Familiarity Breeds

“It’s a great moment. I’m proud to have been here,” said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee led the effort in the Senate. “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we’ve done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done.”
Financial Reform is done.
Sound familiar?

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties, 3/9/10

A brother of the Same Mother(f*kers!)
And having one of the architect of this the mess ‘fix’ it feels me with confidence, especially when he is not running for re-election.
********
Now for comedy you can’t make up:
Community activist Elena Herrada speaking on a panel discussion at the US Social Forum in Detroit, MI yesterday – compares the border patrol to the KKK. Herrada encouraged her audience to not sit next to border patrol officers in restaurants, asking, “Would you sit next to the Ku Klux Klan if they were sitting in a restaurant with a hood on over their head?” She continued, “There is no place for border patrol in our community, they have no good intentions. So when you see them refuse to sit with them, refuse to eat with them, pretend like they are the menace that they are.”
Mind you, there is a foreign country just across the not-that-wide Detroit River, it’s Called CANADA!! so the only real Border Patrol she’s likely to see is at the Bridge going over to Windsor!
******
More Comedy:
From 620-WTMJ
MILWAUKEE – The Milwaukee County Board spent part of the day debating a measure that would call for the county to boycott doing business with companies in Arizona.
Communities around the nation have passed similar measures in response to a law in Arizona that makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
There was an odd moment during the debate when Supervisor Peggy West stood up and seemed to be confused about her geography.  “If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this.  But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border,” West said during debate.

Her colleague, Joe Rice, quickly corrected her, “I just want to assure my colleague that Arizona does in fact share a border with the country of Mexico.”
WELCOME TO LIBERAL EDUCATION.
And, you have a foreign border just north of you too, it’s called CANADA!!
“I did get a passing grade in Geography in high school and in college and I do obviously know that Arizona is on the border,” West said in an interview after today’s meeting.
Oh Really? Are you sure about that?
Maybe they just “deemed” it.

The board tabled the measure, taking no action on it today.
The Video:

http://www.kfyi.com/pages/broomhead.html
*******
NOW IT’S THE STATE’S TURN:
Dozens of California lawmakers are pushing to make their state the first in the nation to impose an across-the-board boycott on Arizona over its immigration law — though the state’s largest city just voted to selectively scale back its boycott after local lawmakers realized it could backfire.
The Democratic state lawmakers on Wednesday unveiled a resolution that would impose several restrictions against Arizona. The measure calls for California to issue a travel advisory on visits to its eastern neighbor, halt state investment there and urge Major League Baseball to reconsider letting the state host the 2011 All-Star Game.
Though dozens of cities and organizations have voiced their opposition to Arizona’s law by instituting bans on employee travel, canceling conventions in the state and threatening to pull contracts, California would be the first state to do so.
Sen. Gil Cedillo, a Democrat from Los Angeles who introduced the proposal, said the Arizona law “undermines fundamental civil rights and civil liberties.”
He said it poses a “special threat to people of color” who live and travel through Arizona.
Though Arizona officials argue that the boycotts do little to change policy and only hurt businesses and workers in the state, proponents of the policies say they passed them out of concern over racial profiling.
However, the Los Angeles City Council — one of the cities leading the charge against Arizona — just backed off part of its boycott because it didn’t want to cut ties with an Arizona-based company that operates enforcement cameras at Los Angeles intersections and generated $6 million for the city last year.
The metropolis had previously banned most city travel to Arizona, as well as future contracts with Arizona companies. That kind of policy has since been replicated by other city governments.
But council members decided to make an exception on Wednesday, voting to extend a lucrative contract with red-light camera operator American Traffic Solutions, based in Scottsdale.
“The boycott never intended to impede public safety,” Los Angeles Councilman Richard Alarcon said during a meeting Wednesday.
Just mature, rational, logical thinking!
*******
NOW IT’S THE FEDS TURN
Two federal agencies have denied U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ charge they are boycotting Arizona because of SB 1070. The congresswoman earlier this week chastised the Border Patrol and the Department of Education for canceling scheduled events.
Border Patrol officials say they did not cancel any Arizona events, according to a statement issued by the agency’s public-affairs office in Washington, D.C.
The Border Patrol’s parent agency “has not canceled any conferences in Arizona. We conducted a thorough review across our organization to ensure this is, in fact, the case,” the statement says.
The Education Department says it moved a joint event with Mexican and Canadian attendees at the request of the Mexicans, The Associated Press reported. However, the Education Department said it still plans to hold other upcoming conferences in Arizona.
Giffords’ office stands by its news release, said C.J. Karamargin, Giffords’ spokesman. “Meetings were scheduled, meetings were canceled and the reason was SB 1070,” he said.
Giffords is an Arizona Democrat opposed to SB-1070!!
Ever since U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed – apparently prematurely – that the Justice Department would be bringing suit against the state of Arizona over its controversial new immigration law, we’ve all been watching anxiously for the DOJ’s official filing.
That was almost a week ago, and Justice is still saying they are “reviewing” the possibility.
Well, this may be the reason for the delay:

Arizona Democrats, with tough re-election battles looming, have urged the Obama administration not to sue the state over its controversial immigration job.

