…when they come for you?*
Cook County Board President Todd Stroger has a lien on his house. Someone wants him to pay $11,668.10 if he wants clear title to his own house.
That someone is the IRS. It seems Todd owes taxes from 2007. Oops.
And another little tidbit; Todd’s wife is a State of Illinois employee, making $56,700 a year as Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White's equal-employment opportunity officer.
And Todd’s salary as County Board President is $170,000 a year.
The official response to all of this?
Chicago Tribune:
Stroger has made arrangements to settle the IRS debt, according to a statement this morning from Eugene Mullins, Stroger’s spokesman. He said the administration would not respond to further inquires.
Chicago Sun Times:
Gene Mullins, a Stroger spokesman, told the Chicago Sun-Times on Tuesday night that Stroger and his wife already have made plans to pay the tax man.
But Mullins couldn't provide details beyond that, including how the Strogers let the situation get to the point where the IRS determined it needed to hold their feet to the fire by filing the income-tax lien with the Cook County recorder of deeds.
"It's a bill that him and his wife have made arrangements with the IRS on," Mullins said. "They made arrangements with them, and they're paying it off right now. They worked out a payment plan with the IRS."
I especially like the part where it says, "the administration would not respond to further inquires."
*Bob Marley, Bad Boys
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Making sausage
Je weniger die Leute darüber wissen, wie Würste und Gesetze gemacht werden, desto besser schlafen sie nachts.
The less the people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they sleep in the night.
~Attributed to Otto von Bismarck
Room 226 at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, is a hearing room where great speeches are made and our nation’s problems examined to the nth degree.
The dais is an elevated semi-circle with a façade of fine wood panels. There are 20 chairs for Senators, each with a microphone. Behind those 20 chairs are 30 more for aides and staffers.
At the focal point and at a lower elevation is the table for witnesses called by the Congress to give testimony on any number of issues. Some witnesses are there for a flogging about bird strikes or unsafe cribs. Others are called to bolster the opinion of one group or another. (Picture the purpose of “expert witnesses” called to “prove” a point in a court of law. You never call “experts” who disagree with you.)
Behind the witness table are a few rows of seats for observers, lawyers, media, and the bullpen for future witnesses.
Here are a few screenshots from room 226 on April 30, 2009. The topic is comprehensive immigration reform. I’ll try to explain them.
As the hearing begins, only three members of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration are present. The subcommittee is made up of TEN members. I wonder where the other SEVEN are? Kissing babies somewhere? Cutting ribbons at supermarkets? A fourth member will arrive later to give her speech.
Senator Charles Schumer conducts the hearing.
Senator Cornyn, ranking Republican, gives a speech.
Senator Feinstein shows up a little late and gives her speech.
Senator Kyl also speaks.
After 45 minutes, the Senators disappear to cast a vote on the floor. After a half-hour recess only TWO return.
Senator Cornyn leaves two hours into the hearing. (Well, that's actually only an hour and a half of hearing because they recessed to take that vote.) Schumer does the remaining hour and fifteen minutes all by himself.
You have to wonder how important immigration reform really is when you consider how sparsely attended this hearing really was.
Staffer TWO helps him out:
Staffers ONE and TWO double-team the Senator from New York to make sure the hearing is closed properly:
The less the people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they sleep in the night.
~Attributed to Otto von Bismarck
Room 226 at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, is a hearing room where great speeches are made and our nation’s problems examined to the nth degree.
The dais is an elevated semi-circle with a façade of fine wood panels. There are 20 chairs for Senators, each with a microphone. Behind those 20 chairs are 30 more for aides and staffers.
At the focal point and at a lower elevation is the table for witnesses called by the Congress to give testimony on any number of issues. Some witnesses are there for a flogging about bird strikes or unsafe cribs. Others are called to bolster the opinion of one group or another. (Picture the purpose of “expert witnesses” called to “prove” a point in a court of law. You never call “experts” who disagree with you.)
Behind the witness table are a few rows of seats for observers, lawyers, media, and the bullpen for future witnesses.
Here are a few screenshots from room 226 on April 30, 2009. The topic is comprehensive immigration reform. I’ll try to explain them.
As the hearing begins, only three members of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration are present. The subcommittee is made up of TEN members. I wonder where the other SEVEN are? Kissing babies somewhere? Cutting ribbons at supermarkets? A fourth member will arrive later to give her speech.
Senator Charles Schumer conducts the hearing.
Senator Cornyn, ranking Republican, gives a speech.
