Trump II

[stamper]

The judge is also saying that he is a racist. Surly now this is the beginning of the end for him?

[LesPalenik]

The judge is also saying that he is a racist. Surly now this is the beginning of the end for him?

The statement above needs clarification - which of the two is the racist? Trump or the judge? Can't be Trump - he made it clear at his recent press conference.

Donald Trump is not anti-Semitic or racist. This was made clear in an astonishing press conference on Thursday, which delivered irrefutable evidence obliterating all ideas to the contrary. What was the irrefutable evidence? Donald Trump said so. The president made his point plainly: “Number one, I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life,” he said. “Number two, racism, the least racist person.”






One more item to be added to Jeff's list:

Louisiana's swamps will disappear as sea levels rise 4 times faster than world average

[laughingbear]

Surly now this is the beginning of the end for him?

The sooner the better! The longer it takes to get rid of him, the more lasting damage he can cause. This nutjob and fascist cronies he arranged to be in the white housereally scare the living daylight out of me. Europeans need to go the other way, the opposite of increased military spending is required. Bloody NATO already blows 921 billion Euro away, who the hell needs more weapons and more military?

Only those who desire and will profit from war, stirring the global shit from one provocation and crisis to the next. Sickening.

Good call by this "so called" judge, and good to see that checks and balances still work. However, until Trump is gone... chaos will increase, and that is dangerous on a global level.

[Otto Phocus]

Concerning the latest Federal Judge's blocking of the TBO, I am not sure this second ban will make it.  While there were many flaws in the first TBO, this new one seems to have removed all of the flaws.  It is still hard to make the inference that this new TBO is anti-Muslim when the majority of the countries that have a majority Muslim population are not affected.

I also think that statements made by a candidate before election do not necessarily indicate intent after being sworn into office.  What is important is what Trump says after being sworn in as president.  There is a bigly difference between being a candidate (aka regular citizen) and the PotUS. As a candidate, the person is in a salesmanship context.  No one should ever have an expectation that what a candidate says is a fully balanced dissertation on a topic. They are literally trying to sell something -- themselves to the citizens. 

The TBO, like all Executive Orders needs to be evaluated on the words of the order and on the current implementation of that order.  Trying to determine "well this is what he reallllly meant" is rather difficult as it is subjective and hard to measure. All the person has to do is say "no, that is not what I intended".  Any further investigation degrades down to elementary school recess "yes you did!" "No I didn't!" "Did so!" "Did not!" and we don't need any more of that in our politics.

Does the wording and implementation of this new TBO violate any existing law?  The answer is either yes or no.  If yes, show us the law. EOs like laws are presumed to be legal and constitutional unless proven otherwise.

But this "well the EO states X but we allll realllly know that Trump meant Y [nudge nudge wink wink] " is sophistry.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The judge is also saying that he is a racist...

The judge does look like a racist, I agree.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Getting rid of coal puts coal miners out of work.  Getting rid of oil puts oil workers out of work. 

Coal miners have been put out of work because of strip mining and mountain top removal.  The employment drop started well before any of the clean coal regulation came into play.  We are not getting rid of oil and it is the price of oil that governs the level of investment and employment.  State fracking laws also play a roll here but that is not a national issue that President Trump can do anything about.  Oil exploration has been proposed for the Atlantic continental shelf but the states don't want this for fear of oil pollution in the coastal areas that depend on tourism.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...But this "well the EO states X but we allll realllly know that Trump meant Y [nudge nudge wink wink] " is sophistry.

And political fanboy-ism.

Nice post, Otto.

P.S. I  am still waiting for the attack on $38 million. Jeff, you there? Anyone? 

[Otto Phocus]

I am sure that the thousands of workers involved in horse tack, Farriers, Blacksmiths, buggy whip, and cart industries were against the manufacturer of the automobile. 

Should we have restricted the marketing of the automobile to help keep these important and well established industries viable?  No, market environments change as technology changes and there are winners and losers.

What we need to do is take these coal industry workers and give them opportunities to learn another trade to work. When a society moves from one technological resource to another, it should not just abandon those citizens who worked the former, but should help them transition as technology transitions.

I am sure that unemployed coal workers would like to have steady employment but they may need help in the transition. As a society, do we abandon them as "collateral damage" or do we help them?

I would like to live in a country where we work to help job losers become employed winners. As a taxpayer, I am willing to contribute.  Employed workers are good for my country.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

"Monster storm approaching NY," etc.

When I was a kid, we called it...winter.

