In the City of Irving case, the Department of Justice has asked for permission to make oral arguments that illegal aliens and noncitizens should be counted for state and local redistricting purposes. As reported earlier at ELC here, this position has the effect of diluting the legislative power of American citizens and shifting power to noncitizens and illegal aliens.
#7
I grew up in Irving, it's practically a ghetto now. Lots of illegals and the problems they bring with them. My Mom had to sell her house she had lived in for decades due to the problems.
The neighborhood I grew up in is now a gangbanger war zone and no go area for whites. And North Irving is heavy Indian and Paki. The Indians are are okay, but the Pakis suck and cause problems.
We had a double honor killing a few years back, pretty girls, just wanted to be regular American girls. Their brother lured them back into the clutches of their Dad. He shot them in the back of a car and left them to die in a parking lot.
The Left in this country has a lot to answer for. When the schism happens, their blood will run in the streets, curb to curb. Ours too I imagine. There are those who are ready, we wait.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man ||
11/09/2011 21:43 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Espec since the US Constitution, aka merely as the "LAW OF THE LAND", supposedly applies only to US States + US Citizens-Nationals.
Which AFAIK illegals are not unless they formally apply, or litigate, + receive pertinent status.
WE'VE DECIDED ONCE AGAIN TO CONFUSE OURSELVES + THE WORLD TODAY, DIDN'T WE???
#9
Whoever is proposing this should be charged with treason and executed. Enough is enough. Being in this country illegally should net you immediate deportation, with a second offense punished with going in the organ banks.
There are no excuses.
Posted by: Silentbrick - Halliburton Lost Drill Bit Division ||
11/09/2011 23:17 Comments ||
Top||
A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment.
Karen Kraushaar, 55, filed the complaint while working as a spokeswoman at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice Department in late 2002 or early 2003, with the assistance of her lawyer, Joel Bennett, who also handled her earlier sexual harassment complaint against Cain in 1999. Three former supervisors familiar with Kraushaar's complaint, which did not include a claim of sexual harassment, described it for the AP under condition of anonymity because the matter was handled internally by the agency and was not public.
To settle the complaint at the immigration service, Kraushaar initially demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale and a one-year fellowship to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint.
I don't get it: when you file a complaint like this, first you have to prove the allegation, and then you move on to compensation, which is usually cash or rectifying the wrong (e.g., you get the promotion you were denied). Does the allegation include a claim that she didn't get to go to the Kennedy School when otherwise she would have? If not, why demand that? Seems like our Karen is into demanding big-time compensation for small-time wrongs (if she was wronged in the first place).
The promotion itself would have increased her annual salary between $12,000 and $16,000, according to salary tables in 2002 from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Posted by: Water Modem ||
11/09/2011 09:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Gee... a serial accuser for money. We also call them blackmailers.
#1
The US Justice Department, which is required to determine whether new maps in some states comply with US civil rights laws, argued the Texas plan "substantially decreases" the ability of minority voters to elect their candidates of choice.
DOJs Secret Internal Redistricting Plans The Holder Justice Department has been using secret internal redistricting plans to try to force states, counties and cities to maximize the number of black elected officials resulting from redistricting. In the 1990′s the Department of Justice Voting Section engaged in illegal activity that was commonly referred to as Max-Black when reviewing redistricting plans in 16 states covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In sum, it meant that DOJ Voting Section lawyers worked with groups like the NAACP to maximize the number of black elected officials in any legislative, county or city redistricting plan submitted to Justice. As I write in my book Injustice, this behavior cost the taxpayers a bundle in sanctions.
The bill in another Clinton-era case, Johnson v. Miller, was a touch smalleronly $594,000but the Civil Rights Division misconduct was even more egregious. In that case, the Voting Section fought to impose an illegal, racially gerrymandered legislative redistricting plan on the state of Georgia. In attempting to create as many black-controlled legislative districts as possible, Voting Section lawyers became sleazy advocates for leftist groups and, according to the court, may have committed perjury.
Our good friend former Assistant Attorney General Loretta King was involved in this outrage. Everything old is new again, and the Holder Department of Justice is once again imposing Max-Black on the United States through the use of secret internal Max-Black redistricting plans that are used to criticize or attack plans submitted by jurisdictions which do not Max-Black.
#2
It's all about gumming up redistricting until after the 2012 elections.
Dem Campaign Chief predicts San Antonio Federal Court will draw interim lines to pick up five additional seats Democrats hope to pick up as many as five U.S. House seats in Texas by challenging two freshmen Republicans and gaining three new seats through legal challenges to a GOP redistricting plan. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is targeting Rep. Francisco Canseco, R-San Antonio, and Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi, freshmen lawmakers who knocked off incumbent Democrats in 2010.
#3
If I must say so, the map is pretty badly gerrymandered. It was going to split my city of Austin in to 4 different districts. That's nuts. And I tend to vote 'publican most of the time too.
