No More Debt Until Speinding is Cut Commentary (By Star Parker) Jan. 31, 2011

No More Debt Until Spending is Cut Commentary

The Republican take away from President

Obama's State of the Union address should be

unwavering opposition to an unconditional

increase in the U.S. debt limit.

The statutory debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion will

soon be reached. Republicans should oppose

increasing it to permit more borrowing without

meaningful spending cuts as part of the deal.

The vision that the president presented to the

nation in his speech, that we need more government, a lot more, to address the

challenges before us, shows he sees the world no differently than he did when he

entered office two years ago.

He's added a trillion dollars, almost a 40 percent increase, to federal government

spending over this time. The federal government's take from our economy has

increased from $1 out of every $5 to $1 out of every $4.

Aside from the point of principle that with every incremental increase in the scope of

government there is a corresponding decrease in the freedom of every citizen, there is

also no practical argument to justify this vast government takeover.

Unemployment has hardly budged and the economy, although recovering, remains

sluggish.

This economic machine clearly needs an oil change and a different kind of fuel. The

president clearly doesn't see things this way. Republicans need to offer a clear

alternative and let the American people choose.

If Republicans offer a bold alternative to seize control from politicians and bureaucrats

and return power and freedom to citizens, they can bet on public support.

Only 31 percent of Americans in a recent Gallup poll say they are "satisfied" with the

"size and power of the federal government." That's down 10 points from just two years

ago and down 20 points from 10 years ago.

Certainly it's true that when we get down to the details of what to cut, even many who

know that government has gotten out of hand push back when programs they are

used to are put on the block.

This is where leadership comes into the picture.

Just consider our last one-term Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. He became

president at a time of economic crisis in the 1970s, and his presidency was defined by

the vision that we needed more government to solve our problems.

Carter created two new departments: the Department of Energy in 1977 and the

Department of Education in 1979.

The Energy Department was created in response to the so-called "energy crisis." Its

annual budget has consumed more than $600 billion since it was created, and none of

this can be associated with production of one new barrel of oil, one new ton of coal or

one new cubic foot of natural gas.

Yet, a good portion of President Obama's State of the Union focused on proposed new

government-energy programs. The Energy Department will spend about $40 billion in

2010, up 70 percent from 2009.

Since 1970, federal government education spending per student has tripled with hardly

any impact on test scores.

Since inception, the Department of Education has spent almost a trillion dollars with

negligible impact on improving our children's education. It spent $100 billion in 2010, up

67 percent from 2009.

Yet, central to the president's education message is more federal dollars.

Republicans must stand firm on their proposed minimum of $100 billion in spending

cuts – a paltry 3 percent of the federal budget – before agreeing to raise the debt

ceiling. This could be easily pulled from the Energy and Education Departments alone.

We've got to decide if the center of gravity of our nation has shifted to government and

bureaucrats or if we can get it back to individuals and families.

This is the choice Republicans need to make clear.
_________________________________________________________

BS Ranch Perspective:

There has to be cuts in spending! The Federal Government along with the State's need to reduce spending for the entitlement programs that we cannot afford!! The newly elected Governor has surprised me, by the cuts that he did make in the first budget that he put together. I think that Jerry was on a good start, but the scratch of the surface that was done needs to be cut much deeper! Jerry needs to get to work, and get started to clean up the budget, and get it done to reduce the spending to less then what is taken in each year, and attempt to pay down the increasing debt that is growing and growing and growing etc... etc...

BS Ranch

Inland Republicans press on against illegal immigration Friday Jan. 28, 2011

BS Ranch Perspective:

It seems to me that there has to be something done about the Immigration laws in this country. Not only that but there has to be a line drawn as to where and when spending stops for those that are not here legally. Now I know that the Constitution of the United States extends its rights to those that are here illegally, and it allows the Illegal Immigrant to have benefits that they otherwise would not have in their own country. It really doesn't seem right now does it.

The Illegal Immigrant needs to be responsible for their own Medical Coverage, either by their own country, if there country supports that type of Medical Coverage such as Canada, or Europe. If this was the case then their own country should be responsible for the care of their own citizens. The Illegal Immigrant here undocumented should not be able to get any medical benefits from the State or Federal Government. Now I agree that Life Saving Measures should be taken care of, I am not that heartless, but there has to be a line or Limit to what is spent to save ones life depending on what is wrong with them. The coverage should figure on how long it is to take care or stabilize their situation then ship them back to their own country and have their medical coverage in their home country to take care of them from that point on.

