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

GUN CONTROL PATROL: so now it's only about "expanded background checks"?

Obama says it's all about "expanded background checks" now. (Facebook post)

GUN CONTROL PATROL - Suddenly it's all about "expanded background checks"?

This started as nothing short of a call for complete gun registration, a ban (or, witch hunt, mostly by Democrat nitwits) on rifles only because they LOOKED like military guns, and a severe limit on magazine capacity of 7 rounds in a handgun. (Here's one hilariously obvious thing non gun owners, and blissfully uninformed "leaders" in Congress, might not know: most non-revolver handguns today hold 8 or more rounds, so this was either a clown posse from the start (idiot kings trying look responsive after a tragedy), or it was an attempt by snakes leading doleful mice to the nest (cynical attempt to ban virtually all handguns, or require customization of virtually every gun, or magazine, out there).

A retired police chief wrote an op/ed, just after Sandy Hook occurred, saying the FIRST THING we should do in response to Sandy Hook is repeal the 2nd Amendment (#2A on Twitter). The first thing! An anti-Constitutionalist sissy with a law enforcement badge (must've sucked working for him, unless you thought as simply as him). Of course, he is not alone, as a search of the Internet would show. Didn't hear anyone from the White House reacting to that insanity. So what? Well, this self-interested, blame-gaming, absent-minded professor in the White House had a beer summit after a minor misunderstanding in Cambridge, Mass. But Obama can't react to an op/ed, or other rants, insisting we repeal the 2nd Amendment? His, and the Justice Department's, silence on these few calls to end 2A is deafening. The clowns are running the circus. They are not in charge of it all, thankfully, as shown by this fall back from demanding gun registration and gun and magazine bans, to a call for broader background checks. The typical, supportive DailyKos readers of the world are not controlling the rest of us (their numbers are far too small).

This change in priorities by the anti-gun brigade in August shows the regrouping, behind their lines, of the cynical power ploy that's standard by the nastily control- and power-hungry Democratic leadership today. They will grab for it all in moments of upset or advantage - as they did with ObamaCare - and retreat if they must, as they had to with gun control. But they are going to instead slowly work their way back to that big goal, which is centralized control of anything possible to wrench control of, weakening states and creating a stronger federation run from DC, all the while insisting it isn't about control, but doing what's better for every individual.

So to them and their supporters it makes sense that a massive federal bureaucracy can offer more attention to individuals than individuals can on their own? Or that a centralized, Soviet-like state can care better for everyone than several somewhat sovereign states? That's what the Democratic Party political idea is today. Not democratic at all, but socialistic. Like, the Borg, from Star Trek, if the term Soviet makes you think of Stalin and Lenin too much and hurts your feelings. No matter, is that such a good idea?

I'll take my government in SMALL DOSES, just as the US Constitution demands, thanks.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Meld this: 'I am not a dictator'

President Obama(Photo: Charles Dharapak, AP)

Tags

• U.S. Secret Service
• Mitch McConnell
• Barack Obama
• John Boehner

The sequester is getting attention for sure, but two other comments by President Obama at a brief news conference Friday are likely to have a long shelf life.

First, the president announced he is not a dictator.

Then Obama disclosed he could not "mind meld" with Republicans to force a sequester deal, though it appears he mixed his science fiction metaphors.

"Most people agree I'm presenting a fair deal, " Obama said. "The fact that they (Republicans) don't take it means that I should, somehow, you know, do a Jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what's right."

Alas, the Vulcan Mind Meld is the property of Star Trek's Mr. Spock (a character Obama has been compared to, oddly enough).

The Jedi, of Star Wars fame, used "mind tricks" to get people to do what they want, according to numerous science fiction geeks who flocked to Twitter after the president's remarks.

Even the White House got on the Star Wars joke, tweeting out a picture of the president and advocating his budget plan with the caption, "we must bring balance to the Force." The White House also gave a shout-out to Mr. Spock, saying: "To Deny The Facts Would Be Illogical."

Spock himself -- also known as actor Leonard Nimoy -- weighed in, more or less defending Obama by tweeting: "Only a Vulcan mind meld will help with this congress."

The Atlantic website reports that Obama "shatters his nerd credibility" -- which strikes us as a good thing.

The president had made the same point earlier when he told reporters he couldn't force the Republicans to agree to a new budget deal.

"I am not a dictator," Obama said. "I'm the president."

He added: "So, ultimately if Mitch McConnell or John Boehner say, 'we need to go to catch a plane,' I can't have Secret Service block the doorway. Right?"

via usatoday.com

Who says this: "I am not a dictator. I'm the president."

I mean, who WOULD say such a thing? Someone whose ego and self-love is mountainous, one who teases himself with the idea that he should be a dictator. A benevolent dictator. That'd be fine. With him. And, obviously, plenty of poorly informed citizens of the United States (not to mention all those fans overseas).

Obama has confirmed -- if you want to use that term rather than 'woefully explained' -- that he also is not an emperor. On multiple occasions.

I think it's clear to everyone that Obama WISHES he could avoid all this make-believe compromising he's doing. Changing the goal posts, pretending he's a centrist when he's a statist, pretending he's "post-political" when he's created more divisiveness with his words than any president I can recall since radio was invented.

- jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

A reason to be afraid of most Democrats in the House

Heath Shuler. Image via Wikipedia

If you needed a reason to be concered about the mindset of elected Democrats, you only need to look so far. The following suggests, perhaps, that the only way to snap the House Democrats -- the most so-called "liberal" among them, certainly -- out of their view that things are running just fine, thanks to them, is to replace them. At least, to bump out about 3/4 of them in 2012 (or 150 of them).