[Alan Goldhammer]

What we need to do is take these coal industry workers and give them opportunities to learn another trade to work. When a society moves from one technological resource to another, it should not just abandon those citizens who worked the former, but should help them transition as technology transitions.

I am sure that unemployed coal workers would like to have steady employment but they may need help in the transition. As a society, do we abandon them as "collateral damage" or do we help them?

I would like to live in a country where we work to help job losers become employed winners. As a taxpayer, I am willing to contribute.  Employed workers are good for my country.

I agree with this but it's hard to do.  In most cases there are no significant employment opportunities in these regions and it would necessitate moving.  Of course this is what happened with the mechanism of agriculture beginning in the 19th century and one can look at the decennial US census is see the large drop in farm-based employment over the  years.  We still see large drops in population in farm states and the smaller towns in those states.  The coal mining areas of Appalachia have been suffering for years and while there has been a relocation of some chemical industry to West Virginia, other opportunities for employment such as the steel industry of Pennsylvania and Ohio are pretty much gone as are some of the other manufacturing sites in southern Ohio.  Automation has had an impact as well since it takes fewer workers to make an automobile than it did 40 years ago.  One wonders whether the opioid epidemic in these regions is because people have given up.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The fact is that the critics — who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.

Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehaviour. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.

How recognizable if we look at Trump's tactics. Deny reality,  confuse the sheeple, and make a fast buck at the cost of others.

Cheers,
Bart

[JoeKitchen]

I am sure that the thousands of workers involved in horse tack, Farriers, Blacksmiths, buggy whip, and cart industries were against the manufacturer of the automobile. 

Should we have restricted the marketing of the automobile to help keep these important and well established industries viable?  No, market environments change as technology changes and there are winners and losers.

What we need to do is take these coal industry workers and give them opportunities to learn another trade to work. When a society moves from one technological resource to another, it should not just abandon those citizens who worked the former, but should help them transition as technology transitions.

I am sure that unemployed coal workers would like to have steady employment but they may need help in the transition. As a society, do we abandon them as "collateral damage" or do we help them?

I would like to live in a country where we work to help job losers become employed winners. As a taxpayer, I am willing to contribute.  Employed workers are good for my country.

This is a great reason for smaller government.  Just let the industries die that need to die and let people figure out how to move forward.  Cut out the cronyism. 

As soon as government gets involved, industries get put on life support for no reason.  Dems and Reps are just as guilty with this, only with different industries.

My brother is about as far left as possible and writes for a far left blog.  He recently made a stink about Philly checking train tickets at the station instead of on the train, which will ultimately kill some of the jobs for train conductors. 

If it is more efficient, let it happen.  I feel like it is was up to him, we would still have cabooses on every train filled with workers ready to run across the tops of the cars to manually spin the brakes on so jobs are not lost. 

Reps do the same with coal.  Coal is dirty and inefficient.  Take away the subsidies, let the industry fair on its own accord.  Oil, well actually oil is still more efficient then any other power source, exception maybe nuclear. 

Nuclear is another big annoyance with me.  It's cleaner, efficient, unlimited, but no Reps or Dems want to touch it.  They criticize the current plants for being dangerous, but no new plant has been built since the 70s, so none have modern safe guards in place. 

Not to mention all the storage facilities that were meant to be short term are getting filled up with spent fuel.  We have a long term storage facility in AZ (the bast place for it since 90+% of AZ is uninhabitable), but no politicians wants to allow trains through their district with spent fuel.  They rather have it build up in an area with little to protection, go figure. 

[JoeKitchen]

Did you actually bother to read the whole article? I'm asking because your stated conclusion is a bit different than what the article says:

If that's your idea as something that is "good for people", I think we live in different realities...

Look, I live in Chicago...this winter we had no measurable snow in Jan & Feb. First time in 147 years...we also set a record for 5 days above 65º in Feb. Is that a good thing? Well, for Chicago I suppose...it means we spend less on snow removal and salt for roads. But I would trade that for the climate to be stabilized...

Here are some articles that point out some of the risks of ignoring what climate scientists tell us:

Climate Security: Building National Security
Climate change is a national security threat that America’s military, and militaries around the world are taking seriously. The science around climate security is definitive enough for action: the military knows that you cannot have 100% certainty before acting.

Climate change alone will not cause wars, but it serves as an “Accelerant of Instability” or a “Threat Multiplier” that makes already existing threats worse. The threat of global warming for security will manifest through a range of effects: resource scarcity, extreme weather, food scarcity, water insecurity, and sea level rise will all threaten societies around the world. Too many governments are not prepared for these threats, either because they do not have the resources or because they have not planned ahead. How societies and governments respond to the increase in instability will determine whether climate change will lead to war.


