DNC needs $20 million in tax funds - but they can run the country

Politics has oodles of irony, regardless of party or person, but this one scores very high on my Stupid-o-meter.

 

The Democratic Party, the people who put Barack Obama in the White House and love him to bits, who insist they can run the nation's economy and have worthily improved it over the last seven years under Obama, is requesting tax dollars for their national convention.

 

That's right, they are asking for your tax dollars to prove they can run your country. And people say they aren't plainly socialist? They sure seem to lean that way.

 

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/dws-bill-would-legislate-taxpayer-bailout-pay-democratic-convention

 

- j Ruse

Slate: Cruz & Rubio called each other soft on illegals, and they're both wrong

Another day, another commentator gets border control and ILLEGAL immigration wrong.

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio both got immigration facts wrong. 

[C]onservative Hispanic leaders met with Cruz’s campaign chairman on Monday to raise precisely this point with him. They were concerned that he was “perhaps worse” than Trump on immigrationafter Cruz’s campaign expressed to them that he believes in "attrition through enforcement”—the idea that if life is miserable enough for immigrants, this will act as a deterrent to other potential immigrants, thus solving the immigration crisis in one easy, inhumane step. This is also known as Mitt Romney’s “self-deportation” immigration position that cost him the Latino vote in 2012, and thus, many argue, the presidency.... 

Cruz and Rubio are the only two Latino candidates on both sides of the race. They are both of Cuban immigrant parents. And neither of them have strayed far from the Republican Party’s hard line against immigration, a fact Latino groups have duly taken note of, calling them “traitors” and “sellouts.” But the truth is that even though Cruz’s claims about Rubio were wrong, and even though Latino groups are angry at them both, Rubio is slightly softer—or as I like to call it, slightly more humane—on immigration. Offering some kind of path to citizenship, however narrow, is something Rubio should be proud of, not trying to hide.

Or, as honest people call that, "ILLEGAL immigration." Something that I understand no other country tolerates as much as the U.S. That needs to change. We export plenty of money, missions and other support to lesser developed countries to be required to foster an underclass of uneducated, non-American, non-English-speaking in this country. We are babysitter, foster parent and guardian of other countries as it is.

So, another self-appointed expert on immigration conflates legally entering the United States with the continuing problem of ILLEGAL immigration. Illegal immigration, as in, entering the United States in a fashion that flouts every law regarding immigration, and continuing to evade legal habits while in the country, such as stealing Social Security numbers and utilizing government clinics and other programs meant for destitute and poor citizens and -- should be -- legal visitors to this country. LEGAL immigration is an ENTIRELY different matter. It's taking the legal route to being in the country.

Here's a few facts that this expert, like too many on every side of the debate, forget to include:
First, it is NOT the fault of the illegal immigrants that they are here; it is the fault of our government and political leaders on both sides. Taking a hard line against illegals as people is crude, but as both Rubio and Cruz accept (just ask them), a hard line against ignoring our own laws by the system itself is an honorable thing to do. We -- U.S. citizens, legal immigrants, descendants of immigrants, or Native American -- cannot blame illegals for their being here. We should not make them a target of our rancor, because that is not going to solve the problem. It is our failure as a nation to enforce our laws that have permitted illegals to remain, and it is through the encouragement of businesses that exploit the very cheap labor many of them provide, and Democrat politicians and bureaucrats who use them to draw Hispanic/Latino voters that are to blame. The illegals are overwhelmingly trying to cheat the system to have some sort of better life. There are the gangsters and the problem of "sanctuary cities" that blindly protect illegals, no matter their criminal tendencies that are nothing I sympathize with.
Second, is this idea -- it seems the Slate writer holds it -- that most illegals would want to be American citizens if given the chance. I don't know who exactly that would be, but I do not think it is the low-wage workers from Guatemala or Mexico. I think you will discover that, for the most part, they just want to work here and earn money for their families (here and in their homeland). Many do not have any interest in becoming Americans. I suggest we figure out if they are interested in citizenship or not. Because it is a false and distracting argument promoted by left-leaning activists and shills for Democratic Party campaigns that all these illegals crossing our southern borders are coming here to become citizens eventually. I think that is only likely among a small percentage of them, and a small percentage of those who overstay their student or work visas. They might want to continue to work here, but they want to be expats, not citizens.


 - jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Syrian refugee hypocrisy and the success of Obama's cowardice

Is the United States, are the governors or the majority of US states, isolationist or heartless if we do not want to accept thousands of Syrian refugees? 

The real issue, to me, is WHY bring them here? Why is it our problem, on our land? Why can't the closest nations do more? Why can't we do more through cooperation with those nearby states? Why are we the country (or, internally, the Republican Party) being beat up for "isolationism" when it's not so, and when it is not the a worthy (or legitimate) issue to debate?

We should be debating the problems of the Middle Eastern states. We should be asking why Assad is still in power. We should be asking why Obama's so brashly concerned about bringing in refugees from thousands of miles away, when his Veterans Administration cannot serve our military servicemen and servicewomen effectively. Why should we be guilty or ashamed of not wanting refugees at this moment in time? There are other ways to effectively deal with the refugee situation, and the refugees. 

Monetarily, "Britain has donated more than Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar combined" (look it up). So, where are all the good, non-extremist, modern-oriented Muslim/Arab countries? Where are the Muslim theocracies? The oil-rich empires? Where is their heart? Where is their support? And why is there not more of it? Why aren't they taking in refugees, coordinating help? Taking in more refugees? All the refugees? Why are they not ridding the world of Assad's dictatorship?! Then, the refugees could think about heading back home.

The news is filled with opinions that the US would somehow be guilty of something if we do not take in refugees. How guilty are Middle Eastern states, similarly? Why aren't we first looking at them? It should be clear that most Arab states are by and large guilty of isolationism well beyond what the US might ever be. 

I await a day when the liberties of the US are exported, not when the rampant illiteracy, misery, and oppression of crap-holes like Syria are imported. 

Hold onto your phone/mouse/tablet as you read this (and read to the end, please): 

If there's one thing Pres. Barack Obama has accomplished internationally that I consider worthwhile, it's to cause the world to realize that the United States might not be there for them someday when they need us. That said, I'm very disappointed that the message was sent through a tenor of cheap diplomacy and weak messaging. And a message of US weakness.  

Man up, world. And, world, don't think the USA will be long under the rule of a hippie-bred academic. Because it will not be. 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Who wants to reduce all citizens' liberty? Is it Obama or the NRA?

President Obama (see article, link at bottom) said that gun lobbyists' "grip" on Congress is, in effect, to blame for mass murders with guns. So, simply, crazy killers are the blame of the NRA, or any other firearms education and civil rights organization with millions of members. And, I imagine, we can include all the gun manufacturers in that list of evil lobbyists, too. But Obama doesn't cite them, specifically, because then he'll have cops and the military on his ass, as he does the NRA, gun owners and hunters. That LEOs and the armed services aren't already chastising him in unison is a matter of THEIR patience and respect for order, I'd gather. It has little to do with Obama. 

The  has a grip, indeed, though it is on the clear purpose of the Second Amendment, not the bent one the nanny state left promotes. Unlike Mr. Obama, who seems to have a very loose grip on the Constitutional idea of a citizenry free from government tyranny.

Criminals will NOT bring in their guns to the nearest police station because you ask them to, Mr. President. It is beyond buffoonery to continue to propel the myth that restricting public's gun ownership would have prevented  or other mass murders, with guns or without. 

What a shame that a group which insists upon upholding the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns and not have to register them is bashed by the people who lead us, and entire PARTY system that wants to lead us exclusively.

