
* San Francisco
* Chicago
* Seattle
* Santa Fe
* Providence
* Houston
* Anchorage

Comment:

Comrade Kozak should be pleased to see his city is near the bottom of the list. Maybe I should let our friend Anchorage Activist from White Reference know his city is the least rudest on the list?

Comrades, if you hail from any of these cities or the surrounding areas, leave a comment as to your opinion of your city's level of rudeness.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Maine Governor Signs Executive Order Allowing State Agencies to Check Immigration Status

Updated Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 11:28 AM EST - posted on NumbersUSA

Maine State House

Newly elected Maine Governor Paul LePage, in one of his first acts in office, signed an executive order allowing state agents to check immigration status of individuals they come in contact with. Gov. LePage's order rescinds a previous executive order that prevented state agencies from inquiring about an individual's immigration status.

A spokesman for the governor said he wanted to remove the impression that Maine was a safe haven for illegal aliens, and a place where they could get driver's licenses and social services.

“We have got many fiscal issues, and I’m intending to take care of Mainers first," Gov. LePage said.

Gov. LePage signed the executive order last Thursday.

Comment:

It looks like the pro-illegals are on the run! Yet another state begins to do the right thing.

However, checking immigration status and denying illegals services are only the first and second steps. Once illegals are uncovered, they must be deported IMMEDIATELY. No delays. Just do it. They don't need a hearing, nor a phone call.
If they are illegally in this country, then their very presence shows their guilt. No trial or hearing is necessary. Your right to a phone call is so you can call an attorney. If they are to be automatically deported, then they don't need an attorney, therefore they don't need a phone call. He may want to tell his wife and kids that he's being deported so they won't worry about him. Tough! Let them worry. Better yet, he can tell ICE where his family is and they can all be deported together and no one has to worry about the whereabouts of anyone.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

California Budget follows party lines

Plan caters to GOP, but many still aren't onboard

James Rufus Koren, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
Posted: 01/16/2011 07:02:20 AM PST

Gov. Jerry Brown's budget proposal includes many kinds of cuts and reforms Republicans have long requested, but local Republican lawmakers have given the proposal a lukewarm reception.

At the same time, despite including the same kind of deep cuts to social services Democrats fought when Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor, Democrats say they generally see the plan as realistic.

Several Republicans called Brown's plan "a good starting point," but they say it doesn't make enough cuts and relies on solutions that might not materialize.
"Gov. Brown has folded into this budget plan some of the ideas we've brought up over the last few years," said Sen. Bob Huff, R-Walnut, who represents the Chino area and was named Wednesday as vice-chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

Among those ideas are tightening eligibility guidelines for the state's in-home care program - something Huff said he wanted to see in the plan - as well as cutting welfare payments and making families eligible for welfare for a shorter period of time.

But Huff also said Brown's plan is "a budget that has bailing wire holding it together." He echoed a report from the state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, saying the budget includes many "risky assumptions."

The biggest of those risky assumptions, said Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, is that voters will approve extended tax increases. Brown's budget assumes that the state will hold a June special election to ask voters to approve an extension of tax rates that were hiked in 2009. [Fat bloody chance! - Ed. Note]

"Unfortunately, the governor's proposal is not a complete plan because it assumes voters will support major tax increases, but doesn't provide solutions if they reject them," Dutton said. "If voters say `no' to the tax hikes, as Republicans expect, it means a $10 billion budget hole come June."

Indeed, many Republicans say there's no chance voters will approve extending the increases to income, sales and car taxes.

"I think any kind of tax proposal that goes out to the people is dead-on-arrival," said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Claremont. "They're going to shoot it down two to one. It's a waste of taxpayer money to even hold that election."

Donnelly said it's now up to the Legislature "to drill down into the details and come up with the rest of the cuts."

Democrats, meanwhile, aren't sure what additional cuts Republicans want.
"I heard some of the comments that there aren't enough cuts," said Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Montclair. "I don't know what they're looking at."

McLeod said she wants to study the impact of some of the specific cuts Brown proposes, but overall, she said "probably most of (the proposal) is realistic."
While Democrats have generally fought the kind of program cuts Brown has proposed - cuts to welfare, services for seniors and health-care programs for the poor - they seem happy at least that cuts make up only about half of Brown's plan to close the budget deficit.

