Monday, June 21, 2010

Fremont voters make it so


Voters in Fremont, Nebraska passed the illegal-immigrant ordinance, 57% - 43%.

From here, there are likely to be court battles, possibly expensive rules in place and more issues to come, no doubt.

But the voters have spoken.

And many more around the state and country will keep an eye on Fremont.

74 comments:

Anonymous said...

Embarrassing...and costly for Fremont.

Anonymous said...

people want a pure democracy, in fact thousands of americans have died in other countries trying to spread it. they love it when it works in their behalf, then like in this case they don't love it. most people don't even know we're a constitutional republic.

where is the outrage when they tell private bar owners they can't allow smoking in their own business?

the tyranny of the majority!

Nathan said...

And I use to think Nebraska politics was boring when compared to South Carolina, it appears we are closing the gap!

Anonymous said...

If Washington earnestly committed itself to protecting our porous borders, Fremont wouldn't need to have such a vote. Much like AZ, Fremont is acting since the feds don't care to. Good for Fremont!

Today, Fremont. Next January, the Nebraska Legislature.

Anonymous said...

Very sad in Fremont. America is changing and many angry people don't like those changes. The High courts will tear down this wall.

NE Voter said...

OK, here's the deal.

To those who say, "Secure the border first and deport the undocumented," the issue is as follows: To achieve that, are you prepared to state right now that you would support the largest tax increase and expansion of government in the history of the world?

If not, you are not to be taken seriously in this debate.

To secure the borders and capture/detain/transfer the 15 to 20 million undocumented folks would require the following at a minimum:

1. About 1 million new INS/border patrol employees (I'm sure SEIU would be happy).

2. Scores of detention centers/way stations for those awaiting deportation.

3. Tens of thousands of motor vehicles, including air and water craft.

4. Massive expansion of federal courts -- more "activist" United States judges, courthouses and related personnel.

So, do you or do you not support the largest tax increase and expansion of big guvmint since this country began?

Simple yes or no question.

Anonymous said...

The real question for this chest pounding "patriots" in Fremont is why they don't storm their county board and demand more of the same! Rise up! The Dodge County Board must now follow suit! We demand it! Oh, gosh...that just might mean the shuttering of plants of the few large employers in area...nevermind.

Bud said...

Lincoln fired McClellan. Truman fired MacArthur. Obama will fire McCrystal. I was in the military this is called insubordination. Has much as I disliked President Bush if an officer in the military had done that to him. I would have agreed with Bush for firing him. It does not matter if you are pro or anti President Obama. Our constitution says civilians run the military. This is a no brainer no matter what your views are.

Anonymous said...

NE voter said it best. Plus how much higher will our food prices go? Or construction costs of roads and houses. The rich GOP want cheap labor and they use anti immigration rhetoric to get votes. But they will never really do anything about it. It just is not worth it.

Anonymous said...

On the General McCrystal nonsense. By the constitution, military command reports to civilian rule. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of all military forces. While the general may be allowed freedom to speak his mind directly to his superiors, opposing his commander in public is illegal, not just bad form but literally illegal by the uniform code of military justice, his bible.

Further, to tolerate public disrespect in his subordinates is possibly across the line of treason. McChrystal was not elected anything and has no right to challenge constitutional authority, regardless of his beliefs or convictions. He accepted the job and these things are clearly written in that job description. There is no gray area or lack of clarity. He is guilty and that is non-negotiable. The General has a duty to speak his mind to his immediate superior if he disagrees with his orders and the duty to resign if he cannot carry out those orders. The damage to the military and the affront to our constitution is unforgivable.

While you may not understand this, you should certainly accept it as fact, a matter of reality

BRM said...

The costs of border security involve moving the 10th moutain division from northern NM to southern NM and spreading them out on the border like the calvary were in the early 20th century. It involves a few drone craft flown along the border, and it involves a couple of other divisions (and perhaps the resurrection of a couple of horse calvary regiments to go a long with the Stryker regiments in the calvary).

In other words, stuff we already have paid for, and a few things that we could get relatively cheaply.

