April 30, 2010 - CHICAGO - Chicago News Bench has learned from an inside source that at least some of the U.S. Census Bureau's Chicago offices do not have enough packets for their Census takers, and some Census takers have been ordered by supervisors to "work slow" and to not contact "more than one" household per hour.

UPDATE, May 25, 2010 - Although the packets were finally distributed on or around May 5, some Chicago Census takers ("enumerators") are still under orders from supervisors to "work slow." This is your tax dollars at work. The Bureau of the Census now KNOWS this: At 9:55 a.m. (CDT) today, someone at the Bureau Of The Census (IP 148.129.71.54) in Gastonia, North Carolina read our related post.

UPDATE, May 2, 2010 - Some U.S. Census takers in Chicago are being denied work because the field packets and paperwork they need have not been properly distributed by the Chicago Regional Census Center, located in the Citigroup Center at 500 West Madison. Census takers in Chicago start at $18.25 per hour. They are paid for up to four days of training, but are then paid only for the hours that they are out knocking on doors of addresses known to have not responded yet to the Census. Some of the small field centers in various neighborhoods have still not received enough packets for all of the Census takers recently hired and trained, which means that some of them will not be able to knock and doors and, therefore, not paid.

On May 1, U.S. Census takers hit the streets to knock on doors in a widely publicized push to get more information about American households in the Bureau's "2010 Census Complete Count Door-to-Door Follow-Up Operations." In Chicago, they will be paid $18.25 or more per hour or more to "work slow."

There are three ways that you can a U.S. Census Bureau worker:1) They will have a shoulder bag with the “U.S. Census Worker” logo;
2) They will have a Census Bureau ID badge;
3) They will be walking very slowly or napping in a coffee shop.

For your safety: Census Takers will never ask to come inside a person’s home. If you are suspicious of any Census taker, you should call their Regional Census Center. Find a list of those centers here. Also see: Identifying a 2010 Census Taker (Enumerator) and How to Identify a Census Field Representative

RELATED:Map of U.S. Census Taker Pay Rates
Chicago Lags Behind National Census Participation Goal‎ Chicago Public Radio
Officials: Beware of possible census scams‎ ABC7Chicago.com

Chicago Regional Census Center (2010 Census)Citigroup Center
500 West Madison, Room 1600
Chicago, IL 60661
(312) 454-2700 or 1-866-861-2010
FAX: (312) 454-2789

Chicago Regional Office1111 W. 22nd Street, Suite 400
Oak Brook, IL 60523-1918
(630) 288-9200 or 1-800-865-6384
FAX: (630) 288-9288
TDD: (708) 562-1791
E-mail: Chicago.Regional.Office@census.gov

Suppose you were a foreigner in Mexico, whether as a tourist or an immigrant. How would you be treated by Mexico? Not very well, amigo. In fact, you'd find yourself wishing you were an illegal immigrant from Mexico, suffering in the U.S. with welfare, court advocates, free ER visits, and more.

J. Michael Waller, Ph.D. wrote an brief but eye-opening article called "Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here At Home." It's timely reading in 2010, even if he wrote it four years ago.

Waller also wrote a four-page document (pdf) called "Mexico's Glass House: How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens." It's packed with facts that will surprise you and make you wonder how Mexican officials can be so incredibly hypocritical when they criticize the immigration policies of the United States.

The Mexican Constitution begins with this pretty phrase in Chapter 1, Article 1: "Every person in the United Mexican States shall enjoy the guarantees granted by this Constitution, which cannot be restricted or suspended except in such cases and under such conditions as are herein provided." Ah, but there's the catch. One of the "cases" and "conditions" includes foreigners and being a non-Mexican.

Chapter 2, Article 32 says that "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable."

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

• Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
• Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
• Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
• Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
• Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

You can read an authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, on the Website of Illinois State University. Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation. Or you can go directly to the PDF of the Mexican constitution at the OAS website.

Oh, and by the way: As soon as the Federal Government of Mexico declares that all people with any European ancestry will leave Mexico and go back to Europe, I'll agree to giving Arizona, California and other territory won in 1848 back. Until then, Mexico, shut the hell up.

Illegal immigrants from Canada: Don't be fooled.

