Friday, September 16, 2011

Apple Yanks 'Jew Or Not Jew' From French App Store. Have the French lost their minds? Mais oui!

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 16, 2011

Apple Jew Or Not Jew France
First Posted: 9/15/11 08:35 AM ET Updated: 9/15/11 11:00 AM ET
By The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO -- Apple Inc. has removed a mobile app, called "Jew or Not Jew?", from its online App Store in France.

The app let users consult a database of celebrities and public figures to determine if they are Jewish or not. Its removal follows a complaint from a French anti-racism group that threatened to sue the iPhone and iPad maker.

The app, "Juif ou pas Juif?" in French, was selling for 0.79 euro cents ($1.08) in France until it was cut on Wednesday. SOS Racisme had argued that the app violated France's strict laws banning the compiling of people's personal details without their consent.

Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr said the app did violate local law, so it was removed from the French App Store. It is still available outside France, however, and currently sells for $1.99 through Apple's U.S. App Store.

Under the French penal code, stocking personal details including race, sexuality, political leanings or religious affiliation is punishable by five-year prison sentences and fines of up to euro300,000 ($411,870).

Such laws were enacted in the decades following the Holocaust, which saw some 76,000 Jews deported from Nazi-occupied France to concentration camps. Fewer than 3,000 returned alive.

In a statement, SOS Racisme had called on Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple to remove the app from its online store and be more vigilant about the applications it sells.

In an interview, published Wednesday in Le Parisien newspaper, app developer Johann Levy said he developed the app to be "recreational."

"I'm not a spokesman for all Jews, but as a Jew myself I know that in our community we often ask whether a such-and-such celebrity is Jewish or not," Levy, a 35-year-old Franco-British engineer of Jewish origin, is quoted as saying.

"For me, there's nothing pejorative about saying that someone is Jewish or not," he said. "On the contrary, it's about being proud."

He said he compiled information about famous people around the world from various online sources.
Developers that offer apps through Apple's App Store are responsible for making sure their apps are in line with local laws.

Apple has removed numerous apps from the App Store since it launched in mid-2008 for violating myriad restrictions it imposes on developers. In June, it shunned an app called "ThirdIntifada" following complaints that it glorified violence against Israel. Apple said it violated developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.


NC ranked as 10th poorest state; McIntyre lives in Robeson, poorest county in NC. Where's the bacon?

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 16, 2011

Poverty scandal: NC 10th poorest state; Robeson poorest county in state. This is McIntyre country. 


First Posted: 9/15/11 02:24 PM ET   Updated: 9/15/11 02:47 PM ET

The national poverty rate last year was 15.1%. That is up from 11.3% in 2000 and is the highest it has been since 1993. Over 46 million people lived below the poverty line in 2010. The cut-off for that line is households of four people who made under $22,314. The other troubling news was that median income per household nationwide was an inflation-adjusted $49,445. This is about the same as in 1989 and down 2.3% from 2009. Economists fear that Americans are not consumers. It is easy to tell why when their real income has been frozen in place for more than two decades.
The problems of poverty and low income are as much local as national. The poverty rate is 21% in Mississippi. The state also has the lowest median income at $36,850. Mississippi is among the states with the worst education systems, highest obesity levels, highest unemployment, and lowest rates of health insurance coverage. The state is an economic black hole, and it shows in the way people suffer there. And, as is true with black holes, it is nearly impossible for the residents of Mississippi to escape their difficult financial situations. There is a dearth of federal programs that target specific states and cities based on local economic need.
24/7 Wall St. reviewed census data from all 50 states on median income, poverty rates, unemployment, and lack of health insurance. We then identified the ten states that have the lowest median income. We also looked at why low-income households are concentrated in these states and what, in some cases, has been done to reverse the difficult situations.

These are the poorest states in America, according to 24/7 Wall St.:

10. North Carolina in Top Ten -- in poverty! Are we proud or what?

Median income: $43,275
Poverty rate: 16.1% (tied for 9th highest)
Without health insurance: 16.7% (13th highest)
Unemployment: 10.1% (9th highest)

North Carolina has one of the lowest median incomes in the country. It does not perform much better on other metrics related to poverty. There have been a number of programs implemented to help combat poverty in the state recently. One example is the No Kid Hungry program which aims to end childhood hunger in North Carolina by 2015. According to information from the program, "more than 1 in 4 children in North Carolina do not get sufficient food."|maing6|dl1|sec1_lnk3|96106 

What are the 5 poorest counties in North Carolina?

The five poorest counties in North Carolina are (by poverty rate):
  1. Robeson (23.8%)
  2. Tyrrell (23.5%)
  3. Halifax (23.2%)
  4. Warren (21.8%)
  5. Edgecombe (21.5%)


And as your Seventh District NC Congressman, he has been working for you for about 14 years, give or take a few evictions, foreclosures, crop failures, and trips to the local soup kitchen. Do you hope the day will come soon when he's not working for you anymore?

        Mike McIntyre

              From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mike McIntyre
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from North Carolina's 7th district
Assumed office
January 3, 1997



      Read more at 24/7 Wall St.

