We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common def---aw, f*#@ it, let's just be Socialists!
Glenn Beck blows it. What did you think I was trying to say?
I normally find myself in Glenn Beck's corner on things, although here lately he's run off the rails on a few subjects. However, there's beginning to emerge a disturbing trend with Mr. Beck. Is he in danger of being written off by those who still listen to him as some sort of lose cannon, pointing his 'framers' gun at anyone whom he ascribes progressive or communistic tendencies?
Glenn had Michelle Malkin on his nationally syndicated radio show this morning, and he laid in to her. Over what? Why over Malkin taking issue with Beck's decision to give scumbag, sleaze peddler, pervert, disgraced Democrat[ic] Congresscritter Eric Massa an hour of airtime on Beck's TV program. Some conservatives are concerned with the possibility of this coming back to bite conservatives who are not overly willing to distance themselves from possibility of this guy only using this as an opportunity to save his political hide. I happen to agree with that general assessment. I am afraid that the draw of the 'whistle blowing' democrat is far to overwhelming for those involved to truly calculate the risk of the destruction that will be wrought when the accusations of sexual impropriety are revealed to be true.
Is Massa a powerful voice because of the bribery, and politics of destruction revelations? Yes. Is he completely tainted because until the accusations of his sexual impropriety shot to the headlines nationally, he didn't have squat to say about the process? And because his sudden claims of being pressured are awful damn convenient? Yes.
Massa is attempting to use this situation to portray himself as a political martyr and reposition himself as a viable candidate by exploiting the right's voracious appetite for anything anti-socialized medicine and anti-Obama. He's done it before. He grabbed hold of the phony soldiers thing.
This guy is an opportunistic sleaze of the worst kind, grabbing on to any perceived public outrage and attempting to capitalize upon it to better his personal situation. Turns out Michelle was wrong... we are apparently no longer on the same side. Glenn appears to be on his own. Want to know why you shouldn't have Massa on for an hour, Glenn? This is why.
There has been quite the hot debate going on in the comment section of this blog post over at The Bakersfield Californian. Essentially, what's up for debate is the causal reason of the foreclosure crisis, and the subsequent recession. So, in an attempt to lay out what happened, when and who was involved, I submit the following.
Before we get to everything, there are two very important points I wish to make. First, were the Democratics solely responsible for the foreclosure crisis? No, not solely. They were, as you'll see below, primarily responsible. Second, every elected official (well, damn near all of them anyway) is scum. They primarily seek to enrich themselves and their specific interests. Why be a conservative then and not an anarchist? Because, I understand that some government is needed. The less, the better. How can anyone benefit with an over-reaching bureaucratic mess entangled in every part of your life? Better to support a party who, at least in theory, is for smaller and less government.
Let's begin.
In 1977, while Jimmuh Carter was President and Tip O'Neill and Robert 'KKK' Byrd were Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader, respectively, the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, law was passed. Passed with the best intentions, the CRA was intended to cut down on discriminatory lending practices and open up loans to borrowers in low and moderate income neighborhoods.
Then in 1980, with the same players in power, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. This act removed the state limits on interest rates banks could charge on mortgages. Amongst other things, this legislation was a continuation of the policy to get more low and moderate income home ownership, by giving banks more incentive to lend to riskier parties.
In 1982, with Reagan in the White House, and Democratics still in control of both houses of congress, the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act was passed. AMTPA specifically allowed alternative types of financing on home loans other than traditional fixed rate mortgages. Again, here as with before, the intention was to open up home ownership to low and moderate-income households by offering additional methods to finance a house.
Starting in 1995, the GSE's (read: oxymoron), Government Sponsored Enterprises, began to receive government tax incentives to purchase mortgage backed securities. This is a critical turning point in the foreclosure crisis, because later it will be shown that after HUD set goals for the GSE's to buy more subprime paper, which are riskier than traditional mortgages and have a higher rate of failure, the GSE's turned around and sold to investment banks as low-risk investments.