The Hill reported yesterday that Democratic congressman Harry Mitchell has sent President Obama a “sharply worded letter” urging him to call off plans for Justice to sue his state. Two other House Dems, Gabrielle Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick, are also calling for Obama to back off of SB 1070.
The problem, it seems, is that widespread support for the law among Arizonians has caused trouble for AZ Dems in tough reelection battles. Republican opponents have been turning up the heat, painting the Democrats as unsupportive of the law and soft on illegal immigration. In an effort to respond to this tactic, Dems have tried to avoid mentioning SB 1070 while talking up the need for immigration reform and increased border security. If Justice brings suit, the election rhetoric will necessarily be once again focused on the law itself.
Mitchell’s letter seems to strike a distinctly Republican tone:

“I believe your administration’s time, efforts and resources would be much better spent securing the border and fixing our broken immigration system,” the two-term congressman wrote in the letter. “Arizonans are tired of the grandstanding, and tired of waiting for help from Washington. … [A] lawsuit won’t solve the problem. It won’t secure the border, and it won’t fix our broken immigration system.” (Blue Wave news)

Strange bedfellows indeed!
***********
Notice in this next one, Border Security is  not only not mentioned it’s not even referenced:

WASHINGTON – House Democrats on Thursday marked what they called a “milestone” of 100 co-sponsors for a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill that includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Flanked by a group of immigrants from across the country, Democratic lawmakers said at a news conference that achieving 100 co-sponsors shows the immigration bill has the momentum necessary to become law.
The bill faces an uphill battle in Congress. House members are wary of facing voters in November who are split on what to do about immigration. Arizona’s controversial immigration law is adding considerable fuel to the fire.
The Arizona law requires law-enforcement officers, while stopping someone for another reason, to check immigration status when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the U.S. illegally. It also makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime.
At a news conference on Capitol Hill, Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas – who along with Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., introduced the federal immigration bill last December – said the legislation is not an “amnesty bill” for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and that it would not grant citizenship without punishment.
Rather, he said the bill would create a system that “is tough on enforcement, fair to taxpayers, and enforceable.”
The House bill would increase the number of green cards available and would create a program for illegal immigrants and their families giving them semi-legal status for six years if they learned English and U.S. civics.
The program also would require applicants to pay a fine of $500 and undergo a background check. The bill also would increase border security.
“Never have I seen the division that I see today and the hate that I see today,” Ortiz said in reference to the Arizona law, which barring any legal action will go into effect next month. “But people are beginning to understand the necessity of passing this important comprehensive immigration reform bill.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said in the past, however, that she would not bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor until the Senate has passed its own version.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, called the climate surrounding the immigration issue “hostile” and added that not passing a comprehensive immigration measure would be the “BP oil spill of not doing the right thing.”
The Democrats’ immigration proposal, Jackson Lee said, “is going to save this nation.” (AZ Daily Star)

Still believe any time a Democrat is talking about “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that it’s not AMNESTY and has nothing at all to do with Border Security?
And still don’t believe Jon Kyl when he said that Obama was going to hold Border Security hostage to the Agenda?
I would hope not.

Just Plain Silly

Massachusetts, The Socialist Commonwealth, has many new Liberal ideas starting out there.