Global Drought Information System
At the end of September 2016, La Nina conditions are expected during the Northern Hemisphere fall and winter, according to the NOAA. According to NOAA, September 2016 was the second hottest September in the 137 year record at 1.29C above average. In Europe, drought conditions expanded through Central Europe and up to the North Sea. For the second month in a row, the European Union’s crop monitoring service lowered the corn yield forecast for this year. In Asia, drought continues throughout central Russia and a ring from the Indian sub-Continent around eastern China and Mongolia. In China, drought in the northwestern Gansu Province led to implementation of the government’s level-IV emergency response plan. In Africa, short-term drought eased slightly in the western part of the continent while continuing to strongly impact South Africa. In South Africa, there has been a culling of hippo and buffalo herds due to the poor condition of vegetation. In North America, drought remains entrenched along the western coast as well as through New England and the US Southeast. In the US Northeast, the apple crop has suffered due to the drought with noticeably smaller fruit produced this year. In South America, drought continues in Brazil as well as from the equator down along the Andes. Irrigation water for farms was restricted in Espirito Santo, where rivers were largely dry. In Oceania, drought continued nearly unchanged.


Bacteria, Methane, and Other Dangers Within Siberia’s Melting Permafrost
FOR HUNDREDS OF thousands of years, the Siberian permafrost has been a giant freezer for everything buried within it. But global warming has put the frozen ground in defrost mode, and the tundra is now heating up twice as fast as the rest of the planet. “Permafrost is a silent ticking time bomb,” says Robert Spencer, an environmental scientist at Florida State University. As it thaws, the dirt could release a litany of horrors. Beware: The ice-beasts cometh.



The Great Barrier Reef is bleaching yet again, and scientists say only swift climate action can save it
Last year the Great Barrier Reef — the largest coral structure on Earth — saw unprecedented bleaching due to extremely warm ocean temperatures. In major parts of the remote northern sector of the reef, two-thirds of the corals ultimately died.

This was the reef’s third and worst severe bleaching event — prior events occurred in 1998 and 2002. But now, scientists say, yet another event is unfolding that is also quite severe, meaning that the reef is experiencing its first back-to-back bleaching in two successive years.

“This one won’t be as bad as 2016, but it could be more comparable to 1998 or 2002,” said Terry Hughes, the lead author of the new study and director of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. “It’s an open question whether it’s the third- or second-most-severe.”[/i]


Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun
NORFOLK, Va. — Huge vertical rulers are sprouting beside low spots in the streets here, so people can judge if the tidal floods that increasingly inundate their roads are too deep to drive through.

Five hundred miles down the Atlantic Coast, the only road to Tybee Island, Ga., is disappearing beneath the sea several times a year, cutting the town off from the mainland.

And another 500 miles on, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., increased tidal flooding is forcing the city to spend millions fixing battered roads and drains — and, at times, to send out giant vacuum trucks to suck saltwater off the streets.

For decades, as the global warming created by human emissions caused land ice to melt and ocean water to expand, scientists warned that the accelerating rise of the sea would eventually imperil the United States’ coastline.


Greenland's huge annual ice loss is even worse than thought
The huge annual losses of ice from the Greenland cap are even worse than thought, according to new research which also shows that the melt is not a short-term blip but a long-term trend.

The melting Greenland ice sheet is already a major contributor to rising sea level and if it was eventually lost entirely, the oceans would rise by six metres around the world, flooding many of the world’s largest cities.

The new study reveals a more accurate estimate of the ice loss by taking better account of the gradual rise of the entire Greenland landmass. When the ice cap was at its peak 20,000 years ago, its great weight depressed the hot, viscous rocks in the underlying mantle. As ice has been shed since, the island has slowly rebounded upwards.


E.P.A. Warns of High Cost of Climate Change
WASHINGTON — In the absence of global action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the United States by the end of the century may face up to $180 billion in economic losses because of drought and water shortages, according to a report released Monday by the White House and Environmental Protection Agency.

White House officials said the report, which analyzes the economic costs of a changing climate across 20 sectors of the American economy, is the most comprehensive effort to date to quantify the impacts of global warming.

(Note: This was about the former EPA, not the EPA that will be decimated by Scott Pruitt)

And speaking of the orange one, global warming is not a plot by the Chinese to put American industry at a disadvantage as he tweeted in 2012 "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."