In 1997, congress passed, and President Clinton signed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This legislation reduced the capital gains on the sale of homes under $500,000. This action alone did nothing to impact the foreclosure crisis. However, when coupled with insane subprime lending practices, these tax rates made home sales the best return on the dollar investment for the average person. Thus began the home speculation wave.
In 1998, HUD Director Andrew Cuomo held a press conference detailing a settlement reached with a major bank on a lending discrimination case, presumably based on the CRA. The result of the settlement was $2.1 Billion for subprime loan offers. He admits that the lawsuit forced the bank to lower it's qualification standards as a remedy to the 'discriminatory' lending practices. This is is another crucial turn in the foreclosure crisis. The press conference was a warning to other lending institutions that the administration intended to interpret the CRA laws broadly and that the full force of the Clinton Administration would be aligned against any company that did not meet their standards of the CRA.
It is these enforcement techniques coupled with the marketing of the MBS as low-risk investments which spurred the enthusiastic subprime lending from the private lenders. What was the risk? Offer risky loans to low-income applicants making a large profit, then sell the asset to the GSE's which then acquired the risk. No risk, high profit subprime loans then became a no lose option for the private lenders.
The next step is one of supply and demand. With a flood of new 'qualified buyers' on the market for homes, the new home builders went gonzo. New home starts went through the roof, as demand never seemed to dry up. Demand out paced supply until sometime during mid 2006. Once the supply of homes outweighed the demand by consumers, home prices began to fall. It is this fall coupled with insane personal debt amounts that would begin the foreclosure crisis. During the boom years between 1998 and 2006, home owners were able to use their homes as banks, borrowing against the equity in their home at values higher than the home's actual value, all while banking on the increasing value of the home. Also at this time, Adjustable Rate Mortgages were in demand allowing a home owner to purchase the home with an introductory, low interest rate, which would adjust after 3-5 years. The expectation was that the value of the home would have risen during that time, allowing the owner to refinance into another ARM or traditional loan, at a lower interest rate. It was this expectation of an ever increasing home value that lead home owner after home owner to extend their personal debt beyond the sustainable point.
Once home values began to fall, and adjustable rate mortgages adjusted, many home owners were no longer able to afford their monthly mortgage payments. As a result, foreclosures began to rise. In turn home values fell further causing the housing bubble to burst.
Finally, and most despicably, the systematic fraud committed by the two GSE's in mis-stating earnings as to increase the bonus compensation for the executive staff's allowed the crisis to continue on long after it should have. The GSE's were government entities, so they could borrow money at lower interest rates, they required less capitalization and they had less regulations all of which were supposed to translate into more money available to securitize mortgages. Instead, names like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and Jim Johnson all cooked the books in order to increase their bonuses. At the same time, Alan Greenspan was pointing out the dangers of the GSE's weak capitalization. There were voices of reason, but few had ears to listen.
Liberals, Progressives and Democratics are all quick to point at the Republicans and claim that it was through deregulation that the subprime mortgage crisis began. As a point of fact, Democratics repeatedly attacked and undermined the regulators which oversaw the two GSE's, accusing them of being bigoted and attacking Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae. In reality the foreclosure crisis is as a result of the Carter Administration's efforts to expand low and moderate-income home ownership through the CRA along with DIDMCA's removal of interest rate caps and AMTPA's opening up of non-traditional loan types, coupled with the Clinton Administration's aggressive enforcement of it's own broad interpretation of the CRA which coerced the free market into supporting subprime loans. The deregulation in and of itself had little to do with the foreclosure crisis. It was primarily through the efforts of the Clinton Administration that brought us the crisis.
In the early 2000's, some Republicans in congress were able to see the policy which kept the GSE's under capitalized and allowed the GSE's to purchase risky subprime paper and resell them as low risk investments had the potential to bring the financial system to its knees. These Republicans proposed new regulation attempting to increase the capital which the GSE's had on hand and attempted to reduce the quota's for subprime acquisitions set up by earlier sessions of congress. In the end, however, the Republicans failed to use their majority in both houses of congress to force the regulation instead acquiescing to the minority party. Watch below as several Democratic congresscritters attack the regulators from OFHEO.
