THE FAT CAT TAX BOONDOGGLE, WHO ARE THESE FAT CATS?

The Republican Plan to Further Devastate the Economy: No Money for Unemployment Compensation while forcing America to borrow $700 Billion for the Fat Cat Tax Boondoggle.

On the day he was sworn in, 11/29/10, Illinois' new Senator, Republican Paul Kirk, said that extending unemployment benefits would be "misguided" but pledged to extend the Fat Cat Tax Boondoggle for taxpayers reporting income above $250,000 a priority "no matter what."

Who exactly are these Fat Cats for whom the Republican Party is hell-bent on serving while risking the economic integrity of the Republic? I am just guessing a look at the who's who from Republican fundraising lists will give us an insight.

Thanks to Crooks&Liars "karoli" for compiling this list of Fat Cat contributors to the Republican Governors Association, along with how much money they gave, on their site:, http://crooksandliars.com/.

•Sheldon Adelson, Nevada Hotel Guy, neocon extraordinaire $1,000,000

•Bob Perry, Texas Developer. Total this quarter: $3.5 million; Total year to date: $4 million

•Paul Singer, Hedge Fund manager, Elliott Management Total this quarter: $1,509,899; Total year to date: 2,009,899

•William Powers, Pacific Investment Management $250,000

•James Bruner, President United Contractors Midwest $150,000

•Philip Geier - Advisory Services $100,000 YTD: $200,000

•Richard Hayne, Urban Outfitters, Inc $100,000

•William Koch, Oxbow Group (FL) $100,000

•Sean Feiler, Equinox Partners, LP $50,000 YTD $100,000

•Donald Trump: $50,000

If this is a representative sample then you have to ask yourself whether it is worth borrowing $700 Billion to give The Donald, Hedge Fund Managers, and Investment Managers an extension of a tax cut. Isn't it time these patriotic Americans ponied up and started paying their fair share of the burden. After all, the economic policies that led to the Great Recession favored them, not the unemployed.

Remember those bonuses paid out of TARP funds? The FAT CATS who took the taxpayer money are among the folks that Republicans want America to go further into hock over. Why? Well those FAT CATS are shelling out big bucks in campaign cash. The Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org calls them Heavy Hitters.

Here is the list OpenSecrets.org has compiled of Heavy Hitters, those who gave at least $50,000 to federal candidates during one or more election cycles, see the page with links at: http://www.blogger.com/goog_1209505492

