Powered by TypePad

« That's A Big 10-4 With Our Good Buddies | Main | Losing Our Heads In Arizona »

July 10, 2010

Comments

Extent.

Much bipolar ice.
=========

MayBee

Isn't it interesting, with all the talk about not deporting the American citizen children of illegal immigrants- we just dumped the Russian spy children in Russia. Not a second thought. No angst on behalf of the government or the American people.

Just- to Russia with you. So I'm not going to listen to that Argument anymore. The kids can go with the parents.

narciso

Well remember Maybee who's at Justice, and what he's famous for

Danube of Thought

Excellent:

A new poll out Friday showed a new benchmark: a majority of Americans now disapprove of Obama’s job performance. The Economist/YouGov survey of 1,000 U.S. citizens from July 3 to 6 showed that 52 percent disapprove of Obama’s job performance. And Obama’s approval in the poll was at 43 percent, a concerning number for the White House.

Gallup’s daily tracking poll, which averages all polls over the last three days, showed Obama Friday at 44 percent approval and 48 percent disapproval.

Denis Keohane

Of course it's considered 'no trauma'. Losing one's job (being fired) is a pretty common thing under this administration. Move on, exactly!

Jane says obamasucks

Maybee,

I agree with you, and admit to not having thought of it that way.

BR

Heh, silent ice colliding with a ship of fools.

Wuzzagrunt

"The audits force businesses to fire every suspected illegal immigrant on the payroll..."

Where is the pillow biting, from the usual suspects, about racial profiling?

narciso

"They told me If I voted for McCain," would be a Glenn Reynoldsism

Danube of Thought

Just a little bit of anecdotal gossip:

We have a gardener, Juan. As far as I am aware, he is a US citizen, but if not then I'm quite certain he is legal (he owns a house in Chula Vista). Once a week he shows up with a crew of three or four other guys; all of them speak Spanish and have no English at all. My wife informs me that our legal Mexican housekeeper says that all of Juan's guys are illegal.

I don't really know, but I seriously doubt that Juan has any sort of records that the feds could audit.

Just thought you'd like to know...

Danube of Thought

It appears that ICE has deputized AZ law enforcement people to ID illegals. What the hell...?

in_awe

"We have a gardener, Juan. As far as I am aware, he is a US citizen, but if not then I'm quite certain he is legal (he owns a house in Chula Vista)."

Nonsense, having worked in the mortgage industry I can assure you that legal status was not a requirement to get a loan. Ditto for opening bank accounts, getting car loans, etc. The consular matricular cards issued by Mexican consulates throughout the US opened all those doors by providing a government ID card to anyone(of course the Mexican consulates never verified anything about the applicant before issuing the card...). There also have been press reports of white males with Irish surnames going to parks in LA and buying the cards for $50.

Neo

I loved this definition from WikiPedia ...
One Nation is a far-right and nationalist political party in Australia.

Danube of Thought

legal status was not a requirement to get a loan.

I did not mean to suggest that he would have had to prove his legal status in order to buy a house. I just think it is much less likely that a man in constant peril of deportation would invest in real property in this country.

centralcal

DoT: In several of the interviews of either Brewer, or Sheriff Babeau, or other officials in AZ on various FNC programs, they have repeatedly mentioned the ICE deputization and training of some of their law enforcement.

What is surprising to me about the "silent" ICE of this TM post is, if true, that once identified many have been fired, how has that impacted the unemployment numbers? Kind of self-defeating for the Big O isn't it? ha! Also, wonder how many of these fired workers are now receiving enemployment benefits. Seems like there are wheels within wheels in this story.

Pofarmer

I just think it is much less likely that a man in constant peril of deportation would invest in real property in this country.

Why? Even if they are deported, they retain legal title to the property.

Frau Schimpfwort

As my San Angelo mother used to say, "It's enough to make a preacher cuss."

In other news, fathers in Bedford Hills, NY had best hide their daughters and trophy wives. LUN

Danube of Thought

they retain legal title to the property.