Too bad that the POTUS of a once free country promotes the idea that the lack of freedom for all will improve the odds of horrible crimes from happening. That will assure only one thing: only police, military and criminals (true criminals and renegade gun owners, which could be grandmas in Harlem or cowboys in Texas) will then have firearms. Which is how citizens plummet into the serfdom of democratic socialism and other forms of soft tyranny. 

I think we should and can trust the government, but only insofar as they are willing to trust law abiding citizens, and respect their right to join any civil rights groups they choose, such as the noble -- and totally, completely and undeniably anti-crime -- NRA. If you're not a member, if you don't read their publications, then you know nothing about them, except what statist haters want to tell you (inaccurately) about the NRA. It's members are all about gun safety. 

Obama, meanwhile, seems to be for government expansion -- of debt, deficit and tyrannical potential. The Second Amendment isn't about "lax" gun laws, it is about superior gun rights, and so is the NRA.  


Obama blames the NRA for 'lax gun laws' and gun violence (at IBT.com)


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Obama: 'this kind of mass violence does not happen' in other countries

Obama was once again vacant of actionable, realistic ideas, but big on ideological, statist and big government, nanny state vision for safety, in his comments after the Charleston AME church murders by a lone 21-year-old with a gifted handgun.

"We do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun," Obama said at the White House. "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it."

Other advanced countries rely on us and our stellar economy, military and international influence to keep them safe, strong and bustling right along with us. The idea of individual liberty is lacking in those places as well. So, as usual, the unimaginative POTUS says the wrong thing at the wrong time. He might have said something about mental health, taking responsibility for one's family members, and using SENSE when gifting guns. Instead, he promoted a losing battle against the NRA and responsible gun owners of the US, by batching them in with lone homicidal nut jobs.

If this Root fellow didn't have a gun, he could have built a bomb. Or used a knife. Or STOLEN a gun and used that. Or a baseball bat. Or a bow and arrow. Since the gun was a gift, he might have been exactly the wrong kind of person to be gifted a gun. It is obvious now, but maybe it was not so obvious always.

No matter, blaming guns for violence, and not looking to determinants of violence such as mental problems, is a crass way to address a problem in a free country. Blaming the inherently anti-tyrant amendment to the Constitution for mass murder is not the way to prove you are in favor of liberty. Suggesting that America is failing its people because the government cannot refuse gun ownership to whomever it chooses is NOT American. Obama is a wannabe post-America leader. The America he knows only existing since about his birth date. It appears that he simply does not believe in the Constitution, this being another example of that. He is all about government control, about elites reigning over useful idiots and a weak opposition. Government control is the progressive answer to all problems. Obama is not really a Democrat, he is a statist progressive.

Obama: 'Senseless murders' in church shooting - CNNPolitics.com

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Insurers eye ObamaCare hikes

Call it Obamacare. Or something other than it's given name. It is a misnomer to call it the Affordable Care Act. It is not affordable, not healthy, and lacking much care for the free market that made the country so prosperous. And the act is the one being played on people who fell for it years ago, and is still being played on them and the rest of us who can see this is not serving the greater good, only single-payer, eventually.  

It is not serving the greater good. It is hurting anyone with dependents who isn't earning well into the high $60k. (Unless they are not earning a thing, and exempt from paying their own way.)

Not only are Obamacare rates increasing, but rates for ALL HEALTH COVERAGE are going up. And at an impressive rate. If you don't believe it, just ask anyone in a medium-sized or small business just after they see their annual coverage enrollment changes. They're going to be hit with some bad personal financial news.

But never fear: states are regulating us all into prosperity:

Under ObamaCare, states have the power to challenge rate increases they consider to be "unreasonable."

Some states — including Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut and Oregon — are known for taking a strong role in regulating the rates.

Other states, particularly where leaders prefer a free market approach, are much less likely to challenge rates. In Florida, Republican Gov. Rick Scott has said he would not allow state regulators to tamp down rate increases.