There auto insurance is so heavily regulated they have a lot less competition going on in that state. BTW, did you know you have the option to buy coverage to have it apply out-of-state!
See part 5: This option provides coverage for accidents beyond Massachusetts to anywhere in the United States, its territories or possessions, or Canada.
http://www.mypolicy.com/insurance-personal/automobile-12parts.htm
Universal Health care started there in 2007 and was bankrupt by 2009, but that doesn’t deter anyone.
So here is an editorial from The Daily Caller that stuck my fancy.
If you’re planning to spend the next New Year’s Day in Concord, Massachusetts, don’t get caught nursing your annual hangover with a plastic bottle of cool spring water — you might be breaking the law.
The city of Concord passed a law in April banning all bottled water in plastic containers, effective January 1, 2011. Supporters of the law say ridding the town of bottled water is a first step toward a cleaner planet. Never mind that plastic water bottles only account less than one percent of landfill space. Who are we to let facts get in the way of a good regulation?
In commemoration of the successful campaign to rid Concord of bottled H20, we decided to take a look at a few of the other laws that have come out of the Bay State, a land full of people who clearly think they are incapable of making personal decisions on their own accord.
1. A January 2010 law mandates that all children in Massachusetts daycare centers must brush their teeth after lunch — or else.
It is against the law for daycare providers to not help children brush their teeth after meals. While parents can opt out (either on libertarian principle or family tradition if they’re from some parts of Alabama), they can rest easy knowing that state bureaucrats are looking out for their children’s pearly whites. Heck, the state even provides toothpaste, brushes and holders! What? No floss?! There oughta be a law…
2. It is illegal in Massachusetts to deface a milk carton.
From what we can gather, there was once a rogue band of underground milkmen roaming the New England countryside defacing poor innocent milk cartons with giant Sharpie pens.  The horror! The mayhem! The curdling! Well, the state put an end to that, slapping a $10 fine on anyone who dared to vandalize a container of 2 percent.
3. It is illegal in Dudley, Massachusetts to own more than three cats without government permission.
Here’s to you, Dudley, for finding a way to push that nice lady with kitty litter in her hair and all those pussycats even further into desperate reclusion.  Residents of the town decided to impose a $100-per-day fine for owning too many cats after someone living next to the town cat lady complained about the felines ruining his yard. The cat lady promptly put her home up for sale, packed her 15 cats, and never looked back. Success!
4. Children in Attleboro, Massachusetts are forbidden from playing “tag” or other running games during playtime.
Heaven forbid an American child loses all that self-esteem his teachers worked so hard to build over the years. (Remember, everyone’s a winner!) A school in Massachusetts made national headlines in 2006 for issuing playground rules that restricted children from playing “chasing” games like tag and touch football because they were “dangerous” and “exclusionary.” In a rousing match of phone tag, a spokesman for the school refused to confirm or deny to The Daily Caller that tag is  still allowed today. Guess that means we’re it.
5. A Massachusetts fisherman was fined for saving a whale caught in his net.
As Clare Boothe Luce once quipped, no good deed goes unpunished. A U.S. District Court fined fisherman Robert J. Eldridge $500 after he untangled a whale from his nets and set the giant sea mammal free. What he should have done, the court told him, was call state authorities and wait for them do it. Never mind that the whale may have suffocated if they didn’t arrive in time. But hey, Eldridge should consider himself lucky: He could have faced a $100,000 fine and up to a year in jail. That’ll teach him.
Honorable Mention: Group in Cambridge calls for a ban on all meat on Mondays.
The Cambridge Climate Congress, established to make recommendations for climate laws for the People’s Republic of Cambridge, recently proposed a ban on all meat sales once a week to curb the “climate emergency.” (It didn’t pass.) As the logic goes, meat comes from cows, and cows emit gas (farts) that heats up the planet. Let’s take a moment to thank the selfless citizens of Cambridge for making a good faith effort to rid the world of climate change and those smelly bovine backsides.
So what new hot liberal trend to run your life for you will be coming to a town near you, or even yours.
Let’s Wait and see.

We are From the Government and We Are Here To Protect You

So you want to know how the government responds to a crisis. You need only look at the Gulf  in order to cringe.
You want to know how the Government is going to protect you, then read on.
And these are the people who will be in charge of Health Care soon by the way. They “deemed” it so.
It just fills you with confidence.
So just when you were thought they couldn’t be more incompetent, there’s this:
NEW ORLEANS — The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.
The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.
The government giveth with one hand and taketh away with another.
Rejoice.

Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who was one of the most vocal advocates of the dredging plan, has sent a letter to President Barack Obama, pleading for the work to continue.
Nungesser said the government has asked crews to move the dredging site two more miles farther off the coastline.
“Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil,” Nungesser wrote to Obama. “Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil.
Nungesser has asked for the dredging to continue for the next seven days, the amount of time it would take to move the dredging operations two miles and out resume work.
Work is scheduled to halt at midnight Wednesday.
However, the Interior Department said the order was issued because the state was pumping sand from a sensitive section of the island chain and had failed to meet an extended deadline to install pipe that would tap sand from a less-endangered area.
Oil coating the shoreline is preferable than using sand from a “sensitive” area to stop the Oil from  destroying the shoreline?
<>
Interior Assistant Secretary Tom Strickland said the berms are important in protecting marshes and wildlife. “But the berms have to be built right so they don’t compromise the barrier islands, which serve as a first line of defense against storm surges and hurricanes,” he said.
So let’s study it some more. We need more environmental impact studies.
We’ll get back to you in a few months.
Gov. Jindal said about 450,000 cubic yards of sand has been dredged in the area.
He said it would take about 5 days to build the pipeline federal authorities want to access the new dredging site. “It took so long to approve this project (nearly a month). We don’t want to be tied up in more red tape,” he said.

So never waste a crisis, by like doing anything efficiently and effectively, for god’s sake!
Especially, when you can use red tape to tie everything up in knots and bureaucratic turf wars.
Barack Obama will on Wednesday make a renewed push to spur the US Senate into action on climate change, saying the BP oil spill underlines the urgency for the country to lessen its dependence on fossil fuels.
The US president will host senators from both parties at the White House – including those who have proposed variations on a climate change bill – but analysts are skeptical about whether he can overcome the political impasse on a proposal that is seen as essentially a tax.
“The oil spill has dramatically increased the urgency for the need to act,” said Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. “But I’m not looking for any breakthrough at the meeting. I think President Obama wants to listen to various concerns and follow up on various ideas.”