So, here we are on the other side of this orgy of destruction, and who is to be held responsible?
Christopher Dodd (D-CT) The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee blocked legislation from Republicans which attempted to rein in the GSE's undercapitalized vacuuming of subprime paper. He, the largest recipient of campaign donations from Freddie and Fannie, killed the legislation in committee.
William Jefferson 'BJ' Clinton (D-AR) The former President was instrumental in pushing the banking industry into expanding home loans to the low and moderate-income markets. So set on the increase in ownership that he was willfully ignorant of the destruction his policies would have on the financial markets of this country in the coming years.
Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) As Director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Cuomo set the standard by which all lending institutions would be judged. He used his bully pulpit to praise his department's efforts in winning a $2.1 Billion settlement which would be used to provide subprime loans. He went as far as to admit that the loans were riskier and had a higher rate of failure, yet did nothing to undo the damage he'd begun.
Honorable Mentions:
Barney Frank (D-MA) As the ranking Democratic on the House Financial Services Committee, he opposed a proposal in 2003 to remove the oversight of Fannie and Freddie to a new agency under the Treasury Department. The justification for the proposal was that congress neither had the tools nor the stature for adequate oversight, however, Frank opposed the move stating "These two entities... are not facing any type of financial crisis... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." It should also be noted that Mr. Frank had a relationship with Herb Moses, the CEO of Fannie Mae and referred to him as his "spouse" and his "lover."
Barack Obama (D-IL) The Race Baiter in Chief sued Citibank under the CRA laws to force them to make risky loans. Obama was listed in a class action lawsuit along with ACORN against Citibank alleging that the bank had specifically denied loans based upon racism. This NY Post article makes it clear that Obama was aware of the intimidation tactics being used against Citibank and yet still supported the plaintiff in the lawsuit. This leaves little doubt that Obama was not only aware of ACORN's tactics in attempting to strong arm banks into making risky loans, but was complicit, as well.
A word about lenders, borrowers and the free market. It is often alleged that predatory lenders were responsible for the foreclosure crisis by preying upon unsuspecting borrowers, encouraging them to take loans that the borrowers could never possibly afford to pay back. One would be foolish to believe that this did not happen. However, this scenario was spawned by every other action listed in this post. Predatory lenders had no influence on the CRA, DIDMCA, AMTPA, the dropping of capital gains taxes, the increased mandate for the GSE's to purchase subprime paper, and on and on. This was a by product of the failure of the government, period. In the list of people who need be held responsible, the consumer themselves should not be ruled out. Similarly to the predatory lenders, they were not responsible in starting the foreclosure crisis, but without their uninformed and greedy borrowing, this crisis would never has gotten as large as it became. Ultimately, when you place your signature on those 200 different forms, you are in effect saying that you understand the terms of the loan for which you are signing. It is your responsibility to understand what your are getting yourself into. When a person loses their home and cries that they had no idea, I feel little sorrow. For that person claimed on a legal document that they did, in fact, understand what they were getting into.
The free market is not to blame for what went wrong here. It was only through the manipulation of that free market and players within that market that this crisis came to be. The market left to it's own devices will regulate itself. Greedy and predatory lenders will go out of business as customers become wise to their practices and purchase from someone else. Lending institutions will offer loans which will be competitive with other lenders, but secure enough as not to be overly risky. No company goes into business looking to scare away potential customers and few customers go into a business relationship without knowing exactly what they are consuming and for how much. It is these principles that guide the free market to function and correct when it needs to.
-UPDATE-
Paul pointed out in the comments some facts I left out on predatory lenders: Uncollateralized loans.
The idea that someone could approve the loan of and move someone into a house without the borrower so much as having a job was also begun during the Clinton Administration's Gestapo forced lending tactics. A whole new cottage industry called "Mortgage Origination Offices" cropped up in all the neighborhoods where payday loan places do good business.
