Cry dog! Florida's Rick Scott abused by Democrats and loony left over his return of rescue dog

I Google searched the madness over Reagan the, uhh, mistreated governor's dog today, about a month after (Jan. 16. 2013) the story apparently went wild (I didn't know). See the search here.

Stunning: The joyful hate and spastic outrage against Florida governor Rick Scott upon the revelation, by his admin., that his family gave back his first rescue dog because it was too nervous in the mansion. And, as a result, the big dog made people nervous. So, he returned the dog, it's said, and it may or may not live on a ranch.
Oh, yes... horrible man! Just horrible! Bad governor! Baaad! The poor doggie has to live on a ranch! Oh my Goooood!
That must seem so cruel, to leftist sheep who live around almost nothing but concrete and steel, in the city, I guess, making anyone or anything live on a ranch like, eww, like George W. Bush does. Ahh, city liberals. (Kidding. As if there's any rationalizing the response as anything but blind partisan sniping.)
Obviously, folks like the Daily Kos are leading the misleading: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179352/-Gov-Rick-Scott-Bad-Reagan-T...
Others are rational about the story, because reality-challenged leftists aren't completely ruling the news media yet. For instance, Politico, and doubtless many others. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rick-scott-shelter-dog-reagan-86245.html
Miraculously, those who aren't unhinged at the brain stem wind up well below the Daily Kos links on the search engine. I wonder why that is?
I can see a new ad from some leftist operator of dog adoption operation:
"Must loved dogs. Must hate Rick Scott!"
- jR

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

Forbes token lefty: Republicans don't care about the poor because they take care of more poor

via forbes.com

Per "UPDATE: My old friend, Jon Vein, brings to my attention the greatest irony of all – the states with the greatest number of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes …lean Republican."
So, what you're saying is, it turns out that areas which lean Republican do, in fact, take better care of people who can't, for whatever reason, do as much for themselves as others?
Oh no, that cannot be what you're saying. What you're saying is that people who vote Republican don't pay their taxes! Right? They are also not into donating to the needy (not), or being charitable (not), or encouraging people to succeed (not), or ...
Thanks for pointing out all the spots on those who wish to push for individual liberty and effort over government pandering and suck-up-itude. That would be the Republicans, right?
Clown.

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

The Economic Asteroid Plan

The federal government failed to sort out a budget again, many months after the supposed due date, which was OCTOBER 2010. Just a little late now that it is April.

To budget or not to budget, that is the problem, it seems. It is way beyond WHEN.

I am already good and tired of the scare tactics by the leftists. They gave the same emotion-based proclamations over ObamaCare. Not surprisingly, these are the same "leaders" who in recents decades have always insisted on adding more and more government, Now they are insisting it will all be paid for with magic pixie dust or something. To the very brink, these folks had also insisted there was nothing wrong with certain federal financial programs, such as the CRA that allowed loans to the unemployed, and Fannie and Freddie, which were the nonsensical housing debt twins by the time 2008's economic fall happened. 

I'd like to see a real reason, not some emotion-charged twaddle that explains why a tightened budget shouldn't happen. Not just some 5% haircut that hurts education and the poor, but broad pay cuts (to put public employees on par with private!), nonessential program slimmings, defense project trimmings, etc. Barring that, how about a good reason -- emotion and threat-free -- why a shutdown should not happen, from leftists. 

Maybe I have it wrong, perhaps it is better to continue pretending that government is not too large and it is paid for, that the majority of citizens and our futures aren't getting a raw deal by the feds, that poor habits and waste are virtually gone from government, that loopy politicians and interest groups are not bent on further betraying the basic concepts of the republic. 

Yeah, it will aaaaall be OK so long as we keep putting off the tough trim-down. The US seems to be no longer the Eagle, instead the 500-lb man who refuses to see his doctor for a checkup. (You gonna eat that?) How very American and exceptional it is to pretend necessary decisions away! 

We can always hope an asteroid hits the planet and that solves the economic problems for us. Party till the planets bursts! 

jR

Related articles

• Video: Fannie & Freddie execs made millions in bonuses the last two years (hotair.com)

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)

Are nuclear weapons deserving of a Nobel Prize? Obama vowed to earn his, the Bomb already has

It's refreshing to see that, over at the oft-slobbering news rag TIME, someone can manage to offer thoughts that are based on reality, not wishful thinking, in the always-vital area of nuclear proliferation. (The emphases below are mine.)

