21
Jun
I received this via email. I know most of it’s true, so I’m just reposting it as is:
Jesse Jackson has added former Chicago Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds to Rainbow/PUSH Coalition’s payroll. Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Clinton‘s last-minute forgiveness spree. Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud, and lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious, however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer.
This is a first in American politics: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate…won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate…then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate. His new job?
Ready for this??
*****YOUTH COUNSELOR*****
I’d love nothing more than for the US to shoot that thing out of the sky. it would put the ball back in North Korea‘s court in regards to North Korea declaring the ICBM agreements null and void.
19
Jun
I get about five emails every day telling me how much money I can save on my mortgage. I got one yesterday that offered me up to 80% equity on my appraised value of $830,000. For what it’s worth, my current value is about 1/5th that. I should have taken that one I guess. However, ARM’s have been stealing traditional bank mortgages for about a decade with promises of cheaper mortgages. However, this is what the reality is becoming for those that took them:
Folks, for lack of a simpler term, ARMs are the Universal Life Insurance policies of the 21st century. They look great when the numbers are cooked. Promises of future value, as in trading back to a normal mortgage, make them look safe. As with anything that offers no value for a cheaper price, they’ll screw you when you can’t afford to be screwed. When you’re least able to switch to a traditional policy, that’s when the rates go up. Although the minimum rate is set by the feds for the most part, the maximum rate is totally at the discretion of the lender within federal law. But, if you maxed out your credit at the cheaper rate, bumping it up 5% is not unlawful, and they will have your asset for a discounted price. That asset will most likely be your home.
When you’re buying a home, get a fixed quote for 30 years. If you can’t afford that, find a cheaper home. Leave the creative financing to the speculators and those that can afford to lose that asset.
In 2003, Bob Ney introduced the Responsible Lending Act. It would have regulated brokers and defined some illegal activities. It however, did not address what I consider the bait and switch tactics of ARMs. 25 Congressmen co-signed the legislation:
| Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] – 6/19/2003 | Rep Beauprez, Bob [CO-7] – 9/23/2003 |
| Rep Boyd, Allen [FL-2] – 9/17/2003 | Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] – 4/8/2003 |
| Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] – 5/13/2004 | Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] – 5/8/2003 |
| Rep Cox, Christopher [CA-48] – 10/8/2003 | Rep Fossella, Vito [NY-13] – 7/9/2003 |
| Rep Gillmor, Paul E. [OH-5] – 2/13/2003 | Rep Hart, Melissa A. [PA-4] – 9/23/2003 |
| Rep Hill, Baron P. [IN-9] – 7/9/2003 | Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] – 10/8/2003 |
| Rep Lucas, Ken [KY-4] – 2/13/2003 | Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] – 11/4/2003 |
| Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] – 2/13/2003 | Rep Myrick, Sue [NC-9] – 6/18/2003 |
| Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] – 7/25/2003 | Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] – 9/17/2003 |
| Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. [MT] – 6/19/2003 | Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] – 9/5/2003 |
| Rep Stenholm, Charles W. [TX-17] – 7/25/2003 | Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] – 5/19/2003 |
| Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 5/13/2004 | Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] – 10/28/2003 |
| Rep Weller, Jerry [IL-11] – 4/8/2003 |
However, it promptly died in the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. Oddly enough, Bob Ney is chairman of that subcommittee:
| Robert W. Ney OH Chairman | ||
| Gary G. Miller CA Vice Chairman Richard H. Baker LA Walter B. Jones, Jr. NC Christopher Shays CT Patrick J. Tiberi OH Ginny Brown-Waite FL Katherine Harris FL Rick Renzi AZ Stevan Pearce NM Randy Neugebauer TX Michael G. Fitzpatrick PA Geoff Davis KY John Campbell CA |
Maxine Waters CA Nydia M. Velázquez NY Julia Carson IN Barbara Lee CA Michael E. Capuano MA Bernard Sanders VT * Stephen F. Lynch MA Brad Miller NC David Scott GA Artur Davis AL Emanuel Cleaver MO Al Green TX |
|
Now, what I’d like to see, is that legislation re-introduced, but with legislation addressing the abuses of ARMs added to it. Unless the worst case scenario is provided to people buying ARMs, they are bait and switch preying on the people most vulnerable.
Then, maybe all those pesky deceptive spam emails will stop as well. Let’s start with seeing if we can figure out why it died in Bob Ney’s subcommittee for starters. This is no time for pandering.
16
Jun
Here’s the headline:
The Senate vote was 93-6. Somehow I think that "divides" is not the proper word here. Something like, "Senate overwhelmingly rejects timeline" would be a LOT more accurate. But, that’s not the message CNN wants to send apparently.
A couple of weeks ago I did a post on the perceived Republican war on science. Today I see two articles directly related to that same logic ( one even citing the book I ridiculed ).