Contributor Organization

Alchin, John R. Comcast Corp

Amstein, Peter Microsoft Corp

Andreas, Dwayne O. & Inez Archer Daniels Midland

Angelakis, Michael J. & Christine Comcast Corp

Appelman, Barry Time Warner

Baker, Charles A. III DLA Piper

Bernstein, Matthew & Barbara DLA Piper

Bible, Geoffrey & Sara Altria Group

Blanchard, James J. & Janet A. DLA Piper

Boggs, Timothy A. Time Warner

Bovin, Denis A. & Terry Bear Stearns

Brendsel, Leland & Diane Freddie Mac

Brennan, Robert E. Credit Suisse Group

Brinson, Gary P. & Suzann A. UBS AG

Broad, Eli & Edythe American International Group

Bronfman, Edgar M. Jr. & Clarissa A. Vivendi

Buchholz, Carl M. & Karen D. Comcast Corp

Burch, Stephen A. & Nora Linstrom Comcast Corp

Burke, Stephen B. & Gretchen H. Comcast Corp

Bushkin, Arthur A. & Kathryn A. Time Warner

Chalsty, John S. & Jennifer A. Credit Suisse Group

Chancellor, Steven E. & Terri L. Lehman Brothers

Chernin, Peter A. & Megan News Corp

Christie, Todd J. & Theresa M. Goldman Sachs

Cohen, Davil L. & Rhonda R. Comcast Corp

Collerton, Anthony Lehman Brothers

Cook, Daniel W. III & Gail B. Goldman Sachs

Corzine, Jon S. & JoAnne D. Goldman Sachs

Daly, Robert A & Carole Bayer Sager Time Warner

Daschle, Thomas A. & Linda H. DLA Piper

Dawkins, Peter M. & Judith W. Citigroup Inc

de la Cruz, Carlos Sr. & Rosa Anheuser-Busch InBev

De Muro, David A. Lehman Brothers

DeVos family Amway/Alticor Inc

Dimon, James & Judith K Citigroup Inc

Ehrlich, Alexander S. & Cheryl UBS AG

Ellis, Steven J. & Amy C. Wachovia Corp

Eychaner, Fred Newsweb Corp

Fife, Eugene V. & Luann L Goldman Sachs

Flatley, Daniel K. Credit Suisse Group

Flom, Jason R. & Wendy K. Time Warner

Fogg, Joseph G. III & Leslie K. Morgan Stanley

Freidman, Stephen & Barbara B. Goldman Sachs

Fuld, Dick & Kathleen Lehman Brothers

Gallo, Gregory M. & Penny H. DLA Piper

Gelb, Richard L. & Phyllis N. Bristol-Myers Squibb

Gianopulos, James N. & Ann T. News Corp

Gilburne, Miles R Time Warner

Glass, David & Ruth Ann Wal-Mart Stores

Godhwani, Anil & Jyoti Time Warner

Goldfarb, Dave & Sharon Lehman Brothers

Gramm, Phil & Wendy L. UBS AG

Grano, Joseph J. Jr. & Kathleen J. UBS AG

Greenberg, Maurice "Hank" American International Group

Grubman, Jack B. & Luann Citigroup Inc

Haskell, John H.F. Jr. UBS AG

Heidorn, George E. Microsoft Corp

Heimbold, Charles A. & Monika A. Bristol-Myers Squibb

Hennessy, John M. & Margarita Credit Suisse Group

Hobbs, Franklin W. & Linda B.R. JPMorgan Chase & Co

Hobbs, Franklin W. & Linda B.R. UBS AG

Hoglund, Forrest E. & Sally Enron Corp

Horn, Alan F. & Cindy H. Time Warner

Howard, John D. & Lorna M. Brett Bear Stearns

Jaech, Jeremy & Linda Microsoft Corp

James, Hamilton E. & Amabel B. Credit Suisse Group

Johns, Paul M. Microsoft Corp

Johnson, Theodore C. & Linda Microsoft Corp

Kamen, Harry P. & Barbara MetLife Inc

Katzenberg, Jeffrey & Marilyn Walt Disney Co

Kies, Kenneth J. & Kathleen PricewaterhouseCoopers

Kimsey, James V. Time Warner

Knott, Kerry A. & Michelle Morgan Comcast Corp

Koch, Charles G. & Elizabeth Buzzi Koch Industries

Koch, David H. & Julia F. Koch Industries

Korn, Douglas R. & Elizabeth Berns Bear Stearns

Korologos, Tom C. & Ann M. DLA Piper

Krueger, Harvey & Constance Lehman Brothers

Lane, L. W. Jr. & Jean Time Warner

Lay, Kenneth L. & Linda P. Enron Corp

Leonsis, Ted J. & Lynn Time Warner

Lerner, Alfred & Norma MBNA Corp

Lessing, Stephan & Sandra Lehman Brothers

Lewis, Drew & Marilyn Union Pacific Corp

Lindner family American Financial Group

Lindner, S. Craig & Frances R. American Financial Group

Liss, Jeffrey F. & Susan DLA Piper

Lorentzen, Ruthann Microsoft Corp

Malcom, Ellen R. EMILY's List

McDonnell, James S. III & Elizabeth H. Boeing Co

Menschel, Robert B. & Joyce F. Goldman Sachs

Merrigan, John A. DLA Piper

Meyer, Ronald M. Vivendi

Miller, Lee I. & Suzanne K. DLA Piper

Moodispaw, Leonard E. & Sandra Northrop Grumman

Mulford, David C. & Jeannie S. Credit Suisse Group

Mullen, Donald R. Jr. & Katarina Bear Stearns

Murdoch, Rupert & Wendi News Corp

Murphy, Philip D. & Tammy S. Goldman Sachs

Neidich, Daniel M. & Brooke G. Goldman Sachs

Olson, Lyndon L. Jr & Kathleen W. Citigroup Inc

Ostin, Morris & Evelyn Time Warner

Overlock, Willard J. & Katherine S. Goldman Sachs

Palmer, John N. & Clementine B. MCI Inc

Parsons, Richard D. & Laura Time Warner

Paul, Laurence E. Credit Suisse Group

Paulson, Henry M. Jr. & Wendy Goldman Sachs

Peacock, David A. Anheuser-Busch InBev

Penner, Gregory B. & Carrie Walton Wal-Mart Stores

Perlman, Stephen G. Microsoft Corp

Phillips, Earl N. Jr. & Sallie B. General Electric

Plaster, Steve R. & Shannon Wachovia Corp

Plumeri, Joseph J. & Nancy W. Citigroup Inc

Raikes, Jeffrey S. & Patricia Microsoft Corp

Rehr, David K. & Ashley National Assn of Broadcasters

Reiner, Robert & Michelle S. Time Warner

Roberts, Brian L. & Aileen K. Comcast Corp

Roberts, Ralph J. & Suzanne F. Comcast Corp

Rose, Matthew K. & Lisa Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp

Rose, Robert N. & Yvette T. Bear Stearns

Rosenwald, E. John Jr. & Patricia Bear Stearns

Ross, Steven J. & Courtney S. Time Warner

Rothman, Tom & Jessica News Corp

Rubin, Robert E. & Judith O. Citigroup Inc

Rubin, Robert M. & Robin K. W. American International Group

Saban, Haim & Cheryl News Corp

Saban, Haim & Cheryl Saban Capital Group

Sacerdote, Peter M. & Bonnie L Goldman Sachs

Schreyer, William A. & Joan L. Merrill Lynch

Schwartz, Eric S. & Erica Goldman Sachs

Schwartz, Marvin & Donna Lehman Brothers

Semel, Terry & Jane M. Time Warner

Senser, Jerrold K. & Naomi R. New York Life Insurance

Shaw, Gregory L. Microsoft Corp

Shaye, Robert & Eva EMILY's List

Shell, Jeffrey S. & Laura Comcast Corp

Shephard, John E. Jr & Jill Northrop Grumman

Siegel, Herbert J. & Ann L. News Corp

Singer, Paul Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Skilling, Jeffrey K. & Susan L. Enron Corp

Smith, Lawrence S. & Christine J. Comcast Corp

Spector, Warren & Margaret Whitton Bear Stearns

Spix, George A. Microsoft Corp

Sternberg, Sy & Laurie New York Life Insurance

Tedrick, Thomas National Rifle Assn

Thain, John A. Goldman Sachs

Van Andel, Jay & Betty Amway/Alticor Inc

Vradenburg, George & Patricia L. Time Warner

Walton, S. Robson & Carolyn F. Wal-Mart Stores

Wasserman, Lew R. & Edith Vivendi

Weinstein, Harvey & Eve Walt Disney Co

Weisel, Thomas W. Bank of America

Wellde, George W Jr. & Patrica A. Goldman Sachs

Wells, Frank G. & Luanne C. Walt Disney Co

Wigmore, Barrie A & Deedee Goldman Sachs

Winkelman, Mark O. & Dorinda P. Goldman Sachs

Witten, Richard E. & Elizabeth H. Goldman Sachs

Wolf, Robert J. & Carol S. UBS AG

Yager, Dexter R. Sr. & Birdie Amway/Alticor Inc

Young, George III & Adina Lehman Brothers

Well, I am certain that Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling are no longer Heavy Hitters. The question is how many of the rest of these folks are birds of a feather with the Lay's and Skilling's? You will see a lot of FAT CAT bankers on Kenneth Feinberg's list of TARP recipients whose banks gave out bonuses on the taxpayer's dime.

The Middle Class Tax Break is for the first $250,000 of income for everyone. These FAT CATS don't need an extension of any tax cut beyond that $250,000 income limit, they need to pay up.

S. 3307 - Senator Blanche Meyers Lambert Lincoln's Last Hurrah

Senator Blanche Lincoln

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, S. 3307, was introduced May 5, 2010 by Arkansas' Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln. Lincoln lost her bid for reelection to Republican Representative John Boozman. Ironically she defeated Boozman's brother Fay Boozman to become a United States Senator.

On August 5th it passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent. It has been biding time in the House Committee on Education and Labor and the House Budget Committee. Today it makes its way to the Rules Committee as it matriculates to the floor.

The major provisions of S. 3307

1. The direct certification of children receiving Medicaid benefits. Currently local educational agencies are required to directly certify children in households which receive benefits under SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and TANF, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or receipt of benefits under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.

Research has consistently shown that direct certification is highly accurate and reduces paperwork for families and school districts. This provision expands direct certification to include the Medicaid program. Direct certification will be conducted in areas selected by the USDA based on optional applications submitted by interested states.

2. Eliminating individual applications through community eligibility establishes two new options by which schools or local educational agencies with very high proportions of low-income children can receive federal reimbursement without collecting individual paper applications from households and tracking student eligibility in the cafeteria.

Reimbursement for these low-income schools will instead be based on other sources of available data, including the results of direct certification and the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey.

There are more than 10,000 schools in which more than 80 percent of the students are certified for free or reduced price meals. These schools serve more than 5 million children, who represent more than one in ten students nationwide.

3. The expansion of afterschool meals for at-risk children. In the vast majority of states throughout the country, the Child and Adult Care Food Program At-Risk Afterschool Snack Program provides reimbursement to eligible institutions for a snack served to children participating in an afterschool program. This provision expands reimbursement for meals in afterschool programs to all 50 states, ensuring that more low-income children have access to a nutritious meal during after school hours.

4. Performance-based reimbursement rate increase for new meal patterns, means healthier food will be served. The National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine (IOM) released recommendations in October 2009 for updating the meal patterns for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs to make them consistent with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Implementing IOM's recommendations and raising the quality of school meals will mean significant changes for virtually all schools in the program. Schools will be required to serve increased portions of fruits and vegetables, which may come in a variety of forms, including from food products derived out of pulse crops such as dry beans, dry peas, lentils, and chick peas, which are important food crops that play an important role in a balanced diet due to their low fat content, and high protein and fiber content.

In addition to more fruits and vegetables, increased servings of whole grains, and low-fat or non-fat dairy products will be required, all of which the IOM estimates will increase the food cost per lunch.

Once interim or final regulations are promulgated, the Secretary of Agriculture will provide an additional 6 cents per lunch, adjusted annually for inflation, in reimbursement for local educational agencies that the State agency certifies are in compliance with the new meal patterns. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that nearly all schools would be able to comply with the new requirements and receive the higher reimbursement rate.

5.The local school wellness policy implementation was an initiative of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-265). That initiative was designed to encourage local school districts to come up with their own plans to promote, among other things, sound nutrition and physical activity at the local level. This section continues and updates the requirements of the local wellness policy by requiring that all local wellness policies include, at a minimum, goals for nutrition education, physical activity, and other school-based policies that promote student wellness.

6.Nutrition Standards for all food sold in schools are established. To promote healthful eating and to protect taxpayer investments in school meals, this provision requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish science-based nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools other than foods currently reimbursed through the school lunch or breakfast programs.

Such standards will apply on the entire school campus until the end of the school day. In establishing nutrition standards, the Secretary is directed to adopt measures consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, consider authoritative scientific research and the practical application of nutrition standards, as well as existing voluntary agreements, and provide for exemptions for school sponsored fundraisers if they are sanctioned by the school. So the P.T.A. can still hold the bake sale and cake walk.

7. Nutrition and wellness goals for meals served through the Child and Adult Care Food Program are established. This provision makes several changes to the nutritional requirements of the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). It CACFP meal patterns will be based on the most recent Dietary Guidelines, similar to what is currently required for school lunches and breakfasts.