From TIME magazine, 'Why the Nobel Peace Prize Should Go to Nuclear Weapons':

As long as a nukeless world remains wishful thinking and pastoral rhetoric, we'll be all right. But if the Nobel committee truly cares about peace, they will think a little harder about actually trying to make it a reality. Open a history book and you'll see what the modern world looks like without nuclear weapons. It is horrible beyond description.

During the 31 years leading up to the first atomic bomb, the world without nuclear weapons engaged in two global wars resulting in the deaths of an estimated 78 million to 95 million people, uniformed and civilian. "

Somewhere above 78 million people died in two world wars, within 31 years. Since 1945, how are we doing? Better, I'd say.

Is it impossible for anyone to see that so long as nukes are CONTROLLED, thus, not in the hands of those who will use them simply to advance their religious or power-hungry zealotry, that the THREAT of them in the world actually makes it a safer place? What exactly is the educational background of the dunces who think the US is a bigger threat with nuclear weapons than another country? Only the powerful, sociopathic zealots who are now kept -- barely -- in check by our having them.

Amazingly, there are calls for more centralized governing, even in what started out as what you could call the individualism center of the planet, the United States. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bigger government is corrupt -- absolutely. Especially in the still-kicking power center of the world, the United States.

Please, wake up, or take your voice out of the argument, thanks, if you think some hands-holding, rainbows-without-storms, birds-chirping, floating cars fantasy is going to happen in your lifetime. Not going to come out of human effort alone. It's a nice sentiment. Sadly, it always reminds me of the outset of the original Battlestar Galactica, when the human powers-that-be insist, despite advice otherwise, that they can live peacefully with their aggressive enemy. Also, it reminds me of the cliche, but not irrelevant, historic blunder of UK PM Chamberlain who signed (with France) an agreement with Adolf Hitler that gave part of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. Hitler invaded Poland only months later.

Only a stubborn cynic refuses to hope for a time of peace, but only a perfect fool believes they will be living in one sometime soon.

The world is getting more complex at the same time it is shrinking. We are in the midst of a shaping global economy that differs from the one that existed even 25 years ago. The requirement needs to be that the real troublemakers -- the centralized control dictators/theocracies, the extreme zealots, the terrorism-supporting factions -- prove to the truly democracy-oriented that they are willing to play far nicer. It is not to be the other way around. The US and its less imposing allies don't owe these people anything. But some leaders disagree. In fact, Obama seems to think the US was on a track of empire-building up to and until he became president. That's interesting from a man who uses the word "I" far more than "we".

A nuclear-free world is the fantasy of goofballs and academic arguments, yet, in the States, we now have a platitude-rich president who joins that crowd as a true believer, by his words.

Holocaust-denying, genocidal, mass-dog-killing, political-foe-assassinating, gross-poverty-concealing, terrorist-supporting, and/or Third World-resource-grifting, and other far-flung governments centered on abuses, not embarrassed by its exposure, are not interested in getting along with us. We are spoiled, misinformed, TV comedy show informed go-alongs, to them. Even those of us disgusted by the spoiled, misinformed, TV comedy show informed go-alongs. Their idea of peace is a world without your spoiled asses in it, or indoctrinated into their way of thinking.

They aren't interested in giving their people the freedoms the spoiled brats -- the super rich AND the car-driving, jeans-wearing, mobile texters -- in the First World enjoy. They are fighting for their ideals to win out, and for at-home survival. If America has its nuclear arsenal to lean on, like some bartender leaning on his 12-gauge letting the rough drunks know he means business, we might as well invite all the openness that cultural pluralism offers, invite the combustible mix of legalized recreational pot, a trust system for violent convicts, sharia law, and the wife-killing machismo of Brazil. Why not? If we cannot live by the ideas that exist, why not just live by whatever feels like it'll work, for a year, a month, a week? Why not make it a cage fight of bad social practices? Openness to the point of life-meaninglessness. In the end, the ones with some self-control and the most discipline will win. Is that you?

You best hope that living in a world like The Road Warrior is as fun to live as it is (at least for some) to watch.