Eight Republican senators have sent President Obama a letter telling him he would be making a mistake if he were to order Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to give a blanket amnesty for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living here.
The senators, including Orrin Hatch of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, have been hearing about a possible plan by the Obama Administration to give what is called deferred action or parole to every illegal alien living here, if the Administration is unable to get 60 votes in the Senate for a blanket amnesty.
The senators acknowledge the President has the authority to do that, but advise he would be making a mistake if he were to circumvent Congress’s authority to write immigration policy.
Letter:
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kfyi.com%2Fcc-common%2Fmlib%2F622%2F06%2F622_1277222306.pdf
So Obama, unable to get the republicans to go for Amnesty will just have Big Sis “deem” it so.
The Government is help you.
They will Protect You.
And oh by the way, Obama in 2004:
Obama comments that the “system” is “unfair” for a lot of people and says there would need to be a way to secure the borders, track individuals coming into the U.S. “who may be engaged in terrorist activity” and “provide a pathway” for citizenship.
“That’s going to be a difficult conversation to have and it’s going to have to be bipartisan,” he said. “The tradeoff is going to have to be improved security of our borders at the same allowing those who are already here to reach out for that American dream,” he said.

How similiar is this to what Obama says now.
But, as I have said for almost a year, the Democrats want Amnesty to get 12-20 million new Democrats.
Imagine what would happen if Amnesty was “deemed” just prior to the election and you had ACORN register them and the Democrats steal not only this election but future ones as well using their “Hispanic block”.
Now that’s your Government protecting you from your own misplaced loyalties, comrade.

And finally…
The Obama administration’s Dept of Labor has put out this PSA directed at not only American workers but illegal aliens working in the US as well. Team Obama is getting pretty good at undermining US law…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3owMAs2t2Fo
“Every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not,” says Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in a public service announcement posted on the Labor Department’s “We Can Help” Web page.
In a different section of its Web site, the Labor Department states that “employers may hire only persons who may legally work in the United States (i.e., citizens and nationals of the U.S.) and aliens authorized to work in the U.S.”
Two-Faced much?
So if you’re an illegal and you’re being expolited by an evil Republican capitalist boss call Hilda, she’ll beat them up for you. The fact that the Democrats are for going after employers (or at least that’s there comeback) is immaterial.
So when the boss lays you off because he got busted by ICE you can always get more government assistance from that fake Social Security number you stole to get that job in the first place.
And when Big Sis “deems” you a citizen you can vote for Democrats for life in gratitude.
And the millions more of your brethren who come in after you will take over for you and be “deemed” in the next generation of Amnesty just to be “fair”.

Doesn’t it just fill you with confidence and pride in Government and they are going to be in charge of your Health Care!

Don't Forget Your Union Label

The Obama administration on (last) Monday released a new regulation setting rules for who can keep their current health insurance plans under the law. The regulation gave special consideration to plans negotiated by unions, quickly drawing criticism from conservatives and others, who argue the rules will put small businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

But the new rule is only one of numerous ways the health-care law boosts unions. And since vast portions of the law remain undefined – until bureaucrats fill in the details – further breaks for organized labor are widely expected.
For the rule regarding whether people can keep their health plans – known as “grandfathering” in bureacratise – the Department of Health and Human Services ruled that for union-negotiated health plans, companies can change insurance providers but keep their essential plan  details intact, or grandfathered. For non-union-negotiated plans, companies can’t change providers – they must stay with their same insurance provider.
Without the ability to choose another company, small businesses would have little leverage to negotiate their rates, probably leading to higher costs, critics say. The alternative is to get a new plan which meets the strict new regulations of the Obama health-care law, which will probably cost more, too.
It also hits at a core pledge President Obama made repeatedly in pushing for the law – that people happy with their current health plans could keep them. In fact, the Obama administration now estimates that as many as 51 percent of businesses (and 66 percent of small businesses) will need new health-care plans by 2013 because of the law.
A second way Obama’s health-care law helps unions is in the so-called “Cadillac” tax that applies to more expensive health-care plans.
For most of America, that tax begins when an employee’s health-care plan costs at least $10,200. After that, the plan will be taxed at 40 percent. For union-negotiated plans, the tax starts at $27,500 instead. Some estimates say this will save union members $60 billion over 10 years.
Organized labor has argued that workers who negotiated better health-care plans in exchange for lower pay could be hurt – plus they negotiated the plans without knowing the tax could hit them later.
A third way the law boosts unions is with a $5 billion subsidy for health insurance for early retirees. The health-care law’s critics note that the vast majority of employers who have early retiree programs are unionized employers, especially in the public sector.
Under the program, HHS will reimburse certain claims between $15,000 and $90,000.
A fourth way the law benefits unions is that it gives union members entry into the health insurance exchange markets earlier than everyone else.
A fifth way the law benefits unions is that certain very large group plans are exempt from many of the regulations in the health-care law. This category of large group plans is not limited to unions – for instance, large employers such as Wal-Mart may be eligible – but it will also benefit key union-negotiated plans.
Because the health-care law is so vast and complicated – and since many of its details are yet to be determined – this list is not exhaustive.
Notably, organized labor, far from pleased with Obama, is instead involved in a bitter feud with the White House.
Recently, labor (and environmentalists and other liberal factions within the Democratic party) threw millions of dollars into a Democratic primary race in Arkansas in their attempt to defeat Sen. Blanche Lincoln. Lincoln has posed a key impediment both to the union-backed Employee Free Choice Act as well as a range of environmentalist priorities.
Following Lincoln’s win, a senior White House aide remarked to Politico that the unions had “flushed” $10 million down the toilet in trying to defeat Lincoln. A top labor official responded that unions are not a “arm of the Democratic party.”