To move the illegals means to enforce the law.

The fundamental issue here is the legal concept of the "fruit of the poison tree". You can't profit from an illegal act. Crossing the border illegally is a felony. Profiting from that felony is fruit of the poison tree.

1. Seal the border.
2. Use frequent, intense, and overwhelming deadly force to stop the narcoterrorists from taking over Arizona.
3. Enforce the immigration laws that the feds currently have.
4. Regulate via taxation the importation of drugs into the US.

Anonymous said...

Can someone please tell me how an illegal, and some legal, immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries can afford to support themselves-under the radar, sometimes, support a growing family here AND still manage to send $$$ back to their "home" country to support families there?

Democrats say that Republicans (ie: big business) are addicted to cheap labor.

If Americans would take those jobs that obviously pay enough to support a family, then businesses would not find themselves in "need" of cheap labor.

I wish there were statistics as to how many unemployed workers have refused to take many of these entry level positions.

NE Voter said...

BRM is dead wrong.

The argument that "We already have the resources, so border enforcement won't cost anything," is a complete canard.

It is not the military's job. They are trained to blow things up and kill our enemies in combat. Not border protection.

Are there none among you who will dare address the question I posed above?

Wake up, people!

Anonymous said...

NE voter is right again. Plus I believe it is against the law to have the military do police work. The tea party crowd is always talking about obeying the constitution and laws. Well how about it? If Americans are willingly to make the type of sacrifices to get rid of aliens in our midst. How about doing the same to get of the drug we call oil?

Anonymous said...

Anon.9:06

Maybe those people live a more frugal then debt riden credit card carrying, SUV driving, cell phone welding, sat. tv and radio listening, regular Americans
life.

NPSmith said...

Congratulations Fremont! If you want to live and work in America, come on in -- legally.

What other nation on the planet allows people to sneak across its border, steal another's identity, send their wages back to their home country until (eventually, unavoidably) they claim state welfare benefits?

Name one, my One World friends. Name one.

Right Wing Professor said...

McChrystal should have known what he was getting into. He tried to play Washington politics with an administration that knows nothing but the political, and specializes in it. He was undermined by Eikenberry, stalled for five months by Obama, who then gave him far less than he needed to do his job. Now we're paying millions in bribes to warlords so they won't attack us, we have rules of engagement that discourage contact with the enemy, and we have our most important offensive stalled for an indefinite period. Any fool should have known a vacillating, hyperpolitical ass like Obama would be incapable of directing a real war.

My theory is McChrystal's plan is to get himself fired, before the whole house of card collapses in on itself.
Question is, does Obama have the stones Harry Truman had, stones enough to fire his local commander in the middle of a war?

Oh yeah, and as a legal immigrant, I say, yay, Fremont. Those of us who had to earn our citizenship have no problem proving we have it.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:19, First off, I do not believe it would be against the law to have our military do "police work". They do it all the time when we have a natural disaster (and sometimes, unnatural ones), and, we do it all the time in foreign countries.

Your argument is weak. But, if it makes you feel better, I will suggest that the National Guard and Coast Guard be used here in America to protect our borders and let the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force fight our wars.

Is that all better now?

NE Voter said...

Um, RWP, one correction: Obama fired Gen. David McKiernan in 2009. McCrystal was his relacement.

And, yes, that decisive act was the first time a commanding general had been fired during wartime in over 50 years.

Right Wing Professor said...

Thanks for the correction, NE Voter.

According to Rolling Stone, McChrystal was shown the draft article, and objected to none of it. He knows exactly what he's doing.

Painful said...

Sweet.

Protecting the border doesn't have to be expensive. Put troops on the border with their new microwave weapon, and the sonic weapon. When someone climbs over the fence Zap them. They will jump back over in a hurry. Word will spread that it is PAINFUL to climb the wall. This will stop a LOT of them from crossing over. We do it to keep cattle from injuring the public so why not on the border.

You won't get zapped if you don't cross over. It won't be fatal, but will be effective.