Read on at the link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929553,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

---------------------------------

Portions delivered by Delicious.com
The tastiest bookmarks on the web

-- AirFarceOne (follow on twitter)

Fatherlessness: A hole no government can fill

Obama, according to this article, said that an absentee father "leaves a hole in a child's heart that a government can't fill". Seriously?

WHO, pray tell, would WANT a government, a bureaucratic organization that maintains streets, oversees laws, arrests criminals and such, should take the role of a FATHER, exactly?

He spoke at length about how his father, Barack Obama Sr., left home early. The future president was just 2 at the time and saw his dad only once more, at age 10, a short visit that still left a lasting imprint.

"I had a heroic mom and wonderful grandparents who helped raise me and my sister, and it's because of them that I'm able to stand here today," he told a throng of youngsters and leaders of community organizations. "But despite all their extraordinary love and attention, that doesn't mean that I didn't feel my father's absence. That's something that leaves a hole in a child's heart that a government can't fill."

In candid terms, Obama said he promised himself he would not repeat his own father's mistakes.

"Just because your own father wasn't there for you, that's not an excuse for you to be absent also. It's all the more reason for you to be present," Obama told the young men in his audience.

"You have an obligation to break the cycle and to learn from those mistakes, and to rise up where your own fathers fell short and to do better than they did with your own children," Obama said. "That's what I've tried to do in my life."

An estimated 24 million American children are growing up with absent fathers, and a disproportionate number of them are African-American. Those children are at higher risk of falling into lives of poverty and crime and becoming parents themselves in their teenage years.

Don't worry, I'm with the government, and I am here to father you. *Groan*

Can we please have a real democracy when all this economic strife is over? PLEASE?

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Created in a heat of politically motivated outrage, right here on Blogger.

WOW they are crazy

Chris Matthews is half the fool he was many years ago, and he can only manage the same-minded, and kiss-ups from the NBCs, on his Sunday show, I notice. He is unfunny, yet insists on being "funny" and has his own fawning pals, like some has-been comic who still somehow garners big paychecks. Stunning just how far NBC and MSNBC have plummeted into so much of the one-sided commentary and misleading so-called "journalism".

I guess they THINK they are the anti-Fox News, but that's such a joke, and I despise bias on either side, take it personally that the self-centered liberals ruined (for me) what I had once hoped would be and considered to be my career industry.

Fox News is red with embarrassment for MSNBC, due to how clear their bias is on discussion and commentary shows. Janeane Garofalo was on Olbermann weeks ago, was the most offensive I've caught (on YouTube or somewhere) any of these horrendous soap-box Hollywood liberals ever be in a highly public stage (word gets around about the crazy talk, but this was there on the show itself, not an anecdote). (She was thrashing Tea Parties as being purely, simply full of anti-black racists, that the whole thing was not at all about taxes, gov't spending, or anything, just an excuse for rednecks to be racist in public. Stunning, horrible, offensive, miserably out of her element idiot, she is.)

After that humorless tirade, I eagerly wanted to see her whiney little computer geek character on "24" this season die -- just for some joyous make-believe comeuppance. (I was disappointed.) I'm sure she is dead ... on the inside. Sure seems like it. Certainly, mentally, she's thoroughly contorted.

I don't have cable now, thanks to some tough months, and I don't think I want it back. Just limits me to a few channels and HULU, etc., online, and keeps me away from the moodily pontificating boobs on news programs. I can live with that. Did that while I lived elsewhere, for most of the years. Healthy!

So... Newsweek. Gag! They had that truly lame effort to sell magazines, "We are all Socailists now". It was a nothing article. I read it online. Like a fart in church, and not even a loud one. Har!

TIME is another great example of a pack of fawning roadies doing magazines. I had subscription for a year -- got it sorta free (NWA flight miles were to expire, so we got lots of magazines). I was eager to see it end after all the stupid adoration this year! You;d think it was exaggerating, but I was seeing it in every issue, just about. Amusing, were it not for so many go-along sheep believing what these drunken shepherds tell them to believe.

You should catch, online somewhere, the McLaughlin Group show of this past week, and the way Eleanor Clift of NEWSWEEK was going with both fists in favor of Obama and his apology tour of Arab nations and such. Simply stunning, how cozy it seems so many are in MSM -- with a utopian myopia.