"He has many bold suggestions; some of these are not to my liking," said Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter, D-Rialto. "What I do like is that it is a balanced proposal: about 50 percent of the budget addresses cuts and savings, an additional 50 percent presents revenue solutions."

Republicans, though, take issue with that breakdown. Huff said Brown's proposal isn't half this and half that.

Some of the proposals marked as savings in the plan, Huff said, come at the expense of local jurisdictions or special state funds. Put another way, he said the budget in some cases doesn't call for spending less - rather, it calls for using a different bank account.

For instance, the budget assumes using $1.7 billion from local redevelopment agencies to pay for health-care programs and trial courts. It also calls for saving $600 million by forcing county jails to take in more prisoners.

"It's not the half-and-half thing we've talked about," Huff said. "Really, he's looking at an $8 billion or $9 billion cut. ... We're talking about $14 billion or so in new revenue."

Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_17113149#ixzz1BMFUHIkq

Comment:

The only thing Governor Clown is doing right is cutting welfare payments, making it tougher to get on welfare, and shortening the duration of eligibility. It will force the leeches to at least try and find work. Oops, I just said an obscene word. Work, that is. To some people that IS an obscenity.

Anyone know why welfare parents don't get scared by horror movies? Because the only thing that scares them is the thought of getting up early and going to work!

Cutting services for the elderly is definitely the WRONG thing to do. What kind of message does that send? It's telling the elderly that after a lifetime of hard work, they're getting the shaft. They take out of the system, and no longer pay into it. Since they're useless to the government, and indeed a burden, they get the heave ho. Absolutely disgraceful.

As to the disabled, if they were capable of working, most of them would. I know several people on disablity. They'd love nothing more than to go back to work. Many of them became disabled in work related accidents. The man two doors down from me was a roofer. He fell off a two-story house and broke his back (not his spinal cord). After two years, he can walk with a walker, but he'll never be off disability. He, and others like him are NOT leeches. They deserve better than to have their services cut.

Here are some things we need to cut:

1. Expense accounts for politicians and appointees. No more shenannigens. If you need to have a meeting, then meet in your offices, and not in a fancy restaurant. Not only do they charge the meal to the taxpayers, but they bring their spouses along, and charge their meals to us as well.

2. When politicians need to travel on business, the taxpayers will pick up THEIR expenses, but not those of their spouses and children. They can either pay for their families themselves, or leave them at home.

3. Take away their state owned cars. I don't get reimbursed for expenses travelling to and from work. Do you? Do you know anybody who does, other than Judeo-Capitalist bigshots? Why should we foot the bill for gas and wear and tear on their cars? Let them pay their own commuting expenses like everyone else.

4. Crack down on employee theft. A stapler here, a ream of computer paper there, all adds up, and WE THE PEOPLE pay the cost.

5. How many of us have seen the street/highway department drag out a project for what seems like forever? In reality, sometimes they're doing exactly that. And it's not just them. It's most government agencies. If they think they may come in UNDER budget, they perform useless jobs to use up the surplus. If they come in under budget, they're afraid Sacramento may cut their budget for the next year, so they'll do whatever they have to do to come in at or over budget, but never under. THIS KIND OF CRAP MUST STOP! If your department is budgeted say $10 million a year, and you use only $9 million, then you don't need the full ten and your budget should be cut. If you need that extra one mil next year, then we'll worry about that later. OK, that may not be thinking ahead, but it's better than wasting $1 million. There is such a thing as an emergency appropriation. Apply for it if you think you need it. If you're denied, then maybe you don't really need it.

6. Shut down the useless committees. Governments love committees. We have committees that think of ways to beautify state rest stops. They don't actually do any beautifying, they just think of things that others could do. We have the Rob Reiner committee. They look into possible early childhood development programs. They don't actually do anything for our children, they just think of things that others could do. There are literally hundreds of such committees that literally do nothing. The governor appoints someone to head the committee, and pays him a six-figure salary with an expense account. The committee head appoints his friends and relatives to serve on the committee and pays them fat salaries with expense accounts at taxpayer expense, and they only work a few hours a month. What a bonanza - for them. They get the cows, we get the manure.