Just a thought

Anonymous said...

hhmmmm....I thought the military was formed to protect our country? So why not deply them to our borders? Get them out of Kroes...and bring them home here...use the Guard.

And with the latest news about Mexican Drug Cartels having hideouts in the Arizona mountains...I am now even more positive that the federal government has failed us. Kudos to AZ and fremont, NE

Macdaddy said...

Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military from being used as law enforcement here in the US. Congress would have to pass a specific law to allow them to do that. The National Guard falls under it and so they have not been used to arrest people on the border but are in support roles.

While I agree with what Fremont was trying to do, I think they just wasted their time and money. Obama will direct the Justice Department to sue Fremont just like they are suing Arizona. Fremont may prevail, but it will cost quite a bit.

Now, hold on to your seats, swallow your coffee, put down small babies, but I think the Obama administration, while probably unintentionally, has a better way to decrease the number of illegal immigrants. The Secretary of Labor just put out a commercial saying that all workers, documented or not, should be paid fairly. Clearly, the risk of employing illegal immigrants is offset by the decreased labor costs. Raise those costs and American workers suddenly look more attractive. I also happen to agree with BTO that employers should get fined for employing them as well. I hope nobody's head exploded.

Libertarian said...

This gives a whole new meaning to the catch phrase "Nebraska - The Beef State."

Anonymous said...

Employers do get fined.

The National Guard is used all the time following severe storms to maintain law and order.

Americans will always demand higher wages than legal or illegal immigrants or they won't take the job.

Of course Obama wants higher wages in low paying jobs. That gives him more tax money to spend foolishly and with the blessing of Nancy Pelosi and her ilk.

Anonymous said...

If you have heartburn with Fremont's action, do us a favor and move outside the USA. You can always sneak back in.

Or put your address here and we will have Fremont's illegals immigrate to your house.

You nitwits always want to do wonderful things with other people's money. What are you doing yourself?

If you don't have a dozen illegals hiding in your basement, SHUT UP.
If you do, count your silverware.

Anonymous said...

What is important is that after all the money spent against the vote and the slanted pres stories, the ordinance passed by 20 points. You libs don't get it do you. Illegal is Illegal. Illegal has nothing to do with race as all you libs try to make it out to be. You do realize that many old Hispanic families in South Omaha are tired of the illegal issue in Omaha as well.

Right Wing Professor said...

Meanwhile, Obama's deepwater drilling moratorium has just been blocked by a federal judge. The decision specifically cites Salazar's misrepresentation of the findings of the panel of experts, who overwhelmingly opposed the moratorium.

It's been a bad week at 1600 Pennsylvania. A very bad week.

Anonymous said...

But they are announcing several new regulations today in support of their helath care reform today. So, you know, that'll help.

Jamie said...

Holy crap. NE Voter is ignorant beyond belief. We have a global presence in our military, with the military stationed on every continent on Earth, but securing less than 2,000 miles of land will DOUBLE the size of our military (which currently stands a little over a million) and require the largest tax increase ever ? NE Voter, have you ever heard of WW2? And how do you figure the military can't patrol the border? The AF already flies drones over it and Obama has sent 1200 troops to the southwest American border.

NE Voter said...

Wow, Jamie. That was some analysis of an exceedingly complex problem. That'll fix everything. LOLz

Jamie said...

I wasn't providing a solution, smartie. I was saying your solutions make pretty much no sense and you seemed to have arbitrarily come up with statistics and talking points.

For example, I don't see how patrolling the border would lead to a "massive" expansion of the court system. Let me explain why you're wrong in terms you can understand.