House Democrats Re-Elect Pelosi as Their Leader (via The Caucus, a NY Times blog)

Officials said that [Nancy] Pelosi defeated Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina in an internal party vote, 150 to 43. Mr. Shuler acknowledged before the vote that he had no chance to win, but he wanted to give disgruntled Democrats a chance to register their opposition to Ms. Pelosi's leadership anyway.

...

Mr. Shuler, the former college quarterback who won his third term representing North Carolina's 11th District, publicly called on her not to run. After the vote, Mr. Shuler said the vote showed that concerns about Ms. Pelosi's leadership went beyond a few conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats.

"It came out pretty much as we expected," he told reporters, adding that "it wasn't about winning the race, but it was about having a voice within our caucus."

Ms. Pelosi became the first female Speaker after Democrats gained a majority in the House in 2006. She has been a prolific fundraiser, collecting more than $200 million for the party since joining the leadership in the House in 2002. 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/house-democrats-re-elect-pelosi-as-their-leader/?partner=rss&emc=rss

I guess we'll see by this time next year whether or not it will be as regrettable to have John Boerner as Speaker as it has been a dippy rich chick from the ether of the snobby side of San Francisco.

- jR

Related articles

• Shuler, Pelosi relationship: It's complicated (politico.com)

Vote: Stop raising taxes so we can start raising raises!

On Tuesday, November 2, 2010: VOTE for those who will:

STOP RAISING TAXES - SO WE CAN START RAISING RAISES. 

Or: STOP EXPANDING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SO PEOPLE CAN AGAIN AIM FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM!

Does this make sense? Yes, of course it does, except to those who are convinced that government is the solution to all or most problems. Ronald Reagan famously said: in "today's crisis," government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem. His actual quote has been streamlined to "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."

That quote has been turned, stunningly, on its head by spiteful, poorly educated (on politics and civic history) left-wingers. They even go so far as to suggest that somehow conservatives think the best government would be nearly no government. Or, so little government that the greedy, violent, criminal, depraved, and any ne'er do wells could ultimately be the insane running the asylum. 

Outside of a sense that the crazies are already running society, the turning of those words of Reagan, and the broad sentiment he conveyed, into something flatly "anti-government" is unproductive to the point of being cruel. 

Saying that a small government sentiment is "anti-government" is akin to saying that those who believe in watching what they eat actually would prefer not eating, and that both will allow you to safely get into better shape. It's not just playing with words, it's wacky. Animaniacs kind of wacky.

Vermont has a senator with this bizarre, seemingly all-or-nothing political rhetoric, by the name of Bernie Sanders. And MSNBC has at least one vocal comrade of Sanders, in Ed Schultz. Both are an embarrassment to anyone seeking a rational discussion on the size of government versus the scale of people's opportunities and liberties.

Excellence and progress comes from the private sector, from R&D and science, and from not bureaucrats, pork projects, and wildly imbalanced pension plans for gov't employees. Don't be fooled by pie-in-the-sky promises. The only reason gov't spending and size gets continually larger is because the ones with the purse strings forgot they work for people, not the other way around. Time to change that. 

Government is not the enemy of the people, but only until it proves to be the enemy. It is hurting us, but only some are truly outraged by it, most notably in recent years, the tea party movement. 

It's hard to live on what was not long ago a good income level, and there's no sign of improvement coming. Better to stop the march toward government dominance now than to weep for the extinction of the American Dream later. One by one it is happening, for a variety of reasons, high among them the high cost of living versus honest, usual incomes. Remember when most middle class families could survive on one full-time income? No? It used to be so. 

Now, and always, vote for the goal of smaller government and, thus, greater opportunity. The issues beyond the question of expanding government are indeed important, but they won't be your concern as a citizen if you're struggling to SUPPORT the government rather than CARING FOR yourself, your family, you business, and your community. It is getting harder every year for most people, and not only because of the recession. It's the trend going back decades, sadly.

It is time to stop raising taxes and to start allowing raises -- for those NOT working for Congress or on Wall Street -- to happen. It is through better family earnings that we get improved tax bases, not through larger and larger government. Doesn't that make honest sense to these so-called leaders?! 

Don't wait for their answers, give them yours on November 2. 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)  

Related articles

• POLITICO: Bernie Sanders: Hands off Social Security (totally-political.blogspot.com)

Sen. Bernie Sanders says: hands off my beloved Social Security, you vicious, anti-government nuts!

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) comments on what he sees as right-wing "hatred" of Soc Sec. Hatred of it is going a bit far, except maybe some far-flung kooks. 

Opinion: We can't allow deep benefit cuts, including a steep rise in the retirement age. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41628.html

Some of it (note: the links within it are mine):

"The White House deficit commission is reportedly considering deep benefit cuts for Social Security, including a steep rise in the retirement age. We cannot let that happen.

"The deficit and our $13 trillion national debt are serious problems that must be addressed. But we can -- and must -- address them without punishing America's workers, senior citizens, the disabled, widows and orphans.

"First, let's be clear: Despite all the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. That's a lie!

"The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter century. Today's $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039.

"Got that? In case you don't, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to every eligible beneficiary for the next 29 years.

"It is true that by 2039, if nothing is changed, Social Security will be able to pay out only about 80 percent of benefits. That is why it is important that Congress act soon to make sure Social Security is as strong in the future as it is today.

"The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing, anti-government crowd is based on the fact that the government program has been enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For 75 years, in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for tens of millions of Americans. ..."

(use link above to read the whole piece)


Disliking how Soc Sec's Trust Fund is borrowed from by a greedy government, and the balance of pay-ins versus pay-outs, is what is creating worries, as far as I'm aware. Pretty simple that is more money goes out than goes in, it's going to dry up! I don't recall hearing anyone suggest it was going to run out next year, but in 2039? The estimates have varied. Who said banish it? I think younger people just don't trust government with their retirement account.  