Most importantly:

Cut off any and all services to illegal aliens. This includes schools, hospitals, food stamps, and Section 8 housing (government pays their rent). There's no if's and's or but's about it. They're not supposed to be here at all, QED, they are entitled to NOTHING except a free ride back to Mexico (or wherever it was they did come from).

If the government followed these seven simple suggestions, just imagine how much we'd save every year! If they did, there would be no need to cut essential services to the elderly and the disabled. But our filthy, rotten, corrupt system will never go for it. For our politicians and big shot appointees, I'm talking about killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Most of them feel they've earned the right to all the freebies and they'll never give them up willingly. That's why they must be forced.

ALL FORMS OF WASTE MUST END NOW!

This whole system stinks like rotten meat, and it's not all the fault of the politicians and Judeo-Capitalists. It's the people's fault for letting it happen. We have to get away from the Democans and Republicrats.

For God's sake people, smarten up. If you won't give National Socialism a chance, then at least choose another third party. Send those fat-assed elephants and idiotic donkeys a message by not voting for either of them. As Chairman Suhayda once said, "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil."

Remember, the object of an election is for us to choose the best leaders. It's not a contest to see if we can guess the winner. If you're not getting my meaning, what I'm saying is that when we vote, we're not supposed to vote for the candidate we feel has the best chance of winning. We're supposed to pick who we feel is the best for the job.

Also, if your candidate wins, you're not a winner. If your candidate loses, you're not a loser. It's an election, not a bloody football game! Grow up.

Comrades, I hope I didn't offend any of you. I know most of you already know the truth about our system. The last three paragraphs are specifically directed at John and Jane Average voter.

Again, to quote Chairman Suhayda, "For White Worker Power!"

Monday, January 17, 2011

Kentucky Follows Arizona

Immigration-Enforcement Legislation Advancing in Kentucky
Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 12:37 PM EST - posted on NumbersUSA

Kentucky State House

A bill similar to Arizona's immigration-enforcement law cleared its first hurdle in Kentucky passing through the state senate after a vote late last week. The measure passed by a 24-14 margin and would allow police to check the immigration status of individuals they stop.

"Does Kentucky want to be a sanctuary for illegals?" said State Sen. Tom Jensen. "What this bill really does is it sends a message ... that we do not tolerate people coming into this country illegally. They should come into this country legally. My grandparents did."

Sen. John Schickel is the bill's main sponsor.

The bill now moves to the House where it's likely to face more resistance. Last year, the House did pass a bill that would have required all state agencies to use E-Verify to check the status of all new hires, but under Democratic control, it might be tougher to garner votes. Only one Democrat voted for the bill in the state senate.

Current State House Speaker Greg Stumbo favors the E-Verify approach, and he's willing to extend a state mandate to all employers, private and public, in Kentucky. He believes that if illegal aliens can't get jobs in Kentucky, then they'll leave Kentucky.

Comment:

Way to go Kentucky!

Kentucky State Senator Tom Jensen doesn't want his state to be a sanctuary for illegal aliens. Evidently California politicians feel exactly the opposite. Most politicians here in the Fool's Golden State are terrified of offending the Latino community. For the most part, they are way off base. For example, I have a client who's a Mexican immigrant - the legal kind. When I asked him how he feels about illegals, his response, and I quote, was, "I waited my turn. They can all get to the back of the line. NO CUTS!"

I think Tomas's attitude is typical of legal immigrants. Perhaps it's the Mexican-Americans Sacramento are brown-nosing. Let's face it. Most of them have some relatives in Mexico. They wouldn't want any laws passed that might negatively affect their family now, or in the future. These people might say, "I have to help my relatives run the border. We're family. I have to help my family."

But my attitude is this: If a Mexican-American with family in Mexico harbours an illegal, even if it's a relative, then they are traitors. After all, if a relative kills someone and you hide him, you become an accessory to murder. In principle, there is no difference between helping a family member who's wanted for murder, and one who's an illegal. Both murder and border running are crimes, plain and simple. A crime is a crime. If you help a family member who's here illegally, you're an accessory. The fact that he's a relative is not an excuse.