First, I read Bad Astronomy Blog’s article where he steps outside what he does best and offers political comment. What floored me most was he cited Daily Kos as a “source”. Now, this is the guy that openly declares all Republicans suck. So, to say the least, it kind of bothered me that someone who lives by the scientific code would rely on a purely partisan source for their input. He also touts Chris Mooney‘s book, which as I pointed out, interspersed the religious right and Republicans with reckless abandon. I am Republican, I am not a member of the Religious Right. I totally support science in every way. I don’t appreciate people like Chris Mooney lumping me in with people who don’t support science. Additionally, Phil lumps a legal debate into the stuff Kos and Mooney cite as evidence that it is ONLY Republicans who don’t support science. You want suppression? Try this exchange:
World-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that the late Pope John Paul II once told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God.
Best I can recall, Pope John Paul II was not a Republican. As Hawking notes, there has been a constant struggle between religion and science since at LEAST Galileo’s day. Trying to spin that as a purely partisan issue is disingenuous at best.
Secondly, Phil ignores what has been accomplished since 2001.
Thirdly, the evidence Phil cites is a legal debate that has been debated in other arenas outside of science. Most notably, it was debated within the federal government itself in which a SUPREME COURT RULING set the standards on whistleblowers, not Republicans. This legislation that Phil cites would have run flat in the face of the recent Supreme Court ruling. In other words, the first legal challenge it faced if it had been passed would have seen it struck down.
Fourthly, Phil ignores the fact that cost cuts are across the board, affecting every budget as much or more so than scientific research.
Fifthly, stem cell research was something Bush morally opposed. He was, however, the first President to ever fund it in ANY way. So, the evidence is clear that it is possible to be morally opposed to something and still see the value it presents to society.
And lastly, being Republican means, in the truest sense, you believe in smaller government. That means less intrusive laws as well as putting the tools into the private sector to allow them the ability to develop products and new industry. How many spaceports were there before 2001? So, although funding was limited to certain strains of already existing DNA in regards to stem cell research, it DID NOT BAN private research in the other areas. Research the Howard Hughes Foundation for more on that.
So, once again, I completely dismiss the “Republican War on Science” as purely political rhetoric that panders to people like Phil.
15
Jun
Here’s the headline:
B.C.E./C.E. decision overturned
Board with 6 new members votes to keep just B.C./A.D.
Now, what happened was the Kentucky Board of Education decided a while back to ditch B.C. and A.D. and go with B.C.E. and C.E. Now, for those unaware, B.C. stands for "Before Christ", A.D. means "Anno Domini", Latin for "the year of the Lord". The Board decided to go with "Before Common Era" and "Common Era". They cite the fact that some college exams MIGHT ask about that since SOME people have decided to use it. I got a whole bunch of issues with this.
First of all, as noted in the article, someone is just creating a problem to meet the issue. I’ve been around a long time. I read science, religion, sports, space, music, and all kinds of issue stuff and I have NEVER seen CE or BCE. Mainly I would assume, because no one who writes a whole lot had ever heard of it either. Just because it’s on some exam doesn’t mean these kids should be illiterate to what the rest of the world already knows. That makes no sense to me at all. Used in the context of education, that’s just dumb.
Second, what is "common" today that was "common" to the year 1? Did they have the internet? Did they drive cars? Did they debate issues about the USA? What did they think about Man landing on the Moon or spending months in space? Did their kids listen to horrible music downloaded to their Ipod? There is nothing "common" today that was "common" in the year 1. The only thing the year 1 signifies is it is the first year after Jesus was born. That’s the only thing that’s "common" with the modern calendar. So, when a kid asks why are considered "common" with civilization 2,000 years ago, the answer will be exactly the same as the same kid asking "what does AD or BC mean". It means we signified the start of our modern calendar with an event. In 5,000 years, will that still be CE or something more common at that point? Just because that event has religious connotations doesn’t demean the logic. It’s a point in time, and that’s all a calendar denotes. In the context of education, teaching something so obviously flawed is just dumb.
Third, this is just another stupid attack on history. Folks, this stuff IS Big Brother. Don’t let them fool you. Re-writing history is what Orwell was all about. Now, some people are flat out uncomfortable with recognizing the impact religion has had on mankind. That impact was as profound 2,000 years ago as it is now. What they are missing is that taking religious references out of our daily lives will not resolve the issues that religion carries with it. Referring to the current year as 2006 AD or 2006 CE makes absolutely no impact whatsoever on my views of religion, or anyone else’s I would imagine. To most people, 2006 AD only means 2006 AD, most people don’t take the time to note that it actually means "2006 in the year of the Lord". So, re-writing history so that kids never knew that the modern calendar was developed by religious scholars serves no purpose other than to remove the fact that the modern calendar was developed by the church. That’s all it does. That’s Big Brother. Whether they like it or not, religion has a HUGE impact on our calendar, removing their reference doesn’t lessen that impact. It only makes future generations ignorant of that fact. And, that’s not what education should be about.
The original Board chose to use BCE and CE. When their terms expired, Governor Fletcher replaced six members. At their first meeting, the "common" Board voted 10-0 to go back to the hugely more "common" usage of BC and AD. There is some political criticism of Fletcher using politics to affect the Board. I think it’s a good thing. The previous six members, based on what I have pointed out with little research or knowledge of, were apparently kind of dumb. And, that’s a bad thing for education.