Paul goes on to reference this Wall Street Journal Article which shows the areas that are hardest hit by default rates. Paul notes the areas which are hardest hit also seem to have the highest unemployment rates, and the lowest incomes. The areas are referred to as Urban Enterprise Zones, which are areas in which development of blighted neighborhoods is encouraged through tax and regulatory relief. With the revelation of tactics used by community advocate groups such as ACORN, there is a strong possibility that these groups were instrumental in securing loans for some of those now in default.
-UPDATE II-
This subject is so large, and the damage so widespread that it is difficult to sum up all of the factors that played a roll in the eventual meltdown in a single post, let alone at 3:00 in the morning. A commenter at TBC points out that artificially low interest rates in the early 2000's encouraged lending practices that were out of control. This is true, however, it's important to note that low interest rates alone could not have caused this crisis. It is only when all of the pieces are strung together that you get the financial meltdown we are all currently experiencing.
Fed policy in the early 2000's was to keep the economy afloat after the dot com bubble and 9/11. In order to encourage people to continue spending money and making investments, and with the help of a wave of foreign cash from growing Asian economies, money was made cheap and available. The Fed policy was foolish, but, as pointed out with several other steps in the eventual crisis, not without good intentions. The intent was to keep the economy moving and minimize the downturn. As a result, the dot com bubble was not burst, but instead moved to become the housing bubble. This is why conservatives, but primarily libertarians believe that the Federal Government should not get involved in financial downturns or crashes. With limited exception, the FedGov always makes the situation worse.
I recommend you head over to Judicial Watch to read the entire post, but here for your enjoyment are a few of the top ten.
1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 “Ten Most Corrupt” list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.
3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator," and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank’s intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow “forgot” about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making "campaign contributions" to dig his way out of trouble. According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: “The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently ‘wrangling’ other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles...Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.” Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That’s why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.
Be sure to read through the entire list to see the lone Republican and highest elected politician in the land. It stands to reason that because the Republicans are out of power, they hold fewer spots (read: one) on the list. Why attempt to buy off a politician who doesn't have much of anything to give you?
What has been revealed here, along with the manufactured data and side-by-side with the destruction of original data, is that scientists are as human as any other person. Meaning, that scientists are subject to the same political and financial influences that any other person is. This is why it is so utterly and critically important that science is based upon actual scientific fact and not upon 'consensus.'
Definition time:
scientific fact - n: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
consensus - n: 1. majority of opinion. 2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
As I'm sure all of you have been reading my blog since the beginning of time or whenever I started blogging, there is no need for me to point out that I have been blogging about AGW for quite a while. None-the-less... Pay particular attention to the quote from Professor Ian Plimer in that last post. For you with little time or patience on your hands, here is the quote:
"I'm a natural scientist. I'm out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."
In the case of Climategate and until otherwise proven all global warming 'science,' 'torturing the data' would mean replacing data that does not support your theory with data that does, and then destroying the original data.
Most damning, however, has to be the fact that when confronted with the fact that the books had been cooked and these scientists had engaged in egregious behavior, other climatologists and AGW supporters failed to admit that they'd been caught in this circumstance and agreeing to dismiss the data from the University of East Anglia. Instead they are circling the wagons around the massive failure and continuing with outright denial and name calling.
UPDATE As Paul points out in the commments section, the IPCC wading deep in a cesspool of lies and fakery, says they stand firm next to the evidence
Communist News Network posted an article regarding the Anita Dunn controversy. If you're not up to speed on who Anita Dunn is, read all about it and watch the video below.
Now that you know some background, CNN attempted to defend Anita Dunn, offering her claim "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.". Here are some especially interesting quotes from the article. See if you find anything interesting:
Dunn, taped in a speech in what appears to be a church, said the leader's philosophies were a guidepost for her own strategy on politics. She also praised the philosophy used by religious icon Mother Teresa.