The Over 25 Million a year that is spent to bandage up Illegal Immigrants that come here sometimes to get an open heart surgery, or some lung treatments, why many come here for treatment for AIDS. There Country in many cases has limited coverage for AIDS. So they storm to Palm Springs to get treatment, Now it has been told to me that Palm Springs is the Place to go if you are infected with AIDS. Now I don't know how many people are here for treatment of AIDS, but this I can tell you that most places that are considered to be a Catholic Religion Country, might not cover anyone that has AIDS, because of the sigma that comes with that disease, that it is basically a sexually transmitted Disease, that is most commonly associated with the Homosexual Community. Now I know that AIDS is not a Sexually Transmitted Disease, and I also know that it isn't only associated with Homosexuals. But those in their country believes that it is, and that is all it takes for that country not to cover such diseases!! Now the United States has the best Doctor's for this Disease, and the best facilities for treatment of this Disease!! That is a huge magnet for those that suffer from this disease and needs treatment. I know that if I should ever be afflicted with AIDS, I would want to be treated by Doctor's in the United States rather then in a smaller Country, with free health care. Now we are on our way to being one of those countries and I can see that we will drop to the treatment of AIDS simply because there will not be as many American Doctor's. There will not be as many Hospitals as there is now, all will reduce because of the lack of income for a Doctor that Suddenly is working for the Federal Government and not for themselves or a high paying Hospital that is proud to have a surgeon that knows what he is doing, Now when the changes come in and the Federal Government Realizes that they cannot possibly pay for the care of so many Americans along with those that are here Illegally. What I am saying is that the Doctor will be paid less, as a Federal Employee, and facilities will be closed because of cost, and the federal Government not able to keep up with the costs of said ObamaCare!!

WE need to close our Hospitals to those that are here in this country, Undocumented, or as they are more commonly known Illegal Immigrant. or Illegal Alien! It has to stop, not just with Illegal Immigrants. The ObamaCare really needs to be repealed and then the Federal Government needs to reform the Medical Services in this country, but not by taking the whole system on and running it.. they need to make rules and Regulations that has it run far more efficiently then it does now! The less that the Federal Government is involved the better and more money that Hospitals, Doctor's and Nurses will make!!

That is my Opinion, Please let me know yours,

BS Ranch
___________________________________________________________________________________

Inland Republicans press on against illegal immigration

10:00 PM PST on Friday, January 28, 2011

By BEN GOAD
Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - As the GOP looks to improve the party's image among the nation's burgeoning Hispanic community, area House Republicans are pressing forward with legislation meant to fight illegal immigration.

Democrats and pro-immigration advocates predict that such tactics could amount to political suicide in advance of the 2012 elections, especially in heavily Latino Inland Southern California. But Reps. Gary Miller, Ken Calvert and others say they are trying to crack down on law-breakers in general, not the Hispanic community in particular.

"The laws of this country were designed to apply to people equally," said Miller, R-Diamond Bar. "Never once have we discriminated against any one given race of people. If you are here from Germany illegally or Ireland illegally ... I got no problem sending you home."

Republican bills introduced this year include measures to end birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants; to make it mandatory for all companies to use an electronic employment verification system to ensure their workers' legal status; and to build 20 new federal detention centers for illegal immigrants.

"We think they're targeting Latinos," said Raul Gonzalez, legislative director for the pro-Hispanic National Council of La Raza.

Gonzalez suggested that much of the legislation and anti-illegal immigration rhetoric espoused by Republicans over the past election cycle was meant to rally the conservative base. But in the long term, he said, it could backfire as Latinos represent an increasingly large part of the citizenry.

Hispanic people make up nearly 16 percent of the U.S. population and were credited with playing a large role in the 2008 presidential election.

Political peril seen

In the days after Republicans seized control of the House in a landslide November election victory, Inland Democrat Joe Baca predicted Republicans would tone down their opposition to illegal immigration.

"They know we're a large electoral vote, so their attitudes may change," said Baca, D-Rialto, who is of Hispanic descent. "They can't afford to alienate more of the Latino vote."

For that very reason, a group of Republican leaders, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, called upon the party to reach out to the Latino community during a GOP conference earlier this month.

"It is important to realize that the Hispanic population, which is the fastest-growing population in the country, will also eventually be the fastest-growing population of voters," Bush said. "... It would be incredibly stupid over the long haul to ignore the Hispanic vote."

Miller and Calvert, R-Corona, both staunch opponents of legislation to legalize undocumented immigrants, agreed that it is important to engage the Hispanic community but said many Latino voters back their efforts to curtail illegal immigration.

"I've always had a large Hispanic community," Calvert said of his district, which includes Riverside, Corona and Norco. "I've had support in the Hispanic community as long as I've run."

E-VERIFY

Calvert has long championed legislation to expand the use of E-Verify, an automated system that allows employers check worker eligibility status in order to keep illegal immigrants out of American jobs.

Some companies already use the system, but Calvert is working on a bill with the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, that would make the program mandatory for all employers.

Undocumented workers who are willing to accept lower wages bring down the cost of labor, hurting both the economy and the nation's lingering unemployment crisis, Calvert said. He expects the bill to be introduced by spring.

Some immigration advocates oppose the legislation, pointing to instances where it has incorrectly denied people who should have been granted approval to work. Gonzales, of La Raza, acknowledged that the E-Verify plan resonates with the public, but said imperfections in the system make it a bad fix.

"The system has problems with mismatches," Gonzalez said. "We don't think it's a good solution."

Calvert scoffed at the argument, citing figures showing the system is more than 99 percent effective and challenging critics to name another government program that successful.

The bill passed the House last year but stalled in the Senate. Calvert said he is confident it will pass in the current Congress.

