Saturday, August 31, 2013

NY Times Misses The Point On Labor


Opinion/Editorial


 
 

  Well here we are about to celebrate as a nation another Labor Day weekend marking the end of the summer of 2013.This mornings lead OPED in the New York Times once again and as always are the waterboy for the crying labor movement who whine about their pay nothing new here.
  Entitled "Labor, Then and Now" it begins "On Thursday, the day after the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, thousands of fast-food workers in 60 cities walked off their jobs, the latest in an escalating series of walkouts by low-wage workers demanding higher pay and the right to organize without retaliation.The parallels, though inexact, are compelling. A half-century ago, the marchers called on Congress to increase the minimum wage from $1.15 an hour to $2 “so that men may live in dignity,” in the words of Bayard Rustin, one of the chief organizers of the march. Today, the fast-food workers also seek a raise, from the $9 an hour that most of them make to $15.00 an hour. That’s not much different from what the marchers wanted in 1963; adjusted for inflation, $2 then is $13.39 an hour today."
  No offense to the fast food workers but I don't want to pay double for a whopper or Biggie fry.I love it how the left tries to incorporate the celebration of Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. 50th Anniversary of his infamous "I have a dream" speech in correlation to labor day. Makes me laugh LOL!
  It goes on "The strikers are targeting their employers — profitable companies like McDonald’s, Yum Brands (which includes Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC) and Wendy’s. But Congress could help. Today’s minimum wage is a miserly $7.25 an hour — which is actually lower, adjusted for inflation, than it was 50 long years ago. Raising it would support the legitimate demands of the strikers and underscore the pressing needs of the country’s growing ranks of low-wage workers.
President Obama has noted, correctly, that increases in labor productivity have long failed to translate into higher wages for most Americans, even while income for the richest households has skyrocketed. His proposed remedies, however, leave much to be desired — a pathetic increase in the minimum wage, to $9 an hour by 2016, plus hopeful assertions that revolutions in energy, technology, manufacturing and health care will create good-paying jobs."
  Sorry NYT but todays young people are getting dumber and dumber that's why there are a lot of low wage earners out there I see at the McDonalds here in the Pittsburgh area most of the register help can't give the exact change back they can't even count right. And they want $15.00 an hour LMAO!
As far as assertions that there will be good paying jobs in the health care field NOT! with Obama care taking effect soon.
  More from OPED "On its own, however, growth will not raise wages. What’s missing are policies to ensure that a large and growing share of rising labor productivity flows to workers in the form of wages and salaries, rather than to executives and shareholders. Start with an adequate minimum wage. Provide increased protections for workers to unionize, in order to strengthen their bargaining power. Provide protections for undocumented workers that would limit exploitation. Add to the mix regulations to prevent financial bubbles, thereby protecting jobs and wages from ruinous busts. Adopt expansionary fiscal and monetary policies in troubled times to sustain jobs and wages.
Low-wage workers would also benefit from executive-branch orders to ensure fair pay for employees of federal contractors. All workers need stronger enforcement of labor law so they are not routinely misclassified in ways that deny wages, overtime and benefits. They also need a tax system that is more progressive to shield wage earners from unduly burdensome tax increases or government cutbacks.
They need, in brief, pro-labor policies that have been overlooked for decades, with devastating results: from 1979 to 2012, typical workers saw wage increases of just 5 percent, despite productivity growth of nearly 75 percent, while wage gains for low-wage workers were flat or declined.
Recent experience has been even worse. In the decade from 2002 to 2012, wages have stagnated or declined for the entire bottom 70 percent of the wage ladder. The marchers had it right 50 years ago. The fast-food strikers have it right today. Washington has it wrong."
  Here we go NYT blaming the rich again same old liberal old BS tactic. What I highlighted in green since when does the NYT advocate for burdensome tax increases they are the kings of calling for tax increases all the time LOL!
  I have no problem with fast food workers getting a raise like everyone else but they have to earn it by doing their jobs CORRECTLY and efficiently. Besides the fast food workers can have better help carrying their water than having the NYT do it for them.
 