"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."
And here's the second part.
Media Matters for America, a liberal media watchdog group, points out that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, also a Fox News contributor, quoted Mao in a 1995 Roll Call profile.
"War is politics with blood; politics is war without blood," Gingrich said, citing Mao.
Karl Rove, another Fox News contributor, wrote in a December 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed that President Bush "encouraged me to read a Mao biography."
Notice any difference between the two? Sure, there's the obvious trying to drag republicans down by tying them in with the source of the controversy, in this case Mao. However, there seems to be a major difference between quoting Mao and stating that he is one of your two favorite political philosophers. Sorry CNN & Media Matters, not the same. Nice try though, fools.
I remember December of 2007. I remember that every libtard in the country was walking around with freshly wet pants caused by their excitement over the National Intelligence Estimate for Iranian Nuclear Weapons Capability which concluded with a high level of certainty that Iran had abandoned it's aspirations for a nuclear weapon in 2003. And also concluded even if Iran restarted the program, it would be nearly impossible for them to generate a weapon in less than 5-10 years.
I remember every dinosaur media outlet in the country bumping every other major story at the time to headline that Bush had lied about Iran's nuclear capabilities, and had used his strong rhetoric to galvanize the citizens of America into crazed jingoism so that they would support his calls for military action against Iran.
I remember that Bush lied and Ahmadinnerjacket cried. I remember that Bush was defensive about his stance on Iran.
Well, now we know the truth... That Bush guy was a moron! Wait, what? Whadduya mean, 'he was right?!' So Iran didn't abandon their weapons program? Are you sure? Damn, he was right. Sigh.
Turns out that that NIE report was as fake as the picture above. It seems that in this flurry of news coming out regarding Iran's real nuclear capabilities that the dinosaur media has forgotten their own incompetence in reporting the findings of the NIE uncritically. We know that the dinosaur media never highlighted that the NIE's authors included 3 "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials". It also turns out that Western Intel has known about the program and the supposedly secret site for years.
Media mea culpa in 3...2...Wait, it's the media. Nevermind.
Wait, another corrupt Democratic politician? Shocker! Seriously, this cr*p is so prolific, that I'd have to quit my job and sit by the computer all day long everyday to report on each instance. I think Paul is right:
Teddy: 'I love that joke!' Crowd: 'Tell us another one!
You know what's hilarious? Chappaquiddick! Teddy, LOL'ed about it all the time! I mean, why not? It's got all the makings of a great joke:
A horny drunk guy
A young woman with her entire life ahead of her
A dark drive home
A rickety bridge
Wait, on second thought, this sounds more like a 'Friday the 13th' movie setup, not a joke... I guess the punch line comes at the end where Teddy staggers away, and Mary Jo Kopechne dies of asphyxiation. No, that doesn't sound right either... Damn!
Twenty years ago, with his words and actions, Reagan declared it to be morning in America. Within two short decades, by his actions, Barack Obama means to see the sun set on our Republic. Had he written the script himself, this man could not have chosen a more imbicilically willing Legislative branch, which enthusiastically skips along with his plan toward it's own obsolescence. The Congress of the United States is in dereliction of duty, and it's failure to complete its constitutional responsiblities may well have signed the death warrant for our experiment in self governance.
The Executive Branch is quietly and quickly amassing power within it's own confines which will render the Legislative Branch and the separation of powers defunct, allowing the hostile (or not so hostile) take over of this great country. The Congress has allowed it's oversight authority to be stolen away in the middle of the night. There are at least 30 czars with direct oversight of federal operations in many areas reporting directly to the President of the United States. The number is difficult to pin down, as the willing whore of the US Government, the media, has not seen fit to report on this story. These czars have the ability to influence policy and operations within these federal agencies, bypassing the Congressional role in oversight and policy direction.