April 29, 2010 - CHICAGO - VIDEO: About 100 protesters in Chicago gathered at Wrigley Field to demand a total boycott of all Arizona businesses, products and services. The group called for a boycott as way of protesting Arizona's recently passed immigration law, which they call "racist." The event at Wrigley was not very large and was peaceful. The protesters, standing at the corner of N. Clark and W. Addison, caused virtually no inconvenience to the baseball fans who were on their way to watch the Chicago Cubs lose to the Arizona Diamondbacks 13-5.  Also See: Arizona Immigration Boycott Zeroes in on Baseball‎ (CBS News)

I laughed my teabag off watching this video:

On April 27, 2010, U.S. Senator Johnn Barrasso (R-Wyoming) ripped apart the recently passed health care bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate. He did not shy away from rubbing Democrat noses in the stinking heap of lies and failures.

xx

"A month after the health care bill was signed into law, Americans continue to learn the impacts of this bad legislation. On April 22, 2010, the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released a report that confirms that the law will increase health care costs, raise federal spending, threaten access to care for our seniors and result in higher premiums for Americans." ~ U.S. Sen. John Barrasso web site

"The government's own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has reported that health care costs will rise under President Barack Obama's health care bill. The unpopular law passed just a month ago through one of the most twisted and corrupt legislative processes the American people have ever seen. And now the government is admitting it will fail in one of its primary objectives: to reduce health care costs for the American people. The president and the Democrats are spending $1 trillion that we do not have and our costs will still go up."

“[This bill] stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.”

“Stipulates that the immigration status may be determined by:
- A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
- ICE or CBP pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c).”

Judaophobe Chris Matthews must have a great collection of books about conspiracy theories. No doubt, he subscribes to the stereotype of Jewish people owning anything worth owning in the world.

"Everywhere, there are Jews," writes Stuart Schwartz in ""Chris Matthews and the Jews" at American Thinker, "They have penetrated the highest ranks of government, control vast swaths of the economy, and bend nations to their demonic will. But not to worry: Chris Matthews is on the case."

Matthews  seems to think that Jews are omnipresent and omnipotent. If only that were true, my own paternal Jewish heritage would have bestowed me with x-ray vision and, perhaps, the ability to fly. Fortunately, my maternal Welsh Protestant heritage gave me a natural immunity to kyrptonite. Of course, Matthews would see Jews even in the Superman comics. After all, Superman's father Jor-El had a suspiciously Jewish sounding name. For that matter, Superman's own birthname, Kal-El, sounds rather Hebrew. The creators of Superman, Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster, were Jewish but the name Kal-El actually means nothing. While many people with nothing better to do have long wondered about Superman's "inner Jew," people like Chris Matthews go to bed at night worried about the secret Jewish influence in nearly everything around them.

Schwartz pounds away at Matthews, mocking the MSNBC screamer's anti-Jewish rants:

This unbalanced report from AP writer Elaine Ganley appeared today with the headline "Muslim says mistresses are the French way of life." Let's look at an excerpt (emphasis added):

PARIS – A Muslim Frenchman at the center of a firestorm over polygamy said Monday that keeping mistresses is the French way of life. The man's case came to light after his wife was fined for driving with a veil covering her face, and his comments are an ironic riposte to those in French President Nicolas Sarkozy's government who want to push immigrants to better integrate into French society....

Subsequently, wrote Ganley, "it soon emerged that her husband may have four wives."

Hold on. The main thrust of Ganley's AP report, actually, is the "controversial legislation forbidding burqa-style Islamic veils that cover the face, on the grounds that they don't respect French values or women's dignity." So, why a headline that stresses the French tradition of mistresses? The issue here revolves around (a) the veil and its implications for security and the dignity of women, and (b) the possibility that the woman's husband, Algerian-born Lies Hebbadj, is a polygamist.
 
France's Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux, reports Ganley, "wants to revoke the French citizenship of the driver's husband if he is found to be practicing polygamy."
 