Sure. But I'd certainly be leery of having real property to which I had no access.

I saw the sheriff (I think it was Babeau) last night talking about SB 1070, and he said that when an illegal was ID'd he would be charged with the state crime of trespass. I think someone--T. Collins?--found the current, amended version of the statute, and that the trespass provision had been deleted.

DrJ

DoT,

I posted those documents here. Have a look.

Stephanie

I don't know if y'all follow Fred! on facebook, but you really should add it to your daily reading. He would make an exceptional replacement for Steele. Quick wit and laser sites.

The city of Cleveland said it stands to lose 48 million dollars if LeBron James decides to leave.

On the bright side, that's cheaper than if they still had Dennis Kucinich as mayor.

President Obama said that the US and Israel share an "unbreakable" bond.

Obama should know. He's been trying to break it for months.

LUN

Danube of Thought

Thanks DrJ. Interesting that the state crime of trespass has been eliminated (as the sheriff is unaware), but a new state crime of willful failure to carry papers has been added.

I don't feel very certain about any of this, but I think the separate state crime is a potential Achilles heel in this thing from the standpoint of preemption.

Boatbuilder

If the employer fires a "suspected" illegal, based on a "silent raid,", and the fired person turns out to be legit--a citizen or a documented alien--can the fired worker sue the employer? Does either the employer or the fired worker have any recourse against the feds?

I am puzzled by the dissonance, as this seems to be an effective but less than compassionate way of compelling illegals to leave the US (or maybe just stick around to vote and partake of public services and underground employment). So why do they have a problem with the AZ law?

I suspect that someone at ICE may be getting some re-education shortly.

To Danube

Danube, your ideas of what you'd do if you were an illegal alien are way off the mark. Get the book "Mexican Migrants" Between the Rock and the Hard Place" by Hellerman and learn how blithely this group ignores all the things that you think should concern them. I believe you'd better concern yourself with "Juan" and his "four guys" -- you are directly supporting illegal aliens. Do your yardwork yourself or get paperwork to prove this crew are at least legal residents.

JM Hanes

TM: They call this the bunkerbuster plan.

JM Hanes

DoT:

"U.S. citizens from July 3 to 6 showed that 52 percent disapprove of Obama’s job performance."

Knee high by the 4th of July. Lookin' good.

Danube of Thought

"Do your yardwork yourself or get paperwork to prove this crew are at least legal residents."

In a word, "No."

PaulV

DOT,
Was he Juan Galt?

Pofarmer

Sure. But I'd certainly be leery of having real property to which I had no access.

Why? Real Estate in the U.S., up until just recently, was remarkably fluid, and, I would imagine, he had plenty of contacts to take care of it for him if he was temporarily away.

Danube of Thought

Suit yourself, Po.

Old Lurker

In a word, "No."

Love that directness.

And ditto.

Though I do carry a blanket workers comp policy for "Misc Servants, Inside and Outside", though that title does bother me, it is the one used by the carrier.

I guess I cannot run for President or SCOTUS now that you know this about me...

Clarice

Aw C'mon, you and DoT just qualified for head of INS or ICE or whoever is pretending to enforce immigration law these days.

As soon as I chisel on my income tax, I'll throw my hat in the ring to be Geithner's replacement.

JM Hanes

I don't know if folks have already seen this, but over at Powerline, Paul Mirengoff offered a preliminary assessment of Arizona's chances, and addresses, in more expert fashion, some of the points I touched on in an earlier thread here regarding the necessity of Arizona conclusively establishing that a "legitimate state interest" is at stake. Per the DoJ Complaint (Paragraph 36, page 14 at line 17):

36. S.B. 1070 (as amended) attempts to second guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities in the area of immigration enforcement and to directly regulate immigration and the conditions of an alien’s entry and presence in the United States despite the fact that those subjects are federal domains and do not involve any legitimate state interest.