Congress is also the body responsible to write legislation for our governance. No longer are they able or willing to perform this task, either. Don't believe me? Ask me then, who wrote the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? From the website, Apollo Alliance.org
"Almost all of the clean energy, good jobs programs made public today, along with the dimension of the spending called for by Congress and the new president, track closely with the ideas and proposals advanced last year by the Apollo Alliance in The New Apollo Program and the Apollo Economic Recovery Act."
So, they didn't write the legislation, and we know they sure as hell didn't read it. Let me ask this question, just what the hell is it that they do?!
Can we pull our heads out of Ted Kennedy's oversized, clammy ass long enough to ask, 'What the Hell is going on in my government?!' While the overwhelming reaction to the health care bill, which will be renamed for The Swimmer, has been outstanding, our citizenry has been distracted from the power grab happening within the Executive Branch. The latest example is the removal of power from the CIA to interrogate Terrorist suspects, and the handing of that very same responsibility to an inter-agency group, led by the FBI. You understand that the Congress has oversight of the CIA, however, this new task force does not, correct? Who then do they report to? The Intelligence Czar. I'm sorry, but who the eff, thought that assigning positions of power within the Executive Branch and naming them 'Czar' was a good idea? There is little doubt that soon, our government will be more closely aligned with that of the 19th century Czars than that of the 20th century Presidents.
Not that anyone needed any further proof, but Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are incompetent fools. Unfortunately, so are most within the Republican leadership. We must throw out those who do not understand their constitutional responsibilities and send to Washington, those who have a clear understanding of our representative republic and what it means to be an American.
John Conyers, the highly qualified stand up public servant who only has the people's best interest in mind (unless they happen to be his staff), has written an article for that bastion of fair and balanced reporting, the Huffington Post. It is a 'rebutal' article taking on Karl Rove's editorial over at the Wall Street Journal. Conyers takes the opportunity to complain about how Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the WSJ is playing politics with his newspaper. This is important becuase John Conyers would never play politics! There's no doubt that Conyers runs a tight ship, and therefore has position to lecture others on how to run theirs.
I've written about the nonstory surrounding the political firing of political appointees, who serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States, and fail to understand why the libtards have their hemp panties in a wad over this. One thing is for certain, they are making a mistake by having Conyers as the face-man on this deal. Don't the Democrats have anyone who doesn't have an ethics complaint in their past who can lead this charge... Oh wait, nevermind.
Since the Demotards are all into the Bible now, someone should tell Conyers to check out Matthew 7:5...
While everyone else in the state is dealing with unemployment or severely cut wages, including many state employees who were forced to take unpaid days off, the CA Assembly is handing out raises! Looks like I chose the wrong career path, how about you? From an article posted at KMJ580:
"Here is a list of California lawmakers who increased pay for their staff members between January and June [2009]. Explanations are included where lawmakers chose to comment.
ASSEMBLY:
Assemblyman Joel Anderson, R-La Mesa
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $1,500 to $2,279. Anderson's office said the staffer went from part-time to full-time and moved to a new position.
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles
_ Three staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $17,745 to $19,593.
Democratic Caucus
_ Three staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $15,756 to $17,696.
Assemblyman Jim Beall, D-San Jose
_ Four staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $26,199 to $27,510.
Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo:
_ One staffer whose monthly pay rose from $1,666 to $2,916.
Assemblywoman Anna Caballero, D-Salinas
_ Six staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $17,756 to $19,278.
Caballero said through frugal spending, she was able to reward staffers who have taken on extra responsibilities, several of whom were hired at below-average pay. Five of the six still earn $40,000 or less.
"It did not seem excessive given that we had taken the cuts that we were asked to take. ... It's also important to keep good staff,'' she said.
Assemblyman Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata
_ Three staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $16,790 to $18,387.
Assemblyman Joe Coto, D-San Jose
_ Two staffers who received promotions, increasing their cumulative monthly pay from $3,950 to $4,740.
Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate
_ Six staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $27,484 to $29,170.
Assemblyman Mike Duvall, R-Yorba Linda
_ One staffer's pay rose from $2,000 to $2,917. Duvall's office said she went from part-time to full-time and the office is still down in staff.
Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park
_ Two staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $7,561 to $8,304.
Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa
_ Five employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $20,124 to $22,401.
Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles
_ Seven employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $40,157 to $43,356.
Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Granite Bay
_ Two employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $4,833 to $5,798. Gaines' office said both employees have taken on new duties and more hours.
Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani, D-Tracy
_ One employee who received a promotion, increasing his monthly pay from $4,600 to $4,825.
Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills
_ Three staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $6,731 to $7,419. Hagman's office said all three are working extra hours.
Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton
_ One staff member received a promotion, increasing his monthly pay from $4,583 to $5,133.
Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael
_ Three staffers whose cumulative monthly pay increased from $25,507 to $26,782.
Assemblyman Steve Knight, R-Lancaster
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $1,500 to $3,000. Knight's office said the employee started at halftime and moved to full-time.
Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia
_ Two employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $13,918 to $13,989. Mendoza said both are doing more work after other employees left and were not replaced.
Assemblyman Bill Monning, D-Monterey
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $3,378 to $3,716. The employee now works for Assemblywoman Alyson Huber, who took over chairmanship of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.
Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $6,122 to $6,734. Nava's office said the employee was promoted from senior field representative to principal assistant and took on additional work when another employee left.
Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $2,120 to $3,095. Portantino's office said he went from part-time to full-time.
Assembly Republican Caucus
_ Two employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $6,667 to $7,125. Raises occurred while Assemblyman Mike Villines, R-Clovis, was minority leader. Villines' office said the employees took on additional duties when two higher paid staffers left and were not replaced.
Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $2,917 to $3,063.
Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego
_ Five employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $22,065 to $25,478. One employee was promoted from legislative assistant to senior field representative.
Sergeant-at-Arms (Capitol Security)
_ Twelve employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $43,956 to $46,740. One employee's duties changed to working for the Rules Committee, which also oversees the Sergeant-at-Arms office.
Assemblyman Jose Solorio, D-Santa Ana
_ Three employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $7,131 to $7,488.
Assemblywoman Audra Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $6,714 to $8,393. Strickland's office said the chief of staff and some other employees shifted from part-time to full-time based on legislative activity, such as the budget, to save money: "That's part of the assemblywoman's budget plan _ we have various staffers who come in and out,'' said Rondi Guthrie, district director for Strickland.
Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, D-Fremont
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $3,200 to $3,429.
Two Assembly employees moved from the Chief Clerk's office to new jobs with Assembly members, increasing their cumulative monthly pay from $5,600 to $5,880.
SENATE:
Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $4,348 to $4,493.
Sen. Ron Calderon,
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $5,060 to $5,412.
Alicia Trost, a spokeswoman for Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said the following raises were due to employees working increased hours or returning to regular hours after being on leave:
Sen. David Cogdill, R-Modesto:
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $10,078 to $11,540.
Sen. Robert Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $1,646 to $3,292.
Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Temecula
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $2,750 to $4,604.
Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $1,424 to $2,652.
Revenue & Taxation Committee
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $5,674 to $11,348
Senate Office of Research
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $9,416 to $10,594.
Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $1,810 to $2,424."
In some Assembly Members' future, I foresee unemployment...
He's movin' on up... err maybe not. William Jefferson, Democrat, and former Congressman from Louisiana was convicted on 11 of 16 counts today in a federal court. Bummer dude. Next time don't hide the money in your freezer, just funnel it to a lobbyist group founded by a former aide. At least then you can call your constituents redneck hillbilly racists, and get reelected! Hell, you can even funnel earmarks to your state and build an airport named after yourself that no one uses... sigh, what a rookie.
William Jefferson was accused of helping promote Siemens 'iGate' technology in Africa after nearly $400,000 in bribes were paid to a company controlled by Dollar Bill's wife. Accusations he vehemently denied up until his conviction. The total value in bribes lies somewhere between $400,000 and $1 Million.