      Thursday, September 15, 2011

      Conservative GOP congressional candidate Ilario Pantano addresses 9/11 Freedom Rally!

      Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 16, 2011
      Ilario addressed the 2nd Annual 9/11 Freedom Rally Sunday afternoon.  Unlike the official ceremonies this rally, welcomed all 9/11 first responders and the families of 9/11 victims and featured prayers from clergy members in attendance.  The rally focused both on remembering the events of 9/11 as well as remaining ever vigilant in the face of the threats from Islamic terrorists that still confront our nation and our friends around the world.

      A large crowd turned out for the event, despite the terrorist threats that were revealed late last week, for what proved to be a very moving and powerful event!

      To view Ilario's speech go to:

      Here are some pictures from the event:

      Pantano Calls On McIntyre to Support Congressman Scott's "Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act!"

      Call Congressman McIntyre and Tell Him to Vote for this Important Bill! 

      Our friend, Congressmen Tim Scott, a great Conservative from our neighboring district in South Carolina, has introduced the “Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act” (H.R. 2587). This bill would "prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance."

      As you are probably aware, the Obama appointees on the National Labor Relations Board are attempting to block Boeing from building a new plant in the Right to Work State of South Carolina.  This is a clear attempt by the NLRB to dictate to a private business how it may operate and where it may operate.  And it’s an obvious ploy by the Obama Administration to pay back the Big Labor leaders for their unwavering support of his campaign and the campaigns of his liberal supporters in Congress.  And the NLRB is acting in this manner, despite the fact that the NLRB’s decision could stop the creation of thousands of new jobs.
      How this shakes out is very important to the people of North Carolina and the future of our state’s economy.  Like South Carolina, North Carolina is a Right to Work state and next time it could be the NLRB trying to stop a business from expanding its operations into North Carolina and creating thousands of jobs here.  Ilario strongly supports Congressman Scott’s bill and his efforts to reign in the NLRB.

      See update on USA DOT COM

      Unfortunately, our current Congressman, Mike McIntyre, has remained silent on this issue, probably because of the hundreds of thousands of dollars he takes in campaign cash from Big Labor.  McIntyre’s vote may be needed to pass this bill, so we would like to urge you to call McIntyre at (202) 225-2731. Please call today!

      State House Speaker Thom Tillis in revealing candid interview with Star-News.

      House Speaker Thom Tillis holds a town hall meeting on Aug. 19, 2011, in New Bern. (AP Photo/The New Bern Sun Journal, Nick Mathews)

      Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 15, 2011

      By Patrick Gannon

      The Tillis Legislative Townhall Meeting rolled into Wilmington today to hold court with constituents in an open forum at Cape Fear Community College.

      In an advance interview, the StarNews asked House Speaker Thom Tillis questions about his future, the recent legislative session and a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, among other issues. Here are the questions and answers:


       StarNews: Why did you decide to do town halls across the state?

      Tillis: It's really to provide a more direct communication with the citizens and to really give them an opportunity to understand things. There's never enough print or airtime to talk about the mechanics of certain things, to really explain to them how the budget process worked … how the veto process worked … how we did have bipartisan cooperation on a lot of key measures.

      StarNews: Was this at all an attempt to counter criticism over recent salary increases to your staff?

      (Note: Tillis was criticized earlier this year for giving members of his staff raises as the General Assembly eliminated thousands of jobs in the state budget).

      Tillis: Interestingly enough, at probably only two of the events that question has come up. It was really a part of a suggestion from our communications folks to kind of get out there and continue to communicate after we get out of session. Historically, what happens is we go into session and then we go away. There is a nine-month lull, except for people back in their districts. This is just a better way to continue communicating.…

      StarNews: From A through F, how would you rate your job performance in your first long session as speaker?

      Tillis: If I'm rating our legislature's results – not me as an individual, but what we accomplished in the legislative session – I'd give it an "A." And the reason for that, it was short, the shortest since 1973. By all accounts, the most productive since they've been keeping legislative records in terms of the number of matters that we actually took up that were ultimately ratified and became law. And thirdly, because we had some pretty sweeping reforms that past legislators that arguably had more leadership experience failed to get done. And I'm talking about bipartisan measures like annexation reform, workers' compensation reform, regulatory reform, medical malpractice reform, general tort reform and redistricting.

      StarNews: If you are re-elected in 2012, would you want to be speaker again?

      Tillis: Yeah, I would. I would absolutely run for speaker. It will be my last term in the legislature, and I would run again. I was the co-sponsor of a bill to limit the terms of speaker for two consecutive terms. I've personally term-limited myself out anyway, so I will be leaving the legislature.

      StarNews: Do you think a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage could negatively impact economic development efforts or dissuade some businesses from opening here, as opponents of the measure have suggested?

      Tillis: Interestingly enough, at probably only two of the events that question has come up. It was really a part of a suggestion from our communications folks to kind of get out there and continue to communicate after we get out of session. Historically, what happens is we go into session and then we go away. There is a nine-month lull, except for people back in their districts. This is just a better way to continue communicating.…

      StarNews: From A through F, how would you rate your job performance in your first long session as speaker?