 
 

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Dr.King Fought For "EQUAL" Rights Not Civil Rights

SalemNews.com, Salem, MA

August 24, 2013

Column: King’s courage helped fuel civil rights movement

“I have a dream” is how the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. highlighted his momentous speech in Washington on Aug. 28, 1963, and that phrase resonates strongly. His address was the centerpiece of the historic March on Washington, which involved over 200,000 people. In June 1963, President John F. Kennedy had addressed the nation, underscoring the importance of his administration’s proposed civil rights legislation.
King’s efforts were part of a massive current of historic change in American race relations. In 1955, Rosa Parks helped spark the modern civil rights movement by refusing to move to the back of a bus in Montgomery, Ala. Early in the 20th century, A. Philip Randolph organized the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the first predominantly black labor union. These leaders and others built the American civil rights movement.
King’s leadership qualities were recognized while he was still young. Striking rhetorical skill was one key ingredient, cast in charismatic delivery. He was also often, though not always, a shrewd politician.
We honor King not because he was a perfect man, but rather for personal courage as catalyst for the civil rights revolution. Initially, he was reluctant to assume leadership beyond his local community, concerned about physical safety. He took on the job nonetheless, persevering until his assassination April 4, 1968.
Especially in the case of a murdered martyr, we tend to idealize the leader. That is unfortunate for two reasons. First, oversimplifying the complexity of the human spirit can easily diminish the person described. The leader actually seems less consequential as the internal personal as well as external battles that define courage are erased. Second, oversimplifying past times limits our own capacity to draw the most accurate and therefore best lessons for our future.
King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which preached racial integration and nonviolent tactics, became challenged by a range of radical groups. The Congress of Racial Equality staked out much more militant ground. The separatist Black Panther Party, always a very small fringe faction, nonetheless garnered enormous media attention through alarming rhetoric and occasional violence.
As the turmoil of the 1960s grew, King seemed to become overshadowed by the militants and the violence they preached, both near the end of his life and for a time thereafter. The fact that he and his message endure from that era, so sharply defined, testifies to the value of his leadership.
Fully making this point requires including noteworthy white political leaders. President Lyndon B. Johnson secured passage of major civil rights legislation in 1964 and 1965, with vital help from Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen. Less visible today is President Harry S. Truman’s historic decision in 1948 to desegregate the armed forces.
Also in 1948, at the Democratic national convention, young Minneapolis Mayor Hubert H. Humphrey pressed to include civil rights in the party platform. Many advised Humphrey against this; he persevered successfully. In the resulting maelstrom, Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina led Southern delegates in bolting the convention and establishing the breakaway Dixiecrat Party. In the fall election, Dixiecrat presidential nominee Thurmond won Southern states, but Truman nonetheless was re-elected.
King was a particularly important leader, and without him another much less desirable national course might have resulted. Both his message and efforts were fully congruent with our most fundamental principles.
President Barack Obama’s political success personifies King’s victory.

Commentary

Mr.Cyr has it all wrong as it is with most of these kool-aid drinking leftist Professors. It doesnot take a rocket scientist to figure out that Rev.Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. was a great leader who fought for not CIVIL rights but EQUAL rights for all.
So for this leftist to say Obama's poiltical success personifies King's victory is ludicrous to say the least.If the great Dr.King was alive today he would be getting on Obama's case for all the political correctness and BS