Birthright citizenship

Perhaps more controversial is Miller's quest to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional right that any child born in the U.S. becomes a citizen, whether their parents are in the country legally or not. Once they turn 21, those children can petition the government for citizenship or legal resident status for their undocumented relatives.

Miller said the law has given way to what some call the "birth tourism" industry, which arranges the travel and hospitalization of non-Americans who wish to have their babies on U.S. soil for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for them.

He said much of the business comes from non-Hispanic countries, including Saudi Arabia and Korea, to emphasize that the law is not intended to target Latinos.

Miller introduced the bill last year, only to see it stall in the Democratic-controlled House. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, is the lead sponsor this year. Miller is a co-sponsor.

Gonzalez said the bill has little chance of passing in the Senate, where Democrats still enjoy majority status, and called the effort a misguided attempt to politicize the immigration issue and drum up support from hardline conservatives.

Calvert said he was supportive of the idea, and said he would continue to press against illegal immigration, regardless of the political implications.

"I don't blame people who want to better their lives," Calvert said. "But it's up to us to uphold our laws."

Reach Ben Goad at 202-661-8422 or bgoad@PE.com

Obama Birth Certificate Backtrack? Did goons pressure Evens to change his story? (by Jana Winter, Fox News) Jan 26, 2011

BS Ranch Perspective:

Now there is real pressure going on for this case. The pressure is so extreme to the Governor of Hawaii that he has to change his story from one day to the next! Why it was just a couple of days ago that the Governor of Hawaii had said that he could not find any Paperwork to support that Obama was born in Hawaii at all, now He backs off and changes his story!! This controversy is one for the ages. I predict that they will not come out with the truth on this until Obama has completed his term in Office. Once he has finished then there will be some papers or documents that will be uncovered that will state where President Obama was born and how!!

I hope that is not the case, but not even the Supreme Court, the Highest Court of this land will hear the case of the birth Certificate, It makes me wonder if there is a master cover up underway just to protect this man which was more then likely born in Africa, and later a birth Certificate was submitted by his Mother in Hawaii to indicate his birth, but this is not the true definition of a "Natural Born Citizen" as defined in the Constitution of the United States..

BS Ranch


Obama Birth Certificate Backtrack? Did goons pressure Evans to change his story?
By Jana Winter, Fox News

A celebrity journalist now claims he misspoke when he said last week that Hawaii's governor told him he was unable to find President Barack Obama's original birth certificate after a search of state and hospital archives.

Mike Evans told FoxNews.com on Wednesday he was remorseful and embarrassed that he appeared to have given the impression that he had discussed the search for Obama's birth certificate with Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

Evans, who says he has been a close friend of Abercrombie since the 1980s, appeared on Minnesota's KQRS radio last week and said he'd been told by the governor himself that Obama's birth certificate was nowhere to be found. Evans told KQRS on Jan. 20:

"Yesterday, talking to Neil's office, Neil says that he searched everywhere using his powers as governor ..... there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii. Absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii." But that's no longer Evans' story.

"Only this I can you tell you is 100 percent fact: that Neil never told me there was no birth certificate," Evans told Fox News. "I never talked to him."

Hawaii Official now Swears: NO OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE! (by Jerome R. Corsi, WND) Jan. 25, 2011

BS Ranch Perspective:

It appears to me that Hawaii's Governor should come out with what ever paperwork that he can come out with to put this subject to rest! There are so many people that don't believe that President Obama is a natural born citizen here in the United States of America. So it only seems fair that the Governor of Hawaii would just break it out and show everyone that it is what it is, and lets move on from this whole thing!!

But the fact that there only has been a rough copy of a birth certificate that could, easily have been made on a copy machine, with a real birth certificate with a little bottle of white out. The names changed and then a copy of it made to show the press! Now there has been a good amount of the Press that has looked or seen this document that I am speaking of, and they have accepted this document as the real deal, but since this has actually made it to different courts, such as the Supreme Court, and it has not been resolved even at this point in history. A case like this you would think would be a slam dunk if it was on the up and up!! There for there is a great deal of doubt that I have that the President of the United States was actually born in Hawaii after all!!

The question remains and the controversy continues!!

BS Ranch
______________________________________________________

Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate
By Jerome R. Corsi, WND

Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.

Adams was employed at the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division from May 2008 through September 2008.

His position was senior elections clerk, overseeing a group of 50 to 60 employees responsible for verifying the identity of voters at the Absentee Ballot Office. It was in this capacity that Adams became aware of the search for Obama's birth-certificate records.

"During the course of my employment," Adams swears in the affidavit (viewable in full as part 1 and part 2), "I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate."

As he inquired about the birth certificate, he says, his supervisors told him that the records were not on file at the Hawaii Department of Health.

"Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health," Adams' affidavit reads, "and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government."

Obama Calls for 'Shared Responsiblity,' But Yields Little Ground on Spending, Obamacare (By NewsMax.com) Tues. 25 Jan. 2011 20:47

Obama Calls for 'Shared Responsibility,' But Yields Little Ground on Spending, Obamacare

Tuesday, 25 Jan 2011 08:47 PM

Article Font Size

WASHINGTON – Pleading for unity in a newly divided government, President Barack Obama implored Democratic and Republican lawmakers to rally behind his vision of economic revival for an anxious nation, declaring in his State of the Union address Tuesday night: "We will move forward together or not at all."