A Short Play
by Jamie

Act I, Scene I

Liberal: "Securing the border will lead to an expansion of the court system in America."
Other Dude: "Oh really? What's your evidence?"
Liberal: "Uh..."
OD: "You see, an intellectual debater would provide evidence instead of simply saying things. Anyone can say things. For example, instead of saying 'Border security means more judges,' you might consider saying 'Border tactic x led to effect y in the court system.'"
Liberal: "Shut up. Lolz."
OD: "Furthermore, you claim this will lead to a million new government jobs."
Liberal: "Obviously."
OD: "Even though the CIA, FBI, and current ICE don't even have 100K total."
Liberal: "Stop looking at facts, jerk!"
OD: "Oy."
Liberal: "What about the spending on detention centers and vehicles?"
OD: "What about them?"
Liberal: "It's evil! You hate government spending. Hypocrite."
OD: "Not really. We support national defense. al Qaeda leaders themselves have submitted their desire to go through the southern border of the United States. Furthermore, inability to stop the flood of illegal immigration makes us look weak on a global scale. Besides, anyone who took a simple political science class in college knows that one of the defining factors for a state is having defined borders. This is to protect states and their sovereignty."
Liberal: "I didn't go to college."
OD: "I am shocked."

THE END.

One Out In The Third. said...

Good for Fremont...I hope other cities in Nebraska and across the nation join in. If the Feds won't enforce their own laws...then someone has to.

Cost??? Either way you cut it it is going to cost tax payers...either through court battles or through having to absorb the burden illegals are placing on our schools and hospitals. I would state in the long run a court battle would cost the citizens far less.

It's time for the our representation to get off their collective asses and stem the tide.

Profiling? Racism? Hardly...last time I was stopped for an infraction the policeman took my ID...walked back to his cruiser and ran me through his computer. No...the racism whiners are barking at their shoes.

Justice Conservative said...

We are a nation of laws. Just as we seek to uphold our laws, we must insist that the laws we seek to uphold are just. After all, there was a time when it was unlawful for certain people to sit at a lunch counter or to vote or to marry outside their race.

First and foremost, are we seeking to uphold a just system of immigration laws? Due to pregnancy prevention and pregnancy termination, we simply do not have the workforce to support our retiring baby boom generation. We have a need for labor and there are many people south of our border in need of jobs. Our current quota system is not meeting the demand for labor in this country. We are processing visa applications from Mexico that were filed in 1992. Despite the historical, geographical and economic ties between the U.S. and Mexico, our quota system does not recognize the real world situation we are dealing with.

Do we really want to be on the side of preventing parents from providing for their children when we have willing employers and willing employees?

"One thing is certain in this hungry world, no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters."

-Ronald Reagan

"How can you frighten a man whose hunger is not only in his own cramped stomach but in the wretched bellies of his children? You can't scare him--he has known a fear beyond every other."

-John Steinbeck

Look at Grand Island and the Swift raids from a few years ago. After ridding the packing plant of "illegals" with strong familial, historical, religious ties, who filled those jobs after the deportations? Now, the plant and city are trying to reconcile muslim workers and prayer times from the "legal" refugees that filled those jobs.

I understand not being in favor of amnesty, but the labor has to come from somewhere...

Roger Snowden said...

NE Voter--

You are simply wrong. Instead of hiring a million border patrol agents, we only need to start enforcing laws already on the books.

For a relatively modest investment we can have a reasonably responsive verification system for employers to use in determining eligibility for employment.

By tolerating convenient, illegal and untaxed employment, we create a huge draw for illegal immigration.

By reducing that draw and denying employment-- and free medical care and welfare-- we not only reduce the illegal inflow, we also encourage self-deportation.

Make it difficult and undesirable to be here illegally. Cheap and effective.

Nathan said...

What do you all think about the 2am bar closing time change? I for one am in favor of it.

NE Voter said...

Roger and others: You simply can't be serious that only "modest" expense would be needed to fund you dream of catch-and-release. MASSIVE expense is involved here and you have ALL avoided the question whether you would support a tax increase to pursue the deportation fantasy.

Let's say it's only 50,000 new SEIU members (I mean federal workers, that is)? Let's say it's only 15 detention centers/airport runways/motor vehicles that would have to be purchased? Let's say each state would only need one new federal courthouse/judge/support staff to handle the immigration appeals.

The conservative military-should-do-it argument is simply absurd. Are you suggesting our military personnel should be administering Miranda warnings? Coz that's what border patrol agents do -- and HAVE TO DO because undocumented folks have RIGHTS under American law. And, please, avoid going off on the "Miranda doesn't apply to domestic terrorists" tangent.