      Tillis: If I'm rating our legislature's results – not me as an individual, but what we accomplished in the legislative session – I'd give it an "A." And the reason for that, it was short, the shortest since 1973. By all accounts, the most productive since they've been keeping legislative records in terms of the number of matters that we actually took up that were ultimately ratified and became law. And thirdly, because we had some pretty sweeping reforms that past legislators that arguably had more leadership experience failed to get done. And I'm talking about bipartisan measures like annexation reform, workers' compensation reform, regulatory reform, medical malpractice reform, general tort reform and redistricting.

      StarNews: If you are re-elected in 2012, would you want to be speaker again?

      Tillis: Yeah, I would. I would absolutely run for speaker. It will be my last term in the legislature, and I would run again. I was the co-sponsor of a bill to limit the terms of speaker for two consecutive terms. I've personally term-limited myself out anyway, so I will be leaving the legislature.
      StarNews: Do you think a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage could negatively impact economic development efforts or dissuade some businesses from opening here, as opponents of the measure have suggested? 
      Tillis: I think one thing that seems to be lost on everybody is that this is already the law, and it was also a law that was supported by and voted on by (former) Speaker (Joe) Hackney, (D-Orange). …If he genuinely believes it's a jobs impact, why hasn't he proposed a bill that would repeal the current law? All this does is set a different threshold for repealing that law at some point, and it provides a bulkhead against activist judges that may try to repeal it and become the 121st legislator.

      StarNews: Do you believe there are enough votes in the House to put that amendment on a ballot next year?

      Tillis: There are a couple of permutations going around that have to do with the dates and the language. My own personal interest is to make sure the language is clear so that if there was any risk that the business community would view this negatively or preventing them from being able to have a competitive position, then my own instructions to the members who are working on the language is that we have to be very clear there. I would not want any interpretation that would cause this somehow to be construed as constraining businesses, so they're working on the language. There's discussions going on about the timing of the referendum, whether it happens in May or November. All of those things are being sorted out as we speak.

      StarNews: There has been some criticism lately on Republicans focusing on issues such as the marriage amendment while the unemployment rate is increasing. What is your response to that criticism?

      Tillis: I would say that the reason we did the constitutional session was precisely to avoid the risk of distraction while we were in the main session. And I think again the results speak for themselves. We've cut $1.5 billion in taxes, we cut the scope of government and we passed five of the most sweeping reform measures that directly relate to the economic conditions and job creation over any legislature that I've heard anyone report back in the past 20 years.

      StarNews: It looks like Southport area residents have already killed a proposed annexation and Monkey Junction residents near Wilmington are well on their way to doing the same. What do you say to the cities that stand to lose the opportunity to annex?

      Tillis: I think if 60 percent of the property owners have spoken and said there is no value being provided to us, that the towns have more work to do to convince them that there's a value to the annexation. That's fundamentally what the reform law was all about.… Some of this is a direct result of an inappropriate use of power in the past, not necessarily out of Wilmington or anywhere east. But of the 550 or so municipalities across this state, I've been presented with several examples of annexations that were just absolutely inappropriate. They were taking of property, submission of the tax bill and no meaningful value being provided back to that new annexed property. And that's what the annexation reform bill fixed.

      Patrick Gannon: (919) 854-6115
      On Twitter: @StarNewsPat

        House passes bill to pull NLRB's fangs in government case against Boeing -- symbolic win for S.C.


        Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 15, 2011

        Associated Press

        WASHINGTON — The House has passed a bill that would undermine the government's case accusing Boeing Co. of retaliating against union workers.

          The measure approved on a 238-186 vote would limit the National Labor Relations Board's enforcement power. It would prohibit the agency from ordering any employer to shut down plants or relocate work, even if a company violates labor laws.

        House Republicans say the board shouldn't have power to dictate where a private business can locate. The NLRB alleges that Boeing punished union workers in Washington state for past strikes by opening a new plant in right-to-work South Carolina. Boeing denies the allegations.

        Unions say the bill would gut worker protection laws. But the bill isn't expected to get a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which it must pass to become law.

        House Republicans are poised to express their anger over the government's politically contentious labor case against Boeing Co. by passing a measure that would curb the National Labor Relation's enforcement powers.
        The bill would prohibit the agency from ordering an employer to shut down plants or relocate jobs, even if a company illegally retaliates against unionized employees by moving work.

        Republican lawmakers say the board should not have the power to dictate where a private business can locate. Union leaders claim the bill would render toothless the board's ability to enforce labor laws when companies simply eliminate work to get rid of employees who are pro-union.

        The bill is likely to pass the GOP-controlled House easily on Thursday but isn't expected to get far in the Senate, where Democratic leaders have no plans to let it come to a vote. It will serve as an issue for congressional and presidential candidates in the 2012 elections.

        GOP lawmakers have vilified the NLRB for filing a complaint in April that alleges Boeing punished union workers in Washington state when it opened a new production line for its 787 airplane in South Carolina, a right-to-work state.

        South Carolina Republican Rep. Tim Scott, who sponsored the bill, says the board's action threatens 1,100 jobs in his hometown of Charleston.

        "My legislation will remove the NLRB's ability to kill jobs," Scott said. "The government, especially the unelected board, does not need to be involved in the business decision of the private sector."