The president unveiled an agenda of carefully balanced political goals: a burst of spending on education, research, technology and transportation to make the nation more competitive, alongside pledges, in the strongest terms of his presidency, to cut the deficit and smack down spending deemed wasteful to America. Yet he never explained how he'd pull that off or what specifically would be cut.

On healthcare, Obama signaled a slight willingness to compromise on his signature legislative effort over the last two years, but drew a stark line between his plans and those of Republicans wanting to repeal the trillion-dollar law.

Obama said he knows there's opposition to the bill extending insurance coverage to 30 million people. But he said he's not willing to go back to the days when insurance companies could deny coverage.

The Republican-controlled House repealed the bill last week but it's not expected to go anywhere in the Senate.

Obama also said in the speech that he wants to work with Congress to further reduce the cost of healthcare, including state reforms to the medical malpractice system.

But he didn't endorse capping payouts in malpractice lawsuits. That's a GOP idea that would yield big savings but is opposed by trial lawyers -- a key Democratic constituency.

Obama spoke to a television audience in the millions and a Congress sobered by the assassination attempt against one if its own members, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Her seat sat empty, and many lawmakers of competing parties sat together in a show of support and civility. Yet differences were still evident, as when Democrats stood to applaud his comments on health care and tax cuts while Republicans next to them sat mute.

In his best chance of the year to connect with the country, Obama devoted most of his hour-long prime-time address to the economy, the issue that dominates concern in a nation still reeling from a monster recession — and the one that will shape his own political fortunes in the 2012 election.

Eager to show some budget toughness, Obama pledged to veto any bill with earmarks, the term used for lawmakers' pet projects. House Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans applauded. But Obama's promise drew a rebuke from his own party even before he spoke, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the president had enough power and that plans to ban earmarks were "a lot of pretty talk."

Obama's proposals Tuesday night ranged across the scope of government: cutting the corporate tax, providing wireless services for almost the whole nation, consolidating government agencies and freezing most discretionary federal spending for the next five years. In the overarching theme of his speech, the president told the lawmakers: "The future is ours to win."

In essence, Obama reset his agenda as he heads toward a re-election bid with less clout and limited time before the campaign consumes more attention.

Yet Republicans have dismissed his "investment" proposals as merely new spending. Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, giving the GOP's response, said the nation was at "a tipping point" leading to a dire future if federal deficits aren't trimmed.

The Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the president had gotten the message from the November midterm elections and "changed the tone and the rhetoric from the first two years."

Obama entered the House chamber to prolonged applause, and to the unusual sight of Republicans and Democrats seated next to one another rather than on different sides of the center aisle. And he began with a political grace note, taking a moment to congratulate Boehner, the new Republican speaker of the House.

Calling for a new day of cooperation, Obama said: "What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight but whether we can work together tomorrow."

On a night typically known for its political theater, the lawmakers sometimes seemed subdued, as if still in the shadow of the Arizona shootings.

Many in both parties wore black-and-white lapel ribbons, signifying the deaths in Tucson and the hopes of the survivors. Giffords' husband was watching the speech from her bedside, as he held her hand. At times, Obama delivered lighter comments, seeming to surprise his audience with the way he lampooned what he suggested was the government's illogical regulation of salmon.

Halfway through his term, Obama stepped into this moment on the upswing, with a series of recent legislative wins in his pocket and praise from all corners for the way he responded to the shooting rampage in Arizona. But he confronts the political reality is that he must to lead a divided government for the first time, with more than half of all Americans disapproving of the way he is handling the economy.

Over his shoulder a reminder of the shift in power on Capitol Hill: Boehner, in the seat that had been held by Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Obama conceded that everything he asked for would prompt more partisan disputes. "It will take time," he said. "And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The cost. The details. The letter of every law."

Obama used the stories of some of the guests sitting with his wife, Michelle, to illustrate his points, including a small business owner who, in the tradition of American ingenuity, designed a drilling technology that helped rescue the Chilean miners.

Flanking Mrs. Obama in the gallery: Brianna Mast, the wife of a soldier seriously injured in Afghanistan, and Roxanna Green, mother of the nine-year girl killed in the Tucson shooting.

The president cast the challenges facing the United States as bigger than either party. He said the nation was facing a new "Sputnik" moment, and he urged efforts to create a wave of innovation to create jobs and a vibrant economic future, just as the nation vigorously responded to the Soviets beating the U.S. into space a half century ago.

There was less of the see-saw applause typical of State of the Union speeches in years past, where Democrats stood to applaud certain lines and Republicans embraced others. Members of the two parties found plenty of lines worthy of bipartisan applause.

In a speech with little focus on national security, Obama appeared to close the door on keeping any significant U.S. military presence in Iraq beyond the end of the year. "This year, our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people while we finish the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq," the president said.

The president reiterated his call for a comprehensive immigration bill, although there appears little appetite for it Congress. Another big Obama priority that stalled and died in the last Congress, a broad effort to address global climate change, did not get a mention in the State of the Union. Nor did gun control or the struggling effort to secure peace in the Middle East.