The DISCLOSE ACT
Aka, muzzle anyone but Unions.
The untold story is that Democrats assuaged organized labor’s early opposition to the bill by tailoring its provisions to eke out space for unions.
For example, restrictions on companies that received government bailouts during the financial crisis apply to businesses, but not unions: Under the DISCLOSE Act, General Motors can’t tell you who to vote for, but the United Auto Workers union can.
And consider the bill’s laborious record-keeping rules for certain types of donations. Corporations, unions, non-profits and 527 groups will, for the first time, be required to report donors who give more than $600 if they engage in “express” advocacy — urging voters to support one candidate or another by name.
Conveniently, as Republican staff on the House Administration Committee point out, average union dues in 2004 were $377 – below the $600 threshold. Since unions get the vast majority of their funds from member dues, “the new threshold for reporting is likely to have little effect on unions … but a huge effect on associations and advocacy groups,” a GOP summary of the bill says.
Government contractors with contracts of more than $7 million are not permitted to engage in express advocacy. Unions that receive their dues from the taxpayer-funded salaries of public sector employees face no such restriction. Neither do recipients of grants.
The bill includes strict rules on foreign-owned businesses engaging in express advocacy. The rules are so strict, critics fear, they will ensnare American companies with American employees and revenue. For instance, if a foreign entity owns, directly or indirectly, 20 percent or more of a company’s shares, that company isn’t allowed to urge citizens to vote for candidates, even if it’s based in the U.S.
No such restrictions are placed on unions.
The Funny part:
Unions are also subject to the new “stand by your ad” requirements. Under a 2002 campaign spending law, political candidates must state in television and radio advertisements they approved the message of their advertisements. Commonly, this statement reads, for example, “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.”
The DISCLOSE Act takes this idea and runs with it.
A hypothetical television ad would read, “I’m Eli Pariser, the executive director of Moveon.org Political Action and George Soros approves this message.” Soros, in this case, would be a “significant funder” for the ad, or would have given money for the ad to run. Then, Soros would appear on screen himself.
If he were the only funder of the ad, Soros would say, “I’m George Soros. I helped pay for this message, and I approve it.”
If Soros was part of a group that helped fund the ad, he would say, “I’m George Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management. Soros Fund Management helped pay for this message and Soros Fund Management approves it.”
The longest version of this hypothetical “stand by your ad statement” takes about 15 seconds to read. Many political spots are 15 seconds. For the most common, 30-second spot, the statement would eat up 50 percent of the ad time.
So you could get campaign ads that are longer and cost more and bore people even more, but end up sounding like the drug commercial where the lawyer speak is longer than the commercial was and blows past thinks like “small risk of death has been reported in some cases”.
I didn’t say it was funny, ha ha.
But Obama and the democrats have to protect their peeps in the Unions against those evil corporate goons!

Outrage has a Price Tag

Outrage has a Price


June 21, 2010 · Leave a Comment · Edit This

Everyone should see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY1o3LV6V8M&feature=player_embedded
Here’s what the president said, ‘The problem is, if we secure the border, then you all won’t have a reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.’ In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform. I explained that, ‘you and I, Mr. President, have an obligation to secure the border. That’s an obligation. It also has potentially positive benefits. You don’t have to have comprehensive reform to secure the border, but you have to secure the border to get comprehensive reform.’ I said, ‘you would be surprised maybe you don’t think there wouldn’t be no incentive for comprehensive reform, but I’m not so sure that’s true. In any event, it doesn’t matter. We’re supposed to secure the border.’
But that’s why it’s being done. They frankly don’t want to do it. They want to get something in return for doing their duty.
What’s in it for me? Why should I do my job if there’s no quid pro quo.
Now that’s REAL leadership for you!
There was even an extended clip that warned the Democrats could likely use the same cram down/deem it passed reconciliation on Cap & Trade.
Now that’s Democracy in action!
Meanwhile, In Sanctimonious Los Angeles:
Two much-debated City Hall issues are expected to converge this week when the Los Angeles Police Department’s red light camera program moves to the front of the line for an exemption from the city’s contracting boycott of Arizona over that state’s new immigration enforcement law.