DoJ simply asserts that no such state interest exists, and then continues on, as before, arguing harm to Executive interests and purposes -- as opposed to arguing conflict with Congressional legislation or intent. Mirengoff believes that distinction is key. It seemed to me here that DoJ goes even further than that, arguing the Supremacy of Executive policy over state interests and state law, not just its exclusive authority to enforce Federal regulations and law. By the time DoJ gets through, exposing the United States to international criticism is an unconstitutional incursion on Executive authority.

Those struck me as substantial, disturbing, leaps, which I hope will be addressed. I wasn't at all sure they were sufficiently flawed, however, to derail the basic preemption argument, but Mirengoff, cites encouraging cases, and comes out "cautiously optimistic" that Arizona will prevail.

Clarice

"By the time DoJ gets through, exposing the United States to international criticism is an unconstitutional incursion on Executive authority."

Exactly.That's why adding the Calderone affidavit to the complaint was so noxious IMO.

narciso

It does, JM, the Federal Govt's negligence in enforcing the law, is a reason for another party not to do so, it does violence to the principle

Ignatz

--In a word, "No."--

I was feeling a little uneasy with DoT's comment and maybe just a bit smug until I stopped and thought about it.
I had to hire several log truck subcontractors with Latino owner/operators when I was logging in the Southern Sierras a few years back. One of the guys couldn't even speak English. It wouldn't surprise me if most or all of them were illegal. And I bid a big job out to a contractor a few years before that whose whole crew was Hispanic and most of whom didn't speak English.
In certain industries in CA it is simply not possible to avoid hiring illegals because until the border is secured they constitute the vast majority of the labor pool. You either use them or you can't do the job.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

Bingo, JMH. That's why the fact that SB1070's language tracks the federal statutes makes no difference to the Feds. This is yet another attempt by the Obama Administration to arrogate to itself power that Congress has not delegated it.

The result should be no preemption because heretofore, preemption has been a matter of either Constitutional or congressional action. Indeed the Supremacy Clause only gives supremacy to "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States",

Clarice

Most of my contractors have Spanish speakers working for them and I do not feel it my obligation to check on their employees' status.

In this area we have many Peruvians and Central Americans and large numbers of the latter were amnestied in or granted immigration rights by special acts of Congress..

MayBee

In certain industries in CA it is simply not possible to avoid hiring illegals because until the border is secured they constitute the vast majority of the labor pool. You either use them or you can't do the job.

My personal policy is to not treat contractors with Hispanic employees any differently than I treat contractors with Anglo employees.
I wouldn't refuse to go to a restaurant with Hispanic (or Chinese, or Italian, or what have you) employees in the kitchen until I can see all of their documentation.

That's why I think it's important for the *state* to monitor these things.

Clarice

I wonder if we stopped extending unemployment benefits and started enforcing our immigration laws how large the unemployment figure would actually be.

Danube of Thought

I was very interested in the Powerline assessment, and with that of the guy to whom they linked.

And I'm embarrassed that the distinction between the congressional enactment and a particular administration's policy toward enforcing that enactment didn't occur to me as I read the complaint. It seems like all their eggs are in the "field preemption" basket, and that's a bit weak.

I am wondering why the S. Ct. has agreed to hear the AZ employment law case, since DeCanas seems to control it.

As to my gardener Juan, he is not my employee under any of the legal tests that I am aware of. I like him, and he does excellent work for me and at least fifty other households in this town. I am in no way inclined to question his immigration status, but if either the feds or the state want to do so, I wouldn't object.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

I suspect at least 60% of the illegals are employed and taking 5-7MM jobs. Although some of the now unemployed might become underemployed, there would be that many more jobs out there. Unemployment then would be very low.

It's hard to say that productivity would improve, though because illegals typically work hard and work long hours.

Not to stereotype or anything like that::-).

Rick Ballard

The President asserts, through the AZ suit, the existence of such a delicate balance of policy wrt illegals that I would think that any citizen is bound to leave any action of any sort to those entrusted with the responsibility for enforcement.