Sanders' crude calling of people "anti-government" leaves out a vital adjective. Anarchists and crooks are anti-government; right wingers who are neither of those are against a BIG, dominating, bossy, liberty-sucking federal government. They are not against government. 


Senator, Tea Party people, as far as I am aware and as far as I am informed, are merely against a massive, costly, too-powerful Big Brother government full of people who twist facts -- such as what they feel about Soc Sec. If that is not clear, senator, then you have a scant excuse for being a representative of any people. 

Senator, by the looks of this rant of yours, you are an agitator and extremist, not your right wing antagonists. Judging from the deviant language you used, in the opinion piece, about those who favor an affordable and liable government over a constantly growing, taxing beast, you're way off-center, to say the least. 


Your comments about Soc Sec history of success -- obvious stuff, isn't it? -- aside, your coloring of the right is juvenile, done with crayons, not informed nore sensible, as with fine art oil paint.

Shame, Vermont, for keeping this wacky man in power. He is way off-color.

- jR

Related articles by Zemanta

• Richard (RJ) Eskow: Deficit Commission's Rumored Deal Would Pit Middle-Class Seniors Against the Poor (huffingtonpost.com)
• Thoughts about the real reasons for opposition to Social security (beliefnet.com)

Alan Grayson in 2010: will his House career 'die quickly'?

Alan Grayson, Democrat congressman from Central Florida's District 8, seems to be facing some hurdles toward reelection in 2010. The infamously ridiculous congressman who announced the GOP wants all sick people to "die quickly," is continually embarrassing himself. Or, he isn't. I think he is.

He gave himself a website denoting his "bravery",  http://thecongressmanwithguts.com. Then, in a similarly obnoxious manner, he asked the Attorney General of the United States to go after a woman who created a rather contrary website, http://mycongressmanisnuts.com. 

He is up for reelection in November, and for the past several months was abnormally quiet. Until recently, when he stated that anyone who said "Drill, baby, drill" should be arrested, in a typically bonkers tirade, in this case, in reaction to the Gulf oil well disaster. 

His words are like Nerf balls, hitting their targets and getting funny looks a giggles in reaction. He's now understood to be a wacky dude who somehow got elected. The problem is, he spent $1,000,000 of his own money to help him push his way in. 

I hope his political career gets what it deserves. I want to see his political career DIE QUICKLY. As in, by the vote in November 2010. But he still has money, somehow. 

He needs to go away. I am very grateful he is not mu rep, but no one deserves him, except maybe that wacky Pelosi gal. 

Do a search for those trying to put down his mangey stint as an Orlando area rep. And share it with ANYONE you think could help turn the vote against Grayskull. Er, Grayson.

Alan Grayson's foes in 2010: the Ask.com search

- J Ruse (aka AirFarceOne, on Twitter)

Cong. Alan Grayson visits Ocala local leaders, gets jeers from detractors

Who will stop the $1 million man? The man who almost lost, and spent lots of his own money to win in the leadership lottery. A congressman who is a national embarrassment (I like to think) for anyone who looks at politics as something more than a Jerry Springer Show form of reality entertainment.

Alan Grayson, a lawyer who was known for fighting corruption, is a first term congressman for a gerrymandered district taking in part of Orlando and lots of other areas.

In 2008, Grayson spent around $1 million of his own money to beat an average,  and unpopular, GOP congressman named Ric Keller. Grayson won with only 52% of the vote. There were a lot of noses held shut in November 2008 inside the voting booths of Florida District 8, I suspect.

Lots of people, even outside the district, seem to admire Grayson, for "telling it like it is". Whatever "it" is, it is not clear without a lengthy explanation with plenty of projecting by the explainer. Fans hear what they want to hear from Grayson, and nothing he says matters to his fans, just that he's being against The Other Side. He stated the GOP health reform plan was to have everyone sick "die quickly". Hmm. Can I see that bill? It was meant to be funny. (Alert: he is not a funny man, except perhaps creepy funny.)

He expanded on that, saying we should prevent a national "holocaust" by accepting a massive health reform plan that amounts to a huge, costly entitlement program very much like Medicare. (You know how well that program's doing in controlling spending, don't you? It is not well, not well at all.)

He did a lot of good in his legal career, in the fight against government contract corruption, proving to be a standout in that area. It would be nice to see him return to that arena. One can dream, can't one (or millions)? After all, he thinks he's being clear, and that's stunningly funny (quote from Ocala.com site):

Grayson has upset Republicans - and even a few Democrats - with some of his rhetoric in recent weeks, including his statements on the Republicans' position on health care and a reference to an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a "K Street whore."

The remarks have made Grayson a media and Internet sensation.

In an interview, the congressman attributed that reaction to people having become accustomed to a "culture of dishonesty" in Washington, where elected leaders shrink from telling what they really think on issues.

"A few Democrats"? Seriously? Only a few? Gag. If so, that's what's wrong with Democrats these days -- no longer the party of a Truman or a JFK, or even an Olympia Snowe (har har).

You would probably find that view laughable if you watched a series of clips of Grayson's prepared and practiced antics, on the floor of the US House, doing some of this "telling it like it is", and using "holocaust" regarding the -- unholy? -- lack of health coverage in the States. You could also visit his shamelessly pandering site, namesofthedead.com, which celebrates, apparently, everyone who died not from illness, but illness made clearly worse -- one would think from his rhetoric -- by insufficient medical care or health coverage.

Or, you could not go to the site, and just hope he goes back to fighting corruption in 2011.

Read the whole Ocala.com article  at the site.



- j Ruse (aka AirFarceOne, on Twitter)

Life, liberty and the pursuit of bigger government? Can you try again, please?

How does one go from small government to the massive joke we are now under? It's called power-seeking folks all palling around and taking from the rest of us who wish to think for ourselves, and enjoy some idea of freedom. Freedom is an illusion, they say. Sadly, it is becoming more and more an illusion these days.

