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

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

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio both got immigration facts wrong. 

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

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

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

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

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


 - jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

LEFTIST RACISTS: Herman Cain, America were violated by stereotyping

The lies about criminal behavior of HERMAN CAIN hurt him, and America, in 2011, in the 2012 election cycle. This educated guy, this business leader, this free thinker, this open book, this conservative American, is owed more than an apology (which has yet to be given) from the attention-craving Gloria Allred and the two lying women who made headlines claiming that Cain sexually harassed them (link: http://ow.ly/qF0QX).

Americans are owed better than this lowest of political tactics in the age of social media and in-the-moment news reporting. If leading Democrats had any lack of cynicism among them, they'd have discouraged the effect of these unfounded claims during the campaign. I know some pundits on either side were frustrated by this bad showing, but I heard not a leader among Democrats say a thing against it certainly not the first black in the White House.

This was, in a way, the tale of two black men: the Conservative Black Man and the Liberal Black Man. It allows a comparison of the behavior of media and the supposed spokespeople for black people -- Democrats and black "liberal" pundits. The way they treat Cain, and other non-leftist thinkers such as Ben Carson, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, is not compatible with their pandering habits toward blacks and other "special label" groups (minorities of whatever kind) in general. Yet, they give extra room to Barack Obama and ninnies such as former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin (with a federal indictment on corruption charges and soon to be in court for it) and former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (convicted to 26 years for his office's bribery practices). Democrats and most of the mainstream media looked the other way in the midst of corruption by these last two fellows, until the story was essentially over.

Ruining the campaign of Herman Cain bolstered the left's authority and dominion over blacks in America. The great majority of our black community, it seems, were fine with it, too. Or, they simply didn't speak out against it. Too many are too happy to resent those who have known success to the extent of cheering even unreasonable attacks on the successful, black or not. Sadly, that's another thing that the rhetoric of the Democrats feeds.

Today's "liberals" (modern American leftists, really, sparsely liberals in any true sense) need some of those who are successful on their side, but can only win elections, as I see it, by pandering to the less-informed unsuccessful with promises of... ease without effort. The rhetoric of Barack Obama, especially during 2008 and since his presidency, have only made this cynical tactic of the Democrats more familiar. Not less. Not less, as Obama pledged the divisiveness would be. (He pledged a lot of things that proved to be nothing, didn't he?)

The minority pandering, low-information voter wholesaling, diversity rejecting (they accept diversity only on their terms, after all), status quo adoring, big government, control-addicted Democrats and their media pledges want to keep minority conservatives down, and that hurts America.

Their habit to passionately reject traditionalist, Constitutionalist, limited government, conservative thinkers, and especially those who think this way who are not old white men, hurt America's ability to get beyond the wrongs of racism and social and economic ruts that plague groups of people, black or not. Democrats claim to be the party of caring. Yet they have been proven to be the party of lies, spying, control, monetary abuse, budgetary disregard, growth in bureaucracy, and intolerance toward individualism.

Democrats and others of such thinking are, intentionally or not, pigeonholing people in certain special groups - race, sexuality, sex, regions, etc. - into easy stereotypes that suit them. In an official way. Everyone deserves the sense of liberty that America was founded upon. That's inconvenient for relativist leftists.

They are convinced it is their duty, as folks such as Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, prove again and again, to be the spokespeople for these groups, to take from others and give to those groups, to coddle them for the sake of the great statist plan. That's not American. That's utopian. It's absurd. It's anti-American.

Black conservatives have for a long time felt they needed to be quiet because Borg-like neighbors who are long entrenched in the pandering, Democratic race machine would think they were betraying race for their affinity for traditional American ideals. So much misinformation about conservatism persists that it's as if being a conservative was equivalent to being a slave salesman in Africa in the 1700s.

Modern Democrats, this current, bureaucracy-loving, conceited, elitist leadership of theirs, seek a  wholesale plan to buy votes to take more and more liberties away from Americans in the name of helping everyone reach an equal playing field, with welfare politics, driving the poor to their side in a cynical effort to hold power by mob, rather than by principle or love of the citizen and the individual. They love the idea of the state being the leader of society in every way, it seems, not the servant of a free people.

People like Herman Cain certainly get in the way of that.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

ObamaCare: best of intentions, awful law, let's make that awfully clear

Patience is a virtue. For government, patients would be a gold mine. 