On Tuesday, the City Council is scheduled to consider — and appears likely to approve — an exception to the boycott allowing a 10-month extension of a multimillion-dollar agreement with Scottsdale-based American Traffic Solutions.

The firm operates cameras at 32 city intersections that catch tens of thousands of red light violators each year. The council’s Public Safety Committee says the exception is justified because red light cameras provide a “significant benefit to public safety.”



Whoops!

In addition to extending the current red light camera agreement, the council is scheduled to consider asking for bids on a new contract to operate and expand the photo enforcement program to more intersections starting next year.

That action could further entangle the two issues. In addition to the current vendor, a top competitor for the new contract — Redflex Traffic Systems — also has its headquarters in Arizona.
“Industry wide, they’re two front runners,” noted Matthew Crawford, a senior administrative analyst in the city’s budget office.
Poor babies, their sanctimony ran held long at 55mph into “public safety”….
Last week, what could have been the first exemption from the boycott — an LAPD request for officers to attend an Arizona training conference — was withdrawn after some council members voiced concern. This prompted the police officers’ union to complain that political correctness at City Hall was taking precedence over public safety.(LA Times)
I guess sanctimony has a price.
And then there’s this ditty From Nogales, AZ:

A Mexican drug cartel has threatened Nogales [Arizona] police officers, saying they will be targeted for retribution if they conduct off-duty drug busts.

Nogales Police Chief Jeffrey Kirkham told the Nogales International on Friday that the threats stemmed from an incident approximately two weeks ago, when off-duty officers surprised marijuana smugglers while riding horseback in an unincorporated border area east of town. The officers seized part of the drug load, and the smugglers were able to flee back into Mexico with the other part. “As a result of that,” Kirkham said, “our officers have received threats from the cartel that they are to look the other way if they are off-duty, or they will be targeted by a sniper or by other means.” NPD learned of the threats through informants, he said. Following the threats, Kirhkam said, NPD notified the Border Patrol and other federal law enforcement agencies, which responded by stepping up manpower and surveillance in the area where the off-duty bust occurred. In addition, Kirkham met with his officers to advise them of the threats and to authorize them to take precautions, including wearing firearms while off duty.

“The Nogales Police Department will not be intimidated,” he said. Kirkham said the threats highlighted the need for more federal law enforcement at the border.

“This has nothing to do with SB 1070 or illegal immigration,” he said, “it has to do with narco-trafficking and the violence of the cartels.” Santa Cruz County Sheriff Antonio Estrada said he was unaware of similar threats being made against his deputies.
“They seem to respect an officer who’s doing his job,” Estrada said of the cartels, “but when you do it as a civilian, they really take offense.” Given the cartels’ track record of violence, Estrada said, any such threat “has to be taken very seriously”.

Here’s what the president said, ‘The problem is, if we secure the border, then you all won’t have a reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.’

