| :: Birthdays! :: |
|
|
|
UPCOMING:
GBA (Aug 7)
|
RECENT:
lightscribe (July 8), Zak-a-doodle (July 23)
|
|
| :: Weather! :: |
|
| |
 |
|
 | Anti-Illegal Immigration Group Calls for 'Safe Passage' of Illegals Out of U.S.
Posted by golfmann on 07/28/2010 @ 10:12.
.::. No replies
|
An anti-illegal immigration group is calling on the Obama administration to ensure a smooth exit for illegal immigrants who are trying to leave the U.S. due to the weak economy and Arizona's strict new immigration law.
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is urging U.S. citizens to pressure the White House and the Homeland Security Department to establish "safe departure" border checkpoints along the U.S. border for illegal immigrants so they can leave without fear of being detained or prosecuted for immigration crimes.
"The peaceful and gradual exodus of illegals from Arizona shows there is no need for comprehensive immigration reform amnesty," William Gheen, president of the group, said in a written statement. "Comprehensive immigration enforcement works and has the desired effect without mass deportations."
Gheen said the safe passage would ensure that illegals "leave in an orderly fashion, instead of trying risky desert crossings, paying money to the cartels for passage south, or fleeing to other states."
"This is about the only situation we would ever advocate that our immigration laws be waived," Gheen said. "We want to encourage the illegals to leave America on their own and thus we ask Obama to provide them safe passage out of America."
Neither the White House nor Homeland Security responded to e-mails seeking comment.
The call comes as the Obama administration seeks an injunction in federal court to block Arizona's immigration law, set to ta .. . . . . . . .
This message is truncated. Click here for the entire message
Reply
|
|
|
|
| Nobody Can Fire Andrew Breitbart
Posted by golfmann on 07/27/2010 @ 09:57.
.::. Last reply by golfmann on 07/27/2010 @ 10:58. (2 replies)
|
As the mainstream media synchronized their watches over the Shirley Sherrod affair, the object of their little trench raid was clear. Demonize Andrew Breitbart for the unethical publication of a video featuring Ms. Sherrod uttering racist remarks at an NAACP awards dinner.
You could see the strategy. The MSM wanted to discredit and demonize Breitbart so that he could be fired or marginalized, just like Rush Limbaugh was fired from ESPN for the thoughtcrime of suggesting that the media wanted Donovan McNabb to succeed as the Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback because he was black.
But then I thought: Yeah, but who can fire Andrew Breitbart?
When Rush Limbaugh wanted to buy the St. Louis Rams, the Ruling Elite trailed a few stories about his supposed racist remarks. They pressured the NFL, and the NFL could pressure the syndicate to remove Rush.
But Andrew Breitbart? Can anyone fire him?
For that matter, what about Rush? You can kick him off ESPN; you can kick him off the St. Louis Rams. You can even force Snapple drinks and the Florida oranges off his radio show. But "they" haven't been able to fire him from his position as host of the Rush Limbaugh Program. The reason is, I suspect, that Rush's show is owned by not a public corporation, but a private venture. Rush has to keep the confidence of only his partners and affiliates, not the executive committee of the Ruling Class as a whole.
No doubt the same is true of Andrew Breitbart.
Here we see the late- .. . . . . . . .
This message is truncated. Click here for the entire message
Read replies | Reply
|
|
|
|
| Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - [kinda]
Posted by golfmann on 07/26/2010 @ 11:28.
.::. No replies
|
By Karen Mracek and Thomas Beaumont, Des Moines Register
Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.
Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia.
Asked the significance of the list, Grassley said, "I hope it's as simple as taxpayers deserve to know what happened to their money."
He added, "We thought originally we were bailing out AIG. Then later on ... we learned that the money flowed through AIG to a few big banks, and now we know that the money went from these few big banks to dozens of financial institutions all around the world."
Grassley said he was reserving judgment on the appropriateness of U.S. taxpayer money ending up overseas until he learns more about the 32 entities.
Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.
Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.
Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG h .. . . . . . . .
This message is truncated. Click here for the entire message
Reply
|
|
|
|
| Senate Energy Debate is Still all About Cap-and-Trade
Posted by golfmann on 07/24/2010 @ 10:17.
.::. No replies
|
A headline on Thursday screamed: Democrats pull plug on climate bill. Dont believe it. Its a diversionary tactic.
The Obama administration and Democratic congressional leadership, seeing their window for shoving the country to the hard left closing quickly, are intent on making one last major push for cap-and-trade. It starts with their spill-response bill or energy bill, but its really about cap-and-trade.
The irony is that the political genius of cap-and-trade was supposed to be that it hides a tax hike from the American people.
The concept was developed largely as a response to the political price suffered by Democrats for their advocacy of outright energy taxes. As Al Gore explained: I worked as vice-president to enact a carbon tax. Clinton indulged me against the advice of his economic team. That contributed to our losing Congress two years later to Newt Gingrich.
Enter cap-and-trade: the code-worded way to impose a massive energy tax and pretend it's not a tax. The political innovation of cap-and-trade is that instead of levying a tax directly, it puts a cap on overall greenhouse gas emissions, and establishes a market for companies to buy and sell the permits.
So its a tax with the added uncertainty of the tax rate being set at auction, making it a tax with an unknown rate. The Congressional Budget Office scored the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill as an $846 billion tax hike. They also admitted the costs will be passed onto consumers in higher prices. .. . . . . . . .
This message is truncated. Click here for the entire message
Reply
|
|
|
|
| The liberal roadblocks to shrinking government
Posted by golfmann on 07/18/2010 @ 09:50.
.::. No replies
|
By Kevin Ferris
Inquirer Columnist
William Voegeli has bad tidings for advocates of limited government and low taxes: There is no endgame when it comes to the liberal agenda.
If tomorrow, liberals in Congress, state legislatures, and town councils all across the nation raised taxes and increased spending in order to fund every single item on every special-interest wish list, would social-justice nirvana have arrived? No.
Within hours, some liberal would find an unmet need - perhaps a champagne shortage due to the previous day's celebrations - that only a new government program could address.
It gets worse: Voegeli says that despite conservatives' good-faith efforts to halt or reverse the growth of government, those attempts have been largely ineffective.
None of this will be news to tea partyers or like-minded folks. Maybe they haven't expressed these concerns as eloquently and authoritatively as Voegeli does in his new book, Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State, but they have long understood the sentiment. In fact, the book's explanation for how America got to this point is in sync with the concerns raised regularly at tea parties.
"Liberalism's irrepressible drive for an ever larger welfare state without limit arises from at least two premises upon which the left no longer reflects: the elevation of compassion to a political principle (albeit with other people's money), and the erosion of meaningful constitutional limits on government on .. . . . . . . .
This message is truncated. Click here for the entire message
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