My decision of late is to avoid the news as much as possible. I know what I know, let the loud mouths ruin someone else's day, not mine. Local news, I read some stuff online, and otherwise, the world can rot. For now. I needed a loooong breather from the divisiveness that the election and the economic crisis has brought out. It is too much about amateur pontificating on subjects, rather than interviews with true experts.

Saw rerun of the March 2009 interview with Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke on 60 Minutes (also can catch that online), which I avoided first time it aired. Was the most plainspoken, fact-involving, emotions involved but not hysterical thing on the economy I've seen in a long, long time. It made sense, and he seemed sincere. Stunning, seeing what he is and what he's up against. For me, with a view from business education and long interest in economic things, it was a very good perspective to hear. He is THE MAN on economic matters, and far more "safe" than blowhards like Obama, etc.

We need more professionals, like Bernanke, and less blowhards, in every walk of life. Especially as essential leaders.

Just some of my thoughts of late.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (on Twitter)

NBC in DC posts liberal group mocking Tea Party as if it were event video

In what I consider always disappointing, in a mocking-the-conservatives, laughing at non-liberals fashion, NBC in the nation's capitol posted a quite juvenile article by Jim Iovino along with a video of a group of fake Tea Party protesters, who seem to be a lefty group that did a mocking video of the protests for YouTube.

It's about context, and this one is foul. This station posted the fake video and mocking article more than likely just to be their usual evasive, unclear and misleading selves, leading some to never even question whether it was a real video, leaving a really misinformed impression on liberal fools (after all, that's now NBC's job, with MSNBC and CNN, it appears). Or, it was to leave some to think it was a shallow attempt to offer fake video to further mock the protest, setting off those in favor of the protest. Either way, not sure when doing news became doing distracting, divisive, unclarified comedy. Apparently, its only the dumb who would like to get real news from the media any longer, eh? The smart people all simply want comedy.

Why would they do such a thing? Why, because everyone knows that people who don't like taxes and have conservative, rational, small government mindsets are not protesters, they are the enemy of all. That's NBC's (and MSNBC's), and CNN's, take, among others, at least. Chris Matthews and Keith Oblermann are masters of dodgy news shows, so these guys are simply following the existing, and most recent, company model. Change is always good, of course, despite all else.

If they haven't cowered into their cave with their fake video, click the link and have a look at the article and the video provided to us by these alleged journalists. Video is of course on YouTube, numblingly. Because they are a liberal news outlet, I guess they are burdened with helping the poor and needy and cannot afford to carry camera to actual events, have to find it online. (That's sarcasm. Deal with it.) Where else would they get video but YOU TUBE, the most important news source in history, eh?

1 Million Tea Bags, But No Place to Dump | NBC Washington

Clearly, NBC and MSNBC envy the success of imaginary news man Jon Stewart and "realize" that the future of news is not news, but fake news and comedy bits. Lenin said religion was the opium of society; NBC knows that, today, it is actually comedy bits that make people laugh and somehow agree with you, like feeding a dog a treat and he'll follow you.

I am discouraged that such pseudo-news -- is this TV's further destruction of the already questionable "new journalism" concept? -- continues without full frontal insults from all comers -- liberals, conservatives, other news outlets, and even fake news champions such as Jon Stewart. Comedy doing news is one thing -- and illegitimate source of news. News doing comedy, especially in such subject matters, is really discouraging for the whole industry.

- jR, AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Abortion 'pride' is encouraged by professional student

Opposing Views: OPINION: It's Time for an Abortion Pride Movement - Jacob Appel

Everybody is proud these days. While “pride” as a collective concept may have originated with the Gay Rights movement of the 1970s, now marchers in the St. Patrick’s Day parade are as likely to sport pins boasting “Proud to be Irish” and my Jewish friends are as proud to be Jewish as my Muslim friends are proud to be Muslim—although I always wonder if they wouldn’t be equally proud if they had been born into the opposite faiths.

...

The anti-abortion movement already has its own pride movement. If one reads about reproductive issues in the conservative media—which I often do—one is bombarded with tales of mothers who have sacrificed personal and professional opportunities to bring fetuses to term.