Via someone I follow on Twitter (and stupidly forgot who it was), I found this essential guide to the health care law.

(Revised Sep 26, 2013) What else do you need to know but how many initial claims about ObamaCare have been proven WRONG? With the best of intentions (or not, if you're totally skeptical about them), Democrats took a terrible approach to reform the United States' health system, in the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare. Intentions aren't worth a damn if you ignore everyone affected by a law. The supporters of ACA all but ignored whole groups of people affected by the law, including: independent professionals, medical professionals and other small business owners, and many employees. It's one thing to try and help the needy, or to try and give the poor better health care, but it's another to spit in the face of those who would, effectively, pay for it. It is not good to effectively hurt employees through the resulting cuts in hours. ACA, like other government medical reimbursement plans, ignores the legitimate work of medical professionals, who will do the services, as they would get bargain basement returns from government plans that appear to be not at all interested in reasonable compensation for services rendered. 

ObamaCare is not a bible for a health care cure, it is a bible for centralized medical decision-making, whether by intent or not. Solzhenitsyn wrote of the failures of large-scale centralized health care in the former superpower, the Soviet Union, and while ACA is only a step in the same direction, Obama is on record as supporting a "one-payer" health care system (which means government health care for all). 

The U.S. government started out in the spirit of doing exactly the opposite of what ObamaCare wants. The American Experiment is going in reverse, thanks to ObamaCare (it is in addition to the impacts of Homeland Security measures and other big government expansions of recent years). 

The Democrats appear to have been quite wrong about ObamaCare. Or, cynically, they were intentionally misleading us about what was in it. Yet they are still convinced, or at least trying to convince us, that this gigantic addition to the cost of government and health care is a good thing for the country. How? I don't know. I can't see anything that's good about it any longer. The good intention to fix the system no longer exists in the enforcement. It is not fixing the system, it is making it worse, it seems to me. 

I applauded Obama for bringing health reform to the forefront of national discussion in 2008-09. To broach the subject was laudable, but it was only a start. Yes, the intent to fix health care was noble. But the approach? It was not just bad, but to me it was, and is, disturbing. It is the way Democrats handled it from the beginning, all but cutting out Republicans and others (maybe they included socialists and the Green Party), and the resulting law, that has been calamitous. Three years later it is being trashed by some once-convinced Democrats, leaders of unions and businesses. 

In light of national spending negotiations (Sept. 2013), ObamaCare is being defended, breathlessly, by Obama and some other Democratic politicians and sycophantic pundits, as if it's the only thing that'll assure a decent life for millions. Alternately, they claim that the (pick your cowardly labels given by leftists:) racist, poor-hating, greedy, selfish, angry, ignorant, dumb redneck conservatives are trying to destroy the country by way of refusing to fund ObamaCare. 

Democrats are accusing GOP House of trying to close government, of ruining the country out of political greed, by defunding the Affordable (not) Care Act. The House is not preventing the funding of anything else, really, but yet the supposedly (self-appointed) "more reasonable" White House and Democrats are accusing House Republicans of horrible political maneuverings. The political selfishness seems truly to be driven, hard, from the left. The far left. The few remaining supporters of ObamaCare on the left. 

Meanwhile, even some union leaders, and many employers, rail about how it'll hurt families, because it'll hurt jobs. That, because it will force companies to make cuts to retain their profitability (which doesn't matter to liberals, because many are too dumb to realize that profits should even matter at all to regular Americans). 

The briefly all-controlling Democrats -- in early 2010 having the WH, Senate and House they barely passed ACA -- cannot today force us all to follow their bidding. So, the most power-drunk among the Democrats still turn to absurd, desperate rhetoric defending a tragically, pro-socialist, anti-liberty law that would force most employers and employees and the medical industries into a corner, in the long run. They fight for ACA out of ego, not leadership: it is they who will lose if ACA loses funding, therefore loses its place in government. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and more, will all be seen, by more people, as failed leaders when it fails. So as Obama said recently, the argument isn't about the American people. He's leaving one of his biggest concerns out of his discussion of the matter, though. Who's name is on the bill, and who is okay with that? Obama. He is desperate to have a legacy, and Obamacare may be his only big domestic "success." The argument from his side is about retaining greater government control over health care, not about saving the middle class, as he claims it is. His goals may seem to be about American people, but if so, it is a very different America where the government rules with a bureaucratic supremacy. Some citizens foolishly support that. But with such a foolishness, the American Experiment is dying. Liberty is fading. The control of government over greater parts of everyone's lives is succeeding. That's not the America that a freedom pursuing populating wants. So I have to conclude that too many Americans have been lulled into believing government is the solution to their problems. Which, of course, is a pathetic fantasy. But when such fantasies are believed, even partially, we see government expanding its control. People are dreaming that government is a caretaker. I am not asleep with that dream, nor are many others. It's a tough effort to wake others to it. Gotta keep at it.

What else do you need to know but how many initial claims have been proven WRONG? There were the best of intentions, but a terrible approach, in ObamaCare. And the promises have been proven to be a lie. I don't see why it should be funded, and I don't see a reason to even recognize the ridiculous language from the chief architects (and posers) behind ObamaCare. They've lost the war of reason, because all their claims are shown to be lies. Don't fund the damned thing!


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

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)

Abortion Horror: Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Major News Story

The Atlantic (where I read pieces of an article, linked below), USA Today (commentary, linked below), National Journal, for examples, and much of the conservative media are addressing the story of the Phillie mad doctor who essentially killed babies if they didn't die during late -term abortions. Not only that, he allegedly killed patients getting abortions, too.

While most conservatives are known as against abortion, certainly against abortion as a form of birth control, this story of Dr. Kermit Gosnell has little to do with the eerie media blackout on this horrid tale: this story goes beyond the abortion issue. Far beyond.

Web-only media are reporting this horrific story, too. But while standard-bearers for the common man's news have no problem skewing news against conservatives and skewering conservative views even on pretty lame evidence sometimes, they ignore this story. Why?

What's wrong with "mainstream media"? They are cliquish, posing, sheep. But some folks deep in the media business are noticing and worrying about it.

Conor Friedersdorf wrote a long piece about it, that I stumbled across, for The Atlantic and National Journal. I cannot stand to read the great detail he goes into. It stirs me into an internal rage while skimming what he's presented. But I found the following, well into the long article, and thought it suited sharing because I think it locks in my feelings about this story and the media's failure with it:

Says Kirsten Powers in her USA Today op-ed, "Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams intoned, 'A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh,' as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed -- a major human rights story if there ever was one -- doesn't make the cut."

Well done, non-sheep media folks.

The rest of the half-blind leftist media can try to bring this horrific manner with which to control population and subvert sexual irresponsibility with an awful act of depravity, but they have already proven -- added another sample into the list -- that they are not reporting relevant news, but trying to lead society to a direction that suits them, the liberal, poorly engaged, weakly objective media elite.

Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Major News Story - Yahoo! News

Also see Powers' piece, subtitled "We've forgotten what belongs on Page One."


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Go on! Tell the world just how clueless you are! Fwd: I like Obamacare

Do you like Obamacare? Do you know what it is? How has it affected your healthcare costs? 

The Obama campaign says it is just peachy. But only in an email to those signed up as supporters. 

What should that tell you?

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jim Messina, BarackObama.com" <info@barackobama.com>
Date: March 23, 2012
To: xxxxxxxx
Subject: I like Obamacare
Reply-To: info@barackobama.com

Today is the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act.
Since then, the law that almost everyone calls Obamacare has been doing exactly what the other side has hoped it wouldn't do: It's been working.
It's about time we give it the love it deserves.
Let everyone know: "I like Obamacare."
Every single one of the other side's candidates for president has made overturning this law the central part of their campaign.

Did they bother to mention that barely a thing from it is kicked into gear yet? No. 

Bait. For the misinformed. And for those whose goals are irresponsibility for themselves. 

This is a very joyfully cynical campaign. I hope Obama fails. Come November, Americans have a lot to explain if they choose this ineffective bureaucrat a second time. 

- jR

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

Ding dong, Statists' Union calling... 'Health reform - right the wrongs!'

Insurance companies that seem to serve almost singly as investment companies rather than a health care coverage company certainly tick me off. But what's better is what I would like to see, not what's easily likely to be MUCH WORSE. 


Name one operation of the government that saves any money for anyone, except in the coffers of those earning money from the operation. We taxpayers bought GM: what did you get out of that? I got nothing, thanks.


Government, as I've heard said quite a few times recently, is not in the business of giving up money: it is in the business of taking it. Medicare is struggling, the Post Office is struggling, Democrats can't even get along with themselves, the CRA program killed the fair market in real estate -- fair to people who actually could pay a mortgage, I mean! -- crooked dealings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac embarrassed even legitimate criminals, but we should count on government to do right by us in health care? 


Judging from the email (far below), Consumers Union does trust government above the free markets, to not just control markets reasonably through regulation, but to snarl the health industries in their greedy, poorly budgeting, non-consumer-oriented grip. Or so it would appear. You be the judge.


I, for one, was a bit ticked off about this group's eager part in pushing omnivorous governmental "regulation" (read: effective taking-over) of health care in the States. This, just below, is the reply I gave to the Consumers Union "alert" email, farther below, regarding health reform.


My Rant to CU's Kathy Mitchell

Dear Kathy Mitchell:

For goodness and good sense sake, how is government blatantly maneuvering to control the free market going to help us? We need regulatory reform, control, YES, CONTROL, of these big insurance companies, but not a statist approach to controlling huge chunk of the economy. This message sends another message -- that you are eager to head down the path of government control of a major portion of our economy. That is, it is far to say, not what this country's wealth is built on. Without needing to point out to me that it is also built on the backs of poorly paid workers, and slaves, etc., give me a current reason for why the free market will fail us, but the government will not?

Why do YOU trust government in this broad matter (not merely health cost coverage), but not markets? Of all the interest groups in this fight, I would have thought you'd have had an issue with vigorous state-run economic efforts that are being brazenly shoved at us, only slowed by those you badge as the enemy of progress. It is not the free market that brings all types of innovation, including to medicine? How is this bill upholding that hope for the future?

WE NEED CHANGE. I AGREE. Not whatever change suits the characters in support of big-government, let-the-state-solve-all-our-problems, ideas. We need changes that affect how the market and regulation affects our health industries -- insurance, medical tech, hospitals, doctors, drugs, etc. -- not the unions of government workers and such getting all that they want at the cost of those of us who are not in unions, or interested in government abusing us over the free market abusing us. Neither is appealing. We need the government to do their REAL job -- regulating, supporting advances (with our tax dollars going to innovative businesses) in the best interest of the PEOPLE, and the markets to do their jobs -- innovating, creating jobs, paying taxes (which are costs handed to consumers: so, allowing employees and consumers to afford to live and pay their taxes).

This bill, if anyone has actually managed to read it in its most recent morphing to allay legitimate concerns, is not right. They wanted to cram it in our faces in August, you'll remember, and resistance, if nothing else, has forced those not intrinsically meant to benefit through money or power to actually have to address REAL concerns.

If this is the best that Consumers Union can do for the public, then you are suspected of an embarrassingly non-consumer-oriented statist leaning, by me, and likely an awful lot of other folks, who once held up the group as an apolitical consumer group, generally reliable and unbiased. Not so much, anymore.

[Salutations....]

The CU Action Fund email

On Dec 15, 2009, Consumers Union Action Fund wrote:

650,000 could lose coverage so Aetna investors can enjoy higher returns. That's not how it should work. Help us end the stalemate and get a bill out of the Senate. Give just $5 right now--for a holiday victory that can improve our lives forever. Dear Xxxxxx, You can't put a price on good health. But one of the nation's largest health insurance companies just did. Aetna – which is on track to make $1 billion this year – says it will raise customers' premiums in order to make even more profit. The company expects the price hike to force as many as 650,000 people to lose their insurance – the equivalent of the residents of cities like Denver, Boston, Seattle or Baltimore losing their coverage at once. Meanwhile, health reform opponents say our insurance markets are 'working' just great, and they're doing everything they can to kill prospects for real change this week. But when an insurance CEO is willing to cut hundreds of thousands of Americans' health coverage to make even more profit, is our health insurance market really working for us? We don't have a billion dollars, but we have hundreds of thousands of people like you. Your $5 contributions in the fall got a TV ad on the air in key states--one that put Consumer Reports' trusted name behind the effort to finally pass reform now. The ad is still running, and we want to keep it running. We're joining forces with the American Cancer Society, AARP and other consumer groups to focus the media on the real story: Americans are losing coverage and facing huge rate increases while the industry lobbies against the changes that will help the most. Consumers Union is also knocking on doors in holdout Senators' states to generate calls and letters from constituents demanding they stand up for American families and take on the insurance giants. All these things cost money. We're asking people in every state to pitch in so we can open minds and hearts in the states where lawmakers are on the fence. While the Senate bill isn't perfect, it rights a lot of wrongs. Companies would have to spend the bulk of your insurance premium on your health care -- or else rebate you the difference. They could no longer deny you coverage, drop you if you get sick, or charge you ridiculous out-of-pocket costs for treatment. After a Senate bill passes, we're going to push to get the best of both Senate and House measures into a final reform package. Whatever you can give will help us fight for you.  We are the closest we've been in history to getting all Americans affordable, reliable health care. Take reform across the finish line! Sincerely, Kathy Mitchell Consumers Union Action Fund, Inc. 506 W. 14th Street, Suite A Austin, TX 78701

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (twitter)

Mad-made disaster averted in UK, no thanks to politically correct mundaneness

Manchester, England was to be a hot spot for suicide bombings this Easter weekend. You know, because it's all the Christians' fault.

What a shameful and cruel path to lead one's flock -- to their deaths while killing innocents for... what? For an alleged 'cause' of some eerie image of a god.

No, Mr. Obama, these aren't what have been traditionally known, since the 1700s, as "terrorists", they are "man-made disaster" provocateurs. Thank you, liberal word-benders, for correcting us. Politically correcting us, that is. Gag.

Al-Qaeda terror plot to bomb Easter shoppers - Telegraph

Sources told The Daily Telegraph that the arrests of 12 men in the north west of England on Wednesday were linked to a suspected plan to launch a devastating attack this weekend.

Some of the suspects were watched by MI5 agents as they filmed themselves outside the Trafford Centre on the edge of Manchester, the Arndale Centre in the city centre, and the nearby St Ann's Square.

Police were forced to round up the alleged plotters after they were overheard discussing dates, understood to include the Easter bank holiday, one of the busiest shopping weekends of the year.

"It could have been the next few days and they were talking about 10 days at the outside," one source said. "We had to act." Police are now engaged in a search for an alleged bomb factory, where explosives might have been assembled.

If such a plot was carried out, it would almost certainly have been Britain's worst terrorist attack, with the potential to cause more deaths than the suicide attacks of July 7, 2005, when 52 people were murdered.

This was also forced as part of the reaction to this:

The country's most senior anti-terrorism officer, Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, of the Metropolitan Police, was photographed going into Downing Street carrying a briefing paper with top secret details of Operation Pathway in full view.

Yesterday morning, Mr Quick resigned after he was told by the Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, that he had lost her confidence and that of [UK intelligence agency] MI5.

One man arrested had been in the UK on a student visa, which is how the Sept. 11 culprits got in and stayed in the U.S.

The issue of student visas represents a potential security nightmare for the police and MI5. There are 330,000 foreign students in Britain and around 10,000 such visas are issued every year to Pakistanis alone.

Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister, has described the student visa system as "the major loophole in Britain's border controls".

(Read the full story with link above.)

- jR, AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

JustOneMinute blog: Frank cares less for frankness than winning

Oh, to hell with division of government!

Ironic that a leader of the legislature assaults a leader of the judiciary for NOT legislating from the bench. But then, there is very little about Barney "Rubble" Frank proclamations that aren't somehow ironic, more often than not. If he has any challenge, he is embittered by it, all too often.

I recall that this is the man who famously claimed (but, thanks to lack of perspective in media, given a reprieve for it) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaders and procedures were not at all in need of revision as recently as August 2008. Uhh, wrong!

JustOneMinute: The Ongoing Corruption Of Language

I don't find support for Frank's assertion that Scalia believes homosexuality "deserves" to be treated with disapproval; I find a stern reminder that the public deserves courts that wait until legislatures legislate before creating new rights.

Oh, well - Frank is not interested in a frank exchange of views. His goal is to shut down debate by branding everyone on the other side as a homophobe.

Barney Frank is an extreme example of one of the two types of office holders: there are, quite broadly, public servants and power seekers. They are all some mix of the two, right?

If someone listened to Frank's crude provocations and insisted that he was far more a public servant than the other, they must find professional wrestling a subtle form of entertainment.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

(Photo: credited to AP)

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.

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.

CFIF.org: Spending is illegitimate way to motivate economy

Why Massive Government Spending Is Ineffective “Stimulus” – A Primer

Barack Obama, economically uninformed and obviously confusing his temporary personal approval rating with some sort of permanent mandate to do whatever he pleases, crudely justified his unprecedented spending proposal by grunting, “I won.” Shortly thereafter, Obama rationalized his agenda to House Democrats attending their retreat last week with the following irrational and simplistic attempt at humor:

“So then you get the argument, ‘well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.’ What do you think a stimulus is?! (Laughter and applause.) That’s the whole point! (More laughter and applause.) No, seriously! That’s the point! (More laughter and applause.)”

Clearly unable to defend the indefensible, Obama instead retreats to sarcasm and juvenile humor as if his premise is self-evident.

Tossing aside that Obama's comments goofily ignore 1/3 of the bill, that minority which is tax cuts, this strikes me as a core argument against Democrats who argue that spending is the only way to go. That Obama, even in front of his own party, ducks the issue, suggests he does not get it. Democrats, mostly, seem to think that more government control is the solution to an economy problem created by government not doing its existing tasks of responsibly regulating fields where greed runs rampant.

The comments in the quote are from CFIF.org, a group I am personally not very informed about, but which is interested in individual freedoms, thus smaller government, above all else. Apparently, these days, that automatically makes you a conservative, probably an extreme conservative, to liberals.

I think the above quote defines the faltered argument behind rushing to spend with the stimulus. In this age of wireless, computers and a widely educated American populace, I think the stimulus ought to FOCUS on four things:

1. lower taxes for consumers and businesses,
2. relief for the unemployed and otherwise impoverished,
3. freeing of the frozen banking and finance industry, and
4. adapting to the crunch to open up free enterprise, such as making credit available.

Instead, billions are being spent on -- not wrong but wrongly involved in the stimulus -- infrastructure programs that ought to be a part of a real budget or other bill. Some of those programs, such as bridges, have indeed been put off too long since government is not the answer, but part of the problem.

Bridges and roads are failing because government has avoided offering bills to get spending for them, too focused on pet agendas to do the business of the nation responsibly. Just as the gov't ignored subprime mortgages since they felt good about letting the poor and real estate prospectors (oops!) get mortgages on the upside down financial concepts behind those bad ideas. Just as gov't ignored rampant abuses of the financial markets, derivatives and hedge funds and Madoff-style ripoffs. Just as they ignored runaway deficit spending.

Have you noticed that subprimes promoted the use of those nasty derivatives, so people could keep the madness going, handing off the bad mortgages, like financial musical chairs. It alone proves that governmental liberal, short-sighted ideas to give people things they cannot afford are BAD! They will fail us, and today, they have led us into a bigger failure than they alone could give!

Gov't ignored regulation in areas of money and investing, and offered illogical programs for mortgages, the best places for greed to swell for the ethically abstract among us, and it ignored infrastructure. Two kinda obvious things gov't ought to always be dealing with, and overtly. And yet, gov't says now that they ought to be able to be in complete control, according to Democrats. How rich!

Caution against big government of all cautions, when we're all sweating to begin with, the government slips in the programs that they are too chicken to pass in good times. How does that get me a job, exactly, unless I am in those fields or can do -- physically can manage to do -- those jobs? I am sure lots of unemployed folks over 40 will be thrilled to know they can help build bridges out in the summer sun for ten-hour days when they've been living in a cubicle for 15 years or more.

Isn't it ironic, and eery, that a belief the small, regulatory role of government in trade is viewed as old-fashioned and part of a "failed" economic model by the Democratic leadership? What's the option, in their view? Isn't our government TOO BIG now?!! They blame GW Bush for making it larger, through the creation of Homeland Security, leaving out that the motivation was the greatest attack on our shores in 60 years. But they want to make government control of things greater, not just in what they have failed to do and should have regulated in finance and banking, but overall.

Where will they stop? Hugo Chavez' and Castro's model? China's model? Sweden or France's model? How long has it been since either of those last two states "wore the pants" anywhere in the world? The American liberals seem to forget that, on top of being in an economic down trend, we are also the only thing keeping Russia, China and other big, not very nice nations from running the whole show. I guess they'd want to stop just short of that. And, Sen. Kerry and fellow wealthy liberals who think government is the answer, where exactly would you stop? Do you have a specific thing in mind, or would you simply guess where we ought to stop?


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Dashing through the snow-job: Daschle left something out

(From the NY Times, but here via a Texas daily paper)

Now nominee Daschle has tax explaining to do | Dallas Morning News

Senate Democrats rushed Saturday to save the nomination of their former leader, Tom Daschle, as President Obama's health and human services secretary, while the White House sought to explain how Daschle survived its vaunted vetting despite his failure to pay $128,000 in taxes.

Senior administration officials said that although Daschle was aware as early as June 2008 that he might have to pay back taxes for the use of a car and driver provided by a private equity firm, he did not inform the president's transition team until mid-December, several days after Obama announced Daschle as his pick for health secretary.

A normal person would feel guilty for owing that much in taxes. This was a US senator. Should it kill his chances? I should hope not, seeing an outright tax evader is our Treasury head now. Still, owing $128,00 in taxes and gaining a sweet position of influence don't really impress me. It kinda makes me think he's more about himself than average Americans.

As for it being from the Times, it looks like they are making some effort to show the honeymoon is over for Obama. That, or they do not like longtime headliners Daschle.

- 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.

Arthur Nadel: I've gone stark raving Madoff

Flying the coop is generally a sign someone was a crook of some sort, even if there were no regulators there to see it.

Florida man suspected of running Ponzi scheme - Business - MiamiHerald.com

Around the same time he mysteriously vanished, hedge fund manager Arthur G. Nadel owed a $50 million payout to some of the investors who had entrusted their life savings to him, an accountant said Monday.

Instead, they learned their money was gone -- and now they're left asking if it was all a bad investment, or if they were scammed.

The search for Nadel entered its sixth day Monday as more investors contacted authorities with concerns their savings, and Nadel, were gone forever. Nadel's green Subaru was found in a Sarasota airport parking lot on Jan. 15, and he left his family a note in which he appeared to be ''very distraught,'' said Lt. Chuck Lesaltato of the Sarasota County Sheriff's office.

Since being a criminal and being a hedge fund manager are somehow NOT the same thing, legally, I guess Nadal, Madoff, and the like, are helping us all by maybe, just maybe, giving government an idea that hedge funds, and hands-off ideals about financial services are a bad idea. This attitude was virtually UNIVERSAL in Congress (both GOP and Dem) and, seeing that the GREED factor attracts many people to fishing for other people's money for a living, for starters, it is the most obvious mistake in governing since Ebonics was being considered as a subject of educational instruction in our schools.


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

U.S. busts Mexican drug network in Ariz., Mexican pageant queen gets nabbed

U.S. police bust Mexican drug gang | Reuters

Over the past five years the network moved up to 1,000 tons of marijuana with an estimated wholesale value $1 billion dollars through Phoenix, much of which was subsequently redistributed throughout the United States, the office said.

Most illegal drugs used in the United States enter the country from Mexico, where drug trafficking has become an increasingly bloody activity in recent years.

Mexican cartels have killed around 5,300 people south of the border so far this year, as they fight each other for turf and wage an all-out war with Mexican authorities.

I am curious to see how much traction this gets in the mainstream media. So far, it has NONE, and only four pieces written about it in Arizona press (one example), even. Minor story? Is it? Is it really? Shame. It ought to get some coverage, but I suspect, as some ICE raids on illegals and anything else that has anything to do with negative impressions of our poor, helpless neighbors to the south, it will get less coverage than beauty pageants.

That is a none-too-subtle segue into a related story, odd as it is: In another recent drug gang story there are ties to beauty contests and Mexico! "Mexican beauty queen caught in anti-drug raid": A Mexican pageant queen, Laura Zuniga (center, in picture, the only girl), was caught in a raid in the pot-growing land of Sinaloa (a Mexican state, this is where Mazatlán is located).

"No one expected this young woman to be aboard, along with more than a dozen cell phones, lots of cash, pistols, bullets and two rifles," the spokesman said.

With such bizarre happenings as this, perhaps the overly-sensitive-to-offending-the-perceived-downtrodden U.S. mainstream media will actually cover the story beyond special reports on Nightline or the occasional online or print exposé. Let's hope!

Keep up the good work, drug cartels and drug selling gangs -- the more dumb moves you make, the more public your friends, the better for the rest of us, you slimey creeps. The more publicity you mean dopes get, the more likely someone will have to react against it. Here's hoping for Sean Penn to come visit you next, and write a story about how wonderful you are to the residents of impoverished villages!

I have noted similar stories, including ICE raids that net nearly 500 illegals working at a single company location, and the like, and these stories receive literally no national coverage. I never cease to be amazed at how unimportant such stories are to the alleged news media. It is downright depressing to think the news media is so bogged down with stories about Obama that one writer cannot be pulled away to write about gang arrests. At NY Times, at the Washington Post, at the Houston Chronicle, at the darned Arizona Republic, even.

Lou Dobbs, where are you on this one?


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

ICE nabs 21 foreign national gangsters in California

Kudos to the ICE guys for this one.

Pre-dawn raid nabs 21 alleged gangsters

A law enforcement sweep nabbed 21 alleged foreign national gang members hiding out in the Santa Clarita Valley Wednesday morning, a sheriff's official said.

Four of the 21 suspects were booked at Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station on separate charges. Neri Leon, a 19-year-old male, is charged with allegedly violating an outstanding narcotics warrant. Gaudalupe Vasquez, 48, was charged for alleged battery on a peace officer. Cecilio Rodriguez, 48, and Juan San Augustine, 24, were charged with alleged possession of forged identification, Cambra said.

"The people targeted in today's joint gang operation are career criminals who often prey on members of the immigrant community," said Robert Schoch, ICE special agent. "We want to send a clear message to foreign national gang members that ICE intends to deal strongly with those who disregard our immigration laws and place our neighborhoods at risk."

I find it rather odd that this was a non-story for the broader media. Is this kind of "anti-illegals-criminals" effort happening everywhere? Or is it that the media only cares about crimes committed against illegals, or pandering to illogical illegals coddling and law-breaking support of these earners without social security numbers (ones that are theirs, at least).

Applause goes to the folks trying to prevent crime, especially these bona-fide crooks. I am not interested in the so-called victimless crime supporters, but these guys are at the top of my list of why illegals need to be reined in.

However, folks who work using a "borrowed" SS# card are only committing victimless crimes if it is your SS# is the one used by illegals. Otherwise, if your SS# is passed off falsely once, it will likely be passed off again.

- jR


Powered by ScribeFire.

Consumers Union: Tell the new prez we need smart health biz

"If you know of friends and family who have put off their dreams for fear of losing their health insurance, or got sicker because they couldn't afford health care, please forward this message on to them. The big banks, insurance companies and automakers are lining up at the new President's door; let's make sure Americans' need for quality, affordable health care is heard, too."

This is what it's all about, to me. I am a living example, and there are many many many out there, of someone the business side of the health care system has failed, simply because it has maintains the agenda of profits over care. Insurance and health coverage companies, legislators, and perhaps even drug companies (as C.U. maintains) are screwing us over for massive profits. When a person cannot afford to see a doctor, that person will get more sickly.

Someone could lose a job because they cannot afford to care for themselves. It happens; it happened to me, not long ago. I worry today, without health insurance since I am currently between jobs, that something might ruin my day, big time. Nobody cares, and nobody can do anything about it, except if I demand that an ER give me basic care. That is the default answer in a broken system -- ERs are not meant for basic care! I don't want to subscribe to that, but I will probably need to at some point. There is NOTHING for unemployed people, even if they served in the military (the deal is a bit less brutal, then), and I didn't. I don't want to go down that road of visiting the ER for every little issue.

I will be on the road to the Capitol if it doesn't start getting on the right path with health care. I don't specifically want some universal health care program -- namely, if the government runs it, I don't want it! -- but I will be awfully loud and clear with my opinions if the system, private-run, lawfully fair to humans and not just investors, is not reinvented. It has been this poor an overall system for health care in the U.S., for at least a decade or more, based on my personal knowledge. If the system's failures mean I might die too soon, too needlessly, then I hope the Capitol has good security, because I will try to righteously take a few lame Congressmen with me. Ridding of a few large stains on our Democracy will at least be one thing I was able to do before I leave. OK, maybe that's a bit severe. Perhaps I'll just throw eggs at them, or golf balls. See http://middleclassparty.wordpress.com. The "Tee" Party for America -- yeah!

The big banks, insurance companies and automakers are lining up at the new President's door looking for help. Let's make sure that real people like us are heard too! I just sent an email to the President-elect urging him to make affordable, quality health care coverage a top priority along with the economy. Would you take a moment to do the same?

We can't expect our economy to recover unless we make sure families aren't going without needed health care or going bankrupt just to pay for it. We saw what happened when our leaders let Wall Street run amok. We can't afford to continue to let the big insurance and drug companies dictate our health care. Rising premiums and higher co-pays and deductibles are the result, and our care isn't getting any better.

The President-elect campaigned on improving our health care system along with our economy. Let's make sure he knows we want him to follow through on that promise.

You can join me and send an email at: http://www.prescriptionforchange.org/

Thank you!

- jR