I'm sure that the Chief Magistrate can be granted as much trust in this area as in any other. Why shouldn't a Democrat Voter ID card serve as sufficient evidence of citizenship to anyone but bitter clingers?

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

And even the dead can get one, Rick. In the Chicago way.

Clarice

Looks to me that with ICE doing stealth checks, the administration is trying to have it both ways...and hoping as does AZ that the unemployed illegals will just self deport.

matt

this is all just a kabuki by the feds to show that they "are doing something!" about the problem. The 1200 administrative troops to the border, the stepped up raids, it's all CYA for Obama, Holder, and Napolitano.

Danube of Thought

This is the link I referred to above.

Rick Ballard

"And even the dead can get one, Rick. In the Chicago way."

Thus fulfilling the promise of eternal life as given in First Emanuel: The name of he who believeth in BOzo shall be entered in the Democrat Book of Life, never to be stricken therefrom.

Jane says obamasucks

Am I misremembering? Isn't there something that says if the feds refuse to uphold the law the states can come in and do their jobs for them?

Danube of Thought

I'm not aware of that, Jane.

Clarice

Try this, Jane:

"The administration's primary obstacle is De Canas v. Bica (1976), in which the Supreme Court emphatically declared that federal immigration laws did not prohibit the states from enforcing the policies embodied by those federal immigration laws. (In that case, the state law was a California prohibition against the employment of illegal aliens.) The Court reviewed the text and history of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, and found no indication that "Congress intended to preclude even harmonious state regulation touching on aliens in general, or the employment of illegal aliens in particular." According to the Court, states may enforce laws consistent with federal immigration laws, so long as the state does not "impose additional burdens not contemplated by Congress."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-administration-files-lawsuit-against-arizona-over-immigration-law>Here we go

Clarice

I'm pretty sure that pissing off Hispanic voters who you promised amnesty to does not come within the language about states not imposing "additional burdens not contemplated by Congress".

Jane says obamasucks

That explains the laughable part of the complaint that says the AZ law was going to cause more work for the feds who are doing absolutely nothing.

Clarice

It explains it but adds nothing to it--how can work the Statute says you are to do become "an additional burden not contemplated by Congress" just because you haven't been doing your job?

Jane says obamasucks

huh?

PaulV

Jim Treacher quilty of lookism

PaulV

LUN

Jane says obamasucks

Never mind I just reread

Parking  Lot

Are there more penalties for the companies besides their having to fire the illegals and lose labor? It seems that the purpose of this method -- direct confrontation with the employers instead of the illegals -- and forcing the companies to deal with the problem -- is using the illegal immigrants as yet another method to take a swipe at bad and evil corporations and businesses. The burden of blame for the problem is being shifted to the employers as the predominating culprit.

Jane says obamasucks

They are fined - the government has made a lot of money something like $6b this year.

Clarice

In essence the present scheme makes employers part of the enforcement team.

glasater

The burden of blame for the problem is being shifted to the employers as the predominating culprit.

My better half goes mildly berzerk over this law.

I don't understand how this helps the Feds with illegal immigration in that most of the illegals I know of have purchased pretty solid ID in networks incomprehensible to me...

Jane says obamasucks

Well the other thing is they can probably get unemployment and if not welfare. So now we are paying them not to work.

Danube of Thought

There's also this wonderful item about preemption in footnote 5 of the De Canas case:

Of course, even absent such a manifestation of congressional intent to "occupy the field," the Supremacy Clause requires the invalidation of any state legislation that burdens or conflicts in any manner with any federal laws or treaties... However, "conflicting law, absent repealing or exclusivity provisions,...should be pre-empted . . . `only to the extent necessary to protect the achievement of the aims of'" the federal law, since "the proper approach is to reconcile `the operation of both statutory schemes with one another rather than holding [the state scheme] completely ousted.'"
Clarice

That's the way I understand it, DoT. I spoke to my husband whose firm does a lot of energy work as to which there is often state/federal issues and he says in every case he can recall where the preemption issue was raised Congress specifically states that law or portion of it preempted state action.