[Heritage Foundation] President B.O.'s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees--the Christmas Tree Tax--to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees. Most of us weren't aware that there was any problem with the image and marketing of Christmas trees. No doubt the federal government's involvement will somehow make the production and distribution of Christmas trees more efficient. And it's only 15 little pennies. The tax will no doubt remain at that level forever. But wait! There's more!
In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. I was just saying to the Little Woman over my cornflakes the other day: "Y'know, Honey, with all the problems this country's facing now, what we really need is a Christmas Tree Control Board."
The purpose of the Board is to run a "program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry's position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry" (7 CFR 1214.46(n)). Right. If you like the idea of government-run healthcare you're gonna love the idea of government-run Christmas trees. Or I guess they'll have to be "Holiday Trees." The Establishment Clause, y'know.
I'm not too sure how they're going to "expend" existing markets, but I'm sure the government could find a way to use the markets up. I guess it could be a typo and they mean they're gonna "expand" the markets, but that's a little more complicated. It implies that, with TSA-style efficiency, they're going to require people to buy trees, probably with inspectors to come to your home and look through your underwear drawer to make sure you have one. And it won't matter if you're Jewish or 7th Day Adventist or a pagan: you'll be required to have an officially inspected Government Christmas Holiday Tree displayed starting on the Second Saturday in December and staying up, damn your eyes, until Epiphany. And then it has to come down, because the day after Epiphany the post-holiday inspectors will be out making sure it's down, properly bagged, and waiting for the garby guys to come by to collect it.
And forget about leaving your lights up until July. That's over, buster!
And the program of "information" is to include efforts to "enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States" (7 CFR 1214.10). "Enhancing the image" of the Christmas Holiday Trees means you're gonna have to have a tree that's at least 48 inches tall - none of those pissy little miniature trees that don't have the proper holiday spirit to them, and forget about the artificials. You can't remember how the damned thing goes together anyway, so you're better off without it.
And the inspectors are going to be hard-eyed men and women, highly trained professionals, the products of a major facility to be constructed on the outskirts of Chicago on land graciously provided at a reasonable price by an Obama campaign donor. Woe betide the guy with a 47-inch tree, or Gawd forbid a 46-incher. And none of those plain vanilla white lights. To be properly festive - and nothing will enhance the image of Christmas Holiday trees like festive - they've gotta be mulicolored.
And they've gotta flash! No flashee no enhancee, like they say in Chinese. And blue and white aren't Christmas Holiday colors and we don't care if you are Jewish and you have dreedles or whatever the hell they're called!
Oh my. No doubt there are several linguistics academicians who could tell you exactly which region of the Yiddish speaking world pronounced it "dree'-dle" as opposed to "dray'-del" or the diminutive "dre'-del-leh' ". But while we wait, the thought comes to mind of flashing lights and epileptics, a recognized handicapped group. Not to mention allergies-- evergreen trees are one of the things commonly tested for, which means a skinny little kid with sad eyes is going to die of Christmas tree-induced asthma only a few hours after his responsible guardian brings it home... The report from the local television station will show the family was so busy trying to help him while they tried to call 911 that they never even started decorating the tree, and of course now they can't bear the thought of enjoying the beauty Little Timmy will see only from Heaven.
To pay for the new Federal Christmas Holiday tree image improvement and marketing program, the Department of Agriculture imposed a 15-cent fee on all sales of fresh Christmas trees by sellers of more than 500 trees per year (7 CFR 1214.52). And, of course, the Christmas tree sellers are free to pass along the 15-cent Federal fee to consumers who buy their Christmas trees. We can rest assured that that piddlin' little 15 cents, barely noticeable in this age of the $6 cup of coffee, will remain a mere 15 cents forever and possibly ever. When has the government ever raised a tax? Certainly it'll never go over a buck. Or two.
Acting Administrator Shipman had the temerity to say the 15-cent mandatory Christmas tree fee "is not a tax nor does it yield revenue for the Federal government" (76 CFR 69102). Just because the feds will throw you in jail for not filling out the proper forms and sending in as much money as you can lift doesn't mean it's a tax. And just because the old guy on the corner who sells Christmas Holiday trees while trying to keep his ancient nether regions warm around a fire in a 55-gallon drum sends a fair chunk of his profit margin to a rapacious government don't even think that the government's making a profit on the deal. Every nickle collected, every thin dime, has been spent before it's received in hiring properly vetted and qualified administrators and people to process the payments and to dispatch the inspectors, and the inspectors will likely have the whole program running in the red because they don't come cheap, y'know. And neither do good administrators.
The Federal government mandates that the Christmas Holiday tree sellers pay the 15-cents per tree, whether they want to or not. But that only sounds like a tax. As Big Guido and Fat Tony would be happy to explain, it's better thought of as protection a contribution. The Federal government directs that the revenue generated by the 15-cent fee goes to the Board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Christmas tree program established by the Secretary of Agriculture. And, we might add, staffed by his relatives, who could be making far more than their six-figure government salaries doing other things. We should be glad they're willing to pitch in the way they are.
Mr. President, that's a new 15-cent tax to pay for a Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees. Tut tut, my good man! You're sorely misinformed. Perhaps Big Guido and Fat Tony can help you witcher comprehension?