If you want the government to help you, be careful what you ask for. The government should be there for LIMITED reasons. Not for what it's been turned into for the last 60 and more years. This could have been a time to pull back from the big gov't that Roosevelt started. Instead, we're going even farther into it. Not just the Democrats to blame, mind you! This has been ongoing for a long time. Remember that, and remember it, too, when you vote, and when you have a chance to have your views known.

Smaller the government, the bigger the freedoms for ALL. The poor will always be poor is the government is walfaring them, and corporations will always be greedy so long at the gov't rewards it.

Shame.


Click the link at bottom to read the whole piece. This is from GetLiberty.org.

Forgotten Founding Wisdom

By Howard Rich

“Sacred and undeniable.”

That’s how Thomas Jefferson originally described the basic American rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Of course, Ben Franklin changed these to “inalienable” rights, and a printer’s error resulted in them becoming “unalienable.”

Still, the meaning was clear. Or at least it was 233 years ago—when the U.S. government existed as a “necessary evil” that lived within its means, not a self-perpetuating Orwellian nightmare propped up by trillions of dollars in bad debt.

At its inception, American government was created to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—and yet sadly, today it is more often than not a force against these elemental American rights.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined,” James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45. “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Really? Then how are we to explain the unprecedented centralization of power we now see in Washington D.C. -- a process fueled by billions in unfunded mandates and strings-attached bailouts?

Get the full story here.

jR, aka AirFarceOne (twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sen. Dodd's reelection bid embraces his, umm, success with banking

From the Political Hah! Dept.:

Chris Dodd’s Comeback Slogan: ‘Banking on Change’ - BrianFaughnan’s blog - RedState

So what’s Chris Dodd’s plan to save his lucrative government gig? Remind people of his spot on the Banking Committee [link to RollCall article]:

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), facing increasingly difficult odds in 2010, is spending the two-week recess barnstorming his home state to try to improve his political standing…

The appearances are part of a series dubbed “Banking for Change,” meant to highlight Dodd’s work on consumer protection issues as chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

Seriously? [link to Dodd's site]

If Dodd manages to win this time around, having proven what a terribly self-interested boob he is -- and it appears that Conn. voters are even less cerebral than Mass. and West Va. voters (Ted, John Kerry, Barney, etc.) -- it shows just how much work that sincere, dignified conservatives and general non-cretins will have to get through to try to recover some sway in D.C. That is, to clarify, there is a lot of work to come for people who believe in simple things:

• smaller government,
• a balanced budget,
• power to the actual people (not their elected king by proxy),
• peace through strength,
• America still is (stuck or blessed as) the leader of the free world and should act like it,
• despising mistreatment of people here but giving passes for mistreatment of "groups" elsewhere is absurd
• liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness don't equate with living in a welfare state
• we have the biggest guns, and we don't prefer to use them, but we damn well will
  

So, cut to the chase: Get the pitchforks, effigies, tar, feathers, and torches ready. Just like the good old, pre-Revolutionary War, days.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Pe-floozie drops airhead bomb, this time on illegals, which got me thinking about drugs

America's fearless House leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in comments that can fairly be called playing to the crowd in a most profane sense, spoke at a church to a group of apparent illegals recently, telling them that deporting illegals was essentially (see site, Immigration's Human Cost) "un-American." But that was only after she informed the illegals that they are "patriotic." Yes, that's right: illegals are patriots, and our system is broken... if they leave.

She argued that forcing parents to leave the U.S. equates breaking up families, which is cruel. Nah! Is that cruel? This visit to a church was mistaken for a guest speaker engagement, I guess, but it was really a get-out-the-vote visit, the beautiful, adoring, kindly, fearless leader densely into campaign mode for 2010. Already, and we haven't even saved the planet yet, or the economy, or illegals' families. Which is most the utmost vital to our universal liberty, freedom and happiness again? Sorry -- channeling Pelosi there for a moment!

I am not being very serious, am I? The concern is, though, is Pelosi? Why would she say these things and not mean them? What kind of system would endeavor to break up families, she asked. What system would endeavor to hurt puppies? Indeed.

Who wants to willingly break up a family? I would suggest nobody but a mean, jealous mistress (or the male equivalent). Of course, what Pelosi means is that Republicans want to break up families, and that the mission of our current immigration laws are to break up families. Not to get control of who can enter this country whenever they please, like all those old-fashioned countries like (to name a few) China, France, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Mexico, and Cuba do. Oh wait, they barely offer immigration, let alone do they let illegals stick around! So, how is it that we are able to take all of them on, will-nilly? What's Ms. Pelosi's plan, then? No plan given? Just rhetoric? To the illegals? In her home district, in budget-throttled California?

Talk about playing to the crowd!

YouTube - Pelosi Calls Illegals "Patriotic", ICE Raids "Un-American"

I think Speaker Pelosi really means well in her mind, but it's extremely misguided. What's more scary: Biden as VP or her as House Leader, or third in line to the presidency? I think our govt is holding us hostage with these people in charge!

Next they'll legislate nap times for every workplace to keep stress levels down, counseling and required "me time" for murderers, rapists, gang members, and terrorists rather than jail time. Perhaps they'll eliminate the two-party system "just to save time" during elections, too. They seem to be trying that pretty hard, what with seniority rule (NEA-style leadership rules) legislation that self-preserving Pelosi wants to pass through Congress.

Being "cheeky" (that's Brit-speak for wise-arsed), I considered the elder Bush selecting dopey Dan Quayle as VP to be deviously brilliant -- made Secret Service especially eager to keep Bush alive! Who wanted to see Quayle as president?!! This, this though, is a whole new bag of salty chips.