Obama worked in a bipartisan shout-out to Vice President Joe Biden and Boehner as two achievers emblematic of the American dream, the former a working-class guy from Scranton, Pa., the latter once a kid who swept floors in his father's Cincinnati bar. Biden and Boehner shook hands over that, and Boehner, clearly moved, flashed a thumbs-up.

After dispensing with all the policy, the president ended in a sweeping fashion.

"We do big things," the president said. "The idea of America endures."

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Obama Teams up with G.E.: Iran Palaver Peters Out: 2012 Arrives at White House.. (By Chris Stirewalt) Jan. 21, 2011

Obama Teams Up With G.E.; Iran Palaver Peters Out; 2012 Arrives At White House

By Chris Stirewalt

Published January 21, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Obama Brings Good Things to Light at G.E.

"Jeff Immelt's experience at G.E. and his understanding of the vital role the private sector plays in creating jobs and making America competitive makes him up to the challenge of leading this new council."

-- Statement from President Obama announcing that G.E. CEO Jeff Immelt will lead the new President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

When Democrats said President Obama was "pro-business," we didn't know they meant one business in particular.

There are a few companies on the Obama corporate A List – Democratic patrons Google and Goldman Sachs both turn up again and again at White House functions and for special recognition – but no company seems to get the VIP treatment that General Electric receives.

Obama will announce today on a visit to a G.E. plant in Schenectady, N.Y. that G.E. CEO Jeffrey Immelt will lead his new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The panel replaces the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker.

Volker, who helped President Ronald Reagan whip inflation and launch two decades of growth, will be replaced by Immelt, who has often spoken of his desire to put G.E. on the inside track for government subsidies and incentives in the Obama era.

Whether it is pushing the president's plan for global warming fees in order to create demand for his "Ecomagination" line of windmills, solar panels, etc., boosting the president's national health-care law as part of an effort to sell more medical equipment, or enthusing over the Obama strategy of making loans available for industrial exporters, Immelt has been an Obama stalwart all along. Immelt has also consistently argued to shareholders that there is big money to be made in advancing the Democratic agenda.

While most corporate leaders have taken a wait and see approach to Obama's occasional overtures to the private sector, G.E., along with Google, Goldman and few others, have backed him to the hilt.

It is unclear how the administration plans to deal with the ethics challenges created by having a CEO whose income is determined by stock performance leading a panel designed to recommend government policies. G.E. (2009 revenue: $157 billion) is a huge government contractor and is always in the market for new subsidies and incentives.

Immelt's shareholders certainly had to think that access had its benefits this week when the Obama administration signed off on a plan to allow the company to spin off under-performing NBC to cable giant Comcast.

Though intended to show Obama's coolness with corporate America, the Immelt pick will likely reinforce the perception in American boardrooms that Obama likes to play favorites when it comes to the economy.

He's visited so many battery makers that his staff must now be coated in a thin layer of nickel-cadmium. And while Obama plays rough with the oil and coal industries, he can't say enough good about technology firms and "green jobs."

And while Volker was said to have always been locked out of the Obama inner circle, Immelt should have the president's ear. Immelt's campaign donations and constant boosterism of the Obama agenda should provide a solid foundation for becoming a close adviser to the president, or perhaps just making that advisory role official.

The suspicious eye that will be cast on Immelt, though, may lessen his ability to provide the connection to the business world Obama has promised. Other CEOs are unlikely to see a competitor who pushes policies explicitly to benefit his company as an ally in the fight for a fair, free market.

---

Iran Talks Run Out of Steam

"I am tired of turning the other cheek when Iran is concerned."

-- Former Obama National Security Adviser James Jones at a panel discussion in Washington forecasting frustration with today's latest round of talks with the rogue nation.

Talks begin today in Istanbul between representatives of Iran and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – China, France, Russia, Britain and America – plus Germany.

And what is remarkable is that even diplomats who love talk for talk's sake are saying that it is a wasted exercise. Iran is still making nuclear bombs and still refusing to open itself to full inspections. And at the last round of talks in December, nothing happened except a lot of frustration and an agreement to meet again.

The challenge is that Russia and China do a lot of business with Iran and probably don't mind too much the idea of having the country providing a counterweight to U.S. influence in the Middle East. Yes they fund terrorism and menace the region, but they do cause trouble for America. That's counts for a lot in Moscow and Beijing.

But once the talking cure can be ruled out, that brings the Obama administration to the point of decision on Iran.

The president has already backed off his first offer of engagement and sought tougher sanctions against Iran. But like a big, mean dog that's behind a too-short fence, Iran has all of its neighbors worried. And unless America is seen leading the way for the West, either the Israelis will take action, potentially starting a massive war, or an Arab nation will acquire nuclear weapons of its own in defense. Neither outcome will help the U.S.

---

White House Begins Campaign, Laments Politics

"The campaign is going to be run by a group of people in Chicago whose jobs will be to worry about that, not the president's."

-- White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissing the notion that President Obama's reelection campaign will prove a distraction.