Sunday, August 4, 2013

More Immigration BS From NYT


Opinion/Editorial




   It seems that we are now back to the argument of immigration reform with the New York Times this morning. The title of this mornings lead OPED is "Of Courage and Cantaloupes" on the so called immigration reform bill that is now in the U.S. House.
  Here is their opening salvo "After the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill in June, hope for reform shifted to the House. That is where hope sits, on ice, getting freezer burn.The House leadership has rejected the Senate bill, saying it will instead move slowly on “piecemeal” measures. That means things like border fencing and visas for farmworkers, but nothing to allow 11 million unauthorized immigrants to become American citizens — a pillar of the Senate’s bipartisan compromise. “Compromise” and “path to citizenship” remain dirty words to Republicans like Representative Steve King of Iowa, who has likened immigrants to dogs and livestock. He has recently taken to calling them mules — drug runners, that is, with “calves the size of cantaloupes” from lugging marijuana bales over the border.
   And Congressman King says the truth.
  It continues "Dysfunction, inaction, demeaning blather — is this any time to be optimistic about immigration reform? It could be. Because with Congress now out on vacation for five weeks, when it can’t do anything awful, it is the people’s turn to push, to be heard and, if at all possible, to move Congress in the right direction. To that end, an amazing array of determined advocates from all corners of the country has plunged into a month of protests, rallies, vigils, town-hall meetings, phone-calling and canvassing, focusing on Republicans in their home districts.       
Their message is that comprehensive immigration reform deserves a vote in the House, and that any legislation must allow unauthorized immigrants to seek full equality as Americans — not, as some Congress members are proposing, to remain a permanent underclass of provisional, deportable, disposable laborers. They also are highlighting the urgency of fixing the broken system now because, as Congress dawdles, deportations are continuing at a record pace — thousands of lives and families torn apart every month, hundreds of thousands every year.
The advocates see hope in pressuring Republicans relentlessly for the next few weeks. They also find hope, believe it or not, in reasoning with them. Many House members are relative newcomers to Congress, having missed the last great immigration debate in 2007. Their rejection of the Senate bill could simply be reflexive recoiling at anything touched by Democrats. When asked to consider immigration reform point by point, on the merits — with stronger border and workplace enforcement and tough-but-fair rules for granting the undocumented legal status and citizenship — perhaps many may accept that path as sensible. (It happens to be the Senate’s.).
  Wow! evidently there is a new politically correct term for illegal immigrants now started by the NYT instead of "undocumented immigrants" the new definition is unauthorized immigrants. As usual now the rest of the lame stream media outlets in both print and TV will follow suit in using this new BS terminology.
  Here is the remainder of the BS "If reason doesn’t work, maybe embarrassment will, unease at having to associate with the anti-immigrant hard-core, exemplified by people like Mr. King, who is Exhibit A for those who see the ugly nativism behind the naysaying. Mr. King is an immovable “no” on any kind of positive immigration reform, but he isn’t the only member out there. Advocates have counted the votes, and they say there are enough Republicans and Democrats to pass a comprehensive bill, with a citizenship path, right now. But the House would have to agree to hold a vote, which the Republican leadership has, so far, rejected.
On Thursday, a group of leading immigrant-rights advocates were arrested while blocking traffic near the Capitol. Other advocates delivered cantaloupes to the offices of more than 200 House members, including some Democrats, who in June voted with Mr. King to halt an Obama administration program that deferred the deportations of some young people who were brought here illegally as children. A sticker pinned to each fruit read: “This cantaloupe was picked by immigrants in California. You gave Steve King a vote. Give us a vote for citizenship.”
Those were two actions; there will be hundreds of others across the country in the next few weeks. Immigration reform is stalled, so now is the time for advocacy and relentless optimism. Pressure makes heat, and a hot summer is about to get even hotter."
  Real immigration reform would be to enact and follow all the laws that are currently on the books for example making those to wait in line to become American citizens it would be the moral thing to do but don't expect that from the lame stream media and their socialist elites.
  