Parking  Lot

It's an attack on business disguised behind a mask of concern about illegal immigration. Never let a good crisis ... etc.

Pagar

"the present scheme makes employers part of the enforcement team"

Apparently, the Illinois lawmakers fear that an American citizen could replace an Illegal worker. Wonder how much of that attitude traces back to a certain former Illinois lawmaker?

"On October 20, 2009, five former workers at two companies located in suburban Chicago filed complaints with the IDOL alleging that their former employers had violated provisions of the Illinois state law by improperly using the E-Verify database to assess their legal status and work authorization."

Jane, do you have a link on that $6b?

Clarice

Why d o we have the E-Verify database and require all employers fill out the I-9 form if we are not to verify eligibility to work here?

Pagar

"the invalidation of any state legislation that burdens"

I can see it now, millions of federal workers living in fear that they could be forced to do some actual work.

Danube of Thought

According to the Court, states may enforce laws consistent with federal immigration laws, so long as the state does not "impose additional burdens not contemplated by Congress."

In the quoted passage, the Court was alluding to additional burdens on the immigrants (and in that particular case, legal immigrants)--they weren't talking about burdens on the executive branch.

Danube of Thought

According to the Court, states may enforce laws consistent with federal immigration laws, so long as the state does not "impose additional burdens not contemplated by Congress."

In the quoted passage, the Court was alluding to additional burdens on the immigrants (and in that particular case, legal immigrants)--they weren't talking about burdens on the executive branch.

Jane says obamasucks

Pagar,

Check Fox, I heard it in my background noise today.

Bill in AZ sez it's time for Zero to resign

It seems that the purpose of this method -- direct confrontation with the employers instead of the illegals -- and forcing the companies to deal with the problem -- is using the illegal immigrants as yet another method to take a swipe at bad and evil corporations and businesses.

That is exactly what it is. It's the only reason Janet Incompetano signed the employer sanctions law when she was our Governor.

A significant amount of the wailing by libs over SB1070 is that the Feds have sooper dooper training to recognize illegals, and the locals don't, therefore Feds should deal with illegals. The employer sanctions puts that on totally untrained business owners. Oh, wait, they have e-Verify - except illegals use illegal, stolen ID's that e-Verify can't catch.

DoT mentioned back around 11:45 about the 287(g) agreement that is in place with some 71 law enforcement agencies, where these agencies are given some level of sooper dooper illegal identification training, and can do something about illegals.

The main incentive for AZ passing SB1070 is because Sheriff Joe Arpaio was "too effective" with 287(g). He took it a step further, and has done some 30 task force raids where his main focus is not illegals, but identity theft. If employers are involved they get nailed. If not, the illegal and his source are nailed. Very effective. Too effective. (If you ever had your ID stolen - I have - you would cheer Sheriff Joe's approach) Incompetano, as DHS, yanked Sheriff Joe's 287(g) agreement. SB1070 was passed so the Feds could not interfere further with AZ Law Enforcement.

Another related side note - the county attorney is running for state AG, so he had to resign in order to run (quaint, huh?). The asshole appointed to take his place until the election has pulled Sheriff Joe's funding for this task force. Sheriff Joe took it in stride as he always does - said he'll tighten budget in a few other places - the illegal task force will not be affected. When Incompetano did this a couple years ago as governor, Sheriff Joe sent out a donation letter to keep the task force going, and pulled in millions.

AZ - doing the job the feds won't do. By the way, there is a pic of a helicopter in Iraq with that poster on it at EspressoPundit

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

Thank God for Sheriff Joe and his posse. There are many lessons to be learned from western lore and he has learned most of them.

Danube of Thought

I am enjoying--and I do mean enjoying--a late-afternoon Stoli Martini, straight up, large and very cold. (Just wanted my dear friends out there to know.)

This Court finds that all is right with the world, at least for now.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

I would join you DOT, but for medical reasons, I can't indulge for a while. Nothing like a martini straight up. One's not enough, two's too many, and three's not enough, as my brother and I always say when we toast our Dad who enjoyed his until the very end.