Wake up liberals. Illegal aliens are criminals. The fact they are just trying to escape poverty is irrelevant. They are still here illegally. Besides, since when did the plight of the Mexican working class become our problem? Did I miss that or something? Besides, we have problems of our own. Before we even think about helping foreigners, we need to get our own country in order first.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Florida's Gov. Scott Signs E-Verify Executive Order, Part III Of III

Updated Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 11:19 AM EST - posted on NumbersUSA

Following through on a campaign promise, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed four executive orders minutes after being sworn in, including one that requires all state agencies to use E-Verify. Florida joins a list of 13 other states that have mandatory E-Verify laws or executive orders in place.

According to a press release from the governor's office:

Executive Order No. 11-02 requires state agencies to use the E-Verify system verify employment eligibility of state employees and contractors.

* All state agencies under the direction of the Governor must use E-Verify system to check employment eligibility of their current and prospective employees.

* Requires state agencies under the direction of the Governor to include in all state contracts a requirement that contractors utilize the E-Verify system to verify the employment eligibility of:

o all persons employed during the contract term by the contractor to perform employment duties within Florida; and

o all persons (including subcontractors) assigned by the contractor to perform work pursuant to the contract with the state agency...

The Florida State Legislature, which convenes next week, is also expected to consider an Arizona-style immigration enforcement bill that would also require all employers in the state to use E-Verify. The bills are being drafted by Rep. Bill Snyder and Sen. Mike Bennett.

Comment:

I'm certain California will be one of the last, if not the last holdout in passing an E-Verify law. However, the more states that pass such a law, the harder it will be for illegals to find work. As a result, they'll migrate to the states that don't require E-Verify. As the illegal population in these states rises faster and greater than it ever has before, citizens will have an even tougher time finding work. Consequently, they'll put even more pressure on their governments to use E-Verify. Eventually, even California will have to fall into line on this one. The people will demand it.

Remember, illegals don't pay income tax. When California sees its income through income tax dropping, they'll have no other choice.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

E-Verify, Part II of III.

OUR AMICUS TO SUPREME COURT (No. 2) -- Chamber Is Wrong That U.S. Law Forbids Ariz To Pull Licenses of Illegal-Alien-Hiring Biz


By Roy Beck, Updated Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 11:00 AM EST - posted on NumbersUSA

Perhaps the most amazing part of the suit by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce being considered by the Supreme Court is its claim that Arizona doesn't have the right to pull the business license of an employer that refuses to use E-Verify.

Our amicus brief to the Supreme Court provides our own take on the fact that federal law specifically mentions license revocation as something states CAN do.

With nearly all the money in the world to spend on lawyers, the Chamber very well may have a decent shot at persuading the Supreme Court the equivalent of proving that red is blue.

But we will hope the Court rules more logically than that. Our movement has much riding on the decision.

The ability of states to force businesses to hire legal workers by using E-Verify is key to the gains our movement hopes to achieve in 2011. More states adopting mandatory E-Verify laws can result in hundreds of thousands of unemployed American getting back to work this year (and probably millions over the next few years) by opening up jobs that otherwise would be filled by illegal aliens.

Below, find this particular argument (about ability to pull business licenses) from our amicus to the Supreme Court. My comments will be interjected in this format.

The language of the text is necessarily complex because it is written in legal style for the Supreme Court. Most of the statements in the argument come from previous court rulings that would seem to support our argument.

-- Roy Beck, Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARIZONA’S LAW IS NOT EXPRESSLY PREEMPTED BECAUSE IT IS A “LICENSING OR SIMILAR LAW” WHICH HARMONIZES WITH CONGRESSIONAL INTENT

This is a section of the NumbersUSA amicus curiae to the Supreme Court in the case of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against the state of Arizona. Our Counsel of Record was J. E. McNeil.

The Chamber got its case to the Supreme Court by arguing that states are expressly preempted from taking away the business licenses from employers that fail to use E-Verify to screen out illegal alien workers. The federal Court of Appeals rejected the Chamber's argument. But after the U.S. Justice Department joined the Chamber, the Supreme Court agreed to take another look.