Your blood boiling yet?
If it’s not you must be a Liberal…

Freedom of Liberal Speech

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Liberal Progressive Rewrite (my version):
Congress shall make no law respecting any religion, and will do it’s best to prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of Liberal speech, or of the Liberal press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (except for those who disagree with Liberals, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, but they will be ignored if they are not “deemed” worthy by Liberals.
An effort by Democrats to close down speech critical of their actions before it can impact the November elections is running into a rocky road in the U.S. House, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delayed action on the proposal while the party regroups and tries to assemble support.
The DISCLOSE Act, pending as HR 5175 in the U.S House and as S. 3295 in the Senate, targets the freedom of speech of companies and groups acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in its “Citizens United” ruling last winter.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen in the House and Sen. Charles Schumer in the Senate, has 114 co-sponsors with Van Hollden and 49 with Schumer.
Pelosi, however, pulled the proposal from a floor vote and sent members home for the weekend because of turbulence over the plan to impose a new set of reporting and other requirements on a long list of organizations, according to a report in Human Events.
According to the Connie’s Congress column, “Democrats have been scrambling to shut down conservative political speech before the November elections this year since the January U.S. Supreme Court decision in ‘Citizens United v. FEC’ that found freedom of speech applies to everyone: individuals, corporations and unions.
“Discontented with a more level playing field, Democrats threw together the DISCLOSE Act, a very lengthy and complicated piece of legislation designed solely to undo the court’s decision.”
While moving forward, it still needed additional support, and in recent days a “carve-out” was created that would have exempted the National Rifle Association from its demands, allegedly in exchange for the NRA dropping its opposition.
But analysts say the move backfired, since the Internet ignited with criticism of the organization’s “deal with the devil” and other less-complimentary descriptions.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.com said, “Congress’ attempt to repair their attack on the First Amendment, overturned in the ‘Citizens United’ decision earlier this year, has run off the rails thanks to the machination of its Democratic backers.
“Nancy Pelosi pulled the DISCLOSE Act from the House floor last night after the news of sleazy deals to exempt powerful organizations from the law started leaking to the media. Ironically, it was a rare partnership between the NRA and the Democrats that sealed the bill’s fate.”(WND)
And this Congress is not known for backroom slezy deals, after all, as Pelosi herself said in 2007, it was “going to be the most ethical Congress” in history. And she wouldn’t lie, now would see…
Cleta Mitchell, a member of the board of directors for NRA, which would have fallen into the bill’s exempting language, wrote in a newspaper column the true purpose of the DISCLOSE Act is to “silence congressional critics in the 2010 elections.”
“Since the court’s January decision in ‘Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission’ that corporations cannot be constitutionally prohibited from making independent candidate-related expenditures, Democrats have been hyperventilating at the notion that corporations might spend millions of dollars criticizing them,” she wrote. “To foreclose that possibility, the DISCLOSE Act would impose onerous and complicated ‘disclosure’ restrictions on organizations that dare to engage in constitutionally protected political speech and on corporations that dare to contribute to such organizations.
“The DISCLOSE Act isn’t really intended to elicit information not currently required by law. The act serves notice on certain speakers that their involvement in the political process will exact a high price of regulation, penalty and notoriety, using disclosure and reporting as a subterfuge to chill their political speech and association,” she wrote.
“It is only disclosure, say the authors. And box-cutters are only handy household tools . . . until they are used by terrorists to crash airplanes,” she wrote.
The dirty little secret that the Democrats don’t want discussed is that Unions were the #1 user and abuser of campaign ads until this ruling, they had a virtual monopoly because of the money they could raise from their members.
And as if that weren’t enough…
WASHINGTON — Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation’s homeland security chief said Friday.
As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans’ civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
But finding that balance has become more complex as homegrown terrorists have used the Internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training. Those contacts have spurred a recent rash of U.S.-based terror plots and incidents.
“The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet,” Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
Napolitano’s comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.
Mind you, last year, this is the same person who called “right wingers” and returning military personnel “terrorists” and this are the same people who have called the Tea Party movement “terrorists” on occasion.
And with “net neutrality” still out there (aka censorship) you can always trust Big Sis to do what’s best for you.
Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.
Too Bad she doesn’t believe that about the Border!!
She added, “We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable.”
You trade your freedom for our Security. What could be wrong with that.
The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act would allow the President to disconnect Internet networks and force private websites to comply with broad cybersecurity measures.
Future US presidents would have their Internet “kill switch” powers renewed indefinitely.
The bill would give a newly-formed National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications the authority to monitor the “security status” of private websites, ISPs and other net-related business within the U.S. as well as critical internet components in other countries. Companies would be required to take part in “information sharing” with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that “relies on” the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. “information infrastructure” would also be “subject to command” by the NCCC under the proposed new law.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
Millard (IA) Public Schools will stop using a children’s book about global warming — but only until the district can obtain copies with a factual error corrected.
A review committee, convened after parents complained, concluded that author Laurie David’s book, “The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming,” contained “a major factual error” in a graphic about rising temperatures and carbon dioxide levels.
However, the district will cease to use a companion video about global warming, narrated by actor Leonardo DiCaprio, he wrote.
The committee found the video “without merit” and recommended that it not be used.
In the video, DiCaprio attributes global warming to mankind’s “destructive addiction” to oil. He says “big corporations” and politicians gained too much money and power “on our addiction,” making them “dangerously resistant to change.”
So how many school district did do this?
After all, it’s just education….
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

Bureaucrats Everywhere!

Sept 2009: President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.”for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax” (CBS)

OBAMA (On ABC): My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
The U.S. Justice Department officially responded to a legal challenge against the federal health-care overhaul Wednesday and called on a federal judge to dismiss the case.
Twenty attorneys general, led by Republican Bill McCollum of Florida, filed suit against the federal government immediately after President Obama’s health-care overhaul became law in March. The attorneys generals are questioning the constitutionality of the law, claiming that Congress does not have the power to require that all Americans purchase health insurance.
The federal health-care law requires that all legal U.S. residents be insured or else pay a penalty — beginning in 2014 — that fines individuals $695 annually or up to 2.5% of their income.
In its defense of the law, the Justice Department invoked the Commerce Clause and claimed penalties for Americans without health-care coverage were consistent with the federal government’s powers to regulate interstate commerce and impose taxes.

The Justice Department filing describes the penalty as a tax, stating that the law “imposes a tax on the choice of a method to finance the future costs of one’s health care.”

