'Jobs, What Jobs!'

More than 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1998, and the Economic Policy Institute estimates 59 percent—or 1.78 million—of these jobs have been lost due to the explosion in the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit over the period.

I strongly suggest you follow the link provided and read for yourself what 'some' of the reasons are for businesses leaving America, and then ask your representative or nominee what they intend to do about it. After all, it could be your job!
http://www.545project.com/3.1_Disincentives.pdf

Every politician under the sun has said that reducing taxes and regulations are the key to bringing jobs home to America. Yet it never happens. Why? Because tax reduction in and of itself is not the only answer. Once we reduce taxes and bring regulation in line with reality (which is crucial to success), Asia (specifically China) along with India and others will simply manipulate their currencies http://coralvillecourier.typepad.com/community/2010/06/china-manipulates-currency-us-leadership-doesnt-care.html to the point where they remain in control of world markets in regard to manufactured goods. It's going to take much more! The American people, as I’ve always said, are the most productive and resilient in the world. Unfortunately our government, made up of various political factions, chooses to pander for votes rather than support those they represent. They know all too well how those that rely on the system tend to vote the system so why not accommodate them.

For years I've been telling folks how the Chinese and others manipulate their currency in order to maintain an unfair global advantage in manufacturing. I know this because I work with it on a daily basis.

However controversial, the answer is not tax cuts alone but strategically placed floating tariffs on imported manufactured goods coming to America, then and only then will the playing field be leveled and competition fair and balanced. Once coupled with the appropriate tax cuts and common sense regulations, sanity will return to world markets and jobs back home to America.

• Posted by Steve Rathje on July 31, 2010 at 4:01pm
• View Steve Rathje's blog

Illegals Boycott Arizona By Leaving

Renaldo: Leaving for a state that will support him with dignity

Phoenix, AZ (AP) - Thousands of illegal immigrants are showing their outrage with Arizona's controversial new SB-1070 law by boycotting the state and moving elsewhere.

One example of those who are punishing the state by leaving is illegal immigrant Manuel Renaldo. As he loaded his stolen car with his family of twelve's belongings, Renaldo told this reporter through an interpreter, "It's a matter of principle, 'homes.' I refuse to be supported by someplace that treats me like a criminal."

The affects of the exodus are being felt by Arizona retailers who report dwindling beer, spray paint, and ammunition sales. Also hit hard are Arizona hospitals, who have reported a dramatic decline in births and emergency room visits by illegal aliens. "We're ecstatic," said one administrator for Banner Health in Phoenix. "At this rate we may see a profit one day."

The boycott/exodus of Arizona by illegals is expected to grow exponentially leading up to the law's starting date.

I am Not racist,
I am Not violent,
I am just not silent anymore

United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island? [Andy McCarthy]

Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation. Besides the usual profiling blather, critics have trotted out the now familiar saw that such procedures hamstring police because they make immigrants afraid to cooperate. But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law prof William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.”

If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?

Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about immigration status”?

So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect.

WERE YA BORN IN A DAMNED BARN?

GET YOUR DAMNED FEET OFF THE DESK!

Would you walk into a museum and put your feet up on a century Old desk? What a dingbat.

Does this photo of President Obama in the Oval Office convey anything about his attitude and arrogance?

Would you speak with the Chief of Staff, your Chief Economics Adviser, your Senior Adviser, or anyone, with your feet up on the Resolute Desk - a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880?

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A CLUELESS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF THAT DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE CORPSMAN. CAN AMERICA SURVIVE TWO MORE YEARS OF THIS LOW CLASS BUFFOON?

OBAMA ! GET A CLUE!

Obama renews immigration push

By Peter Nicholas, Tribune Washington Bureau

June 30, 2010

The president meets with lawmakers to discuss a strategy for passing a bill this year; gaining Republican support will be a challenge. He will make his case to the public in a speech Thursday.