I just want one of you to answer my question: Would you support the large and necessary tax increase to fund the MASSIVE expansion necessary to fund your catch and deport "idea."

What say you?

Seriously, the Reagan amnesty was the only realistic way to deal with what was then a modestly serious problem. Embrace it.

If these undocumented folks were, say . . . um, let's see, Israeli, I doubt we'd being hearing this hue and cry from conservatives. Instead, it would be, "They are oppressed/religiously persecuted/etc.

Oh, and Jamie, I'm glad you like my patented "A Short Play" commentary format. Keep your day job, though.

Anonymous said...

District Judge Martin Feldman, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and has owned stock in a number of petroleum-related companies, sided with the plaintiffs. The Reagan Appointed Judge with ties to at least 5 different Oil producers... Why didn't the fool recuse himself?
The Holy Republican Cults of Jesus Inc believe that they can do no wrong. This judge is a joke and may as well have been purchased by the Oil Companies and this helps to enlighten the Republican Cults of Jesus Inc's stacking the courts with conservatives over the past 30 years to the great detriment of all United States Citizens.
Does anyone think that President Obama was wrong now to "shakedown" BP for cash now with this kind of Judge sitting on the bench to hear suits against the Oil Companies

Anonymous said...

Like many judges presiding in the Gulf region, Feldman owns lots of energy stocks, including Transocean, Halliburton, and two of BP’s largest U.S. private shareholders — BlackRock (7.1%) and JP Morgan Chase (28.3%). Here’s a list of Feldman’s income in 2008 (amounts listed unless under $1,000):

BlackRock ($12000- $36000)
Ocean Energy ($1000 – $2500)
NGP Capital Resources ($1000 – $2500)
Quicksilver Resources ($5000 – $15000)
Hercules Offshore ($6000 – $17500)
Provident Energy
Peabody Energy
PenGrowth Energy
RPC Inc
Atlas Energy Resources
Parker Drilling
TXCO Resources
EV Energy Partners
Rowan Companies
BPZ Resources
El Paso Corp
KBR Inc
Chesapeake Energy
ATP Oil & Gas

Right Wing Professor said...

"ties to at least 5 different oil producers"

Why, me too. Let's see, I filled up at Shell yesterday, at Conoco the previous week...

Save it, paranoid anonymous nutcase, for the Kos. Feldman struck down the ban because there was no legitimate justification for it, and because the Interior Department LIED about expert advice they got. The 5th district will uphold the court's decision.

Right Wing Professor said...

So we're talking trivially small shareholdings, probably in a retirement account, in some local stocks.

Moonbat elsewhere, anonymous.

Anonymous said...

RWP: you always have an excuse you always take the side of the rich,over the poor. The unjust over the just. You are almost always wrong and to top it off when you are proven wrong you just shrug it off and say this does not count. You are a funny guy.

Right Wing Professor said...

More generally, I think we're seeing the Obamoid hostility to free enterprise here. Apparently, if you hold less than $1000 worth of stock in any sort of energy company (probably via a mutual fund, because no sane person holds lots of that size) you are suspect to the guardians of the Obama revolution.

You'd have hoped freaks like this would have slunk away in 1989, but evidently Obama has given them confidence to resurface.

Anonymous said...

Thirty-seven of the 64 active or senior judges in key Gulf Coast districts in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida have links to oil, gas and related energy industries, including some who own stocks or bonds in BP PLC, Halliburton or Transocean, according to the Associated Press. Industry ties among federal judges are so widespread that they are jeopardizing the courts' ability to do routine business. Last month, for instance, so many members of the staunchly conservative Fifth Circuit were forced to excuse themselves from an appeal against various energy companies because there weren't enough untainted judges left to allow the court to hear the case

Right Wing Professor said...

So you dig through this district judge's portfolio, invading his privacy, for evidence that he might make a thousand bucks a year in his retirement from energy stock, just because he ruled against your Exalted Leader.

And I'm siding against the little guy.

Are you stupid, or evil, or both?