Because, you know, sex as the right of every horny kid and adult on the planet, with no consequences deserved for the realities of the act, is paramount. There is no reason for facing the consequences of being a loose-legged bimbo, being an oppressively horny and emotionally selfish boyfriend, getting sloppy about birth control, or no reason for taking responsibility for being otherwise stupid. That is not the easiest option, after all. Getting rid of the problem is the solution. No matter what that means. Reminds me of liberal concepts for everything. Insincerity, and personal rights -- those to the level of a vicious selfishness -- above logic, responsibility and everything else.

Oh, I see! Judging from the volumes of degrees Mr. Appel has, this author is a professional student. That must be a nice life.

Out here in the real world we see people ruined by decisions that they think will make the "pain" go away, only to be haunted by it their wholes lives. Pride, indeed.

I guess studying ethics and having a sense of them are two vastly different things, in looking at this guy's thinking. Abortion pride and bestiality acceptable, I've seen all I need to. This guy takes mindless, academic openness to a new high. Or, low.

Somehow, many supporters of abortion rights have been lulled into accepting the rhetoric that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That may be good language for winning elections, but it does a profound disservice to the millions of women who have abortions in this nation each year. Abortions should be safe and legal. That goes without saying. But rare? Abortions should be as frequent or as infrequent as are unwanted pregnancies.

Furthering being the creepiest "ethicist" I have ever read, he goes to the extraordinary level of proclaiming -- without actually saying it, but effectively admitting -- his deep desire for a utopian world where guilt does not exist. I assume this author figures the whole world thinks as he does, that a baby out of the womb is a baby out of mind:

I dream of the day when women are not afraid to walk the streets with pins reading, “I had an abortion and it was the right decision,” and when station wagons bear bumper-stickers announcing, “Thank me for having an abortion when I wasn’t ready to be a parent.” I admire those individuals who work to ensure a women’s right to choose. But choice is a merely a foundation. Ultimately, women—if they so desire—should feel comfortable expressing public pride in their brave and wise choices.

- 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.

Is Roseanne closing in on title held by irrational gay kook has-been?

Is Roseanne closing in on irrational gay kook has-been for most rampant awkward political and paranoid ranting? It appears that since neither can manage to get any TV time, they've gone another route. Or, Roseanne is just happily whining about mad Jewish self-hating stuff. Maybe she just needs better meds, who knows.

ohlmert you lie:

you say that twelve rockets were fired into israel since the end of the "war" (ethnic cleansing). Not one Israeli was hurt or killed by these rockets, and now you say you are going to go back and kill more palestinians to teach them a lesson!!!

I think rockets are being fired by your own sources, since less than ten israelis have been killed by them. You are bullshitting the world as you pocket money made from arms sales, along with bibi and your agents in Hamas. step down all men in power!

Ignoring that she knows so little about things that she rabidly regards Israel as the ones committed to ethnic cleansing when sincerity, if not logic, notes that Hamas and those on the other side of things are the evident and shameless ethnic and religious cretins, this is still a crazy rant.

I bet you thought "Betty Rubble" "actress" Rosie O'Donnell was chief crazy of big mouth, female, once humorous (outside of being humorous to watch like a chimp at zoo), liberal Hollywood lingerers. Here's some competition.


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Majority Whip Clyburn calls stubborn guvs racists for disliking stimulus

Michelle Malkin » Top Democrat accuses anti-stimulus GOP governors of…RAAAAACISM!

Well, Attorney General Eric Holder, here's your conversation about race: House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina is now accusing GOP governors who have fundamental misgivings about the trillion-dollar stimulus of opposing the law because they don’t like black people.

Who’s being divisive, Eric Holder? Who’s obsessed with race? Who needs to stop self-segregating and stop spreading race-based poison? Where’s the outrage? Clyburn earlier this year invoked plantation imagery to suggest that S.C. GOP Gov. Mark Sanford’s opposition to earmarks was based on RAAAACISM (another blog post by Malkin referring to black race-baiting leader, quote obtained from it below).

I cannot believe this comment from a high-placed national government leader. It is such a dumb claim, evidence of a mind enshrined in some bitter, unreal viewpoints, that I am stunned of its source. This man was appointed by his peers as a leader among leaders. His comments are more a judgment of his peers and his constituency on its own that I could ever improve on today. Not without a lot of acid pills. One would think this guy was on a school board or county council somewhere, at best. But no, James Clyburn is none other than the House Majority Whip!