The provision also requires that child care providers serve only low-fat or fat-free milk to children age two and up, consistent with recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines and the American Academy of Pediatrics, and to make fresh, safe drinking water available to children throughout the day to ensure proper hydration and develop positive attitudes toward water as a healthy, acceptable fluid for consumption. Water is good and good for you, soda pop is not!

8.Provides support for breastfeeding in the WIC program. WIC has historically supported breastfeeding with poor results. WIC recipients lag behind the general population in selecting breastfeeding over infant formula. In recent years, WIC has accelerated its effort to promote breastfeeding in the WIC Program, notably through increasing funding for breastfeeding peer counselors and by changing WIC food packages to increase the attractiveness of breastfeeding and decrease the attractiveness of infant formula.

This provision establishes a set of high performance bonuses to state agencies that have demonstrated either the highest proportion of breastfed infants or the greatest improvement in the proportion of breastfed infants, with an emphasis on fully breastfed infants.

In addition, this provision expands the collection of WIC program data on breastfeeding rates by requiring the WIC Program to collect and publish breastfeeding data annually, rather than biannually, and also to publish rates of breastfeeding not just at the state agency level, but for local agencies as well.

9. Controlling costs by Nationwide implementation of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) technology in the WIC program. One of the major success stories in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has been the transition to electronic benefit transfer (EBT) technology for the delivery of program benefits.

Prior to EBT, benefits were delivered in the form of paper coupons that were used by SNAP participants in exchange for food at authorized SNAP vendors. The transition from paper coupons to EBT has created a much more positive experience for SNAP participants in the retail setting, as well as a more efficient way to process benefits for SNAP vendors.

Updating technology in the WIC Program will allow State WIC staff at all levels to perform operations more effectively and efficiently, increasing accountability and streamlining program monitoring and business practices through electronic solutions.

At the clinic level it will enhance client services by improving clinic efficiencies. EBT will improve access to prescribed WIC foods by allowing the participant to shop for benefits when they want to and in the amounts they wish to purchase.

EBT will also simplify the retail point-of-sale transaction and will reduce participant stigma and improve the shopping experience. WIC benefit redemption and payment for WIC transactions will be vastly improved for retailers using EBT.

S. 3307 emerged from the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Mark-up Session as the work process of remarkable bi-partisanship. Members of the Committee in attendance included: Senators Lincoln, Chambliss, Harkin, Leahy, Stabenow, Nelson, Brown, Casey, Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Lugar, Cochran, Roberts, Johanns, Grassley and Thune. Blanche Lincoln chairs that committee.

Amendments were offered and accepted by Senators Thune, Lincoln, Stabenow, Bennet, and Brown. These amendments passed unanimously by voice vote. Only one disputed amendment failed. Senator Chambliss proposed to use the Conservation Stewardship Program as a funding offset as well as provide additional funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program and Summer Food Service Program. The amendment failed on a roll call vote of 10 yeas and 11 nays.

The least the lame duck session of the 111th Congress can do is take care of the kids. This is a good bill. I hope history remembers Senator Lincoln more for the good in this bill than for the divisions within the Democratic Party which probably cost her the third term she sought.  If this bill marks the end of Senator Lincoln's public service, then she ends on a high note.

For a more in depth view of S. 3307 read the Senate Report 111-178 on line, via Thomas - the Library of Congress' website, at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp111:FLD010:@1(sr178):.

THE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT RESOLUTION ACT

H.R. 4783, the Claims Settlement Resolution Act, is headed to the House Rules Committee after the last vote today. The Rules Committee is looking at the Senate Amendment. This bill should hit the floor early this week.

Title I pertains to Individual Indian Money Account Litigation. The original case was filed June 10, 1996. The United States lost the case, at trial and on appeal. The case is now styled Elouise Cobell et al. v. Ken Salazar. This was complex civil litigation, an opt out class action to determine declaratory and injunctive relief construing the trust obligations of the United States to members of the Plaintiff class and declaring that the United States breached and isin continuing breach of trust obligations to class members. The suit sought an order compelling Defendants to perform legally mandated obligations and requested an accounting by Department of the Interior Defendants of individual Indian trust assets. In sum this is all about the mismanagement of trust funds held for the benefit of individual Indians.

The case was complicated because during the pendency of the litigation another court ruled that certain lands were unconstitutionally escheated to the United States from Indians. Escheatment is a legal term of art. When a person dies without a will and that person has no heirs then that person's interests in real property goes to the government through escheatment.

Title II pertains to the Final Settlement of Claims from the In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation. This refers to the Pigford case in which it was alleged that the United States Department of Agriculture discriminated against black farmers on the basis of race and failed to properly investigate or properly respond to complaints from 1983 to 1987. The settlement was announced by USDA Secretary Tom Vilsak in March, 2010. S. 3754 and S. 3693 are related bills for Title II.

Title III is the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification. H.R. 1065 and S. 313 are the related bill on this matter.

Title IV is the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement. The related bills are H.R. 3563, H.R. 845, and S. 375.

Title V is the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights. The related bills are H.R. 3254 and S. 965.

Title VI is the AAMODT Litigation Settlement. AAMODT stands for the civil action entitled State of New Mexico, ex rel. State Engineer and United States of America, Pueblo de Nambe, Pueblo de Pojoaque, Pueblo de San Ildefonso, and Pueblo de Tesuque v. R. Lee Aamodt, et al. This is a New Mexico water rights case involving native Americans. The related bills are H.R. 3342 and S. 1105.

Title VII is the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund which was created by the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Public Law 111-11. This Title provides that the Secretary of Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary of the Interior $60,000,000 for deposit in the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund for fiscal years 2012 through 2014.

Title VIII pertains to General Provisions. Subtitle A deals with Unemployment Compensation Program Integrity. Subtitle B pertains to TANF or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Subtitle C focuses on Customs User Fees; Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset. Subtitle D regards the Emergency Fund for Indian Safety and Health. Subtitle E provides for the Rescission of Funds From WIC Program. That takes back $562,000,000 from the Women, Infants, and Children program. That's a hard thing to do.

THE UNITED STATES v. ARIZONA - A LOOK AT THE QUESTIONS AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Arizona appealed Federal District Judge Susan Bolton's Order and Preliminary Injunction against parts of Arizona's SB 1070 law, the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act." The district court preliminarily enjoined Arizona from enforcing sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6 of the Act.

The matter in the Ninth Circuit began with a skirmish on whose rules would apply for the expedited appeal of Judge Bolton's Order. Arizona wanted a schedule that was more quickly paced than the normal rule, Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3, would allow. The Court of Appeals determined it was appropriate to implement Rule 3-3 in this matter.

Arizona claims that its citizens are suffering well documented and undisputed harm because of illegal immigration. The United States, according to Arizona's brief, has failed to effectively enforce federal immigration law. The purpose behind SB 1070, according to Arizona, is to "enhance the assistance Arizona and its law enforcement officers provide in enforcing federal immigration laws."

Arizona is claiming that the United States may not claim that enforcement of federal immigration law by a state is preempted by the federal government. Arizona says the federal government, in the past, has welcomed the assistance of state law enforcement efforts in arena of immigration law. Arizona's position is that Congress must expressly claim the preemption and that such a claim is not within the purview of the Department of Homeland Security.

Arizona's opening volley on appeal tells the Ninth Circuit that Judge Bolton erred in:

(1) misconstruing well-established principles of federal preemption law;

(2) disregarding its obligation to preserve the constitutionality of the Act’s provisions and to presume that Arizona will implement the provisions in a constitutional manner; and

(3) ignoring the United States’ burden on a facial challenge to show that the provisions of S.B. 1070 are unconstitutional in all of their applications... Instead, the district court granted the United States’ request for the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief by accepting the United States’ speculation regarding the potential burden that enforcing sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6 might impose on narrow categories of lawfully-present aliens in hypothetical and speculative scenarios, and the possible impact to DHS’s achievement of its newly-established objective, [emphasis by Appellants].