Reporting from Washington —

It would be a revival worthy of Lazarus, but President Obama is making a renewed push for an immigration overhaul, possibly during a lame-duck session of Congress after the November election — when members would no longer face an imminent political risk for supporting it.

Obama met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in the State Dining Room on Tuesday and discussed a strategy for passing a bill that had seemed dead for the year.

On Thursday morning, the president will put the issue before the American public. In a speech at American University, he plans to make the case for providing a path to legal status for the estimated 11 million people who live in the U.S. illegally while (claiming he will strengthen border enforcement.) Where have we heard that before? OBAMA LIES!

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily briefing Tuesday that "this continues to be a very important national issue" requiring Republican support. To date, no Republican senators have agreed to back a comprehensive immigration bill. Nor has such a bill been introduced in the Senate. (Let's pray it stays that way.)

With conservatives energized, angry and likely to storm to the polls, Democrats fear they will lose even more seats in Congress than a president's party typically does at the halfway point in his term.

Voting on an immigration bill in a lame-duck session has some advantages in proponents' eyes. Outgoing members of Congress would have little reason to fear backing a controversial bill. And those who won might be more likely to support it, since they wouldn't have to face voters for another two years — when Obama is up for reelection and likely to draw progressives to the polls.

In addition, if Republicans make major gains in November, an immigration overhaul could be impossible in 2011 or 2012.

(IF EVER THERE WAS A REASON TO GET OUT THE VOTE, THIS IS IT!)

HOW FAST CAN WE GET RID OF HIM?

The non-profit Tax Foundation, a 501-c-3 Washington DC think tank founded in 1937, keeps detailed state-by-state summaries on federal revenues and spending.

The foundation reports that Nevadans’ per capita federal tax bill in 1983, the year Reid went to Washington, was $2,982, fourth highest in the US. Federal funds per capita received by Nevada that year amounted to $2,908, sixteenth highest in the nation.

By 2005, the latest year for which figures were shown in the foundation’s report, Nevadans’ per capita tax bill was $8,417, sixth highest in the nation. But per capita federal revenues received by Nevada amounted to only $5,889, lowest of all 50 states.

In another measure, in 1983 Nevadans received $0.85 for every federal tax dollar we paid; by 2005 that figure had dropped to $0.65, forty ninth in the nation. Would the number one state be California or New York with their huge congressional delegations? Nope. The winner was New Mexico garnering a whopping $2.03 in federal revenues for every tax dollar New Mexico taxpayers sent to Washington.

“how can Nevada survive without Harry Reid?” it is “how quickly can we get rid of him?”

I think I have an Angle on that.

(Jim Clark is President of Republican Advocates, a vice chair of the Washoe County GOP and a member of the Nevada GOP Central Committee)

CA. City Siezed By Mexiczans. Police Fired.

---

FROM JEROME CORSI'S RED ALERT

Invasion! U.S. 'sanctuary city' succumbs to illegals

1st municipality to fire all public employees after being forced into bankruptcy

A California "sanctuary city" has fallen victim to illegal immigration – going bankrupt and firing all of its public employees, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.

The city of Maywood, Calif., hit the budget wall after it decided not only to be a sanctuary city, but to be a completely "safe haven" for illegal aliens seeking protection from deportation.

In January 2006, Maywood's city council passed a resolution declaring that the city would not enforce any federal law such as H.R. 4557 that sought to declare illegal immigrants to be felons.

More aggressive even than sanctuary laws, this new resolution prohibited Maywood police from being involved in any immigration enforcement actions undertaken by federal, state or county authorities.

On April 11, 2006, in writing the book titled "Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders," Jim Gilchrist and Corsi interviewed Maywood Mayor Thomas Martin by telephone.

In the shocking interview available at Red Alert, the mayor strongly suggested the city of Maywood was willing to defy any federal law demanding that the police get directly involved in enforcing immigration laws.

---

Posted: June 28, 2010s.