Jane says obamasucks

I'm joining you - but make mine grey goose.

glasater

I think it was Dana Perino who mentioned that the twelve hundred troops destined to the border would only be rotated in at about four hundred at a time.
If the Feds know about this situation--we're going to need a bunch more folks down there...

Frau Pfui!

We'll probably spot Sen."Ma'am" Boxer on the CA/Mexico border soon. The only time she even acknowledges the border problem is when she is running for reelection. It's the same with her fraternal twin Diane Feinstein.

Pagar

"If the Feds know about this situation-"

My guess is they will get right on to defending our southern border, after they pay off the national debt.

In other words, I don't think the Obama administration cares.

daddy

Mine is a nice red wine at a favorite haunt in Paris. I'm finally a "regular" at Cafe Cartouche. Yippee! Bon Soir.

DrJ

Mine is a nice red wine

Here too, daddy. It is my wife's birthday, and I'm waiting for her to return from a bridal shower so that we can enjoy the great bottle I gave her.

Yes, there were other gifts.

squaredance

What you should be asking yourselves is this: What will happen of Obama gets his way via some sort of activist judicial hanky-panky?

Let us not forget that the SCOTUS actually upheld affirmative action when it quite clearly violates not just the spirit of the law but the very clear actual letter of the law.

We live in an almost society almost wholly corrupted by the left. It is quite possible for them to actually get this through.

What then? Civil War? Doubtful. More likely we will begin a gradually dimming of the spirit and a hardening of the heart-an inward migration onto bitterness and a sort of collective despair. Think of is as a manner of spiritual gangrene. You no doubt think I am exaggerating, but this is exactly what happens in totalitarian nations. That is how it was in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. It is exactly what is happening in the EU as well. It is the scent of a rotting civilization. It is no joke.

Few things would more clearly show that our Republic has passed from this earth and that our master, and that will be what they are, care not one bit about this nation.

No matter what happens great bitterness will come of it. That is one of the points of it all, to debilitate and demoralize.

The only reasonable end for this is for it to finally rouse Americans form their stupor and realize how deadly the game is and how far along it has progressed.

The do mean our total destruction and humiliation. Never forget that. Are we men enough to stand up to such 5th rate people?

narciso

So can I put you down, for the coup on Thursday, then (sarc)

Ignatz

--Well the other thing is they can probably get unemployment and if not welfare.--

If they're destitute they may get some type of general assitance, but employers have a financial incentive not to allow ineligible ex employees onto unemployment so I'm doubtful too many folks fired for being illegals would be on unemployment.

Stephanie

My son just moved into an apartment closer to campus and as part of the welcome documents, the apartment complex included an application for food stamps. The Obama administration has an active program to sign up college kids for food stamps and is helping them collect. "All the kids are doing it, and we figure we'll at least get that since social security isn't gonna pay us what it owes us."

Gobsmacked. Absolutely gobsmacked. I called the school and found out that something like 60% of students are on subsidies for food - even those living on campus. They are pushing this program to get even more covered. WTF is the on campus cafeteria for if the kids can get frozen dinners at Kroger for "free?" And where the hell is my $$ going that is for the dining plan???

JM Hanes

DoT/Clarice:

The administration's primary obstacle is De Canas v. Bica..... The Court reviewed the text and history of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, and found no indication that "Congress intended to preclude even harmonious state regulation touching on aliens in general, or the employment of illegal aliens in particular."

It seems to me that DoJ is trying to get around the problem of Congressional intent by working overtime to couch the AZ law as an incursion on the President's Constitutional purview over foreign policy -- a domain in which the Executive trumps Congress. Where international agreements are concerned, there is simply no legislative intent in play. That's why the DoJ brief pounds on Arizona's explicitly stated purpose of using enforcement to reduce its population of illegals by "attrition," as an unconstitutional formulation of foreign policy. DoJ comes as close as they can to saying that the AZ statute is, indeed, in direct conflict with the President's existing (nuanced!) strategic objectives, and is already derailing his international policy initiatives.