It was two weeks ago that President Obama offered a reproof of Republican leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to reporters, saying he hoped that the two Republicans "will realize that there will be plenty of time to campaign for 2012, in 2012."

Well, that was so two weeks ago.

Team Obama announced its 2012 campaign team on Thursday. The campaign manager will be current Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina and the senior consultant will be David Axelrod, who departs today as a senior White House adviser.

David Plouffe, the 2008 campaign manager will be the political operative inside the White House, taking on a senior adviser role as the administration shuts down its office of political affairs in an effort to cleanse the building of the corrupting influences of vote seeking.

While the New York Times and other mainstream outlets are grinding through the personnel switches with an obsessive eye, the larger story here isn't about which player is in which position, but instead what the move tells us about how Obama is looking at his reelection effort.

First, having the campaign headquarters in Chicago and closing the White House political office are showy ways to say that the president won't let the campaign affect his job.

That is, of course, kind of a hard case to make. Obama's galloping efforts to show his business friendliness and his embrace of Clintonites in top jobs are all symbolic ways to try to undo the pernicious problems he has with public perception of him as a liberal.

As Thursday's FOX News poll showed, Obama has lots of work to do.

The president's 7-point bump in job approval came mostly from a 12-point spike in support among Democrats. That suggests a hardening of his base support in the face of a growing Republican threat, not the dawning of a new moderate embrace.

But, Obama is a big one for symbols, and his symbolic banishment of all day-to-day politics from the White House, save Plouffe, is intended to say a lot. As Gibbs said in defending the move to get the campaign underway, Obama will be stingy with early campaign appearances and fundraising.

But, running for reelection is kind of Obama's job. His two predecessors both took to reelection campaigning with vigor and both managed to turn back stout challenges. Obama sounds more like President George H.W. The elder Bush was famously disdainful of crassly pleading for votes while he had a country to run.

Obama is notorious for not liking the part of his job that relates to politics. He thinks of himself as a philosopher king, not a glad hander. His lofty rhetoric may suit moments of great gravity, but his stump speeches tend to ramble and then retreat into talking points.

By having his campaign operate so far outside the White House, Obama will be able to avoid some of the daily reminders of political hurly-burly, but he will also create competing corporate cultures.

Everything the president does has a political effect and everything he does is shaped by politics. That's just the gig. The test for modern presidents is balancing the often competing demands of political leadership and presidential duty. Pretending that is not so by compartmentalizing the political element of the job may tend to create dissonance at a time when the president needs harmony.

President Obama was likely sincere in his hope that 2012 could wait for 2012, but as they say, hope is not a strategy. No matter how the boss feels, his team will do what they think necessary to get the job done.

Ironically, rather than keeping the White House pure from politics, the main effect of the banishment may be to encourage political excess. If Obama and his policy advisers aren't watching and his staff is half-a-continent away, there's no telling what his campaign team will get up to.

Obama may like the idea of a little plausible deniability, but the Chicago team could easily get carried away.

---

Government Unions, NYT in pension Panic

"They are readying a massive assault on us. We're taking this very seriously."

-- Charles M. Loveless, legislative director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, to the New York Times.

Today's New York Times is sounding the alarm about an alleged secret Republican plan to cut off government retirees.

Citing a Weekly Standard article, a question at a hearing and some strong suspicions, the Times today suggests that Republicans are working towards letting states declare bankruptcy and shed their pension obligations.

The pension alarmism at the Times drove the paper last month to profile an Alabama town that actually did default and left the menacing question hanging – Could you be next?

The genesis of the fear on the labor left is that most of the states are broke, and that pension obligations are killing them. The combination of the Baby Boom glut of retirees, the lost market revenue of the Panic of 2008 and the lavish expansions of benefits during the boom times has pension obligations exploding.

It probably won't be this year, but some year soon, a large city or a small state will have to say it can't meet its minimum contribution to its pension fund and AFSCME will freak out.

What the unions want is another round of bailouts for states in order to prevent layoffs. That's not going to happen. So the fear is that Republicans will devise a controlled form of bankruptcy – similar to what President Obama contrived for General Motors – for states. That would allow states to scrap their public employee contracts and start again on more affordable pension plans.

But right now, states seem to be coping. Andrew Cuomo in New York and Chris Christie in new Jersey are leading the way, slashing spending and giving public workers a rap on the snout. Illinois though, which is trying to do the job through taxes alone, is looking pretty wobbly these days.

If there is a collapse, who will blink first: anti-bailout Republicans or pro-union Democrats?

---

And Now, A Word From Charles

"The worst, uncivil discourse in the last decade occurred in the Bush years when the president was vilified and attacked and demonized, compared to Nazis. He was called Hitler. … I do not remember times when the mainstream media wagging a finger and pulling a chin about the rise of uncivil discourse at the time. So I don't take any of this seriously."