"Some states just raise questions about trend[s] and approve different things," said Claxton of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/243654-insurers-eye-obamacare-price-hikes

jR @airfarceone on Twitter

Write me at rusetopia@gmail.com

Good Muslim states would do better to learn from Israel rather than attack it

I am sick of seeing supposedly informed, aware, non-radical Muslims bitching about "Zionists" and the Western World. They even do so while living right here in the United States. These people seem to be nothing other than shills, or worse. 

One, a cleric named Omar Suleiman (search him), in Dallas, TX, posted comments about radicals and those who supported them. Yet, in other posts this same imam complains about "Zionists" but seems not to really have any opinion about democracy ever popping up in the rest of the Middle East. Yet, he lives in the United States. In TEXAS, no less! Check out his Facebook page (his official one --?!).

It's simple: nothing will change for the better in the contentious Middle East until the wealthy Middle Eastern countries start really fighting their own terror war. 

Muslim countries are overdue for "putting on their big boy pants," as we say in the States. I heard nothing of "hate crimes" provoked by the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, but Imam Suleiman recently suggested that there were plenty. I noticed that there was not a single Muslim theocratic state that doubled down on squashing radicals in their midst after Hebdo. (Perhaps I only forgot, though; maybe the Saudis took some out, or Bahrain bombed some. No, not really.) I do recall hearing of Western kids trying to escape to jihadist enclaves, however.

I'm sure there were some contentious moments for Muslims after Charlie Hebdo, and I truly regret any of that. But when good people let the voices of monsters overcome their own, guess what? Bad things happen to good people. Good people who are cowardly about their principles, as well as those who are willing to stand up for positive principles. 

Rational, clear-headed, non-Islamist people in Muslim countries, as well Muslims in places where they are minorities, need to go after these murdering monsters with every words and with military vigor. This is a war, and you seem to expect others to wage it for you, then complain about it. 

Please, Muslims countries, do not complain about "anti-Muslim" foreign policies of Western countries when it seems you expect the USA to go after these radical groups for you, by default. What I see from your states is effectively trying to ignore these murdering radicals (those who are not quietly cheering them) like the British tried to ignore Hitler in the 1930s. 

The "Muslim World" had 30 years to rid of the monster Saddam Hussein, but did you? No. You needed the US and allies (few Arab soldiers) to kick him out of Kuwait, and look at the thanks we got from most of the Muslim World as a result of that. Appreciation didn't seem to last very long. Find the appreciation upon Hussein's removal in 2003. I am not seeing it. Does anyone else? Only the Kurds seemed to appreciate it. 

The "Muslim World" could have rid of the Taliban, but did you? No. You could have stopped bin Laden, but did you? I find it difficult to believe that Pakistan wasn't hiding him, frankly, seeing as he was living a few miles from the major military training center of the country. Yet Muslims note the mistakes that the Western allies made in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, when they were comparably few, by contrast to the shameful habits of Muslim countries in matters of brutal totalitarian dictatorships over many, many decades. 

Please, Muslims, for your good and the world's, quit your mere whining and go after these beasts yourselves. No more Talibans, no more bin Ladens, no more Husseins, no more ISIS. This is your internal problem, not ours, but you made it ours by your seeming inaction or weakness of will against this evil. 

I'm not simply watching today's news. I have read Middle Eastern history. I respect the realities of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and other imperial maneuvers by Western European countries after the end of the Ottoman Empire. The West -- namely France and Great Britain in the aforementioned case -- only helped mess it up. That was 100 years ago, though. More intervention was done. But Muslim states also colluded with Hitler during WW II. He was a Western leader, yeah, but he's no Western statesmen of good repute. They were not exactly ready to be their own states then. But oil changed that. But that's history. 

What now? Tiny Israel is to blame for all of the Middle East's troubles? Please, Muslim states and Palestinian apologists. Quit being cowards and racists, and rid of the beasts in your midst and enforce civility in the Palestinian non-states. So they can some day become states. 