Macdaddy said...

Anon 7:39: what are you complaining about? That the judges were honest or that they own stocks? How should they fund their retirements? Government pension? But wouldn't they be indebted to the government then? Are you worried that BP gave Obama nearly a million dollars during the campaign and just gave him 20 billion dollars to make him look good? I wonder how much gratitude 20 billion buys? Maybe a cap n trade bill that was written by BP.

Anonymous said...

As a lifelong Nebraska native I am disappointed with Fremont. Until this law is overturned I will not set foot in that town and I will personally encourage everyone I know to not do business there.

Anonymous said...

Tom White is a sleaze that likes to drag women and children through his mud.

I wonder if he was a bully like that in Columbus?

Anonymous said...

I dunno, Anonymous coward @8:40, you might be missing out on something. I've heard they have a couple of decent Mexican restaurants.

Anonymous said...

RWP it looks like the judge made a lot more than a grand a year in stocks. Your wrong again! Nothing new there. If a liberal judge with stock holdings in a field he was making a ruling on you would be screaming bloody murder. But since you agree with the ruling you don't care how fishy it looks. Has long as you get your way how Republican.

Right Wing Professor said...

How much income do you think you make a year from $50 K in stocks, my clueless gutless socialist pal?

Anonymous said...

RWP, Cluess, gutless, socialist you have a way with words. How much do you make being a goverment employee working for UNL? Your health benefits? Your retirement? The idea RWP is this. The judge may have made a correct ruling. But it does not look good that he has stock in companies he is ruling on and in favor of. If a liberal judge had done it you would have complained. If you cannot see that then you are just another of Rush's ditto heads. Judges like Caesar's wife should be above reproach. Our Court system is very conservative and most judges are a by product of Republican Presidents. The conservative side of this is that corporations are a bit better than normal people. Remember the Supreme court ruling that corporations are people and have freedom of speech. But then the Dred Scott Case said black people were not people. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Raised Eyebrow said...

Anyone else hear that the new man in charge of the Douglas County GOP is a tea party reject with a failing mortgage business?

macdaddy said...

You know, we wouldn't be getting into all these arguments if Obama were actually doing his job.

Roger Snowden said...

NE Voter--

Who said anything about catch-and-release? Or the military? I am talking about verifying eligibility to work. Identification. And enforcing related laws, and denial of financial benefits.

If people self deport, which they will do if work is unavailable, then we don't have to spend the vast sums you suggest.

On the other hand, if we admit tens of millions of illiterates as new citizens, Democrats will have a permanent majority and will spend vast sums of money, regardless. Suicide for the nation.

So, I reject your premise altogether.

Besides which, the previous amnesty failed precisely because we did not secure our borders. And thus encouraged millions more to show up.

Which they did.

Stop the leak! Clean up the mess afterward.

macdaddy said...

Roger makes some very good points. We have seen with our tanking economy that lots of illegal immigrants have left because there is no work for them here. Attrition is the key.

In the meantime, illegals enjoy a kind of diplomatic immunity. Speeding ticket? So? Stealing? What about it? Driver's licenses and liability insurance? Are you kidding me? Taxes, drugs, murder? Yawn. They'll just boogey back to Mexico. In any event, even if they do get arrested, there are no real consequences like the rest of us have to face.

Right Wing Professor said...

But it does not look good that he has stock in companies he is ruling on and in favor of.

Over half of all Americans own stock. Most, if they've any sense, have diversified portfolios. Any judge with a retirement account is likely going to hold some energy stock, and some banking stock, and some industrial stock...On your reasoning, you couldn't find a judge to rule on a case.

And no, I wouldn't bring it up if it were a liberal judge. I'm not a complete idiot.

Anonymous said...

No border is ever secured unless deadly force is used to secure it. That requires we kill people to protect property. Americans don't have the will to do that.

Any country that allows robbers to sue those they rob is too weak minded to avoid imploding.

The USA is too foolish to exist much longer. I give it another five years. Ten at the outside.

Anonymous said...