Someone commented, I think facetiously, under the video, why couldn't the illegals bring their American-born kids to Mexico with them when they were removed? Fair question, I suppose, but it is also a laugh riot. People die trying to come here, but they scamper the other way -- Americans and others -- into Mexico, to avoid being jailed (or killed by an enemy) in the U.S. This is, of course, unless they are drug professionals or wealthy folks who have acres of land in Mexico and good security.

The sad state of Mexico today is a long time coming, and part of the reason that it is so bad is that, like is often the case, is the leadership put off reacting to a growing problem far too long, across recent presidencies, before they were devoted to going after the drug cartels in Mexico. Barely democratic, reasons for leaving there and coming to the U.S. are mostly economic.

If it weren't for current Mexican president, Felipe Calderon, nothing would be being done about rampant drug cartels/gangs there. It is as if they tried to dam a river after long discussions about it, and they failed, causing flooding. Regrettably, GW Bush's pal Vicente Fox may easily be called a lame aristocrat type who left the drug cartel problem alone (lame, much like Clinton was here, serving as a squatter-in-chief) only to let Mexico's criminal powers (perhaps with it driven by criminal enterprises here and elsewhere) go farther. That overlooks the fact that he was also the first non-PRI party (across history of that party and its predecessors), thus the first opposition party president since ... 1910. Off the hook? I don't know. Seems to me they could have asked us (the U.S.) for help, but I suppose one cannot blame Fox for playing it safe. As for Clinton... never mind.

In the here and now, in 2007-09 (and beyond) we face several years of death and terror, the police frightened of the thugs (assuming they are not the same, which they are not always the same) in trying to end crimes' rule, has resulted, since Calderon brazenly declared war on drug cartels. Thus making it, by backhanded insult, seem all the more foul that we should send anyone back to some border areas of Mexico.


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Congressional leaders spit fire though Limbaugh gets the headlines

Politico provided this story, which I found on the CBS site, since CBS News (at least the Evening News portion) cannot find any reason to deride Democrats who haven't viciously assaulted small children with hot pokers (or equivalent). This must be a big "oops" for little Miss Couric's rabidly anti-GOP, pro-liberalism, pro-Obama, pro-Keynesian agenda.

Reid, Pelosi Swearing Match Over Omnibus - CBS News

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and his deputy, Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D.-Ill.) were called to Pelosi’s office late Thursday night and ultimately prevailed in their argument that Democrats should try to salvage the bill, which includes critical spending increases for vital agencies. But the heated, sometimes profane, exchanges were described as “ugly” by Democrats on both sides of the Capitol. Staff, kicked out in the hall, could hear the yelling, and Pelosi herself seemed a little abashed the next day, joking that nothing her leadership could say to her now would match the night before.

The speaker’s anger was directed primarily at Senate Republicans, who withheld their support even when they had substantial interests in the measure. Pelosi feels that Republicans are gaming the Democrats, who have to be tougher in turn by forcing them to live with the consequences of what she sees as obstruction.

The speaker’s scorched earth alternative, killing the omnibus, was too much for some in her own leadership. But Pelosi’s anger is shared by many House Democrats along with the fear that the Senate debate is being dragged out by Republicans as part of a concerted campaign to pummel Obama even as the young president tries to keep the nation focused on his economic agenda and budget going forward.

With funding running out Friday, Pelosi finally called her members back to Washington to pass the five day extension on a 328-58 vote. Ironically enough, this came after a 218-160 vote in which Democrats killed a Republican alternative that would have cut about $17 billion from the omnibus and come closer to the stripped down alternative the speaker herself had been threatening.

This was not a topic for discussion on the Sunday morning talk shows, though, while the fake news story of Rush Limbaugh being the sould of the Republican Party was on perhaps every single one of them. What is wrong with people?

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

House GOP budget leader says something about 'change'

Ryan on Obama's Budget - Power Line

RYAN: Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for this hearing. I look forward to having a number of these hearings on this budget. What a week we just had last week. Let's go through it for a second. On Monday, we had the Fiscal Responsibility Summit. On Tuesday, we witnessed a very eloquent, ambitious and even inspiring speech by the president of the United States echoing those themes of fiscal responsibility. Then on Wednesday, Congress passed a bloated $410 billion spending bill with 9,000 earmarks. And on Thursday, we received the mother of all budgets, a truly sweeping transformation of the federal government, the likes of which we have not seen since the New Deal.

Finally, on Saturday, the president threw down the gauntlet. Rather than echoing the theme of changing the tone in Washington or bringing people together to forge a bipartisan compromise, he essentially said, "You're either with me or you're against me." He claimed opponents of this transformative budget are quote, "Tools of special interest and the powerful."

Those were the words today of the ranking Republican on the House Committee on the Budget. Essentially, they were a transcription, and I am glad I found them. That's only the start of it, too.

Powerline is apparently a hot blog (I've only just now been made aware of it through my current Twitter addiction) from the conservative side of things.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sen. "No Tax Cuts" Kerry sent letter by Hamas, to give to Obama

From the Daily Beast news portal: Dear Barack, From Hamas - The Daily Beast

Hamas has a message for President Obama. And who better to deliver it than Sen. John Kerry, visiting Gaza this week? A senior UN official told BBC News that the letter has been received by the UN, but would not specify if Kerry had been the one to accept it. The Massachusetts Democrat did not meet with Hamas, instead focusing on humanitarian concerns.

"[The visit] does not indicate any shift whatsoever with respect to Hamas...what it indicates is our effort to listen and to learn," Kerry said.

So, what did the letter have in it? Was it like this?

Dear Pres. Obama:

Please destroy Israel so we may rule the planet from Jerusalem as Muslim brothers with the fundamentalist imams of the Muslim world. Oh, and death to all infidels. Imshalla!