We've seen recent actions by Gulf states fighting ISIS. It's about time. The Saudis and others should get their hands dirty, very dirty, and dedicate some of their treasure to destroying Muslim extremism. That, or quite whining about Western action in the region. You can't have it both ways. 

As for Arab states involvement against ISIS and all radical Islamists, it's not yet enough. Sure, we have some wacky televangelists and other Christians or just plain unaffiliated types who believe all Muslims are dangerous or at least divisive. They're wrong. But they have not bombed buildings for it in neighborhoods, like terrorists. If they did, they would be arrested or killed in a war with police (their choice, really), if they did. I fight a war of words against their war of words online. Even amongst my friends. 

Ignorance is everywhere. I'm certainly not free of it. But I am not blissful in it, not when it comes to extremism. Too many are blissful in the peace and quiet of their own home or cities or nations while others are dying at the hands of -- quite sane, but cruel -- murderers in the "the name of Islam." Muslims need to learn how to be effective activists, not against Israel, but against Muslim extremists. And yes, that is a very accurate term for it. 

When the "Western World" won't need to try and rid of the monsters in your midst, Muslim World, they will not have a reason to be in your lands. They will only be there to do business, or as tourists. 

Of late ( thanks to something called freedom of speech, which you don't seem to like all that much), we are less and less able to practice in overseas propaganda wars (as we did in South American countries in the 1960s-80s). Speech is more wide open than ever now, which makes it harder to low to smarter people. 

Meanwhile, some continue to quietly, or loosely, refer to us as the great Satan, just as your extremist friends do. It's simple: nothing will change for the better in the contentious Middle East until the wealthy Middle Eastern countries start really fighting their own terror war. You're kidding yourselves if you think you are. 

Those who know liberty are proud to defend the ideas of liberty, even for those who are too ignorant to know what it is. Oppressive leaders of one kind or another don't really give people much hope or insight into human freedom and liberty. But they do cultivate an attraction to leaders such as bin Laden. 

I recognize evil and good. I've had some unfortunate run-ins with them, in paradox. Forget utopia, either New Age or Muslim. It sounds great, but utopia is like heaven: it's not of this Earth. Wake up and face the real world, Muslims. Israel and Western cultures are not your enemy, your own radicals are. 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

(Revised)

GW Bush, mass panic gave us Patriot Act, let's curtail it now

In context of the time when it was passed, the Patriot Act was a forgivable overreaction, perhaps. But today, it's just more big government that we cannot afford. 

Sometimes, scary things happen in politics. Here's an example: far right web sites agree with the wildly leftist (and silly) MoveOn.org on something. They agree that we need to END THE PATRIOT ACT.

Thank goodness some polar political opposites can agree on something, huh? The left and right can't even manage to agree on which death-lusting terrorists are worth ridding off: The fringe left wants to provide jobs, food and education to some terrorists, while the fringe right believes everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist. But, we can agree that nosing in on Americans, not merely inconveniencing them at airports (TSA), but listening on without lawful purpose (Patriot Act, potentially), is bad.

Of course, I dislike the Patriot Act because there's clear principles being shoved out of the way, and they were given a clear voice in the U.S. Constitution. That matters. Some who I would generally disagree with on political matters seem concerned that black extremists (but they think of them as merely put-upon poor people), Occupy Wall Street dweebs, pederasts (simply gay people), or potheads (pot is no worse than alcohol, so it should be at every kitchen bench) might be among those snared by officials who are supposedly looking for terrorists. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the whole of the Bill of Rights, are just a convenient table to stand on while they're fighting the Progressive-Statist power-grab fight. (Yeah, I'm not a fan of Obama Democrats, if you didn't guess.)

I think it's simple: the USA Patriot Act needs to go. As least, it needs generous curtailing. Tell your US Representative and your US Senator, and tell anyone to do the same. Here's a link to save you some time in reaching your reps.