The Issues Presented on appeal by Arizona are:

1. With respect to the district court’s finding that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims that sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6 are facially preempted, the issues presented are:

a. Whether the United States can demonstrate that section 2(B) is facially preempted based on the potential that enforcement of section 2(B) could burden certain lawfully-present aliens or federal resources, even though section 2(B) merely asks Arizona’s law enforcement officers to exchange information with ICE that Congress has expressly required ICE to receive and provide.

b. Whether section 3 stands as an obstacle to the achievement of current congressional objectives by mandating compliance with two specific federal immigration registration laws.

c. Whether Congress’ decision not to impose sanctions on employees who perform unauthorized work reflects a “clear and manifest” intent to prohibit states from doing so.

d. Whether the warrantless arrest provision in section 6 can be facially preempted based on speculation that Arizona’s law enforcement officers

might implement it in an unconstitutional manner.

2. With respect to the district court’s finding as to the non-merits factors,  the sole issue presented is whether it is in the public interest to prohibit Arizona from acting consistently with congressional objectives to address “the rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes, and serious public safety concerns” that the federal government has admittedly failed to address authoritatively.

The United States frames the issues as:

Whether the district court abused its discretion in preliminarily enjoining four provisions of an Arizona law that establish a nondiscretionary state immigration enforcement scheme that is not subject to the control or priorities of federal immigration authorities, and which

(1) makes it a state crime for an alien to violate provisions of federal law that require some aliens to complete and carry federal registration documentation;

(2) makes it a state crime for an unauthorized alien to seek or obtain employment;

(3) mandates all state and local officers to determine, as practicable, the immigration status of persons whom they stop or detain if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien and unlawfully present in the United States, and to verify the immigration status of all persons arrested before they are released; and

(4) authorizes state officers to arrest without a warrant any person, including those who are lawfully present in the United States, when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has at some point committed an offense that makes the person removable from the United States. 

Remember the standard of review the Court employs in review a facially unconstitutional challenge is the inconceivable standard.  Arizona is arguing that there must be some conceivable circumstance in which their statute is constitutional.  If it is inconceivable that the statute can be constitutionally applied then the facial challenge is sustained.

The United States is arguing that Judge Bolton did not abuse her discretion when she issued her Order and Preliminary Injunction. The United States' position is that Congress has "established a comprehensive framework that governs entrance and admission into the United States by foreign nationals, the consequences of illegal entry, and the procedures for removal and deportation of aliens from this country. Congress has also comprehensively regulated the employment of persons unlawfully present in the United States, and imposed a calibrated scale of civil and criminal penalties on employers who knowingly hire such persons, but declined to impose criminal penalties on such persons who seek or obtain employment."

This is a case where it is going to be easy to take your eye off the ball. The first hurdle the Court of Appeals will jump is whether Judge Bolton abused her discretion when issuing the Preliminary Injunction.

When issuing a preliminary injunction the trial court must apply a four part test. First the Plaintiff must show a reasonable likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of the case. Second, irreparable harm will occur absent the order. Third is a balancing test where the judge must find that less harm will accrue to the defendants if the Preliminary Injunction is issued compared to more harm accruing to the Plaintiffs if the Preliminary Injunction does not issue. Finally, that the public interest weighs in favor of the Plaintiff.

This appeal is narrowing its focus on the likelihood of the parties succeeding on the merits, the first prong of the test. Judge Bolton ruled in favor of the United States on this point. Arizona argues that it too can likely succeed on the merits. The stage is set for the Ninth Circuit to begin its review with the first prong of the four part test.

Michigan's Tim Walberg Jumps on the Debt Retirement Bandwagon

Republican Representative Tim Walberg keeps popping up on the radar. Walberg has been elected, again, to represent Michigan's Seventh Congressional District. That's in the Southeast part of the Michigan, Northwest of Toledo, Ohio. Here's another Republican Representative-elect who is reporting no debt and joining the long list of Republican Representatives having a Debt Retirement Party according to the Sunlight Foundation's PARTY TIME.

The latest data, according to OpenSecrets.org, at the Center for Responsive Politics, shows Walberg raised $1,374,889, spent $997,090, had cash on hand in the sum of $399,415, and claimed no debt as of October 13th. Those figures don't calculate.

$1,374,889 - $997,090 = $377,799.

Walberg is reporting cash on hand that is $21,616 more than the difference between what he raised and what he spent.

Usually that's the way you calculate cash on hand, by subtracting what you spent from what you raised. Walberg says he has $399,415 but the figures say it could only be $377,799. In any case he isn't claiming any debt. So why is he the beneficiary of a Debt Retirement Dinner at Carmine's in D.C. on December 1st? He's asking for Sponsors to pay $5,000 and Individuals to cough up $2,500 for this event.

Walberg's going to be a busy fundraising machine on December 1st. Before going to dinner at Carmine's he'll be at the Capitol Hill Club for a Holiday Thank You Reception. I am not certain who will be thanking whom, but it ought to be Walberg saying thanks for the cash. On the other hand those doling out the loot probably have expectations, so maybe they'll be saying thanks for Walberg getting on board their Special Interest train. Walberg wants $1,000 a PAC and $500 a person. That, compared to his dinner party later that night at Carmine's, is a bargain.

This isn't Walberg's first tour of the fundraising circuit. He was elected in 2006 and defeated in the next general election. His figures didn't jibe in the 2008 race either. According to OpenSecrets.org, in that race he raised $2,112,214, spent $2,128,559, had cash on hand in the sum of $21,617, and claimed no debt.

Walberg raised less than he spent but claimed no debt? Okay let's look at the numbers. His cash on hand plus what he spent goes on the negative side of the ledger and what he raised goes on the positive side. The difference is either surplus, if it is a positive number, or deficit, if it is a negative number.

$21,617cash on hand + $2,128,559 spent = $2,150,176 total debits.

$2,112,214 raised or total credits - $2,150,176 total debits = ‹$37,692›, that's a negative $37,692. If you backed out the cash on hand from the reported deficit then you'd have ‹$37,692› - $21,617 = ‹$16,075› and he's still in the hole not claiming debt!

Tim Walberg ran, in part, on a platform of fiscal responsibility. It is sad that his campaign finance reports demonstrate that he doesn't have a clue about the most basic concepts of fiscal responsibility. But by golly he knows that he's got to raise money, no matter what label you put on his invitations! Debt Retirement Indeed! The money would be better spent on crash courses in remedial math and basic accounting!

Walberg's events are being managed by D.C.'s Hammond & Associates, but you can't blame them for Walberg's fuzzy math.

Tim Wallberg

WHERE HAVE THE REPUBLICANS GONE or IS IT TOO COLD IN D.C. TO RAISE CASH?

Where have all the Republicans Gone? Some are on their way to Miami to sing that Campaign Party Time Song. Speaking of Party Time, special thanks and acknowledgement to the Sunlight Foundation's PARTY TIME and their work at documenting the Political Partying Circuit.

Republican Representative John Campbell from California's 48th is headed to Miami for a post-election trip. He's not alone. Republican Representative Phil Gingrey from Georgia's 11th, Republican Representative Tim Murphy from Pennsylvania's 18th, and Republican Representative John Shimkus from Illinois' 19th are headed there as well.

Campbell wants the checks made out to Campbell for Congress - The Gula Graham Group. Gingrey's invite said to write the check to Gingrey for Congress - The Gula Graham Group. Murphy tells us to send payment to Murphy for Congress - The Gula Graham Group. You won't be surprised that remittance for Shimkus is to be directed to Volunteers for Shimkus -The Gula Graham Group.

Only Representative Campbell is offering a bargain at suggested contributions of $2,500 PAC and $1,500 per Individual. For the rest of these Republicans it's $2,500 PAC and $1,500 per Individual.

The Gula Graham Group proclaims themselves to be a leading Washington, D.C. Republican fundraising and political consulting group. From the Senate their client list includes South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, New Hampshire Senator-elect Kelly Ayotte, Indiana Senator-elect Dan Coats, and the Alaskan still trying to recount votes Joe Miller.