Sunday, July 28, 2013

NYT Defends Wrong Way To Defend Voting Rights


Opinion/Editorial
 



  Is it me or should the New York Times just shut up when talking about the rights of others and first of all understand what they are supposedly defending. Most often they don't even understand what they're Opining about.
  This mornings lead OPED entitled "A New Defense of Voting Rights" is just an example.
  It begins "On Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. took an important step toward repairing the damage from last month’s Supreme Court ruling striking down a central element of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He is right to adopt an aggressive approach to defending the most fundamental right in our democracy."
  Yeah please like the NYT believes in any fundamental rights when it comes to a democracy,they only want to defend rights of those who buy into their warped socialist political leftist agenda.
  It goes on "In a federal lawsuit first brought by black and Hispanic voters against Texas over its redistricting maps, the Justice Department relied on a rarely used provision of the act, Section 3, to ask a federal court to require Texas to get permission before making any voting changes in the state."
  In true left wing fashion if all else fails bring a law suit. Asking permission of who the Big HUGE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT how about the 10 the amendment. On another point I would be willing to bet that the Hispanic voters most of them are probably illegal immigrants (oh for you idiotic liberals out there your favorite politically correct term "undocumented immigrants")
   The remainder of the hyperbull "Until last month, Texas already had to get such permission under the act’s “preclearance” process. This process had long been the most effective means of preventing racial bias in voting laws in states with histories of discrimination. It required state and local governments that wanted to change the laws to first show there would be no discriminatory effect. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the act as unconstitutional; that provision laid out the formula that determined which jurisdictions had to get permission.
In theory, the court’s ruling allows Congress to update the list of nine states and parts of six others identified by Section 4. But given the dysfunction of Congress, that will not happen anytime soon.
This is why Mr. Holder’s decision to rely on Section 3 in the Texas case is so significant. Section 3 — also known as the “bail-in” provision — may be the most promising tool we have to protect voting rights after Shelby. It allows courts to identify jurisdictions that are passing intentionally discriminatory voting laws and then “bail” them in as needed — that is, require them to get permission before establishing new voting rules.
This is functionally similar to the system the court struck down last month, but Section 3 has several distinguishing features. It does not contain a preset list of jurisdictions, and it is forward-looking: instead of relying primarily on historical evidence of discrimination, it allows individual voters or the government to ask courts to zero in on any jurisdiction, like Texas, that continues to try to impose racially discriminatory voting laws.
Section 3 is also flexible. The period of coverage for preclearance under Section 3 is determined by court order, and may last for only as long as a federal judge deems it necessary to overcome voting discrimination in that jurisdiction.
These features make Section 3 a useful provision, but it has its weaknesses. The preclearance may be imposed only if a federal judge determines that the jurisdiction’s laws are intentionally discriminatory. When the Voting Rights Act was passed, such laws were much easier to identify. But lawmakers have since discovered countless ways to discriminate on the basis of race without saying so explicitly, and will continue to do so.
In the Texas case, a Federal District Court in Washington found that state redistricting maps showed intentional discrimination — among other things, black and Hispanic lawmakers were excluded from the map-drawing process, and districts were drawn to minimize the power of minority voters in ways that “could not have happened by accident,” including one district shaped like a lightning bolt. While the Texas record is full of clear evidence of discriminatory intent, in most places such a claim is harder to show. To address that problem, the Congressional Black Caucus has called for Section 3 to be amended to apply to voting laws that have a discriminatory effect, whether or not intent can be proved. If Congress is serious about protecting voting rights, it should pass this amendment immediately.
Some Republicans, like Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have spoken out recently in favor of Section 3 as a method of protecting voting rights after Shelby. But Republican support for any amendment is uncertain at best, and some party members have vowed to oppose any fixes to the Voting Rights Act in light of the Justice Department’s filing.
Texas remains a hothouse of voter discrimination, where laws of dubious legality seem to sprout every day. The Justice Department’s brief cited four instances in the last three years alone in which local jurisdictions failed to show that proposed voting changes did not have a discriminatory purpose. That’s not including either the redistricting case or a separate suit filed over Texas’s new voter ID law, which will also be put on hold if the Section 3 request is successful.
Gov. Rick Perry has complained that the Justice Department’s action was an “end run” around the Supreme Court and cast “unfair aspersions” on his state. He should be more concerned with reversing Texas’s long run of discriminatory voting laws."
  Does the NYT think we are stupid apparently this is so.But as Constitutionalists such as those of you who follow this blog know that the only reason why the NYT picked Texas because it isn't a politically correct blue leaning state and a state that believes in it's constitutional rights.
 
 
 
 
 

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Neither One Of These Idiots For Massachusetts 6th Congressional District

Tierney
US Rep.John Tierney
 
Richard Tisei
 
  Neither one of these hack liberals are any good with Tierney as a far far way out left Democrat and Tisei one of the most RINO of Massachusetts members of the establishment Republican party both of these idiots are one in the same where they stand on the issues.
 It's time for those who live in the Mass 6th especially the tea parties in that district to band together to support a CONSTITUTIONAL GOD fearing type candidate to run and defeat these two life long members of the establishment.
 I know that the Constitutional tea parties will but not a particular group who supported Tisei that being the Greater Boston Tea Party who poke their noses into everything even when it doesnot involve their own district they need to mind their own business but they never do.
 I mean the Massachusetts Republican Party have never and never will support anything that is CONSTITUTIONAL or for that matter conservative they are trying to be like Democrats all the time.