Heck, even Exxon knew about climate change SINCE 1981! Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

And to add a touch of real weirdness, it now comes out that our current Sec of State Rex Tillerson used an alias email address while at the oil company to send and receive information related to climate change. Wait, what?


Tillerson used email alias at Exxon to talk climate: New York attorney general
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp, used an alias email address while at the oil company to send and receive information related to climate change and other matters, according to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

The attorney general's office said in a letter on Monday that it found Tillerson had used an alias email address under the pseudonym "Wayne Tracker" from at least 2008 through 2015.

Wayne is Tillerson's middle name.

The letter was sent to a New York state judge overseeing Schneiderman's investigation into whether Exxon misled shareholders and the public about climate change.


But why do people deny climate change is real, is being caused by human activity and will, eventually ruin the planet?

Well, an article in the same web site you pointed to has an interesting take: Evolution, Climate and Vaccines: Why Americans Deny Science
The U.S. has a science problem. Around half of the country's citizens reject the facts of evolution; fewer than a third agree there is a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, and the number who accept the importance of vaccines is ticking downward.

Those numbers, all gleaned from recent Pew and Gallup research polls, might suggest that Americans are an anti-science bunch. But yet, Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research.


Kinda interesting to lump evolution, climate and vaccine deniers together, but it makes sense when you read the article and look at the research. A lot of the way people look at climate change is based on where they are. This is also an interesting take: What the world thinks about climate change in 7 charts

The 7 charts reveal the following...
1) Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem.

2) People in countries with high per-capita levels of carbon emissions are less intensely concerned about climate change.

3) A global median of 51% say climate change is already harming people around the world, while another 28% believe it will do so in the next few years.

4) Drought tops the list of climate change concerns.

5) Most people in the countries surveyed say rich nations should do more than developing nations to address climate change.

6) To deal with climate change, most think changes in both policy and lifestyle will be necessary.

7) Americans’ views about climate issues divide sharply along partisan lines.

In the grand scheme of things, it's all very well and good to debate political viewpoints and argue about policies and economics and conservative vs progressive mindsets. Happy to do so in a civil manner, but I really REALLY will not "debate" the very real and serious problem facing humanity–probably the single most important problem which is climate change–for the worse. The science is widely accepted–even Exxon accepts it.

Yeah, some oddball and fruitcake scientists are climate deniers but oddly, there's an scary relationship between climate deniers and controls on tobacco and acid rain.


Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain

If experts cannot agree that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of dollars to address it?

The fact is that the critics — who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.

Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehaviour. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.

Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.


So, are you a climate change denier? Do you deny that people are dying of starvation caused by severe drought? Do you deny that superstorms like Sandy cost billions of $? Do you deny the sea levels have risen? That coastal areas are at risk of disappearing? Do you deny that global warming and climate change is and will continue to be a bit problem for humanity? Or don't you give a crap?

This is the one topic I feel my fellow Reps are wrong on.  Climate change is a big deal, it is negatively effecting the planet, and we are the cause of it.

The science is irrefutable. 

Of all the things to look at, this is the one topic that could get me to switch sides, especially if Blue Dogs made a come back.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Very apt, I like it.

Does the wording and implementation of this new TBO violate any existing law?  The answer is either yes or no.  If yes, show us the law. EOs like laws are presumed to be legal and constitutional unless proven otherwise.

As a layman, I think it's more reasonably worded than the first piece of junk. The main difficulty may be that discrimination based on place of birth collides with the Constitution and International laws on Human Rights.

Another issue is that it is unproven that the goal of the EO is obviously linked to the selection (discrimination) of those specific countries. Yes, there may have been less than stellar cooperation from some countries in doing proper background checks to enable the issuing of visa, and/or countries may have played a role of safe-haven for terrorists. But then the list should not be restricted to those countries alone. So it remains discriminatory, and in conflict with domestic and international law.

Just my 2 cents. I'll leave it to the US government to solve this mess they created themselves.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And political fanboy-ism.

Nice post, Otto.

P.S. I  am still waiting for the attack on $38 million. Jeff, you there? Anyone? 

Since it arrived anonymously by mail, Trump would classify it as Fake. So why bother?

Besides, if Trump was the sender of it, it's probably either a lie, or it does not reveal the connections that really show his dependencies or conflicts of interest. BTW, it is not expected that there will be obvious Russian connections in those 2 pages, but there should be signs of rather huge debts with the Chinese banks. If those are not reflected in those "Fake"(?) documents, it's not full disclosure anyway, just yet another deliberate distraction/disinformation.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... does not reveal the connections that really show his dependencies or conflicts of interest. BTW, it is not expected that there will be obvious Russian connections in those 2 pages, but there should be signs of rather huge debts with the Chinese banks...