Thanks, Majority Whip. You do justice to the title, though you're more polarizing than I might have imagined. Where do we get the criteria for leadership roles?!! One could say this guy is Trent Lott's reflective opposite, with this bizarre rhetoric! Only worse!! Will he step down? Does he have any HONOR? We will have to stay tuned!

“[H]e happens to be a millionaire,” Clyburn said of Sanford. “He may not need help for the plantation his family owns, but the people whose grandparents and great-grandparents worked those plantations need the help” in the form of federal money.

Wrongs were done. They cannot be forgotten. But it is always the case that weak minds offer far out or foul arguments. This is one of those. To inject slavery, racism, and plantation innuendo into this debate is about as high minded as a college course on Family Guy.


- 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.

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.

WHY ARE WE BANKRUPT :: one problem's impact, lots of links

Some links that someone else compiled follows. I found them on an activist Web site. I hope the links work. If not, just look the facts up. It beats trusting your government -- it is called being informed. The government prefers that you are not that, clearly. That is WHY BIG GOVERNMENT IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE, A BAD THING.

The bigger government is, the less they actually wind up doing for the good of the common man, because power corrupts -- even if that simply means that that power makes people lazy and glib and smug. It is still corrupt. Not caring about your duties is simply akin to corruption.

However, the country, Bush or Obama aside, is failing, thoroughly, to be a caretaker of tax dollars and to regulate such efforts. See the following examples, which regard ONLY illegal alien costs. This is ANNUALLY. This is just one little problem in the U.S. today. Add to this the errors of bad regulative efforts against banking, financial markets, etc. Add to this the cost of the RAISED SALARIES that our U.S. Congress accepted for themselves, in December 2008. Add to that the cost of the stimulus. Where is all the money coming from? You, and me. Anyone who pays taxes.

What are you getting out of it, if you are a "victim" of the current economic crisis? If you are unemployed, and living in Florida, you get a grand total of $275 a week. Some states offer better. If you are in a union, perhaps you get better in most cases. However, if you are in an auto union, you will likely be working in a non-union, Japanese-owned factory come 2010. If you're lucky.

Anyways, just some thoughts on one "little" segment of where your tax dollars were going, and will still be, even while billions of dollars are going out to banks and job creation that the government is sanctioning.

WHY ARE WE BANKRUPT

Boy, was I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the War on Terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that readers get sick of them. I also have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, AKA anchor babies for these illegals who are still illegals even though they have US kids, note.

Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate CRIMINAL illegal aliens. This is NOT a tiny segment of the prison population. (See next.)

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'

Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.

Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes are Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States."
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION PER YEAR.

Are we THAT stupid?

Hmm. I think we have been. Will we stop being that stupid?


- jR

STIMULUS MADNESS: Rolling Stone has an opinion, too, see! Waah!

They cannot even make the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame respectable, but Rolling Stone weighs in on the stimulus. But, you know, Jan Weener knows better than us dumb Americans, since he's a rich media person:

The Unserious Opposition 

This is stimulus at its BEST. Thousands of labor-intensive American jobs.... And it has the added bonus of saving taxpayers millions down the line: You reap long term savings in energy costs and have the added bonus of reduced greenhouse emissions. 

This quote was regarding billions for renovating government buildings, for energy savings. Umm, "down the line" is NOT what this ought to be about. That's another bill. BILL ME LATER. Thanks! 

This economic recovery bill ought to focus on JOBS for now and FINANCE for NOW. It ought to focus on NOW, not renovations to old buildings just so the government can be well-kept. "Later" can come once we are sure we have a country that is not full of human scavengers, thanks. JOBS!! Real jobs, not excuses for putting new windows in buildings or replacing perfectly working cars, etc! (These are what the bill had/has in it.)  

BEST Quote: "Worthy but misplaced. We’ll have to spend that money anyhow. Kill it." 

Sadly, that was reserved only for CENSUS spending. Census?!! In a stimulus bill???? So obviously misplaced, like so much in this sad bill, such as the renovation of office buildings! Gag!!

Ironically, who was on the cover of this issue, where the RS editors thrash at the Republicans for trying to cut a paltry 18 billion from an incredibly huge "stimulus" bill? The King of Hollywood Socialists, Sean Penn. Penn, who idolizes Castro and Chavez, is the closest thing to a celebrity socialist ideologue -- assuming there is more in than noggin of his but some creative and humanistic sensibilities and he realizes he's a socialist -- that can be pointed at in America. 