Sunday, July 14, 2013

NYT Fixation With Race Continues


Opinion/Editorial



 
  I could not wait for the New York Times to run their perversion of the George Zimmerman verdict. Well here it is DUMB ASSERY at its finest. The title of the lead OPED in the MONDAY morning BS is "Trayvon Martin’s Legacy" or in the proper terminology legacy of a criminal.
 All of us knew that it would only be a day or two before the NYT sunk to the levels that they always do especially with their Communist editorial board on a opinion like this. They never fail at putting their heads up their collective asses.
 The biased race laced garbage begins "It may not be possible to consider the case of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted Saturday of all charges in the killing of Trayvon Martin, as anything but a sad commentary on the state of race relations and the battle over gun rights in America today."
 For the record NYT Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY but hey what's the TRUTH to you morons. Hey got to give it to them they hit a big miss on this one hitting both race and guns rights in one big swing and a miss. Oh for you liberals that baseball lingo.
 The swill goes on already coming to their holier than thou conclusion "Certainly it is about race — ask any black man, up to and including President Obama, and he will tell you at least a few stories that sound eerily like what happened that rainy winter night in Sanford, Fla.
 While Mr. Zimmerman’s conviction might have provided an emotional catharsis, we would still be a country plagued by racism, which persists in ever more insidious forms despite the Supreme Court’s sanguine assessment that “things have changed dramatically,” as it said in last month’s ruling striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act. (The Justice Department is right to continue its investigation into whether Mr. Zimmerman may still be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws.)"
 Maybe to you stupid braindead asses at the NYT our country is plagued by racism because of you in the lame stream media and the NAACP and the RINOS and Demorats  in this country still harping on the issue of race.
 Here is the rest of this bile crap from the NYT "The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute. Under that law, versions of which are on the books in two dozen states, a person may use deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes” it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm — a low bar that the prosecutors in this case fought in vain to overcome.
These laws sound intuitive: who would argue that you may not protect yourself against great harm? But of course, the concept of “reasonable belief” is transformed into something deadly dangerous when firearms are involved. And when the Stand Your Ground laws intersect with lax concealed-carry laws, it works essentially to self-deputize anyone with a Kel-Tec 9 millimeter and a grudge.
It has been a bad year so far for gun control. But if anything, cases like this should be as troubling as the mass killings that always prompt a national outcry and promises of legislative remedy. We were heartened that President Obama, in his statement after the verdict was issued, took the opportunity to denounce once again “the tide of gun violence” sweeping the country.
In the end, what is most frightening is that there are so many people with guns who are like George Zimmerman. Fear and racism may never be fully eliminated by legislative or judicial order, but neither should our laws allow and even facilitate their most deadly expression. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed boy walking home from the convenience store. If only Florida could give him back his life as easily as it is giving back George Zimmerman’s gun.
 For the record and I mean this from my heart I will pray for the family of Trayvon Martin for their loss but that doesnot remove the fact that he was a punk kid with a record a mile long.
 This has nothing to do with race but once again for the record Mr.George  Zimmerman is a registered DEMOCRAT and he is a Hispanic man.But of course that is forgotten by the NYT and everyone else how convenient.
 
 
 
 

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Racism Is Not The Answer

These are pictures of racists and race baiters


Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
Ku Klux Klan
  


  To me it does not matter what one's  political affiliation is whether you are a democrat, 
a republican, independent or even a tea party member. These three photos have one thing in common
and that is the disgusting hatred of anyone who does not see things their way and God forbid someone doesn't see things their way.
 Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both socialist left wing ideologues want to blame all the world's problems on white people and the KKK want to blame black people.
 Jackson and Sharpton who over and over again use the term African American to push their crap filled political agenda thus using hatred. No difference for the KKK who hide cowardly behind these white bed sheets pushing their venomous hatred for Jewish people along with the hatred for other races of people other than their own.
 I am putting up this post on my blog to show that we as a nation have put up with the issue of race long enough. We are a better country than this WAKE UP AMERICA!
 Please WAKE THE HECK UP!