Other than the gang headed to Miami, their House clients include South Carolina Representative Gresham Barrett, Tennessee Representative Marsha Blackburn, Alabama Representative-elect Mo Brooks, Kentucky Representative Geoff Davis, South Carolina Representative-elect Jeff Duncan, Tennessee Representative-elect Chuck Fleischmann, Pennsylvania Representative Jim Gerlach, Missouri Representative Sam Graves, Kentucky Representative Brett Guthrie, California Representative Duncan Hunter, Missouri Representative-elect Billy Long, Michigan Representative Thaddeus McCotter, South Dakota Representative-elect Kristi Noem, Michigan Representative Mike Rogers, New Jersey Representative-elect Jon Runyan, South Carolina Representative-elect Tim Scott, Indiana Representative Marlin Stutzman, and Kentucky Representative Ed Whitfield.

The "triple G" also represents leadership PACs which include Senator DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund PAC, Representative Barrett's Palmetto Freedom PAC, John Campbell's OCPAC, Representative Davis' Ranger PAC, Representative Gerlach's Keystone PAC, Representative Gingrey's DOC PAC, Representative Graves' Show Me PAC, Representative McCotter's Champions of American Freedom PAC, and Representative Murphy's Comeback PAC.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org  The Gula Graham Group gets paid a lot of money, as one would expect. During Campaign 2010 the Miami bound gang paid as follows: Representative Gingrey - $76,317, Representative Campbell - $70,321, Representative Murphy - $104,225, and Representative Shimkus - $214,731.

That ain't bupkis!

MY THANKSGIVING REFLECTION OF THE WORK OF THE 111th CONGRESS

On Thanksgiving I want to remember the good work of the 111th Congress by highlighting memorable legislation passed into law by this Congress.

Miss Kansas - Carolyn Anderson

First I want to say that I am thankful for the service of "Miss Kansas", Carolyn Anderson, who is retiring after 28 years as a Congressional Staffer. Although Miss Kansas hails from the District of Columbia she is a lady about which it can be said that seldom has one done so much for so many from my home state. Thank you Miss Kansas.

Public Law 111-2, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. I am thankful that it is now against the law for women to be paid less than men for doing the same work. I'd be more thankful if the Equal Rights Amendment had been passed.

Public Law 111-3, the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2009. I am thankful that in what are dire economic times for many American families that the Congress did not throw out the babies with the bathwater.

Public Law 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. I am thankful that three separate projects put our people to work in Osawatomie, that those workers spent money locally, that money benefited local businesses, and that the long term benefit to my home town will make this a better city in which to live. I suspect if folks across America took a hard look they'd find benefits to their communities as well.

Public Law 111-13, the Serve America Act. This law opens the doors of service by Americans for Americans. This law benefits seniors, social entrepreneurs, and veterans.

Public Law 111-15, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of 2009. Special kudos to neighboring Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. This law gives the Special Inspector General authority to conduct, supervise, and coordinate an audit or investigation of any action taken with regard to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that the SIG deems appropriate. Senator McCaskill put a watchdog on the henhouse!

Public Law 111-20, the Protecting Incentives for the Adoption of Children with Special Needs Act of 2009. The name really says it all. The nuts and bolts are that it amends the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 to repeal the limitation on FY2008 adoption incentive payments to states to the same manner as such incentives were awarded in FY2008 for the previous fiscal year. I am again thankful we are not throwing out the babies with the bathwater.

Public Law 111-21, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (FERA). Among the provisions of this new law which criminalizes certain mortgage fraud practices are extending the prohibition against making false statements in a mortgage application to employees and agents of a mortgage lending business. This law also applies the prohibition against defrauding the federal government to fraudulent activities involving the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or a federal economic stimulus, recovery, or rescue plan. Good Work Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy.

Public Law 111-23, the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. Thankfully this law takes a major step rectifying our failure to heed President Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex. Finally the Department of Defense is going to have someone minding the store when it comes to buying all the stuff we buy for our military.

Public Law 111-24, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. I am thankful for this law which makes having a credit card a manageable factor in an American's life. Gone is the fine print, the movable payment days, the jacked up interest rates and the unpredictability of the wild days of card issuers running roughshod over consumers. This law provides enhanced consumer protection for younger persons.

Public Law 111-87, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009. Science, not hyperbole, is needed to make progress on this disease. I am thankful this law is going to continue taking America into the light of knowledge.

Public Law 111-97, the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act. I am thankful that military spouses have their voting rights and taxpayer rights protected by this law.

Public Law 111-122, the Human Rights Enforcement Act of 2009. I am thankful that our nation is taking a strong stand against genocide.

Public Law 111-140, the Nuclear Forensics and Attribution Act. I am thankful that we are being proactive about nuclear materials. This law allows us to pursue bilateral and multilateral international agreements establishing an international framework for determining the source of any confiscated nuclear or radiological material or weapon, as well as the source of any detonated weapon and the nuclear or radiological material used in such a weapon. The more we can account for loose fissionable material the safer this planet will be.

Public Law 111-148, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I am thankful for Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans. I am thankful for the immediate improvements in Health Care for All Americans, the immediate actions that have taken place to preserve and expand coverage, and I am thankful for Health Insurance Market Reforms.

Public Law 111-166, the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act of 2009. I am thankful that the nation recognizes the importance of a Free Press and that our journalists are aware of those nations who condone or participate in violence against journalists.

Public Law 111-167, the Blue Ridge Parkway and Town of Blowing Rock Land Exchange Act of 2009. I am thankful that there is a town called Blowing Rock because the name conjures up such fantastic images in my imagination.

Public Law 111-274, the Special Agent Samuel Hicks Families of Fallen Heroes Act. I am thankful that America has decided not to burden the surviving immediate family members with additional debt incurred as a direct result of the sacrifice of their Fallen Hero. Samuel Hicks was an FBI Special Agent who died in the line of duty serving an arrest warrant on a suspected drug dealer. He is a Fallen Hero.

Public Law 111-196, the National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2010. I am thankful that America recognizes that floods constitute a hazard where the risk needs to be shared and private insurers are unwilling to underwrite that risk. See also, Public Law 111-250, the National Flood Insurance Program Reextension Act of 2010.

Public Law 111-198, the Homebuyer Assistance and Improvement Act of 2010. I am thankful that we give tax credits to first time homebuyers, especially in these times of economic hardship.

Public Law 111-203, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. While it does not re-impose the most strict regulatory boundaries which protected the economy from fraud and greed since the Great Depression, this bill is a good start.

Public Law 111-499, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. I am thankful for measures like these that provides money to lend through the aegis of the Small Business Administration. Small businesses have been clamoring for credit to re-tool, re-stock, and re-hire. Here it is.

Public Law 111-244, Rosa's Law. I am thankful that a little girl, 9 years old, with Down Syndrome, has been able to persuade her state to remove the offensive language calling a person with an "intellectual disability" mentally retarded in that state's statutory code. Rosa's Law removes those obsolete and hurtful words from federal law.

Public Law 111-223, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010. I am thankful that we are trying to address the needs of our Veterans. The Republic owes them more than just a pat on the back and a thanks. They stood for us and now we must stand for them.

Public Law 111-284, the Mount Stevens and Ted Stevens Icefield Designation Act. I am thankful that the 111th Congress has finally proved it can move legislation quickly when it so desires. This measure was introduced in the Senate on 9/20/10 and signed into law on 10/18/10. See, the children can play well together when they choose not to be obstinate!

There were many more success stories in the 111th Congress for which I was thankful. To take a look at all the Public Laws passed by this Congress go to the Library of Congress website: http://thomas.loc.gov/.

THE DREAM ACT, THE HOPE ACT, & SETTLING LAWSUITS APPEAR ON THE SENATE HORIZON NEXT WEEK

Politico.com's the Huddle is reporting that Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid will bring up three measures next week: the DREAM Act, a bill to give permanent resident status to Haitian orphans now living in the U.S., and, hopefully, a Pigford/Cobell settlement measure.