Express pre-emption occurs when Congress expressly declares a law's pre-emptive effect. See Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 541 (2001). In such cases, “our task is to identify the domain expressly pre-empted.” Id. In doing so, the courts focus in the first instance “on the plain wording of the [federal statute’s pre-emption] clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ pre-emptive intent.” Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 62-63 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). The courts also consider the “structure and purpose of the statute as a whole ... as revealed not only in the text, but through [our] reasoned understanding of the way in which Congress intended the statute and its surrounding regulatory scheme to [operate].” Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 486 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Until 1986, federal law did not prohibit the hiring of unauthorized aliens. De Canas, 424 U.S. at 360-61 (discussing the “Texas Proviso” which said that hiring unauthorized aliens was not “harboring” under 8 U.S.C. § 1324). In the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, (“IRCA”), Pub.L. No. 99-603 (1986), Congress made two changes in federal law to prohibit the hiring:

First, Congress deleted the “Texas Proviso” in 8 U.S.C. § 1324, thus criminalizing employment of unauthorized aliens as “harboring.” Penalties under § 1324, as increased in 1996, include private treble damages and attorneys’ fees, state-level liability exposure, seizure of property, and even the death penalty for causing the death of any person, including an unauthorized alien, while harboring. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), (b).

There is no preemption clause under § 1324. Nor is there any indication that Congress intended to preempt private or state-level enforcement of this prohibition on hiring unauthorized aliens: in 1996, Congress expressly sought private and state-level enforcement of harboring penalties against employers of unauthorized aliens. “Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996,” S. Rep. 104-249 (1996), at 12.

Petitioners do not discuss the change to § 1324, but it is a significant enforcement mechanism used today against employers of unauthorized aliens. See, e.g., Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1299 (11th Cir. 2010) (“We tend to agree with the Second Circuit that the revision history of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) strongly indicates that one who hires an alien knowing or recklessly disregarding his illegal status is guilty of concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection.”); U.S. v. Ye, 588 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2009) (same); Hernandez v. Balakian, 480 F.Supp.2d 1198 (E.D.Cal. 2007) (private suit against employer of unauthorized aliens).

The expansions of § 1324 in 1986 and 1996 tend to undercut Petitioners’ argument that Congress intended to oust state power to prohibit the hiring of unauthorized aliens; rather they indicate that Congress was expanding the available mechanisms to effect its intent to stop the employment of unauthorized aliens.

Second, Congress crafted “employer sanctions,” a new package of prohibitions, enforcement mechanisms and penalties, also designed to prohibit the employment of unauthorized aliens. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The penalties under
§ 1324a for hiring unauthorized aliens are much less severe than those available under § 1324.

Section 1324a, however, includes an express preemption clause, with a “savings clause” for “licensing and similar laws”: “[t]he provisions of this section preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2).

So, you see that Congress DID prohibit a state from imposing various penalties on businesses hiring illegal aliens . . . EXCEPT. That is a mighty big "except" that follows the words "other than." The one thing expressly allowed for states to do is to punish illegal-alien-hiring businesses through licensing laws, precisely the thing that Arizona's law does.

Reference to "petitioners" means the Chamber of Commerce.


Petitioners contend that Arizona’s law is expressly preempted under this provision because it provides civil and criminal sanctions on employers of unauthorized aliens. Petitioners’ Br., at 16. Petitioners deny that Arizona’s law is within the savings clause of “licensing and similar laws” because “Nothing about the Arizona Act remotely resembles a ‘licensing law.’” Id.

Wow! Did I warn you that the Chamber of Commerce would argue that red is blue? The punishment in Arizona's law is to take away the license to do business from employers that refuse to use E-Verify. Yet, the Chamber argues that "nothing about the Arizona Act remotely resembles a licensing law."

Congress did not define the terms “licensing and similar laws” in the savings clause. Terms that are not statutorily defined are usually ascribed their “ordinary or natural meaning.” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476 (1994). Arizona’s law denies business and similar licenses to those who employ unauthorized aliens. Ariz. Rev. Stat.
§ 23-212(F)(1).

How can a mandate for the denial of a business or similar license not be a licensing law?