 

I want to issue a challenge to all my fellow AMERICANS let us be united not divided as a nation

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Same Old Same Old In Massachusetts


   Latest EBT scandal: Hoarding handouts... including $12,088 in 1 food stamp account

By: Chris Cassidy, Matt Stout

 Nearly 1,800 welfare recipients are carrying taxpayer-funded food stamp balances on their EBT cards in excess of $1,500 — with one account topping $12,000 — the latest twist in a state welfare scandal that now has a former Massachusetts inspector general 
 calling for a sweeping probe.A Herald review of a seven-month tally of EBT accounts also showed 37 welfare recipients have separate cash balances in excess of $1,500 — with one of more than $4,600. Unlike food stamps, which are federally funded, these payments are paid for by state taxpayers.“There should be an investigation by the 
administration and an investigation by all of the law enforcement agencies — including the IG’s office — to look at the question of integrity with the income reporting of people on welfare who 
receive food stamps,” former Inspector General Gregory Sullivan, now of the Pioneer Institute, told the Herald. “Massachusetts, in my view, has a very poor system.”
 The Herald review comes 
after state Rep. Shaunna O’Connell paid $800 to pry the welfare data on sky-high benefit balances from the state Department of Transitional Assistance after a store owner in Pittsfield sent her a receipt showing a customer’s alarming $7,000 EBT balance.Among the shocking totals in the DTA data:• Of the state’s 550,000 food stamp,
 or SNAP, recipients, 1,794 have balances of more than $1,500, and another 45 are carrying more than $5,000.• One balance in March hit $12,088, the highest from any of the seven months of data the Herald reviewed.• For those receiving state taxpayer-funded cash assistance, one EBT cardholder had a $4,622 balance, and another $4,320.On average, state households receive $230 a month in food stamps and $450 in cash assistance, meaning some of these EBT cardholders are going months, even years, without using their accounts.“It’s even worse than I thought it was going to be, what we’ve seen at this point,” O’Connell said, adding she needs more time to dig deeper into the numbers. “Once again, this is the tip of the 
iceberg.”Less than two hours after 
delivering the data to 
O’Connell’s office, officials at the Department of Transitional 
Assistance announced new rules to curb high balances. However, those officials denied the timing of the new initiatives was meant to blunt outrage over these 
bloated EBT balances.For those receiving cash assistance from the state, officials will now close EBT accounts exceeding a $2,500 balance and expunge all accounts not used for 90 days. Officials said they also will contact all those with more than $1,500 on EBT cards, asking them to call DTA to explain their cash kitty.As a federally administered program, there is no limit to how high SNAP accounts can soar. But DTA officials plan to deactivate any account not used after six months and then erase the balances after 12 months of no use. When balances reach $5,000, only then will caseworkers start a case review.DTA Commissioner Stacey Monahan refused a Herald 
request for an interview last night but said in a statement that high balances are “inconsistent with the department’s goal of helping vulnerable individuals meet their most basic and immediate needs, and that’s why we are taking this action.”O’Connell scoffed at the welfare agency’s new rules, calling them “one sorry excuse” for 
reform.“If you’re letting people accumulate thousands of dollars,” she said, “that flies in the face of any kind of genuine concern about fraud and any actual real reform.”

Joe Dwinell contributed 
to this report

Commentary

As the old saying goes the More things change the more they stay the same

Monday, July 8, 2013

Massachusetts Republicans Are DOOMED!


 

Massachusetts



MassLive.com




               Massachusetts Republicans regroup after defeat in U.S. Senate special election



Scott Brown & Gabriel Gomez
Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Gabriel Gomez, left, is seen across from former Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in this composite of Associated Press file photos. Gomez had hoped to achieve in 2013 the same feat Brown pulled off in 2010- defeating a democratic frontrunner in a special U.S. Senate election in liberal-leaning Massachusetts
 