Silly terrorists, Obama is an American, a Christian, and no matter how liberal he is, he is not a tool and not going to make nice with you till you start changing... everything about your group's goals and how you wish to achieve them.


The BBC piece goes into it with more detail, but not giving up whether the letter will be read by Obama:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hamas 'sends Barack Obama letter'

The Palestinian group Hamas has sent a letter addressed to the US president via a US politician visiting Gaza, a senior UN official has said.

UN relief agency chief Karen Abu Zayd told the BBC the letter had been received by the UN and passed on.

She did not say if Senator John Kerry had accepted it, and there were no details about the letter's contents.

The US views Hamas, which seized control of Gaza in 2007, as a terrorist organisation and will not deal with it.

A spokeswoman for the US consulate said it was thought to be the first visit by US congressmen for at least four years.

Mr Kerry also visited the Israeli town of Sderot, a target of Palestinian rocket attacks, before entering Gaza.

Standing in front of a pile of used rockets, Mr Kerry said that both he and President Obama believed that nobody should have to spend their lives in fear of attack.

[Kerry stated:] "We are sympathetic with the crisis that people face on a daily basis here in Israel, from those who choose no other path other than to use instruments of terror."

Earlier he said: "[The visit] does not indicate any shift whatsoever with respect to Hamas... what it indicates is our effort to listen and to learn."

Hamas won elections in 2006 and consolidated control by force in 2007.

I am glad Kerry respects the hardships of Israelis being threatened for years with the small but deadly -- terrorizing -- missiles (unless you are a glib, spoiled, child-like game console junkie, you recognize that any size missile is threatening, thus coming as an act of aggression). It gives me hope that his dolt elitist views of many things at home are not all-encompassing.

I am fascinated by what this letter from Hamas might have in it. Might it be a rambling rants such as some public letters from Iran's Ahmedinejahd or al-Qaeda leaders? Or will it have something worth reading to someone who believes in human freedom? That is, will it be readable for people who have worked to practice human freedoms despite the foul smell of history and the setbacks of modern despots? That is, would it be worth reading by someone who prefers not using terrorism to claim land and power at the cost of one's own people's -- and others') freedoms and lives?

If we do hear, will it be made public by Hamas itself, or will the White House accept it and present it themselves, first? I am hoping that it must be made public by Hamas. Why? For the White House to accept a letter from the group that clearly proclaimed that the time for peace ended -- irreversibly ended -- hardly gives promise to any proper evolution of any peace plan. Hamas insists that Fatah must go, thus, it is Hamas that ought to go. They are aggressors amongst their own people, and against Israel. As a matter of practice, Hamas uses the deaths of innocents among their own people, during the retaliatory stirkes by Israel, as public relations tools. It gets no more foul that that.

If the letter from Hamas is accepted by the White House, at least right now as they act so cruelly as to use their own people's lives as chum to the world media's biases, it will show that Obama is no diplomat, just a soppy, liberal politician. And, a fool for fascists to toy with. There can be ways to dress this up as a meaningless thing, a mere willingness to accept the mail. Accepting the letter, it can be argued, would change nothing. However, that logic may only go so far: On the world stage of diplomacy, it might be a thundering misstep. It would suggest that the new US President is not only far different politically and in his perspective from GW Bush, but that he is willing to show a blind openness that attracts the fundamentalists, who wish us gone, like ants to a dying dog.

Just my two cents.


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Stimulus? More like ridiculus (what part gets me a job, again?)

Scamulus, smugulus, trickulus, porkulus, crapulus, ridiculus -- Obamalus! -- or whatever you call it, it is less economic stimulus than govt money - our tax money! - going to govt upgrades and govt programs. How's that get me a job, again?

According to what I read, I guess I'll be installing windows? That's my only hope? Since I cannot build bridges, work on construction crews, or do some of that other, always outside, all day, work, being 40 something and not exactly in a condition for outdoor work under no cover, I guess I'll be installing windows on old govt buildings, then? That's my work solution?!!

So explain this: people are mocked when they complain that we ought to get illegals out and let Americans will do their jobs. Folks who claim that Americans who have a problem with illegals are - quite literally - racist. Irrational and offensive, much?

There are allegedly leadership-worthy people in the US who insist that nobody but illegals will, what, be maids or nannies for governors, Senators, or CEOs? They say that illegals do the jobs that Americans won't. Ones beyond being maids, things like migrant working in farms, etc. They say that Americans no longer will be hotel maids, or work in food processing plants.

These people, who are now offering up a US job creation program for America, say that it includes lots of job stimulation. Aisde from apparently some clean energy initiatives for reasearch, which will not get me a job, and construction, which will not get me a job. they will have money to let people upgrade the windows in govt building.

Wait a minute, the illegals: aren't they installing windows, since "no one" will pay a real wage for that work, allegedly?!!

Sounds like we're creating more jobs for illegals. How does the ridiculus stimulus get me a job, again?


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Bad policy, bad ethics, broken ideals, and the downfall of America's markets

Yet more clear reasons why Obama and the Democrats (if we can still call them that, and not Obamacrats) won an election based on the broadest of false claims, that the economics of laissez faire, of hands-off and low taxes, got us into this. It was not capitalism and free markets that hurt us, it was failure by gov't, be it Clinton, GW Bush, or many years of Congressional leaders, that got us into this mess. And yes, CRA and poverty mortgages got us into this!

This problem of the failing economy was PARTLY the fault of Republicans in Congress, since they make the LAWS, but not sure when GW Bush instisted banking regulations be all but forgotten. In fact, it seems the GOP leaders were basically assuaged -- or illicitly looked the other way -- and played along with crazy, fast-times-will-never-slow policies, in the case of the sour mortgages that turned into sour credit default swaps, which turned into a ruined U.S. economy.