McCollum responded to the Justice Department filings Thursday, claiming that the government’s response contradicted the comments that President Obama made during the health-care debate earlier this year.
“The Justice Department’s defenses clash directly with comments made by President Obama during the debate on the health care reform bill, including the President’s insistence on national television that the purchase mandate was absolutely not a tax. Yet in its motion to dismiss, the Obama administration defends the individual mandate under Congress’ ‘taxing and spending’ power,” said McCollum in a press statement.
“Nothing in the Justice Department’s motion filed last night changes the States’ view that we will prevail. Instead, the Justice Department’s defenses clash directly with comments made by President Obama during the debate on the health care reform bill, including the President’s insistence on national television that the purchase mandate was absolutely not a tax. Yet in its motion to dismiss, the Obama Administration defends the individual mandate under Congress’ ‘taxing and spending’ power.
“Not only does the U.S. Department of Justice contradict public statements made by the President and Congressional leadership, it demonstrates in its motion to dismiss that it seems to view this lawsuit by the 20 states and NFIB as a significant challenge, signaling this lawsuit may pose more of a threat in its chances for success.
“Our lawsuit challenges the individual mandate that violates the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, the federal government is threatening our state sovereignty with this unprecedented expansion of federal powers and commandeering of state resources. This is not acceptable, and we will pursue this litigation as far as necessary to obtain relief for our citizens and our states.”
The lawsuit was filed on March 23, 2010 with 13 original state plaintiffs and was amended on May 14, 2010 to add seven additional states and the National Federation of Independent Business, as well as two individual plaintiffs.
So the Tax that wasn’t a tax is now officially a Tax.
I wonder how the Mainstream Media/Ministry of Truth will ignore that. (I already know BTW).
************
Sixteen crude-sucking barges are back in the Gulf of Mexico working to clean up oil, but the Coast Guard is defending its decision to ground the vessels because it couldn’t verify whether there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board.
“The Coast Guard is not going to compromise safety … that’s our No. 1 priority,” Coast Guard spokesman Robert Brassel told The Daily Caller.
The decision to ground the ships is under intense scrutiny after Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal expressed his deep frustration with the decision Thursday.
“You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, ‘Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil,’” Jindal said to ABC News.
But don’t worry Obama is going to do everything he can to stop the Oil.
But the bureaucrats aren’t though.
Further, the government’s response is clumsy. “The Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, the EPA all these different agencies aren’t talking to each other,” Florida’s Okaloosa County commissioner Wayne Harris said.
Anyone seeing National Health Care Administration (aka ObamaCare) in your future?
So why is Obama so slow, it’s 60 days later.
Imagine Bush dithering 60 days after Katrina?
The meltdown would have been apocalyptic. (It already was according to the media back then, but they were “fair” and had no agenda…)
So why doesn’t he do it?
In a word: Unions.
The answer comes in the form of an obscure law called the Jones Act. A throwback to the days of American protectionism, the Jones Act is a piece of 1920s-era legislation that requires ships working in U.S. waters to be built here and crewed by Americans. This is why skimmers from the Persian Gulf, the heavy-duty ships that have proved themselves capable of cleaning up disasters like the one currently facing the Gulf, aren’t employed here doing the vital work for which they’re built. What’s more, it’s why they’re not on their way (which, considering the distance they’d have to cover, is in itself is no small feat).
The president, however, has the power to waive the Jones Act. His predecessor, the one so criticized for his failure to pull out all the stops in responding to Hurricane Katrina, did just that within days of that storm’s devastation. So why hasn’t President Obama taken the same measure?
Therein lies the rub. There is much talk about the political interests that have essentially prevented this administration from acting with common sense time and time again. It’s why many believe competitive market forces won’t be considered as options, even though competition, with little government involvement, would certainly contribute to cleanup efforts in the Gulf of Mexico. Are suspicions that foregoing market fixes is directly tied to protection of union jobs and, by extension, political allies? Using foreign technologies manned by foreign crews will, after all, necessarily keep union bosses from cash they so desperately need going into a tough election season.
This is the political cronyism of the worst sort. It is bad enough the president’s economic recovery plan was convoluted and weighted towards payback of labor unions; worse still are the bailouts being directed toward private and public sector union pensions. Now we have an entire region’s ecological and economic existence being held hostage to the president’s pro-Union myopia.
This is inexcusable.
The president needs to facilitate clean-up. He needs to immediately start cutting red tape and getting the federal government out of the way. First and foremost, he needs to immediately waive the Jones Act and get those foreign crews to the Gulf.
Millions of Americans, not just those suffering in the Gulf, are depending on this. Their voices are far more important than the ever-weakening unions constantly nipping at the president’s heels. (Daily Caller)
He’s a prisoner yet again of a very rigid ideology.
And these are the people from the Government who are here to save you, protect you, keep you healthy and make you “green”.
Doesn’t it just fill you will confidence!
I believe it was Jean Giraudoux who first said, “Only the mediocre are always at their best.”
And if we all strive to be mediocre we can all be at our best!
Rejoice Comrade, The Government has your back (it’s reaching for your wallet!).