Calderon is a key player in that argument. I have zero doubt that the White House encouraged him to file an Amicus Brief in Friendly House v. Whiting. Allowing Mexico to attach a brief to the DoJ suit itself would have been too dicey politically, but while the DoJ's formal complaint only mentions Calderon's speech to the joint session of Congress, the same reference in their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction includes a footnoted citation (page 48):

42 See also Brief of the United Mexican States as amicus curiae, Friendly House v.Whiting, No. 10-CV-1061 (D. Ariz.) (describing Mexico’s objections to S.B. 1070 and impediments that S.B. 1070 will create to certain cooperative arrangements with the United States).

The problem, of course, is that Congress does, in fact, make immigration law, but DoJ has apparently decided its best bet is to convince a judge that designing enforcement of immigration law -- not to mention the considerable body of Executive Branch regulation -- falls under the President's foreign policy umbrella. I'm not sure that isn't actually the weakest link in their argument, and I wonder if making it the centerpiece of their complaint could prove to be a fatal error.

JM Hanes

squaredance:

You may want to rethink your approach to rousing Americans form their stupor.

narciso

Ah Covington and Burling, the Attorney General's former firm, isn't that a bit of
a conflict of. . .nah forget it

hit and run

DoT:
I am enjoying--and I do mean enjoying--a late-afternoon Stoli Martini, straight up, large and very cold. (Just wanted my dear friends out there to know.)

It's all beer here. I'm playing 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall ... I'm a mere 77 short of the finish line.

hit and run

...73 bottles of beer on the wall...

 Ann  Squaredance (for Janet :) )

Squaredance:

I actually agree with your views on how bad things have become but I don't agree that the American people have lost their spirit.

Watch this: I Will Survive: Dancing Auschwitz

Pretty funny! You need a sense of humor, belief in something bigger than yourself, and a better plan of action then just telling us, we suck. We don't! Obama sucks. In fact, the new word this week with his falling approval ratings is: O-BOMB-A

narciso

It's a day early, but happy birthday Ann

 Ann  Squaredance (for Janet :) )

What I would give to drink the remaining 73 bottles of beer on the wall with cerulean! ::Wink:: XXXOOO

 Ann  Squaredance (for Janet :) )

For Bill in AZ:

Photobucket

Love it!

 Ann  Squaredance (for Janet :) )

Here is the sign in the front:

Photobucket

Love it, Love it!!!

 Ann  Squaredance (for Janet :) )

Thank you, narciso. You are very sweet and I agree with Clarice. You are incredibly smart; don't let that Alaskan crud make you think otherwise.

Thanks for the email, too. Now tell me who sent you the list! I have lost mine and need a new one. :)

My anniversary was on June 30th. My husband and I forgot all about it until about 4pm. You see, we all depend on it. I could of used a reminder myself, LOL!

narciso

Well I got mine on Facebook, I don't know about everyone else, you're welcome Ann

hit and run

Ann:
My anniversary was on June 30th. My husband and I forgot all about it until about 4pm. You see, we all depend on it. I could of used a reminder myself, LOL!

Awwwww... I've given up wishing happy anniversaries on JOM for the most part. I had the date marked,but didn't say anything.

Of course,the important thing to commemorate about your anniversary is that the two of you have been married since the eighth grade (IIRC). Remarkable!

And since this anniversary can of worms has been opened,let's just say that a much beloved JOMer (who celebrates multiple birthdays throughout the year) has an anniversary that falls on the same day as your birthday.

And my favorite Texan who has a friend who is a beer distributor celebrated her anniversary on July 2nd.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY LADIES!

But most importantly,to celebrate the woman of the moment:

HAPPY BIRTHDAY ANN!

The next six are in your honor.

hit and run

narciso:
Well I got mine on Facebook

You know you have an outstanding friend request on FB.

Just sayin'

MayBee

Happy Birthday, Ann!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame