Rep. Anthony Weiner had a rather notorious meltdown over the past week. Faced with accusations of sending lewd pics to women, he held a rather surreal, bizarre, and most definitely deceptive series of “interviews”.
First question that needs to be asked before I go any further:
I know hindsight’s 20/20. I know a lot of people will answer that they never did believe him now, when they probably did before. But, the bottom line was his “interviews” were so amazingly evasize and contrived that no one really believed him.
So, imagine everyone’s surprise last night when, faced with evidence from multiple, sometimes antagonistic sources, Weiner caved and confessed to doing it with at least six women.
There is one woman on Earth who still defends him tho.
I really have to quote her to make sure people realize the profoundness of Walters’ statement:
First of all, I have my own theory about why he took that picture, if indeed he did take that picture,” Walters said. “This is my theory – this doesn’t mean that it is right. He is married to this beautiful woman, whom I know, who a lot of us know, who the chief of staff to Hillary Clinton and she travels a lot. And it may be that he took that picture and sent it to his wife to say this is how much I miss you. That’s possible.”
Man, does she really believe that? Do you think she actually does?
According to Breitbart, there’s a lot more, much worse, to this story. I don’t doubt for one second Breitbart will hold back on him. Maybe Barbara Walters does for some bizarro reason. Most likely, due to her friendship with the Weiners, she’s in classic full-blown denial. I mean think about it Babs, even Nancy Pelosi is now demanding an ethics probe. For Nancy to diss on a Democrat, they had to be toast already.
My take, the guy’s your typical internet stalker getting his jollies on the side via digital gratifcation. The six women so far are just the tip of the iceberg. This is gonna get real ugly before it goes away. Rather than doing the honorable thing like Chris Lee did and resign, Weiner has already announced he’s not resigning and intends to fight this, and embarrass his district mercilessly until he’s gone.
Where it will get real ugly, real fast, IMO, is IF he hangs around, it’s gonna make that Obama “CHANGE you can believe in” campaign slogan seem like a really embarrassing farce. And if Obama’s peeps do what they truly need to do, I really do see another Blago moment occurring. This guy just doesn’t strike me as being discreet in any shape or fashion.
But, through it all, the one thing he can count on is Barbara Walters propping him up I suppose.
( Surreal moment #2 of this whole thing, Joy Behar defending Sarah Palin. Gag me with a flipping spoon! )
A few days ago President Obama delivered his vision of the 2012 budget. It was less than well received:
The Republicans, as expected, weren’t too pleased with it either.
Here it is if you want to watch it before discussing any further:
Now, the main gripe was, as per the norm with Obama, it had no real specifics. He’s going to cut trillions, balance the budget, and tax the rich. No one will lose their job, no one will lose any benefits. Everyone will be happy.
Now, there’s politics as people are used to it. It’s partisan, it’s opinionated. I could quote thousands of opinions real easy from people who supported it, and people who didn’t. That’s easy. It’s also boring and redundant.
Then, there’s the real world reactions.
NASDAQ:
| Date | Open | High | Low | Close |
| 4/13/2011 | 2762.69 | 2772.05 | 2744.85 | 2761.52 |
| 4/14/2011 | 2743.12 | 2762.18 | 2733.68 | 2760.22 |
| 4/15/2011 | 2752.87 | 2769.29 | 2743.75 | 2764.65 |
| 4/18/2011 | 2731.22 | 2737.46 | 2706.5 | 2735.38 |
Down.
S&P:
| Date | Open | High | Low | Close |
| 4/18/2011 | 1313.35 | 1313.35 | 1294.7 | 1305.14 |
| 4/15/2011 | 1314.54 | 1322.88 | 1313.68 | 1319.68 |
| 4/14/2011 | 1311.13 | 1316.79 | 1302.42 | 1314.52 |
| 4/13/2011 | 1314.03 | 1321.35 | 1309.19 | 1314.41 |
Down.
Dow Jones:
| Date | Open | High | Low | Close |
| 4/13/2011 | 12263.73 | 12372.94 | 12203.63 | 12270.99 |
| 4/14/2011 | 12270.24 | 12332.71 | 12137.98 | 12285.15 |
| 4/15/2011 | 12285.45 | 12402.61 | 12238.34 | 12341.83 |
| 4/18/2011 | 12339.71 | 12339.79 | 12093.89 | 12201.59 |
Down.
But the real problem happened last night.
‘AAA/A-1+’ Rating On United States of America Affirmed; Outlook Revised To Negative
Specifically:
- Because the U.S. has, relative to its ‘AAA’ peers, what we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable.
- We believe there is a material risk that U.S. policymakers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013; if an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation is not begun by then, this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer ‘AAA’ sovereigns.
To put this into perspective, Standard and Poor’s started rating the United States in 1941. Since that time, the US government has maintained S&P’s highest rating. Until yesterday.
Their problem with the next two years is, believe this or not, they have no idea what Obama’s plan is to deal with the exploding debt.
Can you imagine that?
Folks, this is
All that money we expect China and the Middle East to loan to the US government basically with no questions asked, that’s what this affects. It’s saying we’re a little less safe than a LOT of other countries. That’s bad folks. Real bad.
Obama needs, just for once, to be specific. He needs to grow some nads and be the President. Just for once. His penchant for offering flowery generics and liberal talking points has got to stop. He’s got to man-up and tell S&P and the world exactly how he’s going to make this country safe and prosperous again.
Upon retiring the last of the Shuttles, they will be sent to various locations as museum pieces. They are expected to be big draws. Last year Obama allocated $14 for one to be located in Dayton, Ohio. The money and the shuttle were intended to offset the loss of jobs in Ohio caused by mothballing manned space flight. So, in the usual Obama style of promising everyone the Moon and screwing everyone that believed him, these were the final four resting sites:
- Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia
- Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York City
- California Science Center in Los Angeles
- Kennedy Space Center Visitor’s Complex in Florida
I don’t see Ohio on that list. According to Sherrod Brown, senior Senator from Ohio, “NASA was directed to consider regional diversity when determining shuttle locations”. This is Charles Bolden’s idea of “regional diversity”":
View Shuttle Locations in a larger map
In spineless Charles’ defense, he does site “input” from the White House. And, from what I’ve seen, those pretty much ARE the only regions in the United States according to Obama. Surprised one didn’t wind up in Chicago. Meanwhile, legislation has been proposed to assist the communities affected by the loss of jobs at the Johnson Space Center near Houston, to the tune of $40 million.
H.R.286 — Johnson Space Center Workforce Stability Act of 2011 (Introduced in House – IH)
HR 286 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 286
To direct the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce to create a job training program and an economic stability program to stabilize the workforce and promote economic growth in the Johnson Space Center region.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 12, 2011
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas (for himself and Mr. OLSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To direct the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce to create a job training program and an economic stability program to stabilize the workforce and promote economic growth in the Johnson Space Center region.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Johnson Space Center Workforce Stability Act of 2011′.
SEC. 2. JOB TRAINING.
(a) Program Authorized- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall create a job training program to assist any affected worker in the Johnson Space Center region to transition to a new job. Such program may include a one-stop career center tailored to the needs of affected workers in the Johnson Space Center region.
(b) Duration- The job training program created under this section shall terminate 2 years after its creation.
SEC. 3. ECONOMIC STABILITY.
(a) Cooperative Agreements Authorized- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Economic Development Administration of the Department of Commerce (referred to in this section as the `EDA’), shall enter into cooperative agreements with eligible recipients in the Johnson Space Center region to help stabilize the workforce in such region and to promote economic growth.
(b) Application- An eligible recipient that desires to receive funds under this section shall submit an application that contains a comprehensive economic adjustment strategy to the Secretary, at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such additional information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
(c) Uses of Funds- The EDA, acting through a cooperative agreement with an eligible recipient, shall use funds authorized to carry out this section for activities to help stabilize the workforce and promote economic growth in the Johnson Space Center region, which may include–
(1) providing financial and technical assistance to eligible recipients to help implement the comprehensive economic adjustment strategy, which may include efforts such as infrastructure upgrades, establishing entrepreneurial networks, and establishing skill training facilities; and
(2) analyzing whether other methods for economic adjustment that have been successful in similar situations may be effective in the Johnson Space Center region, and if so, implementing such methods, which may include–
(A) supporting efforts to start new technology ventures based on the specific skills of dislocated engineers;
(B) providing technical assistance to guide public officials, management, and affected workers; and
(C) providing additional oversight through visits to the Johnson Space Center region.
(d) Duration- The cooperative agreements entered into under this section shall be for a 2-year period.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Johnson Space Center Region- The term `Johnson Space Center region’ means the locality surrounding the Johnson Space Center that contains affected workers.
(b) Affected Worker- The term `affected worker’ means any employee of the Johnson Space Center or any individual who works for a contractor of the Johnson Space Center whose job stability is impacted by the programmatic changes to the space exploration program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(c) One-Stop Career Center- The term `one-stop career center’ means a comprehensive office dedicated to helping individuals who are unemployed find new employment that offers training referrals, career counseling, job listings, and similar employment-related services.
(d) Cooperative Agreement- The term `cooperative agreement’ has the meaning given the term in chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code.
(e) Eligible Recipient and Comprehensive Economic Adjustment Strategy- The terms `eligible recipient’ and `comprehensive economic adjustment strategy’ have the meanings given the terms in section 3 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3122).
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act–
(1) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
(2) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
(b) Allocation- Of the amounts appropriated to carry out this Act for each fiscal year–
(1) the Secretary of Labor may use not more than $10,000,000 for the job training program; and
(2) the Secretary of Commerce may use not more than $30,000,000 for the economic stability program.
Anyone else get the idea where I’m going with this?
Now, Obama is saying he’s serious in fighting the debt. He’s going to raise taxes.
What do you think about all this?
I’d like to start with a question,
So, what’s the difference between a “war” and a “kinetic military action”? Does the mere fact a president changes the wording allow him to completely ignore the Constitution and go to “kinetic military action”?
How big does the lie have to be before Obama supporters finally start admitting it’s a lie? Wars are pretty big dontcha think?
For what it’s worth, I never believed in “police actions” either. However, all combat situations did get some sort of Congressional approval. Only one President I’m aware of attacked another country unprovoked with no approval at all from Congress. Correct me if I’m wrong. Yes, even Clinton’s shooting a million dollar missile up a camel’s butt had standing Congressional approval.
Get this straight, then we’ll talk about the rest:
U.S. Secretary of State meets with Libyan rebels
OK, we have openly sided, once again, with one side in a civil war. Granted no one seems to like Kadhafi, choosing a side involves not only showing support for one side, but showing opposition to all those people that support the other side. My own person opinion is to stay out of it and show support for whoever leads the country after the fact, whether we like them or not.
IF we do decide to support one side over the other, then you better fight to win. The other side will. If you lose then you can pretty much count on that country’s resources going to oppose anything you try to do, or worse.
So, what does this president do?
What is now the one month anniversary of the uprisings, a full thirty days after Kadhafi ordered his military to attack those rebels and anything associated with them:
Hillary Clinton is meeting with the rebels while the military does nothing. And, yesterday, the United Nations Security Council met and could not come to an agreement over the no-fly policy in Libya.
In simpler terms, nothing.
In a week or two, this will be over.
Then, in Libya, Kadhafi will continue to hate us and everyone else there won’t trust us because Clinton led them on and Obama did nothing by passing the hat to an organization he knows is plodding and inept.
Which of course leads to my neverending poll:
And a little less importantly:
This is just precious:
The guy who thought this thing out is Marc Norberg. I respectfully, while not laughing my ass off, request Marc fill us in on “those tax breaks”. I missed them. I think he illustrated his true intent a little later:
He added that the union has been targeting Pulte for years, but the homebuilder won’t meet with them.
Maybe it’s because Pulte is not union-only?
I think these guys got Pulte confused with GM.
14
Dec
I had this to say a while back:
Fair warning here folks, the next couple of years will suck if you’re an independent business owner
That was in reference to Ted Kennedy wanting to raise the minumum wage because Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over Washington. He got what he wanted. Unemployment increased more than 100% since that point. Obama has tossed trillions at the problem. We’ve had TARP, the bailouts, fights over taxes, fights over earmarks, everything you can imagine. But so far I’ve not seen one single person suggest we undo the single event that seemed to instigate the entire fiasco that SOME people knew would cause all this to happen. Make it cheaper to hire people and the jobs will come.
18
Oct
This is getting nuttier every day. In 1993, when the Democrats controlled everything in DC, they passed a piece of legislation that pretty much everyone hated. It was affectionately referred to as the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994“. Now, a lot of people don’t keep track of things like they should so I’ll remind everyone how the Senate voted:
| Akaka (D-HI), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Yea Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Bond (R-MO), Yea Boren (D-OK), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Bradley (D-NJ), Yea Breaux (D-LA), Yea Brown (R-CO), Nay Bryan (D-NV), Yea Bumpers (D-AR), Yea Burns (R-MT), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Yea Campbell (D-CO), Yea Chafee (R-RI), Yea Coats (R-IN), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Cohen (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Coverdell (R-GA), Nay Craig (R-ID), Yea D’Amato (R-NY), Nay Danforth (R-MO), Yea Daschle (D-SD), Yea DeConcini (D-AZ), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Yea Dole (R-KS), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Not Voting Durenberger (R-MN), Yea Exon (D-NE), Yea Faircloth (R-NC), Yea |
Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Ford (D-KY), Yea Glenn (D-OH), Yea Gorton (R-WA), Nay Graham (D-FL), Yea Gramm (R-TX), Nay Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Nay Hatfield (R-OR), Nay Heflin (D-AL), Yea Helms (R-NC), Nay Hollings (D-SC), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea Jeffords (R-VT), Yea Johnston (D-LA), Yea Kassebaum (R-KS), Yea Kempthorne (R-ID), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerrey (D-NE), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Levin (D-MI), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Mack (R-FL), Nay Mathews (D-TN), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Nay |
McConnell (R-KY), Yea Metzenbaum (D-OH), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Mitchell (D-ME), Yea Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Yea Moynihan (D-NY), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea Nickles (R-OK), Nay Nunn (D-GA), Yea Packwood (R-OR), Nay Pell (D-RI), Yea Pressler (R-SD), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Riegle (D-MI), Yea Robb (D-VA), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Roth (R-DE), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea Sasser (D-TN), Yea Shelby (D-AL), Yea Simon (D-IL), Yea Simpson (R-WY), Yea Smith (R-NH), Yea Specter (R-PA), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Thurmond (R-SC), Yea Wallop (R-WY), Nay Warner (R-VA), Yea Wellstone (D-MN), Nay Wofford (D-PA), Yea |
I hilite the “yea””s for a reason. Wannna guess what it is? OK, I’ll give one clue. Democrats passed this thing 51-12. Without one single Republican needing to vote, they passed it. The military didn’t like it, the gay community didn’t like it, no one liked it. The Democrat controlled House, the Democrat controlled Senate, and the Democrat President rammed it through anyway. According to Clinton, it wasn’t perfect, but it was a start. Media pretty much ignored “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for a while until it became expedient. Over time, it became purely a Republican issue as the Republicans did exactly as the Democrats did years before and effectively ignored it. The media bias culminated itself this year when Lady Gaga chastised Republicans for talking about filibustering the bill that would eliminate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
“I will not stop calling until I reach them to tell them to vote with Sen. Harry Reid to end John McCain’s ‘shameless filibuster,’” she said.
She then calls two Democrats who refuse to take her call. There was no filibuster, Harry Reid never sent it to the floor. The gays returned to attacking the hell out of Republicans only even though the Democrats once again had all the votes they needed to pass the legislation to end it. All the while, no one was mentioning the fact that a lawsuit was working it’s way through the legal system to undo what Bill Clinton and the Democrats did in 1993. It wasn’t filed by Lady Gaga. It wasn’t filed by any Democrat. It was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans. And then a weird thing happened. They won. Republicans, who controlled nothing in DC, did what Harry Reid refused to do. They ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. The Obama administration thought about it for a couple of days. And, knowing how the gays felt about DADT, had this to offer:
You read that right. The Obama Administration is asking for a delay in the ruling so the Obama Administration can prepare an appeal to the ruling. They wanna fight it. So, even though the Democrats wrote DADT, passed DADT, have ruled over DADT for nine of the seventeen years it’s been existance, refused to vote to end DADT, and now are fighting legally to keep DADT, I bet you good money there won’t be a single liberal gay person come out and point their finger where the problem is, has been, and continues to be. If they do, I’d love to see their comments here. The reason DADT has survived all these years considering no one seems to like it is because the Democrats know they won’t be held accountable for it so no need to antagonize their moderate to conservative base, and the Republicans know that no matter what they do they won’t get any credit so they have no reason to antagonize their base either. When media and gays become less partisan and more objective then maybe they’ll get what they want.
Until then, they’ll have to keep relying on the Republicans. It’s a core issue with Republicans in a way most people don’t really think about. In expecting the government to protect a minority, the government has to do it in a way that is equitable to all people affected by the minority. Sometimes that doesn’t necessarily work to the minority’s advantage. By NOT recognizing the minority as a minority, it removes the issue of being a minority and allows the issues that affect that minority to be addressed. There is no reason to protect gays in the military. They are already protected by our Constitution. What needs to be protected are the rights gays have as US citizens. When that occurs, gays will have all the same rights as anyone else in the military and I am quite sure that would make everyone happy. Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell therefore is kind of moot to me. What needs to happen is all references to discriminating on the basis of sexual preferance need to be eliminated. I really don’t buy the argument that it would be disruptive to the military at all. Obama may want you to believe that, but I don’t.
OK, so the lady who has vehemently opposed Bush’s tax cuts for the last eight years now supports most of those cuts as long as you don’t give any credit to Bush. Right? Or, does she truly think people will forget the tax cuts were implemented before Obama was President? Or, for that matter, the fact the tax cuts have been in place since before Obama was even a Senator? From the time he was elected to the Senate, and then to the Presidency, Obama ignored the fact that the tax cuts applied to pretty much everyone. The wealthy actually paid a heavier burden. So, what he’s been arguing for the last four years is simply a lie. Pelosi’s taking that lie to the next level. Obama’s never made a tax cut. Ever. He offered a one time bonus of $250, but that was an incentive, not a tax cut, and it’s a thing of the past. There is no “extension” here regarding Obama. None. “Middle-income tax cuts” is a beauty as well. By not INCREASING your taxes, she’s saying it’s a tax cut. They’re not cutting your taxes, not by a LONG SHOT.
If something’s the same as it ever was, it’s not a “cut”.
Second bottom line, here, Nancy sucks at Orwellian politics. She needs to get her facts straight. It’s going to confuse the hell out of historians who will now forever try to figure out how Obama passed tax cuts for everyone years before he was ever elected to anything and then spent the next eight years complaining about his tax cuts.
Someone should have yelled “Liar” at her. The BS coming from this administration is mind boggling at times.
Still waiting for her to drain the swamp.
13
Sep
I’m still trying to figure this all out.
John Boehner said he might play nice with Obama and support whatever tax cuts Obama wants, since it’s better than nothing. Robert Gibbs immediately attacked Boehner pointing out it was the policies of the last eight years that got us in this mess now. That reflects what Obama said in Cleveland last week as well. So, now Boehner is being attacked for saying he will possibly support Obama. Which side is the “party of No”?
The bigger problem I see here is Obama is still playing a dangerous game in my opinion. He is reacting to Bush. He’s still putting Bush in control. He’s not being Presidential. He’s saying that in order to keep what was happening eight years ago from happening again, and to assure more of what is happening now keeps happening, we need to listen to Obama and not the people who are not in charge. Now, to illustrate my point here, take this poll real quick:
[polldaddy poll=3756484]
I’m gonna bet, before this is even voted on, that 2010′s not going to rate up there terribly highly. Now, what Obama’s banking on is people will look back on, say, 2005, and think how much worse it was than now. Two immediate problems, things weren’t so bad in 2005. And, people are concerned a lot more about right now than they are some point in the past. If they’re out of a job right now, and they had a job in 2005, the man in charge right now’s just not going to fare too well. And, the message Obama keeps delivering is not that he’s going to give that person a job, it’s that that person should be happy that it’s not 2005 all over again. I just don’t think that’s working too well:
Quite frankly, until Obama gets off this bizarre obessive compulsive blame game and starts acting like a leader, he’s going to dig himself even deeper into holes he won’t be able to get out of. I personally think he’s already there.