Senator Feinstein shows up a little late and gives her speech.
Senator Kyl also speaks.
After 45 minutes, the Senators disappear to cast a vote on the floor. After a half-hour recess only TWO return.
Senator Cornyn leaves two hours into the hearing. (Well, that's actually only an hour and a half of hearing because they recessed to take that vote.) Schumer does the remaining hour and fifteen minutes all by himself.
You have to wonder how important immigration reform really is when you consider how sparsely attended this hearing really was.Who really runs government? Well, in order to conclude this hearing it took the coaching of TWO staffers to end it properly. And Schumer has been in Washington since 1981.
Staffer ONE explains it to Schumer:
Staffer TWO helps him out: Staffers ONE and TWO double-team the Senator from New York to make sure the hearing is closed properly:The entire hearing was nonsense. No wonder even the members of the subcommittee show little interest. The only real expert in immigration law and the history of reform was Kris Kobach, and he was treated like dirt by Schumer.
At one point Schumer deliberately skipped over Kobach in a question he asked the other three members of that panel.
At another point he said Kobach was only interested in opposing amnesty and that was that.
Despite Schumer's frequent statements that the panel represented a variety of views on the subject, it was in fact a stage show of "expert witnesses" in favor of legalization.
I wonder if Schumer even listens to his own words. He began and ended the hearing with the opinion that Americans like legal immigration but do not like illegal immigration. Yet everyone who testified, with the exception of Kobach, was in favor of rewarding illegal activity with legalization. Not once did anyone discuss the incentive for future illegal entry created by amnesty/legalization.
Enjoy your sausage.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Feinstein's "fuzzy" farm figures
At the hearing on immigration reform last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein graced us all with her presence just long enough to make a speech about the dire need for immigration reform to relieve the poor farmers who need cheap labor.
She spoke of the anecdotal stories from farmers in California and elsewhere who either must switch to crops pickable by machine or go out of business altogether because they can’t find workers at any price who will do the “back-breaking work” of picking crops.
She should have stopped there. But she didn’t.
Instead she told the hearing that 1,560,000 acres worth of farmland was left fallow in 2007-2008. (Wow, I thought. That’s a lot of land.)
She should have stopped there as well. But she didn’t.
She went on to say that 84,155 of those lost acres went to Mexico.
If only she had stuck to the pity stories and NOT quoted all those figures.
We might have even pitied her tale that I-5 in California had to be closed because of dust storms, conjuring up Oklahoma in the depression days. But she had to quote acreage.
Now, let’s take a closer look at Feinstein’s figures. The 1.56 million acres represents under 1.7% of all farmland in the United States. Total farmland in the USA currently stands at 922,095,840 acres.
And 84,155 acres selling out to Mexico represents a measly 0.000091 % of all farmland in the United States.
And her entire premise rings hollow given her voting record on CAFTA and other South American trade agreements that undercut California’s ability to be profitable while growing crops for the domestic market.
Not to mention her scathing critique of guest worker programs and the impact of illegal aleins in 2004 as reported here: http://feinstein.senate.gov/04Releases/guestworker.html
Yet no one challenged her speech last Friday. No one even laughed.
She spoke of the anecdotal stories from farmers in California and elsewhere who either must switch to crops pickable by machine or go out of business altogether because they can’t find workers at any price who will do the “back-breaking work” of picking crops.
She should have stopped there. But she didn’t.
Instead she told the hearing that 1,560,000 acres worth of farmland was left fallow in 2007-2008. (Wow, I thought. That’s a lot of land.)
She should have stopped there as well. But she didn’t.
She went on to say that 84,155 of those lost acres went to Mexico.
If only she had stuck to the pity stories and NOT quoted all those figures.
We might have even pitied her tale that I-5 in California had to be closed because of dust storms, conjuring up Oklahoma in the depression days. But she had to quote acreage.
Now, let’s take a closer look at Feinstein’s figures. The 1.56 million acres represents under 1.7% of all farmland in the United States. Total farmland in the USA currently stands at 922,095,840 acres.
And 84,155 acres selling out to Mexico represents a measly 0.000091 % of all farmland in the United States.
And her entire premise rings hollow given her voting record on CAFTA and other South American trade agreements that undercut California’s ability to be profitable while growing crops for the domestic market.
Not to mention her scathing critique of guest worker programs and the impact of illegal aleins in 2004 as reported here: http://feinstein.senate.gov/04Releases/guestworker.html
Yet no one challenged her speech last Friday. No one even laughed.