So, again, why the headline about French mistresses? I would guess that it's a nice way for a Western Civilization apologist to throw a jab at the French for daring to challenge the customs of the interlopers in their midst. What Ganley does in her report is, in effect, to distract from the real issue of the veil (include burkas with that), and polygamist practices by Muslims. Ganley waits until her last paragraph to note that "There are no official numbers on the number of polygamous families in France, most of which are from sub-Saharan Africa, but they are estimated in the tens of thousands."

Although Ganley gives prominent attention to Mr. Hebbadj's ridicule of the customs of the nation he has chosen to live in: "If we are stripped of nationality, for having mistresses," Lies Hebbadj told reporters in Nantes, then "there would be a lot of French people stripped of nationality. As far as I know, mistresses are not forbidden, neither in France, nor in Islam." 

Is Hebbadj's statement intended to make us, somehow, more sympathetic to him or to the practice of polygamy? Regardless of your opinion of the French practice of taking on mistresses, the fact of the matter is that Hebbadj is an outsider who is excusing his own culture's bad practices by criticizing the bad practices of his host culture. It's a bit like farting at a dinner party, then criticizing the host for belching. 

While we see no shortage of headlines such as "French Law Stigmatizes Muslims," we'll probably not see "Islamic Law Stigmatizes All Non-Muslims" anytime soon in the Mainstream Media.

Hebbadj should consider a career in politics. He can obfuscate with the best of them. He mocks the French for their mistresses in order to spin attention away from his alleged polygamy, and to somehow make mistresses and polygamy morally equivalent. In my own opinion, neither hobbies are admirable, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the law - the local law, for which Hebbadj and his kinsmen seem to openly scorn.

Neither Ganley nor Hebbadj mentioned anything about the time-honored tradition of child abuse and slavery in the Muslim world. Perhaps Hebbadj could advocate for those avocations as well.

Perhaps Hebbadj never heard the old saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." We could update and personalize that for him: "When in Dar Al Harb, do as the Dhimmi do."  It's only polite.

RELATED:
Polygamy Issue Stokes French Veil Debate AP Video at YouTube
Why a French Veil Ban Makes Sense‎ Daily Beast
Quebec Burqa Ban? Province Moves to Prohibit the 'Total Veil'‎ Politics Daily
Amnesty urges Belgium not to ban Muslim face veil‎ Ekklesia
The hypocrisy of child abuse in many Muslim countries‎ EuropeNews
Saudi to bring in minimum marriage age as girl, 12, divorces‎ SOS Children
Yemen cleric: fight draft law banning child brides‎ Las Vegas Sun
UN presses Gulf states on rights of women, workers‎ AFP
Dubai Police intensify battle against human trafficking‎ GulfNews

Comrade Obama needs to watch these videos. The first one was filmed in L.A., where "ethnic-cleansing" murders of blacks by hispanic gangs is underway. The second one is part 1 of a 5-part documentary about the violent turf wars between Black and Latino gangs in L.A.

Until recently, Andy Stern was the President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a union that has served as one of President Obama's biggest donors as well as filling the ranks of his ground troops. In a surprise move, Stern resigned his post this month and no one is really sure why at this point.

Andy Stern has been one of the closest union chiefs to a president in history. Along with SEIU treasurer Anna Burger, he was one of the most frequent visitors to the White House. He was even chosen by President Obama to serve on his Deficit Reduction Commission -- a sort of contradiction in terms that.

Upon his resignation, it has been learned that Andy Stern's leadership of the SEIU has not brought financial solvency. As F. Vincent Vernuccio reports in the Washington Times, Stern has left the SEIU in pretty shabby shape.

SEIU has seen its liabilities skyrocket during the past decade. The union's liabilities totaled $7,625,832 in 2000. By 2009, they had increased almost by a factor of 16, to $120,893,259. Meanwhile, SEIU's assets barely tripled, growing from $66,632,631 in 2000 to $187,664,763 in 2009. A significant portion of SEIU's current assets are from IOUs from hard-up locals.

Blagojevich’s defense team basically alleges that Obama told a certain labor union official that he (Obama) would support Valerie Jarrett’s candidacy for the Senate seat. Jarrett, referred to as “Senate Candidate B”, is now a senior advisor to the president.

2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat

Blagojevich’s defense team basically alleges that Obama told a certain labor union official that he (Obama) would support Valerie Jarrett’s candidacy for the Senate seat. Jarrett, referred to as “Senate Candidate B”, is now a senior advisor to the president.