I am not familiar how big boys (i.e., billionaires) file their taxes, nor I claim to be a tax expert. But I do file my taxes myself, so, here is the question: why is everybody (on the left) expecting to see "signs of connections, dependencies or debts" in his (or anyone else's) tax return? My tax return does not reflect my assets, or liabilities, just income. It does not disclose how much money (or debt) I have, unless it is some sort of interest or investment income (or loss on sale). Especially not in the first two pages that 1040 form is. Names of banks or brokerages (generating income) are in separate schedules.

[Alan Klein]

The judge does look like a racist, I agree.

[Alan Klein]

Concerning the latest Federal Judge's blocking of the TBO, I am not sure this second ban will make it.  While there were many flaws in the first TBO, this new one seems to have removed all of the flaws.  It is still hard to make the inference that this new TBO is anti-Muslim when the majority of the countries that have a majority Muslim population are not affected.

I also think that statements made by a candidate before election do not necessarily indicate intent after being sworn into office.  What is important is what Trump says after being sworn in as president.  There is a bigly difference between being a candidate (aka regular citizen) and the PotUS. As a candidate, the person is in a salesmanship context.  No one should ever have an expectation that what a candidate says is a fully balanced dissertation on a topic. They are literally trying to sell something -- themselves to the citizens. 

The TBO, like all Executive Orders needs to be evaluated on the words of the order and on the current implementation of that order.  Trying to determine "well this is what he reallllly meant" is rather difficult as it is subjective and hard to measure. All the person has to do is say "no, that is not what I intended".  Any further investigation degrades down to elementary school recess "yes you did!" "No I didn't!" "Did so!" "Did not!" and we don't need any more of that in our politics.

Does the wording and implementation of this new TBO violate any existing law?  The answer is either yes or no.  If yes, show us the law. EOs like laws are presumed to be legal and constitutional unless proven otherwise.

But this "well the EO states X but we allll realllly know that Trump meant Y [nudge nudge wink wink] " is sophistry.

I absolutely agree.  Perfectly explained. Applying what politicians say during a heated campaign to determine the constitutionality of a law that would be otherwise legal when operated per the terms of the order would put a cold blanket on open and free debate.  It would be a strike against free speech.  Politicians would have to check with constitutional lawyers before they debate in fear that the courts will subsequently strike down perfectly legal laws.  The courts shouldn't become thought and speech police.  This is America not Orwell's Farm.

Also, in this case, we're only talking about what the President said.  What about Congressional legislation?  I can't imagine the Supreme Court wanting to review the constitutionality of every law based on what Senator X or Congressman Y said and meant during the debate in Congress or on MSNBC, CNN or Fox when it was written.  No law would be able to pass constitutional muster.  At a minimum, it would tie up every law because the courts would have to review what everyone said beforehand.  They judges would never have time to go home to be with their families.  For their own sanity, they're going to want to only have to look at the law or Executive Order as written.  If they don't, and anything is possible in today's hot political climate, we're opening Pandora's box.

[Alan Klein]

Coal miners have been put out of work because of strip mining and mountain top removal.  The employment drop started well before any of the clean coal regulation came into play.  We are not getting rid of oil and it is the price of oil that governs the level of investment and employment.  State fracking laws also play a roll here but that is not a national issue that President Trump can do anything about.  Oil exploration has been proposed for the Atlantic continental shelf but the states don't want this for fear of oil pollution in the coastal areas that depend on tourism.

That's exactly what Hillary said and look where it got her?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... They judges would never have time to go home to be with their families.  For their own sanity, they're going to want to only have to look at the law or Executive Order as written...

That's why we are calling these clowns so-called judges. Relying on the Internet memes and hearsay for their decisions.

Here is an anecdote from my personal experience. When we first moved to the States, I got my drivers license, but my wife couldn't, as she had a different visa (family-member one). The law allowed her to use her home-country drivers license for the first six months. The Secretary of State (Illinois) realized the problem, that there are legal residents who can not be issued drivers licenses, and posted a letter of their web site, explaining that they can continue to use their home-country licenses as long as their visas are valid. After a minor accident, police checked her license, saw it is past six-month validity and sent her to court. I supplied a printout of the Secretary of State's Letter as a proof that the charges should be dismissed. The judge's answer: "I do not give a shit what the Secretary of State thinks or says. I read the law. $125 fine...next case!"