14
Jun
Now, this one is so profound I had to think about it a few days.
First, Nancy Pelosi does something I agree with:
And then, to compound the situation to utter befuddlement on my part, I agree with Kos:
I still don’t get why the Congressional Black Caucus insists on standing firmly behind Jefferson.
Now, hell hasn’t really frozen over. What this should tell the CBC is that if conservatives and radical liberals agree 100% on something, THAT IS A CLUE. Just because Jefferson’s black doesn’t mean he’s above the law. The race card was trumped by the cash in his freezer and his video performance. Nancy’s not saying Jefferson should resign from Congress, she’s just saying his ethics violations are made more serious by the fact he’s on the Ways and Means Committee, which investigates, get this CBC, ethics violations.
Of course, the CBC was the only organization I am aware of to fully back Cynthia McKinney attacking a police officer.
Now, this disappoints me because of the big picture. Rather than taking their members into a closed door meeting and explaining to them that they are the examples to the black youth of the US and therefore are expected to set a higher moral standard than anyone else in the entire country, they are condoning breaking the law and justifying it based solely on race. The message that sends to kids accross the country is IF you get musted for doing something bad, it’s OK, you’re black. That message, CBC, isn’t even subtle. You’re screaming it all over the media. Cynthia McKinney assaulting an officer wasn’t that big a deal to you guys. Jefferson stealing and evading taxes wasn’t so bad that he should suffer any consequences according to you guys. That’s just wrong. The average black does what William or Cynthia does and they go to prison. Not because they’re black, but because they broke a law just like their peers did.
If anything, the CBC needs smack both of them with a PR hammer that will scare the crap out of the rest of the members of the CBC. Then, maybe, they’ll send the RIGHT message to the kids.
I mean, think about it CBC. Things have gotten so ludicrous that when Patrick Kennedy got busted, even HE tried to play the race card. Why didn’t you guys defend him?
<sarcasm>Nancy Pelosi immediately cited Campbell’s conviction as yet another example of the culture of corruption within the Democrat Party.</sarcasm> Campbell claimed the fact he was paid to be mayor for 20 years meant he shouldn’t have to go to prison. Ohhhh kayyyy. I kid you not. The judge didn’t buy it either.
13
Jun
In July 2005, Nancy Pelosi had this to say about Karl Rove:
“The president has said that anyone who leaked the identity of Ms. Plame should no longer be part of his administration. €¦ That means firing Karl Rove and anyone else in the White House if they identified her as a CIA clandestine service officer,” she said.
Rove’s lawyer has denied that Rove mentioned Plame by name.
Pelosi went on to suggest that the White House might have obstructed an official inquiry into the matter. “The president said two years ago that he wanted to get to the bottom of this. If he were sincere, it would have happened [sooner]. €¦ It looks to me that there may have been some effort by people in the White House to obstruct the investigation,” she said.
Harry Reid, John Kerry, Bob Menendez all joined the chorus.
Meanwhile, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee sent a letter to the White House yesterday calling on President Bush to suspend the security clearance of Rove.
“There is ample precedent for suspending the security clearances of people under suspicion of leaking classified information,” the letter states.
All nine Democrats on the committee signed the letter. Rep. Jane Harmon (D-Calif.), the committee’s ranking member, released the letter to reporters during a press briefing yesterday.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) sent an “open letter” to Rove e-mailed it to supporters.
The letter, written by DSCC Deputy Executive Director Ann Lewis, calls on Rove and Bush to “step up and accept responsibility” for whatever role the White House played in revealing Plame’s identity.
The entire Democrat Party jumped all over Rove. The media jumped right in as well. And of course, the blog world was ALL over it. Now, we get this:
Seems the Dems were a bit hasty in calling for an innocent man’s resignation now weren’t they? How many do you think will now offer public apologies for pre-judging and innocent man? Will the DSCC send an open letter to Rove apologizing? Will Pelosi apologize for lumping all Republicans together as corrupt when her own party members now outnumber the Republicans in indictments? Will CNN what all these people did? Will Kos apologize and admit his posse doesn’t have a clue what they’re screaming about?
I’m not holding my breath.
12
Jun
This is the headline CNN thinks you should see:
Suicides fuel Guantanamo criticism
Detainee deaths bring renewed calls for change, prison closure
The suicides of three detainees at Guantanamo Bay has sparked renewed calls for the U.S. prison camp to be closed.
Guantanamo should be closed. This is an occasion to reiterate that statement," EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said on Monday as he arrived for a meeting of the bloc’s foreign ministers in Luxembourg.
This is the headline CNN doesn’t think you need to know:
Gitmo Detainee Was Cleared for Transfer
I have written on this before. Detainees are informed they’re going home and flip completely out. Whether it’s a riot or suicide, they wig out.
Now, I’m going to spell out the obvious once again to CNN what’s happening here. These birds know that Gitmo’s the best it’s ever going to get for them. Being sent back to Yemen or somewhere like that is a fate worse than hell and they apparently felt like taking the shortcut.
That’s the real story here folks.