Nobody is saying President B.O. doesn't have authority to impose his new Christmas Tree Tax -- his Administration cites the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996. ... which, as every schoolboy knows, gives the President the right and the duty to levy taxes... Just because the Obama Administration has the legal power to impose its Christmas Tree Tax doesn't mean it should do so. Merely your opinion, Bub. The nation needs that 15-cent Christmas Holiday tree tax. Without the benign guidance of the Christmas Holiday Tree Promotion Board the entire industry is in danger of keeling over deader than Blanche of Castile and the Albigensians combined! Think of the number of jobs created or saved in the Christmas Holiday tree industry!That board is a patriotic duty, dammit!
The economy is barely growing and nine percent of the American people have no jobs. Is a new tax on Christmas trees the best President B.O. can do? And, by the way, the American Christmas tree has a great image that doesn't need any help from the government. Your commentary ill becomes you, sir. Why, the way you describe it, you'd think President B.O. sat down with some of his pals in the White House one day and said "How can we gouge a few more bucks out of an unsuspecting public to piss away on some program that nobody wants or needs so we can get a few more supporters employed?" And this is the best they could come up with?... Oh. Wait. Maybe it did happen that way... Never mind.
And it's purely a coincidence of no importance that this will give the Feds another way to regulate Church, civic and scouting groups. Not to mention the small family businesses who grow and cut trees on their Appalachian mountain properties and bring them down to the DC suburbs, along with seasoned firewood, in the family pickup truck. Purely coincidental that this is another example of crony capitalism corruption at work. Pay it no mind.
It's crony socialism, and Obama's people are masters of it.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/09/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So those of us that have artificial trees should pay our Christmas tree tax with what; Monopoly money?
This govt was requested to establish this program by the large producers in the Christmas Tree Industry (small producers will be exempt). The govt collects the funds and turns them over to a non govt board that decides how to spend the money.
The reason that industry wanted this program was because sales of real trees are down (sales of plastic and trees are up) and the industry thought there might be ways of marketing real trees that will increase demand.
The reason why industry has to do this through govt is that if they did it themselves they would be guilty of anti competitive practices; that, is the law prevents them from doing it themselves without going through the govt. Unfortunately a lot of stuff is like this and the problem predates Obama by many years.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
11/09/2011 0:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
So now they are taxing Christmas? With the right marketing, the GOP could win the election on this alone.
As for me, I'm going to go sit in the sinktrap to make up for all the bad words I wrote here and then deleted. ...and the horse they rode in on!
#4
Forgive my Bilblical ignorance, or is it ignorance OF Biblical proportions -- anyway -- wasn't one of the causes of one of the early Jewish revolts was a Roman tax on trees in the Levant?
#5
The reason that industry wanted this program was because sales of real trees are down (sales of plastic and trees are up) and the industry thought there might be ways of marketing real trees that will increase demand.
They could cut the prices, that would definitely increase demand. Real tree prices got so high I finally switched to an simulated tree, have only have to pay for that once. I've got evergreens all over my yard, keep having to prune them to keep them under control.
#6
Geniuses. Add a tax so trees are more expensive, so people buy more artificial ones. Use the tax to promote trees no one wants anymore cuz they are more pricey. I hope that I've got it right.
I'm telling ya... Something happened a while ago and we all have been shifted to alternate universe where the Urth is actually an asylum.
#10
..can you say Stamp Tax. When you're a Marxist, you have no need for real history. Just the made up 'interpretations' to rationalize your heartfelt desires.
#12
Fenestra and pitchforks are more reusable. Branches snap. Calc... statists comprise of bout 25%, so ... that would require about 82.5 million branches and untold reels of cord. It is obvious that won't work.
#15
"I" own a plastic tree, I put it up two weeks before Christmas, and leave it up until about a week after.
Any such "Tax" will NOT affect me.
UP YOURS OBAMA.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
11/09/2011 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I don't put up a tree. I put up a Fetivus Pole. Wonder when those will be taxed.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/09/2011 12:22 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Hah. I was right. It WAS the Onion. Sorta. April November Fools! says our government.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
11/09/2011 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#19
reports in the past half hour are that the admin will postpone implentation of this 15 cent fee.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
11/09/2011 15:30 Comments ||
Top||
#20
The Christmas tree is a symbol that has come to be associated with a Christian holiday. Is Obama discriminating against Christianity? What's next a carbon tax on Menorahs? How about a tax on burqas and Islamic religious services? The taxing of praying five times per day, is a good possibility for revenues.
#24
Acting Administrator Shipman had the temerity to say the 15-cent mandatory Christmas tree fee "is not a tax nor does it yield revenue for the Federal government" (76 CFR 69102).
So it's Shipman's fault. /sarc
Dang nab it! It's not a tax, it's a kickback.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/09/2011 21:33 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment. 
The Federal government directs that the revenue generated by the 15-cent fee goes to the Board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Christmas tree program established by the Secretary of Agriculture. 
Just because the Obama Administration has the legal power to impose its Christmas Tree Tax doesn't mean it should do so.