        Republicans and their allies in the business community have gone after the NLRB for more than a year, as the agency has issued a spate of union-friendly decisions and rules. The Boeing case has become a major political issue and a rallying cry for GOP presidential candidates courting voters in South Carolina's early primary stakes.
        Democrats say the measure would give companies a free pass to punish employees for simply exercising their rights to organize.

        "The bill before us guts the very fundamental rights of American workers to fight for better wages and working conditions and it makes it easier for companies to outsource American jobs overseas," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

        Boeing has denied the allegations, saying it opened the Charleston, S.C., plant for valid economic reasons. The case is pending before an administrative law judge in Seattle and could last years.

        The complaint by the board's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, does not seek to shut down the Boeing plant. The company would be required to move the new 787 production line to Washington state. But Boeing officials say the South Carolina facility was built specifically for construction of the 787. The company says a ruling for the government would effectively require Boeing to close the $750 million plant and lay off more than a thousand new workers there.

        Solomon said the decision to file a complaint was not politically motivated, but based strictly on evidence that Boeing violated the law. He said Boeing executives made a number of public statements indicating the new plant was built in South Carolina out of frustration over costly strikes by the Machinists union in Washington state, including a 58-day work stoppage in 2008.

        "The decision had absolutely nothing to do with political considerations, and there were no consultations with the White House," Solomon said in a statement this week. "Regrettably, some have chosen to insert politics into what should be a straightforward legal procedure."

        Boeing officials claim the board took the statements out of context and say they can point to a number of legitimate reasons for locating the new production line in Charleston.

        President Barack Obama has not taken a formal position on the case, saying he is reluctant to interfere with an independent government agency. Obama has said companies need to have the freedom to relocate but must follow the law when doing so.

        Wednesday, September 14, 2011

        Obama's Jobs Act tour to NC more about politics than policy -- Congresswoman Renee Ellmers

         Verne Strickland Blogmaster / 

        'Time to Pass Real Jobs Legislation' by Congresswoman Renee Ellmers

        Today the President brought his American Jobs Act tour to North Carolina. Unfortunately the President’s long-awaited plan (and promotional tour) are more about politics than policy.  Not only is the President late with his jobs proposal, but he is pursuing an approach that will do nothing to create an environment for job creation.  The President’s plan is a repackaged version of the failed “stimulus” strategy that has resulted in sustained unemployment of over 9 percent.  To make matters worse, he wants to pay for this $447 billion spending bill with tax increases, many of which will likely result in higher energy costs to American consumers.

        The people of North Carolina understand that the government inserting itself into the free market is never going to be the answer to this jobs crisis.  Instead we need to remove excessive government regulation that is hampering job growth.

        According to a September 2010 report from the Small Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually—enough money for businesses to provide 17.5 million private sector jobs with an average salary of $100,000. House Republicans have worked since January to reduce the regulatory burdens that have kept businesses from hiring, but Harry Reid is standing in the way of prosperity and job creation in this country because he refuses to take up the jobs legislation the House has passed.

        New reports out this week brought more bad news on the jobs front, highlighting just how critical the situation is.  The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) optimism index showed confidence in the future of the economy down to 88.1 – the weakest number since July 2010 and the sixth month of decline in a row from 89.9 in July. The number of small-business owners saying they expected the economy will improve six months from now fell to the lowest level since 1980.
        A report released this week from the Census Bureau shows the national poverty rate hit 15.1 percent in 2010 – the highest level since 1993 – with 46.2 million Americans living in poverty. This is the largest number of people living in poverty since the census began tracking poverty figures in 1959.  With this many people in such dire circumstances, there is no time to waste on failed policies and political stunts.

        When the President spoke in Raleigh today he said it was time to “finally get Washington to act.”  He said Americans “need action now.” What he did not say is that House Republicans have been in action, working on the issue of jobs since taking office in January. 

        House Republicans have a plan for job creation that focuses on creating jobs in the private sector. House Republicans have passed at least a dozen jobs bills since January.  Eleven of those bills have been and still are waiting for Senate action.  (Track the progress of this legislation at

        The President said it is time to act now.  Actually it is past time to act.  But this is not the time to engage in class warfare pitting Americans against each other and it is definitely not the time to pass another round of so-called “stimulus” spending that has already failed so miserably.

        Follow this link to read more blog posts.

        President Obama's visit about N.C. jobs -- or his own? Now see here.

        Verne Strickland Blogmaster

        By: Justin Quesinberry 
        NBC 17

        Where does North Carolina stand on NLRB vs. Boeing? Perdue plays coy.

        Verne Strickland Blogmaster

        September 14, 2011

        By Matthew Boyle / The Daily Caller

        Governor Bev (left) takes innocent schoolgirl pose in this photo as she talks with somebody.

         North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue won’t answer whether she supports the National Labor Relations Board or The Boeing Company in the ongoing labor battle in neighboring South Carolina.

        “As for the NRLB and Boeing, I can only say this: Governor Perdue is, and will continue to be, 100% focused on creating jobs here in North Carolina,” North Carolina Democratic Party spokesman Walton Robinson said in an email to The Daily Caller.