In my thoughts, in reading about this economic crisis and how we got here, I am reacting against big government types, and socialists, and liberals, all who to some extent or another seem to be convincing people that the GOP did this to us. Ironic, then, that it was liberal mortgage ideas that got us here, right alongside a lack of regulations (which, indeed, is a small gov't thus GOP attitude) but not by way of GW Bush, but through Clinton-era Congressional diddling through the ever-expanding nonsense of CRA and ill-thought mortgage regulations.

Here's some hard work to that end, linked below, but diced into some small pieces, following:

Feds Re-Impose Loan Standards They Helped Undermine | RealClearMarkets

There is a great irony that Washington will now lead the way in imposing new, stricter standards, including a tougher income-to-payment ratio, because it was Washington, prodded by affordable housing advocates, which pushed mortgage lenders to dilute their traditional underwriting values in the first place. Federal regulators attacked those established standards as being “unintentionally biased” against low and moderate income borrowers and used a variety of laws and regulatory bodies to push often resistant lenders into programs based on these lower standards. The government and those who backed its actions assured lenders these lower standards were safer than they thought, even though there was little research to support that contention. Now that a huge chunk of the market based on these debased standards has melted down, the government is going full circle.

And those who were most easily "prodded by affordable housing advocates" are now running things, so this is quite quite ironic.

...a Freddie Mac program called Affordable Gold, which purchased loans from banks under looser underwriting standards, including loans which allowed a borrower to make a down payment with funds contributed from a third party like a government assistance program or a nonprofit, showed sharply higher default rates, up to four times higher than traditional underwriting standards.

...politicians in both parties made expanding the number of home owners in America a high priority, and the only way to keep doing that was to lend to people with increasingly riskier credit.

Got bad credit? No problem! Not only will you get a loan, but it will be with a low interest rate, too! We'll bend over backwards for our risky customers since Big Brother asked us to. After all, everyone deserves to lose a home at least once in their lifetime!

In a recent Forbes article Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute and Edward Pinto, former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae, point out that by 2001, 18 percent of Fannie Mae’s portfolio consisted of loans to people with credit scores below 680—the traditional definition of a loan to someone with riskier credit, who is also someone more likely to default.

Of course, with two huge federal agencies willing to purchase such loans, mortgage makers couldn’t churn them out fast enough, and private investors also began snapping up the loans in competition with Fannie and Freddie.

As if that is not insulting enough, and ironic that this all came to a head during GW Bush's time in office, when he was too busy waging war on Teararists to notice the economy was failing in a big way, there's this little nugget to chew on:

[Relevant experts] say federal programs were not the problem because many of the worst loans portfolios were created by non-bank lenders which are not even subject to the Community Reinvestment Act. But that’s an argument that ignores the much broader role that government played in watering down standards, including using pressure to force players across the industry to participate.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development under President Clinton, for instance, threatened to introduce legislation to make non-bank lenders, that is, mortgage finance companies, subject to CRA if these firms didn’t sign on to affordable lending goals.

So where were these blowhard, blame Bush, extended-stay Congress members during all of this, for two double-term presidents?!! Those sillies over in Congress -- can't do anything without the White House, it seems!

Who were some of the big fans of this fun mortgage idea? Countrywide hopped right into the cesspool first!

One of the first ... to take up the pledge was Countrywide, which pledged to introduce low-down payment loans with high income-to-payment ratios for low-income borrowers. Countrywide and its co-founder, Angelo Mozilo, ultimately became infamous as one of the first major mortgage lenders to melt down under the weight of its bad lending, but before it was notorious Countrywide was celebrated for its low-income efforts.

Today, the Obama administration acknowledges through its bailout program that those standards were unsafe. It’s a backhanded acknowledgement. ... I suppose that’s about as far as we can expect government to go in admitting the mess it helped to make.

I guess I don't get a bailout, since I was not getting any loans out. Oh well. I hope I can get a JOB at some point that isn't in CONSTRUCTION. Which I have zero experience in.


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Zell Miller, 2002: tax cuts should be a Democratic Party staple!

Full circle, that's what the election on November 2008 was -- a tilt around the bowl from success helped by Sept. 11 and appearing strong, and nothing less than tax cuts. Go figure!

In bad times, when the population is pissed off and willing to vote about it, impressions mean everything. When it comes to bad times and how well one can accuse the other side of being the cause of all our ills, the Democrats, make no mistake, won on rhetoric and the coolness of Barack Obama. The 44th president was not the reason for all the Congressional successes, the bad economy, which was blamed on GW Bush, was.

You can disagree, but I'd love to know just what the arguments are. I cannot see how, really, that this was about anything but voting, loudly, with our wallets (and some resentment of those with fat ones, especially the fat ones in pocket of finance industry white collar crooks).

Here's an interesting bit of commentary from one Democratic senator, in November of 2002. This was just after the Democrats were trounced in the "off-year" Congressional elections. The words are Sen. Zell Miller's. They were originally in the WSJ, but link below is from another site, CFIF.org, a political action group that I was not quickly able to gauge as liberal, conservative, or somewhere else (so I will leave it as "non-partisan"... as they claim).

And now, folks, Zell Miller:

Tax Cuts: Our Party Needs To Embrace Tax Cuts

...why in Heaven's name can't our party be for real tax cuts? In the middle of a recession, the Democrats once had a president who passed a massive tax-cut package. His name was John F. Kennedy. Today, in the middle of a recession, we should be a party advocating for more tax cuts, not less. But we aren't.

America is the most tax-averse country on earth. Our own revolution started with people tossing tea off boats in Boston Harbor … because of high taxes! Being a party that opposes tax cuts is not good politics, anywhere, any time. Like it or not, that's what we've become.