The District Court held that Arizona’s law was within the savings clause. Ariz. Contractors Ass’n v. Candelaria, 534 F.Supp. 2d 1036, 1046-47 (D.Ariz. 2008). The Ninth Circuit agreed. Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856, 864-66 (9th Cir. 2009). Both lower courts noted that the plain language of the savings clause seems to cover Arizona’s law.

Both levels of lower federal courts found that a law that provides for taking away a license is indeed a licensing law. Imagine that! But once the power of the Presidency was thrown behind the Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court apparently felt it had to give the "red is blue" argument another chance.

Petitioners argue expansively that this interpretation is too broad: “If this is all that is required to satisfy the savings clause, the preemption provision is a nullity.” Petitioners’ Br., at 22. Indeed, Petitioners claim that if Arizona’s licensing law is not preempted, the “fundamental purpose” of the prohibition on hiring unauthorized aliens “is utterly without effect.” Petitioners’ Br., at 17.

Petitioners’ argument is that the loss of a business license is a “death penalty” for a business employing unauthorized aliens, and Congress could not have contemplated such a drastic sanction for employing unauthorized aliens. Petitioners’ Br., at 35. This is an odd contention, given that Congress has enacted an actual death penalty provision under § 1324 for some individuals who hire unauthorized aliens for gain. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B); “Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996,” S. Rep. 104-249 (1996), at 27 (rejecting Simon amendment to delete death penalty provisions).

Essentially here, then, the petitioners argue that this is not a licensing law merely because there is a potential for an extreme result. The converse then is that if Arizona had chosen a less drastic result—say suspending the business license for a month, there would be no problem. Yet, there is no indication in the text or legislative history of IRCA that Congress intended the savings clause in § 1324a to permit only state “licensing and similar laws” that cover nothing but minor offenses or impose minor penalties. And there is no logic to such an argument.

Quoting one sentence in a House Judiciary Committee report, H.R. Rep. 99-682(I), at 58 (1986), Petitioners contend that the savings clause was intended only to permit state “licensing and similar laws” which “tack on” additional penalties for those who have already been found to have violated 8 U.S.C. § 1324a’s prohibition on hiring. Petitioners’ Br., at 17-18. The Ninth Circuit noted that Petitioners’ position doesn’t take into account the rest of the paragraph Petitioners rely on. Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., 558 F.3d at 865-66.

Yet the relevant portions of that House report were even broader than the courts below cited. The paragraphs immediately before and after the sentence Petitioners quoted also permit other types of state “licensing and similar laws,” such as those that do not impose “civil fines and/or criminal sanctions,” and state labor protection laws. H.R. Rep. 99-682(I) at 58.

These additional portions of the House report add vital context to the statutory text of the savings clause. They explain, for example, how the savings clause might interact with the private enforcement provisions of § 1324. They also explain that the savings clause was intended to permit states vigorous enforcement of labor law protections, a traditional area of state regulation recognized by this Court in De Canas. 424 U.S. at 356-57.

Overall, especially looking in context at § 1324 as well as § 1324a, Congress does not seem to have intended a narrow or limited construction for the savings clause. A broad sweep, contrary to Petitioners’ argument, would seem more in keeping with Congress’s intention in 1986 and 1996 to create expansive measures to stop the hiring of unauthorized aliens.

Petitioners’ legitimate concern that the savings clause not swallow the preemption provision is addressed by the usual preemption review requirement that state laws affecting unauthorized aliens must “mirror federal objectives and further[] a legitimate state goal.” Plyler, 457 U.S. at 225; De Canas, 424 U.S. at 356-57. The word “and” is critical in applying this standard. The state need not be an exact mirror of the federal law. The state law must mirror the federal objectives (stopping employment of unauthorized aliens) AND should further a legitimate state goal (protecting the economy of the state).

When statutory language is plain and unambiguous, “the sole function of the courts ... is to enforce it according to its terms.” Lamie v. United States Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). That is what the courts below, and other courts which have looked at the language and history of the savings clause, have done. The Arizona law is within the savings clause, and is thus not expressly preempted.

All of the above can be very helpful arguments for those of you in states where the legislature will be considering a similar E-Verify law. Your NumbersUSA staff will be watching those states carefully and alerting you to how you can help pass the legislation.

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

Comment:

Need I comment again? I don't see why as I'd just be repeating myself.