S.3827, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act, was introduced by Democratic Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, with two cosponsors. The premise is simple, we don't throw the babies out with the bathwater. This bill speaks to the issues faced by children of illegal aliens.

The Congressional Research Summary, CRS, provides this summary of the bill. The DREAM Act amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 by repealing the provision making unlawful aliens ineligible for higher education benefits based on state residence unless a U.S. citizen or national is eligible for such benefits without regard to state residence.

Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to cancel the removal of, and adjust to conditional permanent resident status, an alien who: (1) entered the United States before his or her 16th birthday and has been present in the United States for at least five years immediately preceding this Act's enactment; (2) is a person of good moral character; (3) is not inadmissible or deportable under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act; (4) has been admitted to an institution of higher education (IHE) or has earned a high school or equivalent diploma; (5) from the age of 16 and older, has never been under a final order of exclusion, deportation, or removal; and (6) was under age 35 on the date of this Act's enactment.

Requires aliens to apply for such adjustment of status within one year of being admitted to an IHE or earning a high school or equivalent diploma. Sets forth conditions for maintaining such status and having its conditional basis removed.

Authorizes an alien who has satisfied the appropriate requirements before this Act's enactment to petition the Secretary for conditional permanent resident status.

Provides for: (1) exclusive jurisdiction; (2) penalties for false application statements; (3) confidentiality; (4) higher education assistance; and (5) a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report respecting the number of aliens adjusted under this Act.

When you stop and think about the investment taxpayers have in each and every child going through our public school systems it seems to be less than intelligent to start throwing away these perfectly good and well educated kids. Plus doing so is just plain cruel. Most often these kids don't know anyone in the homeland of their ancestors, don't speak the language, and are put at risk by being strangers in a strange land.

Senator Durbin's DREAM Act has several related bills. They are H.R.1751, H.R.6327, S.729, S.3962, S.3963.

The bill relating to Haitian orphans appears to be in the drafting phase over in the Senate. I suspect it will look a lot like H.R. 4603, the Haitian Orphan Placement Effort Act, or HOPE Act. which was introduced by Republican Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, along with 21 cosponsors. H.R. 4603 was introduced in February and has been languishing in the House Judiciary Committee.

The HOPE Act, according to the CRS, will expand the humanitarian parole policy for certain Haitian orphans announced on January 18, 2010, so as to apply it on a case-by-case basis to children who were legally confirmed as orphans eligible for intercountry adoption by the government of Haiti before January 12, 2010.

Those children from earthquake ravaged Haiti who were left parentless will have the chance at a full life as the adopted sons and daughters of American families.

The Pigford/Cobell settlement will probably be either S. 3693 or S.3794. S. 3693 is Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's bill. According to the CRS this bill appropriates to the Department of Agriculture $1.15 billion to carry out the terms of a Settlement Agreement executed by In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation that is approved by a court order that has become final and nonappealable, and that is comprehensive and provides for the final settlement of all remaining Pigford claims (relating to a racial discrimination action against the Department of Agriculture). Provides that the $1.15 billion shall be in addition to the $100 million in funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) made available for the payment of Pigford claims and are available only after such CCC funds have been fully obligated. Provides that if such Settlement Agreement is not executed and approved as provided above, then the sole funding available for Pigford claims shall be the $100 million of CCC funds.

The related bill, S. 3754, was introduced by Wyoming's Republican Senator John Barrasso. This bill settles not only the Pigford litigation, as does Senator Grassley's bill, but also settles the case of Elouise Cobell et al. v. Ken Salazar et al.

According to the CRS the Cobell part of Barrasso's bill will Establishes the Trust Land Consolidation Fund, and provides for the deposit of $2 billion in the Fund, on final approval of the Settlement, with funds being made available to the Secretary of the Interior: (1) to conduct the Land Consolidation Program (a program under which the Secretary may purchase fractional interests in trust or restricted land); and (2) for other costs of the Settlement.

Establishes, on final approval of the Settlement, the Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund to provide scholarships for Native Americans through an Indian Education Scholarship Fund.

Excludes amounts received by an individual Indian as a lump sum or a periodic payment pursuant to the Settlement from: (1) gross income and adjusted gross income under the Internal Revenue Code; and (2) being considered for purposes of determining eligibility or level of benefits under any federal or federally assisted program, during the one-year period beginning on the date of receipt.

Provides for the determination of incentive awards, fees, expenses, and costs under the Settlement. Elouise Cobell et al. v. Ken Salazar et al was a case in which the United States has been found to have breached its fiduciary duties in respect to monies held in trust for the benefits of certain Indians. This was a class action lawsuit.

If the Senate can pass these measures then Harry Reid is off to a good start in winding up the business of the 111th Congress.

 

LYNN JENKINS AND KEVIN YODER AND Q C HOLDINGS - THE PREDATORY PAY DAY LENDER BUYING CONGRESS ONE REPRESENTATIVE AT A TIME

Will Kevin Yoder be a Lynn Jenkins clone? Follow the money to see how much they took from the same sources. I wasn't all that surprised to see these two feeding from the same trough.

The Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org provides this eye opening data.

Lynn Jenkins' top contributor was Q C Holdings, the nefarious owner of predatory pay day loan operations. She got $17,250 from Q C Holdings, $12,500 from individuals, and $5,000 from their PAC. Kevin Yoder's top contributor was the same Q C Holdings. Yoder got $34,500 from Q C Holdings, $24,500 individuals, and $10,000 from their PAC.

A multicandidate PAC can give no more than $5,000 per election. General plus primary elections equals $10,000.  To read the FEC contributions limits chart for yourself go to http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimits0910.pdf.

Q C Holdings' PAC gave Tim Huelskamp $4,500.

Lynn Jenkins took $7,250 from the Cerner Corporation, $7,000 from their PAC, and $250 from individuals. Kevin Yoder did better, he took $24,392 from the Cerner Corporation, $10,000 from their PAC, and $14,392 from individuals. Oddly enough Cerner, whose business is health care delivery say on their website that:

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provides approximately $787 billion in spending and tax cuts to stimulate the U.S. economy."

 See, http://www.cerner.com/About_Cerner/Stimulus_and_HITECH/.

In one moment Cerner praises the Stimulus while turning on its heels to support those who deny its efficacy. Being fair we have to acknowledge that Cerner wants to have their cake and eat it also; take the Stimulus and oppose Health Care Reform.

Cerner's PAC also gave Kansans Tim Huelskamp $2,500 and Jerry Moran $5,000. Cerner gave to Missouri Republicans. Sam Graves got $8,000, Jo Ann Emerson received $4,500, and Roy Blunt took $10,000.

THE APPEAL OF ARIZONA SB 1070, THE UNITED STATES v. ARIZONA -- NEITHER GOD NOR RUSSELL PEARCE CAN ENTER THE FRACAS!

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been busy with case number CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB. That's the on-going appeal of Arizona Federal District Judge Susan Bolton's injunction against Arizona's SB 1070. You can read Judge Bolton's lengthy and well reasoned Order on line at:
http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/courtinfo.nsf/983700DFEE44B56B0725776E005D6CCB/$file/10-1413-87.pdf?openelement.

The docket at the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit already has 131 entries and the case is nowhere near resolution. Part of the large number of entries has to do with the sheer numbers of folks who want to put in their two cents worth by filing friend of the court, or amici curiae, briefs. Here's the latest list of those whom the Court of Appeals turned down, denying them the privilege of filing those briefs.

1. Ray Elbert Parker wanted to file in support of a Motion to Dismiss purportedly filed in the District Court. Judge Bolton's Order denying Ray Ellis Parker was transmitted to the Court of Appeals as docket item 131. Parker is wrong in thinking that a Motion to Dismiss was filed in the District Court.  Parker apparently mixed his chicken manure in with his applesauce.  Parker wanted to support the "Defendans Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed by Appellant."  No such motion was ever made by the United States. Parker gave a Virginia address.  I suspect he is the disgruntled former teacher who has repeatedly sued a Maryland school district because of his termination.

