This'n'That; January 2nd[obama;NY Budget;Breastfeeding;Immigration]

Another "Thrown Under The Bus" Obama: Don't Seat Blagojevich Appointee Tuesday, December 30, 2008 6:00 PM WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama says he supports the decision by Senate Democrats to deny his vacated Senate seat to an appointee of embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. On Tuesday, Blagojevich appointed former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris. He would be the nation's only black senator. Democratic leaders in the Senate are rejecting the appointment, arguing that because of accusations that Blagojevich tried to sell the seat to the highest bidder, any appointment by him would be tainted. In a statement, Obama called Burris a fine man but said he agreed that the Senate cannot accept an appointment from Blagojevich. Obama repeated his call for Blagojevich to resign and allow the seat to be filled by other means. These guys, plus Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daly and obama himself, are all members in good standing of "Illinois Politics-As-Usual." The state's unwritten code is that ya gotta be crooked to be a politician there. There are times when obama aughta keep his trap shut!! He's great at obfuscating the truth [Resko; Ayres; questionable real estate deals] but why does he think he's gotta comment on everything.... or that his opinion really matters?!?! The Line's Gittin' Longer Paterson recently wrote to obama to beg a handout for the state. The decades-long mismanagement of New York's finances and the 137 new or "improved" taxes foisted upon NY's peasants have necessitated Paterson's suggestions on how obama can piss away even more of the taxpayers' money!! As part of the begging process, Paterson noted in the letter that as one source, New York State confiscates 20% of it's revenue from Wall Street. The state is facing $1.7Billion budget shortfall this year, $13.7Billion deficit for next year and $51Billion+ over the next three years. Important Info For New Moms In a recent issue of the "Demogogue and Comical," I found this article. It's a letter written to a syndicated columnist, a Dr Paul Donohue. Because I'm a dad rather than a mom, I found the information new, interesting and seems important. Here it is [verbatim]: Dear Dr. Donohue: In two months, I will be a first-time mother. I want to breastfeed my baby, but I really am at sea about understanding what I need to do. When does breastfeeding begin? How can I know whether the baby gets enough to eat? Do I breastfeed during the night? All information will be welcome. --L.T. Answer: Breastmilk is the most nutritious food a baby can get. Furthermore, breastfeeding promotes an emotional union of mother and child. Human milk conatins antibodies that aid an infant's immature immune system in warding off infections. Brestfed babies have fewer ear, respiratory and digestive-tract infections than do bottle-fed babies. It's been shown that breastfed babies are less likely to develop type2 diabetes, become obese or have eczema. Mothers who breastfeed have a lower incidence of breast and ovarian cancer. Breastfeeding can begin shortly after a baby is born. You can tell that a baby is getting enough to eat if it isn't losing weight by the end of the second week. Midddle-of-the-night feedings are usual in the first three to six weeks of a baby's life. Either the doctor who delivers you or the doctor who is going to be the infant's doctor can give you all the information you need on how to feed your baby sucessfully. You have anothr great source of information, the La Leche League, which provides women with knowledge on the proper techniques of breastfeeding and supplies answers to any questions you have. You live in a large metropolitan area that probably has a chapter of the league. You can reach its headquarters at [800]525-3243 or go to http://www.llli.org/. Finally, Some Important Crap-Immigration obama will likely make several tough decisions on immigration policy during his first few months in office, even if he postpones wide-ranging reform until later in his first term. obama will be under pressure from interest groups to review or drop several administrative policies aimed at curbing illegal immigration, which President Bush enacted after he failed in 2007 to persuade lawmakers to pass broad legislation that would have put millions of immigrants on a path to citizenship. Immigration was not one of the top policy objectives laid out by obama during the campaign. But labor, business and immigrant-rights groups sense an opportunity to push their agenda after Hispanic voters broke in large numbers for obama and helped him win four battleground states: Colorado, New Mexico, Florida and Nevada. The executive decisions obama will inherit are relatively tame compared to the political firestorm Bush set off when he called for the most sweeping changes to immigration law in two decades — which included legalizing the undocumented population. Opponents criticized those efforts as providing “amnesty” to millions of illegal immigrants. When the legislative effort fizzled, Bush settled for stepped-up Border Patrol efforts and workplace enforcement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, as well as supporting ways to check whether employers have workers who are in the country illegally. “The administration acted when Congress failed,” said Laura Keehner, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security. “We have been working with the transition team to ensure they’re aware of the important issues that will face them on day one. We have made no secret of how we think they should be dealt with going forward.” Several of those efforts are now subject to either congressional reauthorization or action by federal courts. Immigrant-rights advocates and their allies in the business community are ramping up their calls for significant changes or wholesale reversals. Advocates for immigrants are also looking to make hay out of the recession, arguing that the Bush administration’s executive policies have further hurt employers and workers. Workplace raids around the country in recent months have been only the most public of the Bush administration’s efforts. Immigrant-rights advocates have criticized the raids heavily and intend to pressure Obama to shift course early in his administration. Meanwhile, the advocates are pushing their cause in two legal cases that will likely be decided early in Obama’s administration. In the first case, pending in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Bush administration is defending an administrative rule that cracks down on employers with illegal immigrant workers. The rule would require employers to fire workers who cannot resolve discrepancies stemming from when their names do not match information in the Social Security Administration database. The legal battle over the “no match” letter rule has been waged since late 2007, but immigrant-rights lawyers expect a ruling in March or April. The immigrant-rights community says the rule would go into effect at a bad economic time. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a key plaintiff in the case and supporter of expanding immigrant rights, commissioned an economic study earlier this year that found the rule could cost employers at least $1 billion per year. The plaintiffs plan to make the economic argument central to their legal case early next year. Opponents of ending Bush’s executive orders believe the troubled economy makes the case for tighter illegal immigration policies. “It seems to me this is exactly the time to purge illegal workers, because Americans can’t get jobs,” said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes the expansion of immigration rights. “The Obama administration could come in and settle it,” said Randy Johnson, vice president of labor, immigration and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Reiff said she expected the immigrant-rights community to prevail in court. “But it would gives us a little more comfort if the Obama administration lifted the rule.” Immigrant-rights advocates are also tackling a related homeland security system called E-Verify. The program, which Obama has supported, allows companies to voluntarily check whether their workers can be employed. Keehner, the DHS spokeswoman, said there is “very little” reason for a company to avoid using the system, “unless you are for some reason in favor of hiring illegal immigrants.” The program is up for congressional reauthorization in March, but the more pressing matter is a planned expansion of the system next month. The Bush administration issued an executive order requiring that federal contractors or subcontractors use the system. That has raised the ire of immigrant-rights advocates. The Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in federal court just last week against the proposed expansion. Unless there is a court injunction, the expansion will take effect on Jan. 15, less than a week before Obama is inaugurated. Til Nex'Time...........