        Because President Barack Obama is in the state on Wednesday selling his “jobs plan” to residents, the North Carolina GOP is asking, yet again, where specifically Perdue stands on the issue.  The question has come up repeatedly, North Carolina Republican Party spokesman  Rob Lockwood told TheDC, but Perdue has never given a specific answer: Boeing or the NLRB?

        Lockwood says that punting on the NLRB v. Boeing question isn’t attractive to prospective businesses, and isn’t likely to create any jobs as it adds to the uncertainty already in the economic environment.

        “President Obama’s NLRB is the one to blame, but Governor Perdue’s deafening silence screams to employers ‘I won’t fight for you if you wanted to come here,’” Lockwood said in an email. “It is almost as if she has a deal with the White House to not comment on this issue.”

        The NLRB is suing Boeing as a result of claims from the International Association of Machinists that the airline giant violated labor law by opening a new plant in South Carolina. Boeing contends that building there instead of Washington State was not retaliation against the IAM. Boeing has added new jobs in Washington state and no workers there have lost work. (RELATED: Obama works to keep North Carolina blue)
        Lockwood compares Perdue with South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who’s been overtly vocal and outspoken against the NLRB for its pursuit of Boeing. She even went as far as calling the NLRB “Un-American” about two weeks ago.

        But, since Perdue hasn’t commented, Lockwood points out that companies may choose South Carolina over North Carolina when relocating or opening new facilities or businesses. “Governor Perdue’s deafening silence on the NLRB v. Boeing case has severely hurt employment in North Carolina,” Lockwood said. “We share the same geography and right-to-work laws as South Carolina, but our Governor refuses to fight for jobs like Nikki Haley.”
        Obama presented his “jobs plan” in several different places throughout North Carolina on Wednesday, including at WestStar Precision’s headquarters in Apex. WestStar is a high-end, specialty manufacturer that just opened a new facility in San Jose, Costa Rica — creating many new jobs there, but not in the United States.

        The company’s owner, Obama donor Ervin Portman, is quoted in local news reports from 2004 as saying the reason he moved jobs to Costa Rica is to “take advantage of low labor costs.”
        Follow Matthew on Twitter

        1 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 5

        Tuesday, September 13, 2011

        Obama to speak at North Carolina company shipping jobs to Costa Rica. (Surprised?)

        Verne Strickland Blogmaster
        September 13, 2011

        President Barack Obama will present his “jobs plan” on Wednesday at a company which is shipping jobs overseas.

        Obama is scheduled to present his “jobs plan” in Apex, N.C., on Wednesday at the headquarters of WestStar Precision.

        WestStar is a high-end, specialty manufacturer that just opened a new facility in San Jose, Costa Rica — creating many new jobs there, but not in the United States.

        “Our main office and manufacturing facility near Research Triangle Park in the Raleigh/Durham area has approximately 11,000 sq. ft. of office space, production area and warehouse,” the company says on its website.

        “This facility has more than doubled in size from
        inception. Equipment includes precision CNC Machining centers, water jet cutter and CAD-CAM design stations.”

        On the same page, WestStar Precision describes its new location, which is almost as big, in Costa Rica: “Our new office and manufacturing facility in San Jose, Costa Rica, also has approximately 10,000 sq. ft. with similar equipment as the main office. This facility is designed for high volume production to support our international and domestic clients.”

        Republicans can hardly believe the company the president chose to speak at is shipping jobs overseas. (RELATED: Obama works to keep North Carolina blue)

        “Well the president is coming here to apparently tout how to create jobs in America, and the location he’s chosen has just apparently opened up a new manufacturing plant in Costa Rica,” North Carolina GOP spokesman Rob Lockwood told The Daily Caller. “So we are curious how a plant in Costa Rica creates American jobs.”

        The owner of the company, Ervin Portman, is a local Democrat on the Wake County, N.C. Board of Commissioners. He donated $1,000 to Obama’s 2008 campaign. Portman and his wife together donated several thousand more to other Democratic candidates and the state Democratic party. (RELATED: Obama aides give different forecasts for WH flexibility with jobs plan)

        Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse did not respond to TheDC’s request for comment.

        UPDATE 6:59 p.m.:
        According to an April 2004 article in the Raleigh News & Observer, Portman moved the jobs overseas to “take advantage of low labor costs.”

        This isn’t the first time Obama has chosen to speak at a North Carolina company outsourcing jobs overseas. In mid-June, Obama spoke at Cree LED Light Company to discuss his job creation and economic policies. Cree has been shipping jobs to China.