2. Matthew D. Pinnavaia's filed a Motion to file an Amicus Curiae brief, but failed to attach that brief to his motion. Judge Bolton denied Pinnavaia's motion.  Pinnavaia claims to be an American Citizen in the tradition of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. 

3. Michigan's Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop filed a Motion to file an Amicus Curiae brief, but failed to attach that brief to his motion. Judge Bolton said Bishop was unclear about what position his brief would support as the only pending matter is a Motion to Dismiss.

4. Arizona State Senator Russell B. Pearce won't get to Intervene in this case. Pearce wrote the statute under scrutiny, Arizona SB 1070. Judge Bolton correctly sets forth the four part test of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), which a party seeking to intervene must meet:

“(1) the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must claim a ‘significantly protectable’ interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the action."

Pearce cited no authority that he, in his official capacity, had a legal right to intervene. A legislator may assert that right where the executive fails to adequately represent the interests of the statute in question. That is not the case here.

Pearce fails to state a sufficiently protectable interest relating to SB 1070. Mere authorship is not enough for the District Court to allow him to intervene. The Senator from Mesa fails the second part of the test.

The failure of the second part of the four part test leads to Pearce's failure under the third part of the test. Pearce is not situated so that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that interest. Pearce may have strategy issues with Arizona's legal team, but he is not in a position to do a better job than Arizona's legal team.

Failure to meet any one of the four tests set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) is fatal.

5. God, being represented by one D.Q. Mariette Do-Nguyen, will not be permitted to proceed. Really, that is the claim which was made. The pleading party identified herself to the District Court as:

Mariette Do-Nguyen, a legal immigrant from Vietnam during the evacuation of 1975, sponsored by the United States government, became a U.S. citizen in June, 1982. I am the Almighty Eternal Creator’s Messenger of Covenant, and founder and head of the Kingdom of Heaven in the earthly realm. Obeying the Almighty Eternal Creator’s instructions, I act as His representative in the United States Federal Court, fill [sic] this Motion for Filling [sic] Third-Party Complaint..."

Read her pleading at: 

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2010cv01413/535000/54/

Judge Bolton made it clear that God's alleged representative is not a party to the case and cannot appeal. The Court of Appeals issued its mandate affirming Judge Bolton's order as to D.Q. Mariette Do-Nguyen.

Remember, the Arizona appealed the District Court's Order, The United States and We the People are the plaintiffs in the action from the trial court.  In the Ninth Circuit Arizona is the appellant and the United States is the appellee. Arizona has filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal. The issues raised by the parties will be addressed in another posting.

MSNBC's UNWORKABLE RULE (or Why It is Silly to Sanction Scarborough)

MSNBC is trying to be impartial by suspending their morning headliner Joe Scarborough. Morning Joe gave a few dollars to candidates he supports. Joe's contributions were modest. Scarborough didn't do anything illegal. Scarborough didn't do anything unethical. Scarborough did the responsible thing, he put his money where his mouth is. It isn't important that Joe Scarborough gave modestly or that Keith Olbermann, whom MSNBC also suspended, gave larger amounts to those he supports. MSNBC is owned by General Electric and the ruling junta at General Electric/MSNBC is wrong to suspend good folks like Scarborough and Olbermann.

MSNBC wants to maintain high standards, they want to prevent their organization from spiraling out of control and becoming anything like the propaganda company masquerading as a journalism company, FOX News. Over at FOX News there are no firewalls separating fact from fiction, influence from arrogance, or propriety from wholesale manure spreading. MSNBC is right to avoid becoming anything like the delusional, fantasy based, and truth distorting journalistic circus which is FOX News. Mind you, I am not talking about the local affiliates bearing the FOX moniker, those stations are well run. I am talking about the "it would be funny if weren't true" cable operation called FOX News.

MSNBC should not have veto power over their on-air talent when it comes to their campaign donations. MSNBC has every right to maintain high standards when it comes to the appearance of impropriety. Their veto power doesn't get them where they want to go. If MSNBC says to Joe go ahead and make those contributions but tells Keith no you can't, then MSNBC has lost the prize they sought. In their earnest attempt to be impartial they lost their balance.

There's no confusion about Joe Scarborough or his conservative political leanings. You'd have to be deaf and blind not to figure out that Olbermann veers to the left in his civic thinking. Yet neither Scarborough, Olbermann, or anyone else at MSNBC have turned their shows into on-going infomercials for persons aspiring to political offices.

If the ruling junta at General Electric/MSNBC wants to preserve the appearance of propriety, then they can't be seen to tell Scarborough and Olbermann to whom they can or cannot give legal campaign contributions. MSNBC can adopt a rigid standard saying that none of their hosts or anchors or news personnel can make campaign contributions. The cost of being a star at MSNBC should be the strict adherence to the highest standards of journalism, not forbearance of a legal right.

The ruling junta at General Electric/MSNBC needs to extricate themselves from their self imposed field of quicksand. They have first rate folks working for them who do not look anything like propagandists spiraling out of control. MSNBC can start with trust. Trust the stars at MSNBC to be good at their jobs and behave like adults, something their people are already doing.

MORE REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES GOING THE "DEBT RETIREMENT" ROUTE - even one showing a debt!

The Republicans' "Debt Retirement" fundraisers continued with Florida's Representative-elect' breakfast at the Capitol Hill Club. The suggested shakedown is: $2,500 for a PAC Host; $1,000 for PAC; and $500 Individual per contribution. The checks should be made payable to: Dennis Ross for Congress - 104 Hume Avenue Alexandria, VA 22301. See, http://politicalpartytime.org/party/24041/.


According to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org Ross did not have a debt problem. His last report showed a surplus. He raised $1,063,311, spent $853,157, and as of October 13th had cash on hand in the sum of $210,152. He reported no debt at all. See, http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00030645&newMem=Y.

Ross has hired Epiphany Productions to run this event. Ross paid Epiphany Productions more than $35,000 during his campaign for fundraising consulting. What Epiphany Productions promises to do for their clients is detailed on their web site. Apparently Ross bought the package that:

Our fundraising team will work with you to establish parameters for your campaign. From individual events to long-term donor programs, we will develop a finance plan that includes timelines tied to funding goals and a structure to provide donor benefit fulfillment. epiphany will also draw upon our proprietary database to identify and solicit potential donors. List development is important, and we work closely with our clients to establish and maintain donor files. We help you meet your goals. See, http://epiphanyproductions.com/os_fundraising.php

New York's Republican Representative-elect Richard Hanna is not going to miss his chance to cut a fat hog with the so-called "Debt Retirement" fundraiser. Hanna's having a lunch for this purpose. He's asking for $1,000 per PAC and $500 per individual. See, http://www.blogger.com/goog_1096551025

The OpenSecrets.org report on him says he wasn't reporting debt as of 10/13/10. He raised $1,026,570, spent $843,536, and had cash on hand in the amount of $354,000. The invitation refers to Hanna's fundraising organization Catalyst Group, LLc. Hanna spent more than $22,000 on the Catalyst Group RW during his campaign for fundraising and campaign strategy consulting. The website catalystgroupllc.com is not yet up and running.

Pennsylvania's Republican Representative-elect Tom Marino's "Debt Retirement" event on December 7th at the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee headquarters. It's a luncheon. The suggested shakedown is kind of pricey. Marino wants $5,000 from Benefactors, $2,500 from Sponsors, $1,000 per Host, and $500 from Individuals. http://politicalpartytime.org/party/24037/.

Marino ran a relatively low budget campaign and did report debt. According to OpenSecrets.org he raised $549,558, spent $517,246, had cash on hand in the sum of $32,312, and had incurred a debt in the amount of $15,614. See, http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00031777&newMem=Y.

In keeping with his low outlay campaign it appears that Marino did not retain the services of one of D.C.'s hired guns. The checks are to be made out to his campaign committee. The price is high but it looks like Marino won't be paying any commission on the receipts.  Good for him.