Right Wing Professor:

Your posts offer a feeble attempt to defend the Big Oil Judge who ruled against the admin (not that it will matter because Salazar is going to issue another ban which will make the first ruling irrelevant).
When you join the Big Ten, please refrain from representing UNL similarly.
Brousing the code of judicial conduct which took all of about 1 minute using google revealed that the judge's financial interests in a party or parties to a case create the problem. Financial interests are defined as "however small." In order to preserve the public's confidence in the judiciary, judges are held to higher standards in order to avoid actual or appearances of impropriety. The judge should have recused himself or the admin should have requested he remove himself or sought disqualification. DOJ apparently didn't have the info or wasn't afforded the opportunity to present it before Boss Hog issued his ruling.

Anonymous said...

How do you know that these holdings are not held in a blind trust or simple trust. Do you know if they are mutual funds? I know that my retirement gives me 4 choices all with varying suggested years to retirement. I don't get to pick any of the stocks that are held and I am not even sure what is in those funds. My only choice is risk based on time til retirement.

If you
re wearing a tinfoil hat and looking at the sky every 2 minutes, yo'll eventually see a black helicopter coming after you.

Anonymous said...

oops, well you still know what I meant.

Right Wing Professor said...

When you join the Big Ten, please refrain from representing UNL similarly.

I don't 'represent' UNL. I represent sanity, something you might be able to see off in the distance on a clear day.

The term "however small" in the Federal Code of Judicial Conduct refers to a financial interest in a party to a lawsuit. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit were Hornbeck Offshore Services, Bollinger, Bee Mar, and various Chouest companies. None of these companies are on Feldman's disclosure list for 2008. In particular, Transocean was not a party.

If you don't understand what you're reading, ask someone who does, before you waste other people's time.

Anonymous said...

@ Raised Eyebrow,

Why was this person chosen over the other candidates? I've heard there were 2-3 other candidates who had great credentials.

Anonymous said...

Ummm, running a business experience? Managing an "issue" experience? Maturity? A great contact list of unaffiliated voters?

Anonymous said...

Meow, meow.

Anonymous said...

Having a financial interest in legislation and/or the results of a court case never seemed to slow Tom White down. Does that mean like Mark Lakers, he has no ethics either?

Raised Eyebrow said...

Are you sitting at home, alone, down on your luck? Chronically unemployed, or just plain lazy?

Well, rest clear! You have as much (if not more!) experience working in politics, and have raised as much (if not more!) money as the man in charge of winning Nebraska's most competitive and important county! No experience needed!

vernon-j said...

@NE Voter

1st Thank you for having the pride to not be anonymous.

2. YES I don't mind

NE Voter said...

Kudos to Gary Bolton, Fremont City Council President, who resigned this afternoon.

Wake up, people!

Right Wing Professor said...

Meanwhile, Martin Feldman is now receiving death threats freom the loony left, as a result of the dissemination of out-of-date and misleading information about his stock-holdings of the sort miscellaneous anonymous cowards are posting here.

I wonder will we be hearing sanctimonious pronouncements from the Left about 'haters' in this instance. No, I lie. I don't wonder that at all.

Don'tKnowIt said...

It's time to build the border wall.

Build it tall and wide.

It's time to kick the illegals out.

Keep 'em on the other side.


And when we have our country back.

Let's implement step two.

Let's gather up the crazy libs.

And send them all over, too.

Anonymous said...

Don't know it,

I'd say your pen name says it all. You really don't.

Anonymous said...

milton friedman said it best. you can't have illegal immigration with a welfare society. it still rings true to this day.

we still need to encourage immigration. we just need to be smart about it. moderation is key with these sort of things.

i think most of our immigration took place for the new deal. it wasn't exactly like americans let italian, greek and eastern europeans in with open arms.

Anonymous said...

milton friedman said it best. you can't have illegal immigration with a welfare society. it still rings true to this day.

we still need to encourage immigration. we just need to be smart about it. moderation is key with these sort of things.

i think most of our immigration took place for the new deal. it wasn't exactly like americans let italian, greek and eastern europeans in with open arms.