More from the black robes
We live every day under the cloud of court rulings that require us to pay for the public education of illegal aliens and their children, to pay for biligual education, to print election information in foreign languages, and to give precious citizenship to children born to illegal aliens in the United States.
Well, here are two more Supreme Court rulings that may interest you.
The police are now limited in their power to search vehicles once an individual is arrested. Instead, if they want to search, they must do so with the perp in the car and without putting handcuffs on him. That doesn't sound very safe to me. (Arizona v. Gant)
You'll like this next one. You can't charge an illegal alien with identity theft unless you can prove that he knew the identity belonged to someone else. (You might need to read that a few times for it to sink in. Don't expect it to make sense.) So, much of the leverage prosecutors had with illegal aliens now goes down the drain. Viva los derechos (rights) of the illegal aliens. (Flores-Figueroa v. U.S., 08-108)
God Bless America. She needs it.
Well, here are two more Supreme Court rulings that may interest you.
The police are now limited in their power to search vehicles once an individual is arrested. Instead, if they want to search, they must do so with the perp in the car and without putting handcuffs on him. That doesn't sound very safe to me. (Arizona v. Gant)
You'll like this next one. You can't charge an illegal alien with identity theft unless you can prove that he knew the identity belonged to someone else. (You might need to read that a few times for it to sink in. Don't expect it to make sense.) So, much of the leverage prosecutors had with illegal aliens now goes down the drain. Viva los derechos (rights) of the illegal aliens. (Flores-Figueroa v. U.S., 08-108)
God Bless America. She needs it.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Working hard in Washington
We all know that our elected officials "work for the voters." They say it all the time.
Here's an example of a hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform on April 30, 2009.
The video of the event shows presenters giving testimony to an empty dais!
So, here's the roll call of our senators working hard for us on this important issue:
Democratic Members
Charles E. Schumer, New York (Chairman)
Gave remarks, conducted the meeting
Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont
Absent
Dianne Feinstein, California
Came late, gave remarks, then left
Richard J. Durbin, Illinois
Absent
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Absent
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Absent
Republican Members
John Cornyn, Texas (Ranking Member)
Gave remarks, attend about half the hearing
Charles E. Grassley, Iowa
Absent
Jon Kyl, Arizona
Gave remarks, then left
Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Absent
Never mind that the hearing was recessed twice so the Senators could go vote on the floor.
I know this hearing was mostly fluff by left-leaning "ringers" poised to tell Schumer what he wanted to hear, but don't you think the committee members ought to be there? Sure, they can read it all later (like reading the stimulus bill), but what about asking questions?
These people don't represent me. They should at least show up.
Here's an example of a hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform on April 30, 2009.
The video of the event shows presenters giving testimony to an empty dais!
So, here's the roll call of our senators working hard for us on this important issue:
Democratic Members
Charles E. Schumer, New York (Chairman)
Gave remarks, conducted the meeting
Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont
Absent
Dianne Feinstein, California
Came late, gave remarks, then left
Richard J. Durbin, Illinois
Absent
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Absent
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Absent
Republican Members
John Cornyn, Texas (Ranking Member)
Gave remarks, attend about half the hearing
Charles E. Grassley, Iowa
Absent
Jon Kyl, Arizona
Gave remarks, then left
Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Absent
Never mind that the hearing was recessed twice so the Senators could go vote on the floor.
I know this hearing was mostly fluff by left-leaning "ringers" poised to tell Schumer what he wanted to hear, but don't you think the committee members ought to be there? Sure, they can read it all later (like reading the stimulus bill), but what about asking questions?
These people don't represent me. They should at least show up.
Hey, gimme back my soapbox!
It appears that the progressives are a bit put out when freedom of speech is on the other foot.
Example #1- Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean, stepped forward to commend the National Association for Marriage and stands alongside them in support of marriage between a man and a woman. In return, the California pageant organization chimed in with this critique of Prejean: “In the entire history of Miss USA, no reigning title holder has so readily committed her face and voice to a more divisive or polarizing issue. We are deeply saddened Carrie Prejean has forgotten her platform of the Special Olympics, her commitment to all Californians, and solidified her legacy as one that goes beyond the right to voice her beliefs and instead reveals her opportunistic agenda.”
So is YOUR judge’s question about gay marriage an “opportunistic agenda”?And Mario (aka Perez Hilton), a rabid gay rights advocate, has a right to put out a vulgar video attack about Prejean personally? She’s just standing up for marriage between a man and a woman. This is an agenda?