This guy drips with adoration for Castro, a man who violently overthrew a government, promising great reform and a party of the people, but wound up offering only a one-party, Communist-Socialist rule that caused millions to flee to America to enjoy some sort of personal freedom. A man who, in 1981, sent thousands of his worst criminals, by boat, to America, in an event called the Mariel Boatlift. This is a man worthy of Penn's respect? I guess sicne he loves Hugo Chavez so much, it just fits. Oddball. Horrific sense of right and wrong, good and bad, governance and exploitation, this Penn guy.

- jR

'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.

GOP selects black dude, 'what?' moment courtesy of NY Times

The Mexican-sponsored, conservative-bashing, often deceptively liberal clarion (OK, The Nation and TIME do it as much, so perhaps "clarion" is harsh) publication, the NY Times, continued its jab and run efforts to brazenly distort the ranks and reach of the biggest party for conservatives and political right of America upon the selection of the new Republican Nat'l Committee chairman.

While reporting on the election of the new, -- take a breath in order to state some "obvious," "bigoted" reasons why they did it, lefties -- black (!!!) RNC chairman, they might as well have belabored the fact that the guy is not a black space alien, thus the RNC is still -- as they see it -- the small-minded party of bigots. After all, they took Al Gore from the White House, the bad people.

Republicans Choose First Black Party Chairman - NYTimes.com

From the start, Mr. [Katon] Dawson, while well-liked in the party, was hampered by worries that his selection would reinforce the notion that Republicans are increasingly becoming a Southern regional party.

What? The GOP is risking being considered a regional party. Seriously? Notion, huh? Of whom? And barbecue-lovin', drawlin', Democratic Party paragons Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, are what, exactly? Too far into the past, are they? Not sure they would agree.

Is that quote the dumbest sentence in the NY Times for the day? I want to hope so, but I can only guess. It is a poorly written sentence (but since I note it in a hastily written blog, I will only point that out in passing, adding that the NYT piece was not from a blog).

I suppose around the NY Times offices, GOP chairman Michael Steele might be nicknamed Uncle, uhh, Mike, for being in with the slave owners of the GOP, too. Next there'll be a cartoon on their opinion page with Uncle Mike being denied service at the GOP's HQ cafeteria.

The paper also mentioned this, before bothering to go into Steele's win any further:

Mr. Dawson also withdrew from an all-white country club he belonged before he started running for office, a point that was raised by Republicans concerned that it would provide a bad contrast in a year when the country elected its first African-American president.

Now, the fact that there exists clubs that are intentionally (I don't care what they claim, I mean a presumed intent) all-white anywhere is disgusting to me (unless, of course, there are nothing but white people in the general area). But, to me, such clubs simply remind us that there are more white snobs than other types of snobs in the country. I wish they'd spend more time in those clubs, and less time ruining the fight for scraps of the rest of us.

Democrats should really beat this one to death, even though this Dawson dude didn't get the chairmanship. You know there's never, ever been a white Democrat member of an all-white country club, that's simply unimaginable. And never were any of the important members of the Democratic Party ever in any groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, or some all-white frat or anything, or directing hoses to be fired in the direction of blacks, or anything like that. Nope! Never!

Mr. Steele made no mention of his race in his acceptance speech, and members said that was not a major factor in their decision. Nonetheless, it was clearly a force, playing out at a time when the nation has just inaugurated its first black president.

In addition to Mr. Duncan’s experience with a white country club, another candidate for candidate — Chip Saltsman of Tennessee — came under fire after distributing a Christmas CD with a song parody entitled, “Barack the Magic Negro.”

The song was a parody, and it actually was a response, meant in humor, to a LA Times article from which that phrase came. But don't confuse anyone with the facts, just poop out propaganda for sucker liberals to step onto -- and walk it around.

As usual, the liberal obsession is with things such as race, sexual interests, and how to ban dodge ball and God from playgrounds. Let's hope at least one knows how to save the world from the bums that hate America. A JFK-type of Democrat. In other words, not a rabid, bellowing liberal.

Ron Brown was the first and only black chairman of the DNC, from 1989 to 1992.

- jR

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.