Redacted portion: Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick. (Labor union president 302, February 2, 2009, p. 7).

Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B].. . . [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.” (Labor union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3).

by Steve Stevlic

Thousands of concerned Americans gathered right across the street from Mayor Daley's City Hall office on tax day and he heard us loud and clear. Daley estimated the crowd at the Chicago Tax Day Tea Party at 20,000 people. I nominate Mayor Daley to provide the official crowd estimate for all tea party rallies from now on, particularly in DC. But the numbers that really matter are the trillions of dollars being spent by government at every level: federal, state, county and city.

Chicago, the city that works - sometimes, and in spite of itself. Peter Bella writes about the ongoing nonsense and power plays regarding a proposed Wal-Mart store in Chicago's historic Pullman neighborhood on the south side.

Mayor Richard Daley, to his credit, would like to see Wal-Mart (or any big retailer) build in that impoverished neighborhood. It's what some call a "food desert," with few good places to buy food or, for that matter, much else. That goes hand in hand with a lack of places at which to work. Some Chicago alderman and the unions that pull their strings would happily allow people to continue to struggle with no jobs or adequate shopping opportunities rather than allow a Wal-Mart into the hood. They demand, as Bella notes, a "living wage" of $11.03 per hour. (Has anybody ever offered a reasonable definition of "living wage?")  Even minimum wage is better than no wage at all, but the union bosses and corruptocrats in City Hall would apparently prefer no wages for people in Pullman.

"Earleir this week," writes Bella in his column at Chicago Now, "Alderman Solis, the Zoning Committee Chairman demanded Wal-Mart negotiate with SEIU and other unions over wages and benefits. Solis does not know how things work. How can unions negotiate when there are no employees they represent?"

The answer is actually simple. The union bosses don't give a damn about the employees they claim to represent. If they did, they'd push in favor of Wal-Mart, let some unemployed people start earning something, and then - later - negotiate upwards on their behalf. The bosses, however, live pretty high on the union dues that are ripped out of every member's paycheck. The lower the wage, the lower the dues. Even a union boss understands the law of diminished returns.

John Ruberry at Marathon Pundit notes that "Ald. Anthony Beale (9th) has been trying to bring the retail giant--as well as hundreds of jobs--to the historic Pullman neighborhood. Daley wants an up-and-down vote on proposed South Side store" and that currently the unemployment rate in the Chicago metropolitan area is 11.3 percent.

Six years ago, the Chicago City Council actually did approve a Wal-Mart for Chicago's 37th Ward on the city's west side. Alderman Emma Mitts fought hard to get that store for her constituents (it opened in July, 2006).

Of that 2004 vote, Alderman Helen Shiller (46th Ward) said after that "We are dealing with a huge company with a long history of predatory practices," and said that Wal-Mart does not provide its employees with adequate health care. "They count on the city to provide assistance to their workers," she said. "We are creating more loss than gains." (MSNBC...)  Shiller doesn't seem to understand that (a) the city itself has a long history of predatory taxation practices or that (b) many unemployed people are already count on the city for assistance. A pawn of SEIU herself, Shiller either cannot grasp or will not admit that at least some of those who would be employed by Wal-Mart could depend less on the city for assistance if they had an income, however meager. The real predators are the union bosses and the aldermen they support with campaign contributions and political workers.

Wal-Mart contributes to politicians, too, but they need to counter the opposition. Anti-Wal-Mart spinning by its opponents in public office and in the media is often reaches the deep into the depths of idiocy.

An absurd example of this comes from the University of Illinois at Chicago in a January 8, 2010 news release. The headline of the release boggles the mind: "Study: Chicago Walmart Does Not Boost Employment or Retail Sales." This flies in the face of reality. It smacks of the Big Lie so favored by Joseph Goebbels, who said that "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."  What thinking person, however, can actually believe that new retailer with a store over 100,000 square feet and needing many new employees to staff it would not boost employment opportunities?

Yet UIC would have you believe that big lie. That January, 2010 news release claimed that "The opening of a Walmart store in Chicago's Austin neighborhood in 2006 has not increased retail activity or employment opportunities, according to a study by researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Loyola University Chicago."