Example #2- It was a rather clever protest I thought. People pushing baby carriages around the Notre Dame campus. The carriages contained dolls splattered with blood. The school kicked them off campus (not very open-minded of them) and told them never to come back. According to the news story “such orders remain in effect forever unless the university decides to rescind them.”
But Randall Terry returned to the school the next day and was arrested on the spot by campus police and put in jail. He paid his $250 and is out on bond.
Example #3- Also from Notre Dame, the Laetare Medal is given annually to an American of note worthy of Catholic accolades. Past recipients include JFK and Dave Brubeck. This year Mary Ann Glendon was to receive the award. Glendon is no slouch, having been our ambassador to the Vatican and a current Harvard law professor.
But Mary Ann Glendon sent word to Notre Dame that she would not attend the commencement and would not accept the award. Why? Because the college is having Obama speak and will give him an honorary degree.
Notre Dame is “disappointed.”
Example #4- A congressional hearing was held on April 30th on the subject of immigration reform. Senator Diane Feinstein said this about those who disagree with her view on legalization: “There is indeed a dark side in this country. And that dark side really prefers to distort the issue. That dark side really caters to the fear in people that if we repair a broken system, that if we develop a comprehensive immigration plan that is fair to people, that moves people out of the shadows, which uses them in their most constructive and productive way, that it is harmful to this nation.”
Senator Schumer talked about toning down the rhetoric about illegal aliens.
Perhaps they want an ignorant citizenry, willing to trust them with this issue despite the repeated dismal results from Washington. How many times do commissions have to tell them they need to control the border, control the visas, deport those who are here illegally, and provide some sort of employee verification?
One can scarcely say they are doing their best when the very enforcement tools we need (fence, detention beds, ICE, border agents…) are regularly decimated by funding cutbacks?
Is it a “dark side” to suggest that family unification programs grow exponentially within a single generation? Or that “stacked deck” testimony from “experts” is a blatant attempt to ignore the very realities that have doomed past reform efforts?
Feinstein’s remarks point up the fact that our efforts are having an impact and are worth continuing.
Conservative Americans are beginning to step up on the soapbox, and that troubles the left.
Example #1- Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean, stepped forward to commend the National Association for Marriage and stands alongside them in support of marriage between a man and a woman. In return, the California pageant organization chimed in with this critique of Prejean: “In the entire history of Miss USA, no reigning title holder has so readily committed her face and voice to a more divisive or polarizing issue. We are deeply saddened Carrie Prejean has forgotten her platform of the Special Olympics, her commitment to all Californians, and solidified her legacy as one that goes beyond the right to voice her beliefs and instead reveals her opportunistic agenda.”
So is YOUR judge’s question about gay marriage an “opportunistic agenda”?And Mario (aka Perez Hilton), a rabid gay rights advocate, has a right to put out a vulgar video attack about Prejean personally? She’s just standing up for marriage between a man and a woman. This is an agenda?
Example #2- It was a rather clever protest I thought. People pushing baby carriages around the Notre Dame campus. The carriages contained dolls splattered with blood. The school kicked them off campus (not very open-minded of them) and told them never to come back. According to the news story “such orders remain in effect forever unless the university decides to rescind them.”
But Randall Terry returned to the school the next day and was arrested on the spot by campus police and put in jail. He paid his $250 and is out on bond.
Example #3- Also from Notre Dame, the Laetare Medal is given annually to an American of note worthy of Catholic accolades. Past recipients include JFK and Dave Brubeck. This year Mary Ann Glendon was to receive the award. Glendon is no slouch, having been our ambassador to the Vatican and a current Harvard law professor.
But Mary Ann Glendon sent word to Notre Dame that she would not attend the commencement and would not accept the award. Why? Because the college is having Obama speak and will give him an honorary degree.
Notre Dame is “disappointed.”
Example #4- A congressional hearing was held on April 30th on the subject of immigration reform. Senator Diane Feinstein said this about those who disagree with her view on legalization: “There is indeed a dark side in this country. And that dark side really prefers to distort the issue. That dark side really caters to the fear in people that if we repair a broken system, that if we develop a comprehensive immigration plan that is fair to people, that moves people out of the shadows, which uses them in their most constructive and productive way, that it is harmful to this nation.”
Senator Schumer talked about toning down the rhetoric about illegal aliens.
Perhaps they want an ignorant citizenry, willing to trust them with this issue despite the repeated dismal results from Washington. How many times do commissions have to tell them they need to control the border, control the visas, deport those who are here illegally, and provide some sort of employee verification?