Pelosi's 'bipartisanship': Excludes the minority party and new Congress members

Somebody needs to get House Leader Nancy Pelosi a dictionary, so she can look up a few words, like "bipartisanship," "merit," "liberty," and "democracy." I am amazed at how especially liberal politicians think they have the right to legislate out the gamut of influence, and legislate in the autocratic ideals of seniority over credibility, claiming that the closed-minded policies they are trying to set are to prevent their own superiorly "diverse" politics from being closed out by the other guys -- the evil, mean-spirited conservatives. Gag.

Here's what's so absurd about the things Pelosi is working toward (see article and all the links below): It's one thing, and hardly anyone is against, aid functions for those in need and the privilege challenged. This kind of "liberal" politics is an entirely different animal, and it is creepy. It is not liberal, not progessive, it is legislating one-party rule, and the Democrats actually think they have the right, since they are so much more "diverse" in their thinking. Please.

Pelosi is simply a simple-minded leader. Have a look at this offense.

John Fund Blasts Speaker Pelosi on 'Reforms' - Newsmax.com

The rule changes Speaker Nancy Pelosi is steamrolling through the House of Representatives contradict President-elect Barack Obama’s bipartisan promises, and also fly in the face of Pelosi’s own pledge to “insure the rights” of the minority party.

That’s the view of Wall Street Journal columnist and author John Fund, who documented Friday how Pelosi’s tune has changed in a bid to drown out the voices of Republican minority opposition in Congress.

Fund points out that Pelosi’s new rules sharply contradict positions she took before Democrats came to power. In 2004, Fund says, Pelosi rolled out a "Bill of Rights" to protect the interests of the party not in power.

"When we [Democrats] are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America," Pelosi warned at the time. “We want a higher standard."

One of the ironies of Pelosi’s power grab, Fund points out, is that conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats are among the losers under the new rules because they often lack seniority.

Here's a link and some quotes from the John Fund opinion piece:

John Fund: Pelosi Turns Back the Clock on House Reform - WSJ.com

Every two years the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives introduces a new set of rules to govern the body. Normally, this event passes with barely a yawn from the public. But the changes pushed through on Tuesday by Democrats will have real-world consequences for fiscal conservatives of both parties.

Gone are term limits for committee chairmen, a big comeback for seniority over merit. Cost containment measures on Medicare, one of the fastest growing programs, are simply suspended for this Congress.

Mrs. Pelosi used to see things differently. Back in 2004, she unveiled a proposed "Bill of Rights" to protect House minority interests. It called on Republicans to allow more meaningful substitutes to bills, give members enough time to read bills before final votes, and stop holding roll-call votes past the normal 15 minutes. She had a point. In late 2003, Republican leaders held open a roll-call vote on the Medicare drug entitlement for three hours until they bullied enough wavering members into voting aye.

Mrs. Pelosi warned in 2004 that "When we [Democrats] are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America." We want a higher standard." In 2006, just before becoming speaker, Mrs. Pelosi reiterated her plans to promote "bipartisanship" and "to ensure the rights of the minority."

That was then.

Smell that? It's called hypocrisy. Yeah, politicians wear it for pins, but damn, the House Speaker is a true champion of small-minded, narrow and self-assuring ideas.

I can only figure that Pelosi -- flakey Sen. Harry Reid in the other end of Congress, too, for that matter -- became the leader through exactly that kind of thinking on her part and the part of her longtime, long-complacent colleagues, I can only presume. What do I mean? She has no leadership skills beyond talking until her thick lipstick starts to dry, crack and fall off.

She'll have two grand accomplishments thus far as leader if she succeeds with the above: First, she let the deep financial crisis of 2008-09 hit without seeming to grasp any of the long, government-driven, regulation-poor (that's the duty of the legislature, not the White House, folks), developments that led up to it. These issues were as obvious as her mascara, but her eyes were famously those of a deer in headlights at those first press conferences during the insane and latent TARP bill negotiations action. Second, this, the cutting the GOP out of future failures in the House. It's good for the GOP, I guess, so keep it up, Nancy!

Dear California: Would someone in the great state please find some leadership-worthy person who doesn't remind us of the stereotypically arrogant, curt and unfathomably self-assured working mom in the neighborhood who terrorizes the other parents' children with her queer ideas about fairness (her kids get it, no one else)? Please?!!


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.