        Follow Matthew on Twitter

        Watch:  Tags: , ,
        1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)


        TODAY: Watch U.S. Senator Marco Rubio as part of the Jesse Helms Lecture Series
        As part of the Jesse Helms Lecture Series, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R, Fla.) will deliver a speech entitled “The Role of America in the World” today, September 13, at 5 p.m. at Wingate University’s George A. Batte Fine Arts Center.  This will be Rubio’s first speech in North Carolina and his first major speech on foreign policy since taking office in January 2011.  Though tickets for this event are sold out, it will stream live at 5 pm.  To watch the live streaming broadcast of Senator Rubio’s lecture, please visit
        Rubio was elected to the Senate in November 2010.  He currently serves on the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.  During his first eight months in office, Rubio has been a forceful advocate for a U.S. foreign policy that is on the side of citizens around the world stepping up to demand their rights and freedoms in places like Egypt, Libya, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, among other nations. He has also focused his early legislative work on promoting solutions to create jobs and fundamentally address the national debt.  From 2000-2008, Rubio served in the Florida House of Representatives.  During this period, he served as Majority Whip, Majority Leader and Speaker of the House, effectively promoting an agenda of lower taxes, more accountable schools, a leaner and more efficient government, and free market empowerment.  Rubio and his wife, Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio, have been married since 1998. They are the parents of four children: Amanda, Daniella, Anthony and Dominick. They currently live in the working class city of West Miami, just four blocks from the home his parents moved the family to in 1985.
        For over 20 years, the Jesse Helms Lecture Series has welcomed national and international figures to Wingate.  Previous speakers include Lady Margaret Thatcher, former Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, among others.  The Jesse Helms Center is a non-profit organization established to promote traditional American values and the principles upon which our nation was founded and that Senator Jesse Helms advanced throughout his 30-year career.

        Monday, September 12, 2011


        Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 13, 2011

          Allan Wall - / September 7, 2011

        "We have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country. I campaigned for the toughest immigration laws, and I'm proud of the Legislature for working tirelessly to create the strongest immigration bill in the country."

        That’s what Alabama Governor Robert Bentley said on June 9th, 2011, upon the signing of the Yellowhammer State’s new immigration law, HR 56. The law is considered the nation’s strictest anti-illegal immigration measure.

        The law was scheduled to take effect September 1st, but guess what? It’s been blocked in court by U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Blackburn. Hopefully it will be upheld.

        In the meantime, how about a look at the law to see what the hoopla is all about.

        It’s worth pointing out that HR 56 was passed by a Republican-controlled legislature. (It’s the first time Republicans have controlled both House and Senate in 136 years). And it was signed by a Republican governor.

        See what Republicans can do at the state level when they have the will to do it?

        So what’s in Alabama’s new law ?

        1. If anyone gets stopped by law enforcement , can’t produce documentation, and is suspected of being illegal, the police can detain him. In fact, the police are required to detain him.
        2. Anybody who knowingly transports, harbors or rents property to an illegal alien is guilty of a crime
        3. Businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens are penalized.
        4. Businesses are required to use E-Verify for the hiring of new employees.
        5. Public schools are required to determine citizenship status of all students.
        6. It’s a felony for an illegal alien to register to vote.
        7. Illegal aliens can’t attend college.
        8. And any contract with an illegal alien is itself illegal!

        Unsurprisingly, the law has attracted a lot of hysteria.

        "This law is an outrageous throw-back to the pre-Civil Rights era,” said Cecilia Wang of the ACLU.

        Did you ever notice how they always bring up that “pre-Civil Rights era” when they want to deflect attention from what is going on in our nation today?

        The public school part, even though it doesn’t require any students to get expelled, is a target of criticism.

        And there are predictable complaints that the law could cause a “labor shortage” in agriculture and construction. How predictable.

        Gene Armstrong, mayor of the community of Allgood puts that in perspective:

        "We managed in the past without illegal immigrants to pick the tomatoes here, and I haven't heard anyone say that if we sent them all home nobody would be left to do that work. When you have 9 percent unemployment, I think that some people who might not have wanted those jobs previously might reconsider."

        HR 56 has not yet officially taken effect, but there is evidence that it is already scaring illegals away from Alabama. At least that’s what Reuters said in a sob story article entitled Tough Alabama Immigration Law Convinces Some to Move (Monique Fields, Reuters, July 14th, 2011).

        The article starts out with an anecdote about an illegal alien couple (from Argentina) who have already left:

        “Nicolas Hernandez said goodbye to his parents just days after Alabama lawmakers passed what is being described as the country's toughest crackdown on illegal immigration. His mother and father, undocumented workers at a farm near Birmingham, decided not to chance getting ensnared by the new law and returned to their home country of Argentina.”

        The Hernandez family, interestingly, had entered legally years ago on a 3-year medical visa for Nicolas. When that visa expired they just stayed in the country illegally. Now, the parents are going back to Argentina but Nicolas is staying.

        After relating the Hernandez family story, Monique Fields waxes poetic about the effect of HR 56:

        “How many others have decided to leave Alabama for other states or to return to their home countries before the new law takes effect on September 1 is unclear. But legal and illegal immigrants have flocked to the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama requesting legal help, including parents who might need to return to their native countries and leave a child behind in the United States.”

        They might “need” to “leave a child behind”? Why don’t they take their children with them?

        Then there are the personal interests:

        “Social worker and Spanish translator Jennifer Owen said her livelihood is in jeopardy, and she will be among those who leave the state if the law stands.”

        The drafters of the new law, however, are standing firm.

        "‘For illegal immigrants to now be leaving the state shows they know Alabama is serious about enforcing its laws,’ said Todd Stacy, a spokesman for Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard.”