But don't bother with Senate boss Mitch McConnell (R - KY), who is all for it, it seems. Not much of a Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is proving to be in the era of Obama statism. He plays right along. (As does House Speaker John Boerner of Ohio.) Radio and nonfiction book great, Mark Levin, has bashed McConnell as never before, in recent weeks (one time and another; and then some).

If the Patriot Act is extended as it looks like it will be -- a mistake -- it's still going to require a vote another day. Make it stop. The Patriot Act is GW Bush's contribution, along with DHS, TSA, and a massive military debt, to the nanny state, to his legacy as BIG GOVERNMENT REPUBLICAN. He was not a complete modern American conservative, he was a religious and social conservative only. He isn't a bad man, but he was, fiscally, a very expensive president. He is not solely to blame, of course, but his presidency will keep that reputation into the future telling of it in history books, I believe. You cannot blame him alone, as plenty of citizens were all for the Patriot Act back in the day. They were afraid.

Frightened people are not good at making rational decision, or making up sensible rules. You've watched a horror movie or two, right? Scared people are bad at making decisions --- VERY BAD! The Patriot Act proves it, I think. In context of the time when it was passed, the Patriot Act was a forgivable overreaction, perhaps. But today, it's just more big government that we cannot afford (I mean "afford" in every sense of the word that comes to mind). It's not a Prohibition Act for security, because that would look like a totalitarian police state; but perhaps it was as bipartisan and as reactionary as Prohibition.

We must fix the damage added in GW Bush's time along with Obama's. I am very comfortable pointing out that Obama has done nothing but add to the problem of a massive and ever-growing federal debt and bureaucracy. But I refuse to be partisan in my disgust with big government.

This comes with burdens that have been added for decades by an ever-growing federal government that has weakened the states, and the citizens, and hurt liberty for every person.

WAKE UP. Stop big government.


We went from the GREATEST generation during World War Two, to the MOST SELFISH GENERATION. Well, to be nice, let's call it the most distracted generation -- that of the 1950s-1980s. Now we're ringing in the STATIST GENERATION, as a result. 

It's not too late, but it's time to change tack. Because, as so many FINALLY recognized in the economic upset of 2007-2009, things have gotten out of hand. Either government stays in control, or we get some control of it.

WAKE UP. Obama and other far left so-called liberal Democrats (they're statists, not liberals, dammit) have taken a bad thing -- the Great Recession -- and extended it. It is high time to stop it.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Related articles

• Patriot Act may be here to stay, Washington source says
• 7 Dems Join Rand Paul's Patriot Act 'Filibuster'
• US Senate leader pushes to extend NSA phone dragnet
• House Passes NRA-Backed Legislation to Reign in Mass Surveillance
• Mitch McConnell: Nation is 'Better Off' with Patriot Act
• McConnell Delays Debate on Legislation, Tries to Save Complete Patriot Act
• US House votes to stop NSA's mass surveillance

So fine: Cuba to be off the terrorist list

Says Dick Durbin: "opening up the island to American ideas, vibrancy, and trade is the most effective way to see a more open and tolerant Cuba." 

The only problem with his brilliant* belief (and it is only that: a belief) is that CUBA HAS BEEN CLOSED, WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN WILLING TO SHARE OUR IDEAS AND 'VIBRANCY'! As for trade, guess who sets the prices in Cuba? It's not the market! It's the state! 

Dick Durbin, you numb nuts! 

See the story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/14/obama-removes-cuba-from-state-sponsor-terror-list/

j Ruse 

aka @AirFarceOne (twitter)

*sarcasm

Lamestream media? Yeah, ABC, lame.

​

So, which is it., ABC? Is five years or life in prison the maximum? 

--

J Ruse 

Like, Totally Political, Dude! 

The LTPD blog on Blogger

Follow on Twitter: @airfarceone