Really?  It hasn't increased employment opportunities? For anybody? Has that Wal-Mart remained unstaffed with no employees in the several years it has been open? How has the store functioned without employees? Half an ounce of critical thinking shows the absurdity of the UIC "study." 37th Ward Alderman Emma Mitts disagreed with the UIC study, noted Chicagoist, "saying on WTTW's Chicago Tonight that 'people see what they want to see,' and that she hadn't heard anyone in her community complaining."

The actions and words of the SEIU and their puppets on the City Council indicate that they really don't give a damn about the people they "represent." The propanda work on their behalf, by many in the media, is shameless. The losers who buy into the Wal-Mart hatred are simply pitiful.

RELATED:
Daley wants up-or-down vote on new Wal-Mart Clout Street/Chicago Tribune
Wal-Mart Hate and Deaf Aldermen Chicago News Bench
Video: Ministers rally around Wal-Mart Marathon Pundit
Pastors add pressure for more Walmart stores Chicago Defender
Wal-Mart gets 25,000 applications for Evergreen Park store Chicago Business
Penn and Teller on Wal-Mart Hatred (Video; Language Advisory) YouTube
Wal-Marts in Chicago (Google map a/o April 25, 2010)
Labor Unions: Employment at Wal-Mart Like Slavery BigGovernment.com
Wal-Mart Employment Opportunities HourlyCareers.com
Defeat of Chicago's big-box "living wage" ordinance means more jobs Marathon Pundit

Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed

My good friend John Ruberry at Marathon Pundit has the details... 
Oh, but the Tribune ain't the only Mainstream Media outlet lagging behind:
Also see "Local Media Finally Catch Up to Us on Cohen's Run For Guv Story"

Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed

APRIL 23, 2010 - Chicago -

Update #2 - It's All Over: Regulators Seize Broadway Bank, Will Reopen As MB Financial...

Update #1 - It was edge-of-your-seat drama. The media were camped out in front of the troubled Broadway Bank's branch at 5960 N. Broadway, waiting to see men in dark suits carrying little white boxes and legal papers.

Original Report:  Will the bank owned by Alexi Giannoulias' family be shut down by federal regulators this afternoon? It seems so.  Update: CBS 2 reports that customers are being told that the FDIC will assume control of the bank by the end of the day. CBS 2's Suzanne Le Mignot reports "customers are being told Broadway Bank will close after 6 p.m. Friday and will re-open Saturday under a new name. It was not immediately clear if another bank is in line to take control of the bank right away."

About three months ago, the feds gave Broadway Bank 90 days to straighten out their financial situation (they're nearly $90 million short of requirements). As the Chicago Sun-Times wrote today, "Time's up."

On WLS 890 AM this morning, talk show host Cisco Cotto did his entire 9:00-11:00 show from outside the bank's 900 West Van Buren Street branch. Roe Conn will broadcast the last hour of his WLS show today from that branch (5:00 to 6:00).

All of the sun shades were pulled down on the large windows of the bank. I've passed by that bank a thousand times or more, and this was the first time I've ever seen those shades down. The employees are undoubtedly feeling a bit anxious and not eager to be photographed.

Although the actual deadline is next Monday, nothing short of a last minute miracle or multi-bank merger agreement can save the bank. Typically, federal regulators shut down a bank at the end of business on Friday so as to minimize disruption to all concerned. Broadway Bank's normally closes at 6:00 p.m. on Fridays. It is possible that the regulators could give the bank still more time beyond Monday's 90-day limit. Nobody outside of the insiders knows at this time.

Democrat Giannoulias is currently the Illinois State Treasurer and is running for U.S. Senate against incumbent "Republican" Mark Kirk. Giannoulias and Broadway Bank have faced harsh criticism for a couple of years now for loans made to criminals.  John Ruberry at Marathon Pundit notes that, as State Treasurer, Giannoulias "mismanaged a college savings program, costing Illinois parents $70 million." John also has a ton of great links over there...

Depositors are protected up to $250,000 - in case you're one of those who has been under a rock and/or too confused to have taken your money out yet.

RELATED: