Wednesday, February 29, 2012
(trend in comments under news items to place xenophobic blame on residents of whatever suburb or city is noted in the article, instead of acknowledging the real problem)
The efforts of trolls to induce a "spirit" of tribalism in the readers of these news items would be laughable if its true intention was not so malignant. They WANT for people in Denver to hate people in Colorado Springs (and people in Aurora, and people in Commerce City, etc., etc., etc.) to keep us all from discussing and understanding the real issue, which is actually quite simple, to wit:
What Colorado Springs and Denver have in common is that they are both on the I-25 corridor; I-25 is a large, well-traveled, interstate highway that runs south basically to the border of what nation...? (This is easy! Think!)
For everyone to be pleasantly occupied in xenophobic hatred of their fellow citizens simply because they live in another town takes the focus away from the constant flow of drugs, crime, and mayhem flowing straight in our direction from Mexico. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to; keep on thinking that "it's all Colorado Springs' fault" or whatever; that's what they want you to think, and you're a nice, cooperative type, aren't you?
**Written by Doug Powers
“These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis.” … “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.” — Rep. Barney Frank, 2003
Maybe it’s a good thing Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act didn’t lay a glove on Fannie Mae, because if Dodd-Frank had tried to “fix” it, Fannie would probably be back asking for even more money than they already are:
Fannie Mae will request another $4.6 billion in US government aid after posting a $2.41 billion loss in the fourth quarter, the mortgage finance company said Wednesday.
The company also warned it could be required to request additional aid stemming from an escalating battle with Bank of America over mortgage-repurchase requests.
Fannie Mae blamed its quarterly loss primarily on pre-2009 loans and declines in home prices, which pushed up the company’s credit-related expenses.
Including its most recent request from the US Treasury Department, Fannie Mae has borrowed more than $116 billion from taxpayers and paid back $19.6 billion in dividends. The net cost to taxpayers for the bailouts of both companies stands at more than $152 billion.
The loss is reported from the same quarter that the Federal Housing Finance Agency approved $6.3 million in bonuses for Fannie’s top five officers.
Bernanke said the job market is still “far from normal” and may require the Fed to launch more stimulus measures, in his semi-annual monetary policy report to Congress.
Bernanke also added rising gasoline prices will likely push up inflation temporarily, while reducing consumers’ purchasing power.
**Written by Doug Powers
Conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe filed suit for defamation this morning against Al Gore’s CurrentTV, as well as “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann and guest host David Shuster, for falsely referring to O’Keefe as a “convicted felon” and falsely reporting that O’Keefe had been accused of rape.
O’Keefe has not been charged with a felony, much less convicted of a felony, and he has not been accused of any inappropriate sexual or even physical contact. Both facts are a matter of public court record, and therefore the statements by Current TV, Olbermann and Shuster likely amount to defamation with actual malice.
According to the complaint (after the jump):
- On December 22, 2011, during a broadcast of his “Countdown” program on Current TV, Olbermann claimed that O’Keefe was a “convicted felon” on “federal parole after he was charged with [a] felony for attempting to maliciously interfere with Senator [Mary] Landrieu’s office telephone system in New Orleans.” In fact, O’Keefe had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of entering a federal building under false pretenses. The government stipulated that “further investigation did not uncover any evidence” that O’Keefe and his associates had intended “to actually tamper with the phone system, or to commit any other felony.” O’Keefe was not imprisoned and is not on parole.
- On February 24, 2011, Shuster–filling in for Olbermann–likewise claimed that O’Keefe is a “convicted felon.”
- On the same December 22, 2011 broadcast referenced above, Olbermann reported that O’Keefe was facing a complaint by Nadia Naffe, who accused O’Keefe of harassment. Olberman and his guest noted that Naffe had made no accusations of physical contact or allegations of rape against O’Keefe. The complaint had been dismissed the day before, on December 21, 2011.
- Regardless, on the February 24, 2011 broadcast, Shuster claimed that there is a “rape allegation facing…conservative activist…James O’Keefe.”
James told me over the phone, on the eve of his filing:
It is abhorrent that Emmy award winners can contradict legal facts when citizen journalists are required to release full, unedited material — which I have always done by the way — to corroborate every claim that I make. I welcome criticism and even misguided hatred. But, if they call me a felon, if they call me a rapist, or any other disgusting, libelous, ridiculous thing, I will bring them into a courtroom, I will depose them, I will get access to their e-mails. I don’t care how many golden statues they have, I don’t care how many Emmies, Pulitzers they have. We will bring them to justice.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
February 28, 2012
DHS: Tea Party = Extremism, #Occupy = Peace Movement
Unreal. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security suggested the rise of the Tea Party was a sign of right-wing extremism. But a new DHS report refers to the #Occupy movement as "overwhelmingly peaceful."
Gateway Pundit has more.
Below the fold, the "Tea Party Versus #Occupy" checklist.
This past weekend we headed to a part of town we rarely frequent, Fisherman’s Wharf. After a quick stop at the Ferry Building to load up on an assortment of free samples at the Farmers’ Market we headed down to Pier 39 to check out the Tulipmania. Warning there is nothing very “Far Out” in this post, but we saw lots and lots of tulips, spring bloomers & tourists.
Hooray for Icelandic poppies (Papaver nudicaule), too!
They planted parsley to fill in some of the beds, which looked fabulous.
Through the twitter world we found out that Denise Dirickson has been the gardener at Pier 39 for thirty five years! She rocks it. Check out my blog post from last year’s summer bloomfest at the wharf here. I have to admit I was a little shocked at how awesome the gardens were. If you find yourself in Fisherman’s Wharf make sure you don’t miss out on the coolest thing there, the Musee Mechanique. Here’s the link to all our pics from Tulipmania on flickr.
One of the reasons the states wanted a limited national government was to avert the tendency of governments to increase in power and authority. It’s no wonder that the Constitution is a very short document. The more it said on a subject, the more authority the government would have.
The national government only had powers that were listed in the document. To ensure the limited nature of these powers, the states insisted on a Bill of Rights. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are direct evidence that that states were fearful of their newly constructed national government.
Some founders did not want any more added to the Constitution. Their reasoning was sound. For example, in Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton asked, “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” In similar fashion James Madison explained to Thomas Jefferson, “I conceive that in a certain degree . . . the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted” by Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution which lists them.
We have come a long way from those days. Now we have “agencies,” like the IRS, that are independent of the Constitution’s limitations. While the Constitution gives no authority to any government official to pry into the political affairs of an individual or organization, now we’re learning that the Tea Parties are under scrutiny. Colleen Owens of Big Government gives the background:
In January and February of this year, the Internal Revenue Service began sending out letters to various local Tea Parties across the country. Mailed from the same Cincinnati, Ohio IRS office, these letters have reached Tea Parties in Virginia, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas (we are hearing of more daily). There are several common threads to these letters: all are requesting more information from these independent Tea Parties in regard to their nonprofit 501(c)(4) applications (for this type of nonprofit, donations are not deductible). While some of the requests are reasonable, much of them are strikingly onerous and, dare I say, Orwellian in nature.
Consider these requests: “Please identify your volunteers” and “are there board members or officers who have run or will run for office (including relatives)”? It’s none of the IRS’s business. To ask these questions, coming from the IRS, can make someone think twice of continuing as a Tea Party member. Everybody fears an audit.
Here’s the most blatantly tyrannical part of all of this. A letter was sent to IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman. It was signed by six Senators. The letter “requests that the commissioner investigate 501(c)(4) groups to determine whether they are engaging in substantial campaign activity, including opposition to any candidate. Who signed this letter? Senators Schumer, Franken, Udall, Shaheen, Whitehouse, Merkley and Bennet — all Democrats.”
Black Panthers can intimidate voters and an organization like Acorn can use our money to influence elections, but ordinary citizens don’t you dare organize peacefully with your own money to bring our nation back to constitutional sanity.
- “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
- “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Again--I read articles and comment on them on this one news site all the time. The usual gang of trolls flag my posts for deletion constantly, which is why I make taunting remarks toward them, and also started posting some of my comments here. These guys are online most of every day and even on weekends, which makes it a stretch to believe they are the regular, upright, taxpaying citizens that they pretend to be.
Anyway, this ostensibly has to do with Colorado lawmakers trying to decide how much pot in the bloodstream should be legally allowable, but its sneaky underlying purpose is, of course, to make it ok for cops to take your blood, detain you, search you, confiscate your property, etc., etc., without much of a reason at all. (Please see my earlier blog post about search and seizure.)
I know cybering each other up in public is a great turn-on for ya, but I'll just say again: You guys need to get a room. The squishy romance is stomach-turning this early in the day.
Anybody with half a brain could see this pot DUI thing coming miles off. This isn't by any means the end of it, either; if things keep going the way they are going, they will be able to arrest or jail you for having a dog in the car, wearing sunglasses. not wearing sunglasses, being over-caffeinated, not having the expensive government-approved child seat (actually, I think there already is a law about that), having your radio up too loud, wearing a revealing top, etc., etc.
If someone breaks a traffic law, he breaks a traffic law & should get pulled over. Duh. This convoluted "blood testing" thing is a collectivist solution to a problem that common sense easily solves on its own. It is not enhancing any law to make the law more complicated or hard to follow or interpret, obviously. (Common sense, which those who propose government solutions are not just lacking in, but consciously opposed to--or so it would seem.)
This is just adding to the ever-growing list of "probable causes"--i.e., things that cops can use as an excuse to search your car/house and confiscate your property, and/or arrest you and make you pay a bunch of fines.
Driving drunk has been against the law for a hella long time. About 25 years ago or so, under pressure from special-interest groups, the laws started to be made more complex, and thus harder to understand for the average person and harder for the average cop or judge to interpret.
"But we NEED those laws about blood alcohol levels!" you're gonna say.
Do we really? Have the laws produced fewer drunk drivers? Have the punishments gotten any worse for those convicted of drunk driving?
You know already that increased legislation around drunk driving has NOT produced any result except for one: Increased revenue for the State and lawyers who get fat off defending people who are desperate to keep driving at any cost. People are maimed and killed by drunk drivers every day, and it's just getting worse, and those who are convicted get probation or reduced sentences; obviously the State wants for them to get back out on the road ASAP, because, you know, the money. (It's always about money, folks. I keep saying that, and that's what it's about. As long as you've got $5 in your pocket, they are going to be trying to figure out ways to get it.)
Think about it.
Monday, February 27, 2012
I know you'll be surprised, but sometimes I drink when I'm composing these...
Everyone who's going, "OMG!!! OMG!!! How did this guy get hired in the first place!! Someteen must beez donezzz!!" are all the same people who chortle with glee when the ACLU and the State silence the will of the people in being able to pick which schools their children attend. Vouchers, charters--all may be voter-approved but then nixed by the ACLU and Democrat majority, and the anti-American, anti-Christian trolls are all like, "YAY! Separation of church and state, M*F*ers!!! IN YOUR FACE, YOU STUPID VOTERS, wanting your kids to go to a decent school where they might actually LEARN SOMETHING! PWN!!!"
Seriously. We see this over and over again. When the unionized public school teacher commits a crime, the trolls then concentrate on something about his/her nationality, or the way he looks (like that's not racist/prejudiced), or some other little thing, because they are in favor of Big Government and they don't want you thinking about how this type of situation gets set up. They will suggest more government involvement: "Something must be done about these pedophiles in our school system! They need more screening (etc.)" when they are, without a doubt, aware of what attracts that type of person in the first place.
This is the person who is attracted to the public (taxpayer-funded, heavily unionized) school system. Once hired, it takes an act of Bog to fire him. While his disciplinary proceedings are ongoing, he will more than likely receive full pay and benefits, and then when he's finally canned, he'll get severance money. Whee!!
I mean, if I was a child molester with a college degree, I would be all over that action. It's all that and a bag of chips--you can be sexin up the chilluns AND get paid for it, too! And there's not a damned thing anybody can really do about it; to suggest that all teachers need to undergo some sort of extra screening just puts the problem back in the government's lap, suggesting a government-backed solution to a problem that too much government originally created.
Wake up, people. If you have kids in public school, you need to take another look at this stuff. Even if you DON'T have kids, you are still paying out money to support this play. Is it worth it?