Adam Kinziner, the Republican Representative-elect from the Illinois 11th had a Debt Retirement breakfast yesterday at the Capitol Hill Club.  Kinzinger is another Epiphany Productions production and was looking to hit the cash rich in a big way.  PAC could contribute either $5,000, $2,400, or $1,000, individuals were asked to cough up $500.

OpenSecrets.org showed Kinzinger having raised $1,589,266 . spent $1,282,176, with cash on hand in the amount of $291,051.  Kinzinger wasn't reporting debt  as of 10/13/10.  See, http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00030667&newMem=Y.

Francisco "Quico" Canseco, Texas' Republican Representative-elect also decided to feed at the Debt Retirement trough.  He had a reception at the Capitol Hill Club where PACs and individuals each chipped in $1,000 for the privilege of being there. Canseco is using D.C.'s Bellwether Consulting Group.

The most honest Republican newby to date is Quico Canseco.  He piled up debt big time in his run for the House.  OpenSecrets.org says he raised $1,227,610, spent $1,111,989, had cash on hand in the amount of $147,961, and he reported debt in the staggering amount of  $1,148,750.  See, http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00026722&newMem=Y.   

THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 51 - PROPAGANDA AND BLACK HEARTED POLITICS

This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

Lynn Jenkins is once again spewing the party line. This time she waves the budget cutting scalpel at National Public Radio. Over the years I have noticed that some, but not all, Republicans tend to have a dislike of publically owned broadcast media.

Jenkins argued from the floor of the House for a bare bones and ultra limited government. Government should only protect our citizens, maintain a strong infrastructure, and uphold our rights as outlined by the Constitution. Then Jenkins makes a wild course change apparently challenging some unnamed "political radio show" on NPR which has a "litmus test" on something which she does not identify. Her speech was so vague as to be baffling.

Lynn Jenkins ignores the fact that NPR is  tax-exempt, being organized under secion 501 (c) (3) of the Tax Code.  Therefore, NPR is prohibited from engaging in the political conduct she describes. Since Jenkins is a CPA one can only guess she is engaging in demagoguery.

Jenkins says that the federal government is leaking money left and right and that it is time to plug some holes. You betcha as long as those holes don't put the kibosh on those she serves, the wealthy, the damn wealthiest folks in America.

Jenkins voted against extending unemployment insurance compensation to un-employed Americans yesterday. Jenkins continues to urge extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for her damn wealthiest supporters. The Fat Cat Tax Boondoggle that Jenkins wants extended will add $700 Billion of borrowed money to the nation's debt.

The unemployment benefits will immediately stimulate the economy because virtually all of that money gets spent as soon as it arrives in the hands of the beneficiary. It is spent on rent, food, and the necessities of life. The Bush-era tax cuts for the Jenkins' damn wealthiest supporters haven't paid any dividends. Borrowing money to give these rich folks more money is insane.

Now what was it Lynn Jenkins just said, the federal government should uphold our rights as outlined by the Constitution. Apparently Lynn Jenkins is ignorant of the First Amendment, the history of radio, the history of National Public Radio, and the history of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Jenkins may or may not know that the radio spectrum belongs to We the People. Licensees of broadcast stations hold their use of the spectrum in trust for the people. Misuse of that trust can result in license revocation.

In the early days of radio the Federal Communications Commission let the lower end of the radio dial be used by colleges and universities so that student run stations could help develop technology, skill, and talent. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was formed by an Act of Congress in the 1960's. Commercial radio declined as the new technology of television soared. One mandate of that Act was for CPR to encourage the growth and development of non-commercial radio and to develop programming responsive to the interests of the American people.

National Public Radio was formed in the 1970's. NPR has been on the bleeding edge of broadcast programming when it comes to the public interest. From its start with live broadcasts of Senate hearings on the Vietnam War to Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate, NPR provides Americans with ready real-time access to live action from Washington. NPR developed All Things Considered and Morning Edition as it matured in its mission.

If Jenkins' rant was in some way related to the firing of Juan Williams then she should have said so. NPR has strict standards and Mr. Williams crossed the line. In my opinion the cable network pretending to be a legitimate news organization, calling itself FOX News, has no standards. FOX Propaganda serves no useful public interest. Demagoguery is not in the public interest, whether it stems from the floor of the House or that Republican propaganda machine called FOX.

Perhaps Jenkins was stoked by FOX Misinformation's owner Roger Ailes. The head distortionist for the Republican Party's Publicity Department was raging against National Public Radio making an attack often made by that entertainment company. Ailes compared NPR to Nazis. If that is what got Jenkins in a huff then she should turn FOX Fantasy off and turn on NPR. In Jenkins' case NPR can stand for Not Propaganda Radio.

Whatever Jenkins meant by her rambling discourse she needs to get a good case of being serious in quick fashion. Jenkins and the naysayers no longer have the luxury of not governing. Don't tell Kansans that NPR should be de-funded while you are advocating a $700 Billion increase to the deficit over the next decade.

Lynn Jenkins is going to find it difficult to govern without facts. Maybe that's why we got her tirade against NPR when the bill being debated was H.R. 1722. Had Jenkins checked she could have found out that NPR doesn't have a line in the federal budget to directly attack. That's right, NPR doesn't get direct contributions from the federal budget. Here is what NPR has to say on their website, www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2008/01/frequently_asked_questions_1.html:

NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government. Less than two percent of the budget is derived from competitive grants from federally funded organizations such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation, and National Endowment for the Arts. (Emphasis added.)

Approximately half of NPR's funding comes from NPR member stations. In an average year, NPR funds about 45 percent of its operations with membership dues and program fees from member stations. The balance of NPR's annual revenue is derived from private foundations, individuals and corporations, in the form of grants, gifts, investment proceeds, and corporate sponsorships. NPR receives some revenue from distribution fees and fees from tapes and transcripts. Financial statements, based on annual audits, are available in NPR's most recent Annual Report (5.7 MB - Requires Adobe Acrobat).

Jenkins and the Party of No continued their onslaught against advancing any positive ideas when they voted against H.R. 1722. The Teleworks Enhancement Bill now moves on to the President for his signature. H.R. 1722 is projected to cost $30 million over the next five years in administrative costs, if those funds are appropriated. H.R. 1722 is an important piece of legislation designed to keep certain governmental offices open during times of natural disaster or worse. One ice storm in the District of Columbia can shut down many government functions for days at a cost far exceeding these projected administrative costs.

Yesterday marked the first time in the modern history of the Republic when the servants of the Fat Cats openly thumbed their noses at the rest of America during a period of excessively high unemployment.

Yesterday, Lynn Jenkins and the Party of No, said no to extending unemployment benefits. The jobs are gone, the Fat Cats are sitting on the sidelines with their cash and their tax exemptions intact, and the Republicans said no to making sure middle class families can remain in the middle class. Happy Thanksgiving indeed.

The betrayal of trust with the middle class occurred on roll call vote 579. The bill H.R. 6419 got a majority of the votes from the Members of Congress. It failed because it was brought up under a Suspension of the Rules which required a ⅔ majority. The vote was 258 to 154, that means it needed 275 for passage. Seventeen lousy votes is what keeps the most economically stimulative measure from moving forward. Shameful!

The final order of business in the House was S.3774, a bill extending the deadline for filing for Social Services Block Grant expenditures of supplemental funds appropriated following disasters occurring in 2008. (Emphasis added). The bill extends, through FY2011, the deadline for state expenditure of certain emergency supplemental appropriations to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for the Administration for Children and Families provided for recovery from Hurricanes Ike and Rita and other 2008 natural disasters.

That's right the black hearted naysayers want to recoup those dollars from Children and Families to offset the Fat Cat Tax Boondoggle. Things are going to get very bad for the lower 98% of Americans if the Republicans give $700 billion to the Fat Cats!

S. 3774 passed on roll call vote 580, having garnered the required ⅔ majority vote with a margin of 366 to 40.