-- Charles Krauthammer on "Special Report with Bret Baier"

Exclusive: Over a million immigrants land U.S. jobs in 2008-10 (by Ed Stoddard) Jan. 20, 2011

BS Ranch Perspective:

It seems that there are some people that are getting jobs in this country, but there are many that are not!! The people in this article are here Illegally, as an Illegal Immigrant, people that have jumped the border!! Now I want to get something straight right now!! There are many of you out there that think that since I am writing about Illegal Immigrants who have come to this country for money, or work, doesn't make a difference what nationality they are to me, so I am not writing or looking at this to be an American against a Mexican or Hispanic decent person! I don't like anyone that comes to this country for any reason, Illegally!! If they want to come here then there needs to be an application for a Work Visa, or Scholarship Visa, but don't just jump the border and come here looking for work, or "Money", because there are a lot of people that come here to the United States whom have medical problems and they want to take advantage of our medical generosities, by getting a surgery that they have to wait months and in some cases up to a year to get because their National Medical Plan is over worked and there is not enough Surgeons to go around!! So many come here to get the medical procedure since they don't have to wait but a week or so and then they are in at the Local Hospital and getting the surgery done. Some Woman, and Well Husband, Wife teams come to simply have their child here in the States, then their Son/Daughter are United States Citizens, simply for being born here, not only that but these baby's hold a Duel Citizenship from the country their parents are from and The United States of America!!

This is one thing that needs to be changed in our Constitution! We need to change that Amendment that states that those that are born here are Natural Born Citizens, Irregardless of where their parents are from!! This Amendment was written back when a Slave was brought here from Africa, and Neighboring Countries, then this amendment stated that their children were Citizens automatically, no other country in the world has this Amendment, everyone in any other country has to apply for citizenship to that country, but not here in the States!! No No!! I see where Amendment as written was needed at one time, but those times have changed and the law needs to be reformed and changed to make Children born to the United States to Illegal Immigrants should also be Illegal Immigrants just like their Father/Mother!!

The other thing that I was thinking about reference this article, and that is that they have a count on how many Illegal Immigrants have work in this country! Yet there are not fines handed out to those that hire Illegal Immigrants, I believe that there are laws that prohibit people from hiring Illegal Immigrants for work in this country!! The other thing is that these people are here Illegally, and the United States Government has a count on these people then they should know where they are working, and where they are living or a general idea about where they are living and working!! Those Politicians that stand at their Podium's and make the Statements that we cannot find or arrest all of the up to 12 Million that are in the United States Illegally, because there are simply to many, to many to arrest and process.. to many to know where they work and where they might live??

Well this Article that states that there are over a million that are working here when the United States has maintained the same amount of Percentages of Unemployment! Seems to me if they know that there are over a million that have jobs and are working in the United States, then they obviously know where they are working and living!! Therefore they can all be picked up, Processed through a massive Arrest, Process (Finger Prints, Photo's etc etc...), and Relocate back to their home country where ever that may be!!

It is my thought that there needs to be a different way to get things done that will save this country money! One is to quit handing out freebies to those that are breaking our Immigration laws! a Law Breaker is a law Breaker!! I don't know about you, but I used to work in Law Enforcement as a Traffic Motorcycle Officer! I was employed to monitor Traffic, and attempt to make the commute as safe as possible by stopping those that were breaking the traffic laws, by speeding, or running a stop sign!! Most of the people that I stopped that appeared to be here Illegally from another Country, seemed to have trouble maintaining a small thing that we, The American Public, seem to be able to take care of and that is Maintaining Insurance for our Vehicles, and also Maintaining a Drivers License, from a State in the Union, of the United States of America! 9 out of 10 stops that I made, with which appeared to be here in this country Illegally, also didn't have Insurance, or a proper Drivers License! They all spoke very little English, and always handed me a State Issued Identification Card that they themselves more often then not admitted to me that they only used this Identification to cash checks, they were concerned that they would lose the Identification, but I was not in the confiscation business I was in the Traffic Law Enforcement Business! I always issued a Citation for the Suspended License or Lack of a Drivers License, but I always sent the driver walking as I towed their vehicle. In some cases their care was only worth a thousand dollars or so, but they would wait the thirty days. They would use a translator whom had a drivers license that would assist them in getting their cars out of Impound! It would cost them approximately $2500.00 to pay the Impound Fees to the tow yard, and another couple hundred to the city for the Release of the vehicle! They would spend all that money to get a car that was not even worth that much!!

But what would get me is the person that had the drivers license that would assist them! Obviously they were friends and close friends at that, Most people think that it is alright to be here Illegally, because they take the so called jobs that no U.S. Citizen wanted!! Well when they work there are people that are Citizens of this Country whom have been born and raised here that work along side them in some cases the foremen on their Agriculture Crew was Here Illegally, or here on a Work Visa!! I knew many Caucasian people that took those agriculture jobs and they seemed to like them, but the pay was lousy, but they did the job, unlike what always is reported either by someone in the media, or a reporter whom needs there to be a purpose for those that are here Illegally! They are not harmless either! There are many that cost our Insurance Companies a great deal of money, through your Uninsured Motorist Prevision on your Auto Insurance.. since again that statistic that I stated which was those that are here Illegally, 9 times out of 10, they would not have a Drivers License, or Insurance to their car that was not Registered, or driving with an Expired Registration!! Not to mention that in many cases the their cars are not properly maintained and they are lucky that they can get the car to stop, let alone loose the air that you can see in their bald tires!! I don't know about you but I think that there would be a lot more people taking those jobs that Illegal Immigrants are working now if they had the opportunity!!