Instead of arguing that Mr. Bush's tax cut goes too far, we Democrats should be arguing that it doesn't go far enough. Middle-class families need more tax relief now as America faces an economic threat we haven't seen since the 1930s — the threat of deflation.

The words of a Democrat, a mere six years ago.

Interesting times.


- jR (AirFarceOne)

Powered by ScribeFire.

'Stimulus' cut from $1 trillion to barely noticeable $780 billion

Agreement Reached on Economic Stimulus | Bloomberg.com

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, a Democratic leader of the bipartisan group that worked on the accord, said tonight on the Senate floor that lawmakers worked “line by line, dollar by dollar” to cut the Senate’s prior proposal. The plan is “about jobs, jobs, jobs,” he said.

About jobs? Well, what good is that for the thieves who gave themselves raises at the end of 2008, all those congressmen and -women.

With only about 70% pork, presumably (I won't even look, I am so disgusted with Congress that I just throw that guess out there willy-nilly), how is anyone ever going to benefit? All those poor, poor millionaires at the Wall Street firms might have to go without their summer homes and yachts!

Job, jobs, job, the senator says. We'll see, won't we?

“Most of us are deeply skeptical that this will work,” said [minority Senate leader Mitch] McConnell. “Despite the best efforts of those who worked on the compromise” the plan “is roughly the same size as the House bill.”McConnell said there would be some Republican support for the plan “but not a lot.”

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, urging support for the plan, said, “We now find the housing crisis that is worse, the lending freeze is still upon us, small businesses are shutting down as we speak.”

“Faced with this great and growing economic crisis, we are now close and closer in helping President Obama” rescue the economy, Reid said.

Amazing that Harry Reid's words were about as substantive as a clip from Sesame Street. Simple-minded, that is. Thanks for stating the obvious, as you are so expert at doing, Mr. Reid! I remain stunned that both Reid and Pelosi, who oversaw the least popular Congress in our lifetimes, were granted those leadership roles, again, with the new Congress.

About that "change we can believe in" -- never said anything about Congress! Well, Obama never exactly specified what that particular phrase pertained to. But hey, change is good! Or .... is it, necessarily, you suckers?


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky: stop the attacks on the CRA

A politician's hypocrisy, or ignorance, speaks for itself. CRA was good only so far as it got banking sites into poor and less savory neighborhoods. Unfortunately, this was not a solution to anything but logistics for those who lived in bad neighborhoods. It brought with it a lot more that was not a good idea. 

This seems to be putting the chicken in front of the fox, since bad neighborhoods have folks who rob banks. Then, to offer mortgages to people who couldn't afford basic living costs? What? Insane. A pretty pathetic example of assuaging the guilt of success: bad home loans.

View from the Hill Online - Representative Jan Schakowsky, 9th District, Illinois

Today, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights sent a clear and loud message to Congress stop the attack on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Enough is enough.

Since its enactment in 1977, financial institutions have made more than $1 trillion in loans in low-income communities. More than ninety percent of these loans came in the past seven years [that would be 1992 to 1999, Bill Clinton's time]. As a result, neighborhoods have prospered, communities have flourished, small businesses have succeeded and the quality of life for many has improved.

However, there are those in Congress who are attempting to undermine the success of the Community Reinvestment Act, either by refusing to expand it or calling for its outright end.

I hope that my colleagues were listening today. The Community Reinvestment Act is a wise investment with a sure return. I applaud the efforts the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and join in their crusade to protect and expand the Community Reinvestment Act.

So where did she get her business/finance/economics degree? She didn't. That's why in that same statement she used a bank CEO as a crutch for her argument, not logic or fundamental facts of the CRA concept. She's essentially a career politician with a degree in Elementary Education. She has been an impressive activist, running groups and strong on women's rights. I suggest that she is weak on commonsense financial legislation and regulation, as this statement above suggests.

First, the attacks on the CRA have to do with the fact it created nonsensical SUBPRIME MORTGAGES, which means they were built on an unending positive growth in the markets. A bit UTOPIAN, maybe?!! In bad times, they would pull down banks that held them in a slowing or bad market cycle. Hello, 2007-2008 and beyond!

That was ten years ago. Way to go, madam Congresswoman. Thanks for helping America ultimately be hurt, deeply, for something that was neither a civil idea nor right in any way except that it served to boost up some at the cost of the whole system, effectively. Not on its own, no! But CRA, subprime mortgages, and the sinking of some pretty risky banks and financial institutions undoubtedly went hand in hand. And among those we have to thank are Rep. Schakowsky. 


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Al Franken: I'm good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, I was voted in

Franken: 'I work for you now'

"I didn't win the support of every Minnesotan. I'm going to have to earn it by being a senator who fights for every Minnesotan.

"Whether you voted for me or not, I want every Minnesotan to hear this: I work for you now and I will work hard to earn your confidence."

Franken, with his wife, Franni, at his side, said he hopes to work with Coleman despite their bitter, expensive overtime duel.

"I know this is not an easy day for Norm Coleman and his family, and I know that because Franni and I and our kids had plenty of time over the last couple months to contemplate what this would be like if the election turned out differently."

Such respectful words make it hard to gawk about the fact that this guy used to be on SNL. For goodness sake, he's a grade-B comic writer and crappy memoir (political and "humor") book author, and now he's actually been voted in as a senator? Wow. I guess who I am now laughing at is the 50% (roughly) of Minnesota voters who voted for him. No. I believe in the process, though. They might even be all stupid, but that's hard to believe.

So rather than be so cynical, as Franken would be and has been in the past, I'll just bide my time and hope for the best from the funniest senator we have (now that Strom Thurmond is long gone). Hey, he'll be at home with all the other clowns on Capitol Hill. Maybe he'll even show them up. That'll be a shocker. (Picture: looking like a true Democratic icon, Franken poses as a donkey.)


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.