        They had better stand firm, because the new law was besieged by lawsuits.

        Quoth Micky Hammon, Alabama House Majority leader:

        "These far-left, liberal groups have filed (for) an injunction because those who live here illegally and break our laws with their simple presence are packing up and leaving Alabama. That was the intent of the bill in the first place, to protect our borders and our jobs."

        These courageous leaders in Alabama are fighting for our country, for all of us. They are real patriots.

        On August 1st, the Obama Administration, predictably, sued the state of Alabama to stop the new law from taking effect.

        The Mexican government is happy about the Obama lawsuit. In fact, on the same day (they watch these matters closely) the SRE (Mexican foreign ministry) released a statement applauding the Obama administration:

        “The Government of Mexico…welcomes the decision of the United States Federal Government to take legal action in order to prevent the entry into force of Alabama’s HB 56. The law criminalizes immigration and could lead to the selective application of the law by local authorities.”

        “Selective application”? What the Mexican government opposes is the application, period, of U.S. immigration law.

        “The Government of Mexico acknowledges the sovereign right of all countries to enact laws and implement public policies in their own territory.”

        So what’s the problem?

        “At the same time, it reiterates its unwavering commitment to protect, by all available means, the rights and dignity of Mexicans abroad, especially in the case of laws that could lead to the violation of the civil and human rights of our nationals.”

        Uh, if these people are illegal aliens, they have no right to be here.

        Anyway, the lawsuits began to pile on, and so Mexico got into the act by filing a Friend of the Court brief. Not only that, but Mexico invited 15 other Latin American nations to join it! The other nations are Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina and Brazil. Some of those countries send a lot of illegal aliens to the U.S., and some don’t, but I guess it’s just the principle of the thing,

        Latin American solidarity or something.

        The lawyer representing these 16 nations is Birmingham attorney Edward Still, who says these 16 countries “want to have one immigration law and not 50.”

        In the first place, our immigration law is none of their business. In the second place, we do have one immigration law, it’s just that our own government doesn’t want to enforce it!

        Here’s what the Mexican foreign ministry had to say about the brief:

        “ The Ministry of Foreign Affairs informs that the Government of Mexico filed today a Friend of the Court Brief (Amicus Curiae) before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, in the lawsuit filed by several national and local civil society organizations to challenge the constitutionality of House Bill 56 (Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act)….”

        “…Some of its provisions would criminalize immigration and could lead to the selective application of the law.[Any law could be selectively enforced. The solution here, of course, is to detain all the illegal aliens in Alabama. Would the Mexican government like that?] Its enforcement could adversely affect the civil rights of Mexican nationals living in Alabama or visiting that state. [If they’re legal what’s the problem?] HB 56 also contains provisions that require elementary and secondary schools to determine the immigration status of children and their parents upon enrollment as criteria to refer them to certain school programs, which could lead to potential cases of discrimination based on national origin and ethnicity, that could affect Mexicans and U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.”

        Notice that last part about “U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.” After all, Mexico claims jurisdiction over them also.

        The statement contains this threat, which you can count on to carry out:

        “The Government of Mexico will continue to make use of all available means and channels in order to firmly and immediately respond to any violation of the fundamental rights of Mexicans, regardless of their immigration status.”

        The Montgomery Advertiser reported on August 8th that “About three dozen plaintiffs, including Long, sued to block the law, saying it violates the federal government's supremacy over immigration law and will lead to racial profiling, among other criticisms. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Immigration Law Center are representing the plaintiffs in the suit.”

        Our country is under invasion, and our government is aiding the invaders. But the valiant efforts of patriots in states such as Alabama and Arizona give us hope. They fight for us all.

        What about the politicians in your state? Could you convince them to enact similar legislation? Just imagine if, every couple of months, another state passed similar legislation. Imagine the momentum,the publicity, the education of the public. Right now, the states are where you find the real action defending our country.

        And one more thing. What about all these Republican presidential wannabees wandering about our nation? What do they think about the Alabama law? Would any candidate go on record as supporting it? Is there at least one candidate who would go to Alabama and openly support that state? Would any candidate call on Judge Blackburn to uphold the HR 56 law?

        Maybe not.

        © 2011 Allan Wall - All Rights Reserved

        9/12 Footnote: Equal Opportunity? How about equal sweat? Where are the black arms?

        Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 12, 2011

        To see the full story, go here:

        But to see the true irony of the situation, and the point I wish to make, this picture is worth 1,000 words:


        Equal Opportunity? How about equal sweat? Where are the black arms? A 9/12 Footnote.

        Sunday, September 11, 2011

        Cheney predicts Israel will attack a 'Nuclear' Iran -- Poof? Also his comments on Obama, Pelosi.

        Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 11, 2011

         By Ronald Kessler
        Former Vice President Dick Cheney sat down with Newsmax Chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler for this powerful interview where the two discussed terrorism's threat to America, Israel, the Obama administration's policies and Cheney's new memoir.

        Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if necessary to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon, former Vice President Dick Cheney tells Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview.

        “I think they would,” Cheney said when asked about the possibility. “I think Iran represents an existential threat, and they'll do whatever they have to do to guarantee their survival and their security.”