One can scarcely say they are doing their best when the very enforcement tools we need (fence, detention beds, ICE, border agents…) are regularly decimated by funding cutbacks?
Is it a “dark side” to suggest that family unification programs grow exponentially within a single generation? Or that “stacked deck” testimony from “experts” is a blatant attempt to ignore the very realities that have doomed past reform efforts?
Feinstein’s remarks point up the fact that our efforts are having an impact and are worth continuing.
Conservative Americans are beginning to step up on the soapbox, and that troubles the left.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Senate Hearings
This is how it starts. There is a webcast of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, held yesterday in Washington. It was put together by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and was quite a show.
Webcast here. Over three hours long!
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3793
Seven of the eight testimonies were pro-amnesty and selected to present illegals as indispensible to our society and victims of current law.
Kris Kobach was the only one who actually used the word "amnesty" and was ridiculed for it by Schumer.
Kobach's testimony focused on the irrational idea that the people at Citizenship (USCIS) could even handle the workload of processing amnesty requests. The 2007 bill (that fortunately failed) required that all 12 millions be processed within a year and each individual approved within 24 hours.
Kobach did some simple math to show that it would take a department of 10,000+ NEW federal workers to process them, and that 24 hours was not an adequate time frame for a background check.
In the Q & A, Schumer asked Doris Meisnner, Clinton's Immigration chief, about the background checks. Here's what she said: “The worst thing that could be done this time around, based on what we learned during IRCA is a program that is retrospective, in other words a program that asks to look at documents from the past for people to prove that they’ve been in the country. That would be a deal-breaker. This should be a program that is prospective, getting people to register and come forward, a requirement to come forward, and then prospectively earn the adjustment to permanent residence and to citizenship. That’s an entirely different scheme to try and implement, but it matters very much how the legislation is written.”
Excuse me, but that is a clear misunderstanding of the need here. We aren't back in 1986! We need background checks. We very much DO NEED TO KNOW WHERE THESE PEOPLE CAME FROM.
So that's the gist of the nonsense being fed to Congress. These will be the testimonies every congressman will be reading and quoting this year. This is the background from which they will judge.
(This is the reason congressional hearings are such a farce and contrary to the legislative process that was intended by the Constitution.)
Now, had this been a REAL investigation, 2/3 of the testimonies would have been from people with a strong desire for enforcement first. That would reflect the tone of the people.
Instead, we'll have to create our own tone with calls, letters, faxes, and e-mails to congress and the White House.
As it stands, they live in a fantasy of their own creation and listen only to those they agree with.
Webcast here. Over three hours long!
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3793
Seven of the eight testimonies were pro-amnesty and selected to present illegals as indispensible to our society and victims of current law.
Kris Kobach was the only one who actually used the word "amnesty" and was ridiculed for it by Schumer.
Kobach's testimony focused on the irrational idea that the people at Citizenship (USCIS) could even handle the workload of processing amnesty requests. The 2007 bill (that fortunately failed) required that all 12 millions be processed within a year and each individual approved within 24 hours.
Kobach did some simple math to show that it would take a department of 10,000+ NEW federal workers to process them, and that 24 hours was not an adequate time frame for a background check.
In the Q & A, Schumer asked Doris Meisnner, Clinton's Immigration chief, about the background checks. Here's what she said: “The worst thing that could be done this time around, based on what we learned during IRCA is a program that is retrospective, in other words a program that asks to look at documents from the past for people to prove that they’ve been in the country. That would be a deal-breaker. This should be a program that is prospective, getting people to register and come forward, a requirement to come forward, and then prospectively earn the adjustment to permanent residence and to citizenship. That’s an entirely different scheme to try and implement, but it matters very much how the legislation is written.”
Excuse me, but that is a clear misunderstanding of the need here. We aren't back in 1986! We need background checks. We very much DO NEED TO KNOW WHERE THESE PEOPLE CAME FROM.
So that's the gist of the nonsense being fed to Congress. These will be the testimonies every congressman will be reading and quoting this year. This is the background from which they will judge.
(This is the reason congressional hearings are such a farce and contrary to the legislative process that was intended by the Constitution.)
Now, had this been a REAL investigation, 2/3 of the testimonies would have been from people with a strong desire for enforcement first. That would reflect the tone of the people.
Instead, we'll have to create our own tone with calls, letters, faxes, and e-mails to congress and the White House.
As it stands, they live in a fantasy of their own creation and listen only to those they agree with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)