First we need to start by Enforcing the Immigrant laws, and gather, process and deport all people that are here illegally.. Not just those that are here from Mexico, or South America! But those that are here from Canada, whom are down here in an attempt to bypass their own heath insurance for ours!! then they leave not paying their bills and suddenly we are the bad guy for wanting them to pay their way, stuck with their Open Heart Surgery, etc etc... sick if you ask me!! These politician's that we have now are awful! They are only worried about those votes that they might loose because they enforce the laws that was ultimately made by those that served before them in the very halls of Congress!! But there is no respect for those laws, or the people that previously served in their place!! they only are worried that there is someone here legally that would change their vote or for those that are Illegal Immigrants whom are registered voters in the U.S. even though they are here Illegally and they forged a new name and got and received a new Social Security Number and Voter Identification Card, registering as a Democrat makes you wonder if Obama didn't have the Illegal Immigrant Vote, if he would have one or not!! ??

BS Ranch

Exclusive: Over a million immigrants land U.S. jobs in 2008-10

Thu, Jan 20 2011

By Ed Stoddard

DALLAS (Reuters) - 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, UNEDUCATED 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.

And 42 percent of the 1.1 million were under 30.

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.

(Editing by Peter Henderson and Philip Barbara)

Camden Layoffs Begin; Officers Turn in Badges and Guns.... (Geoff Mulvihill) Jan. 18, 2011

Camden Layoffs Begin; Officers Turn In Badges and Guns

Redd said a proposal to the rank-and-file police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, was to be voted on Wednesday.

• article
• comments

GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press | | Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Shoes of laid off Camden police officers line a street Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011, in Camden, N.J. The layoffs affect close to one-fourth of the city government workforce in one of the nation's most impoverished cities. About 335 workers, representing one-sixth of the local government work force, lost their jobs, according to Mayor Dana Redd. It was worst in the public safety departments, where nearly half the police force and close to one-third of the city's firefighters were laid off.(AP Photo/Mel Evans)

FEATURED IN NEWS

• Los Angeles School District Says Two Wounded in Shooting
• Camden Layoffs Begin; Officers Turn In Badges and Guns
• Livonia Officer and Suspect Killed In Shooting
• Questions Raised Over Who Will and Will Not Be Covered by 9/11 Bill
• Camden Braces For Cuts To Police Force
• Police Arrest Suspect in Lakewood Police Officer Murder
• Massive Manhunt for Man Who Shot NJ Cop To Death

CAMDEN, N.J. - Some firefighters turned in their helmets and police officers their badges Tuesday as part of deep municipal layoffs destined to further erode the quality of life in Camden, already one of the nation's most impoverished and crime-ridden cities.

About 335 workers, representing one-sixth of the local government work force, lost their jobs, according to Mayor Dana Redd. It was worst in the public safety departments, where nearly half the police force and close to one-third of the city's firefighters were laid off. Laid-off firefighters walked eight blocks together from the police union hall to Fire Department headquarters, snaking past City Hall, then lined up their helmets in front of the building, picked them back up and started to turn them in along with their other gear.

"It's one of the worst days in the history of Camden," said Ken Chambers, president of the firefighters union. Redd blamed the public safety employee cuts on their unions, saying they have not been willing to make job-saving concessions or accept the reality that the state government will no longer bail out the city as it has for the past two generations.

"Instead of protecting and serving the city, the residents of Camden, they're choosing to protect their high salaries," she said. The mayor said she was willing to continue negotiating with unions to try to reach cost savings that would allow the city to bring back some of the laid-off workers. Redd said a proposal to the rank-and-file police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, was to be voted on Wednesday. She would not say exactly what the proposal entailed or how many jobs it could save. But she said that if the unions agree to concessions, about 100 police officers and most of the firefighters could be brought back.

Chambers said residents should not expect to be safe as the number of fire companies is reduced. He said the union will continue to meet with city officials to try to reach a deal under which some firefighters could be brought back. Police officers had begun turning in their badges Monday as it became clear that no last-minute deal was going to save many jobs.

Located directly across the Delaware River from Philadelphia, Camden is rampant with open drug-dealing, prostitution and related crimes. More than half of Camden's 80,000 residents, mostly black and Hispanic, live in poverty. A local pastor says "the fear quotient has been raised," and a police union took out a full-page newspaper advertisement last week warning that Camden would become a "living hell" if layoffs were not averted.

The city was the nation's second-most dangerous based on 2009 data, according to CQ Press, which compiles such rankings. Camden ranked first the previous two years. In 2009, the city had 2,380 violent crimes per 100,000 residents - more than five times the national average, the FBI said. The anti-crime volunteer group Guardian Angels says it will patrol Camden, as it has Newark, where there were major police layoffs in November. The Fire Department has already been relying on help from volunteer departments in neighboring towns. Interim Fire Chief David Yates, who retired Jan. 1, has warned that that layoffs will increase response times.

Related:

• Camden Braces For Cuts
• Camden Union Hopes Bailout Will Stop Layoffs

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.