        When asked if his opinion was based on discussions with Israeli leaders, Cheney responded, “I can’t attribute it to any one particular Israeli leader. I wouldn’t want to do that.” But he said, “I’ve had a number of conversations with a lot of Israeli officials, and I think they correctly perceive Iran as a basic threat.”

        The book "In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir," will hit the New York Times non-fiction hardcover bestseller list next Sunday in the No. 1 position.

        Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has accused Cheney of taking “cheap shots” by saying in his book that he learned that Powell was opposed to the war in Iraq yet “never once in any meeting did I hear him voice objection.”

        In asking about that, I told him that for my book “A Matter of Character: Inside the White House of George W. Bush,” the White House arranged for me to interview Cabinet officers and their staffs. When I interviewed Powell and his immediate staff, “I couldn’t believe what they told me,” I said to Cheney. “It was like walking into DNC Headquarters, literally.”

        Asked if he was aware of how aggressively Powell’s staff sought to undermine the Bush administration and whether he told Bush about it, Cheney said he was aware of the policy differences but needs to maintain the confidentiality of many of his discussions with Bush.

        “I had good reason why I wrote what I did,” Cheney said.

        Given that the press portrayed the administration’s program to intercept terrorist communications as “spying on innocent Americans,” I asked Cheney if the administration could have explained in a general way why the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program was necessary to thwart attacks by al-Qaida.

        Cheney said Bush did eventually give a few speeches mentioning results from the program, but he said, “We still had the basic fundamental problems [of] running what are inherently secret or classified programs, and you don’t want to tell the enemy how it is that you are reading their mail.”

        Cheney said he convened a meeting of the top nine members of Congress and asked them if the administration should continue the surveillance program. “They said absolutely, yes,” Cheney said. “They were unanimous. Nancy Pelosi was there, Jay Rockefeller was there.”

        Following up with them, Cheney said he asked if the White House should ask Congress for more legislative authority to conduct the program.

        “They were unanimous that we should not on the grounds that if we did that, we would reveal to our enemy what it was that we were doing and how we were doing it,” Cheney said.

        On another contentious issue, as speaker of the House, Pelosi later claimed she had not been informed of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program, adding that the CIA routinely lies to Congress. She then conceded she had been told about the program but claimed she was powerless to stop it.

        Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. subsequently launched an investigation of CIA officers who had carried out enhanced interrogation, even though career Justice Department officials had decided they had not violated any criminal laws. Holder admitted he had not read the memos of career officials explaining why they declined prosecution.

        Asked about the effect on the CIA, Cheney said, “I think it was potentially devastating.”

        In addition, Cheney said, the Obama administration “threatened to go after the attorneys in the Justice Department who had given us the legal opinions that we were operating under. It was a terrible thing to do.”

        Two days after Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden, then CIA Director Leon Panetta confirmed to NBC’s Brian Williams that the CIA obtained some of the intelligence that pinpointed bin Laden’s hiding place from enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding.

        While the Obama administration has been aggressively killing terrorists with drone aircraft, it has basically shut down the program to interrogate foreign terrorist detainees. After shutting it down, “They said that they were going to set up a new one, but I haven’t seen any evidence yet that they have ever done that,” Cheney said.

        Cheney said he was not aware of the fact that after his capture, Saddam Hussein admitted to FBI agent George Piro that while he was bluffing about having weapons of mass destruction, he planned to resume his WMD program in about a year, including developing a nuclear weapon. As first disclosed in my book “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack,” Piro spent 7 months debriefing Saddam. Few news outlets ran a story about Saddam’s admission.

        Asked about Obama’s speech on job creation, Cheney said, “We've got a huge problem in terms of the need to get the economy back on the road to recovery. With a zero job creation from the last month, we’re in big trouble. I’m not at all certain that he has figured out what the problem is.”

        As I interviewed Cheney, demonstrators outside his office carried signs calling him a war criminal and a torturer. I asked the former vice president about that and about very liberal Democrats as well as some very conservative Republicans who oppose measures like the Patriot Act that provide the FBI with tools for uncovering terrorist plots.

        “I’m not surprised that there are people who disagree with what we did. That’s the nature of the business,” Cheney said. But he worries about some who say the administration overreacted to the 9/11 attack. The danger is that people become less tolerant of policies that have kept the country safe since 9/11.

        “Something like the 10th anniversary is a reminder for everybody of what 9/11 cost us and how painful it was for us as a nation to go through that, but it also is a reminder that the threat is still there and that we still got people who want to do us harm.”

        To ignore that and to say waging a war on terror is “kind of a nasty business” or “it’s too tough” is to risk another devastating attack, Cheney said.

        “I still worry more than anything else really about the possibility of a group of terrorists acquiring really deadly capabilities,” Cheney said. “When we got hit on 9/11 there were 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters. The next time around I worry they may have a nuclear device or biological agent of some kind and would be in a position to inflict far greater damage and loss of lives than anything we experienced on 9/11. I think that’s still a very real threat.”

        Get Dick Cheney's New Book with Free Offer, Click Here Now.

        Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of He is a New York Times best-selling author of books on the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA. His latest, "The Secrets of the FBI," has just been published.