 
  BOSTON - When Democrat Edward Markey defeated Republican Gabriel Gomez in the June 25 special election for U.S. Senate, it was only the latest loss for the Massachusetts GOP, and the string of defeats is leading some Republicans to rethink the party’s strategy.
“A lot of the folks being defensive right now, saying we have to keep doing things the way we’ve done things, are obviously mistaken,” said Paul Moore, a long-time Republican political strategist, pointing out that Republicans have only won one statewide election since 2002.
In past years, Republicans have had some success winning the governor’s seat. There have been three Republican governors elected since the 1990s – William F. Weld, A. Paul Cellucci and Mitt Romney. But, there has been only a single Republican U.S. senator from the Bay State since 1979: Scott Brown, who won a 2010 special election to fill the seat left vacant by the death of U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy but then lost last year to Democrat Elizabeth Warren in a race to hold onto the post.
A Republican has not represented Massachusetts in the U.S. House since 1997.
Several viable Republican candidates have lost in recent election cycles – Gomez, Brown and congressional candidate Richard Tisei in 2012, and gubernatorial nominee Charles Baker in 2010.
There are just four Republicans in the 40-seat state Senate, and 30 Republicans in the 160-person state House. On Beacon Hill, Democrats hold all constitutional offices, and all but one seat on the eight-member Governor's Council.
Part of the dynamic is due to demographics – Democrats outnumber Republicans three-to-one in Massachusetts.
Other experts say, however, problems with organization and its message are at the core of the GOP’s difficulties.
Thomas Whalen, a political historian and associate professor of social science at Boston University, views part of the problem as structural, saying the GOP in Massachusetts has never figured out how to organize at a grassroots level.
“The leadership at the top more or less look out for themselves, but don’t look strategically at the long term for the party and the state,” Whalen said. “The old cliché is Massachusetts Republicans always want senator or Congress but never local water commissioner or dog catcher.”
The losses at the top, Whalen said, then contribute to other candidates’ hesitancy to run. “Because of the recent losses, there might be Republicans who promised they’d sit it out or give it up entirely,” Whalen said. “There’s a loser mentality that might prevent talented people from jumping into the fray.”
Others point to problems with messaging.
Moore said Republicans should learn from the Gomez campaign that it takes more than a candidate with a “nice biography” to win an election. That must be combined, he said, with a strong, topical message – which Gomez’s campaign did not have. “With so many huge, critical issues facing the country, the idea that most of the campaign seemed devoid of a discussion of these things, voters have to scratch their heads and say what planet are you living on?” Moore said.
Moore said the Republican Party needs to back off from talking about social issues like gay marriage and focus instead on areas like the economy.
“If political candidates spent time around strangers’ kitchen tables to listen instead of talking, most people don’t give a rat’s behind about what other people are doing in their bedrooms,” Moore said. “They’re concerned about jobs, the economy, crime, are we going to get into more wars, what about the people still dying in Afghanistan.”
Janet Leombruno, a Republican state committeewoman from Framingham who was active in the Gomez campaign, said part of the challenge is that Republicans disagree on why Gomez lost.
“He lost because he was too liberal or he was too conservative. This is what you’re hearing,” Leombruno said.
Massachusetts Republicans need a better way of getting their message out, rather than letting themselves be defined by the national Republican Party or the Tea Party, Leombruno said. She points out that Brown lost among women after Democrats tied him to two Republican senators who made controversial comments about rape and abortion.
“It’s just frustrating,” Leombruno said. “I saw a lot of it in this race with Gabriel. They tried to define him as just another Republican.”
Leombruno said a candidate in Massachusetts must be moderate to appeal to independents and be successful. Leombruno believes Republicans must stop talking about abortion and gay marriage, and focus on pocketbook issues like college affordability and taxes.
“We have to agree to give up a little something,” she said. “It may not be our perfect candidate but there’s never any one perfect candidate out there.”
Not everyone agrees that moderation is key.
Paul Santaniello, a Republican political activist and Longmeadow selectman, said one problem the GOP faces is that candidates like Gomez act too much like Democrats, and have lost their own vision.
“You try to run in the middle of the street, you tend to get run over,” Santaniello said. “That’s what’s happening to Republican Party.”
Santaniello said he believes it is a mistake for Massachusetts Republicans to distance themselves from Tea Party activists. “Those are the same kind of folks who will stand out for you in the rain or a driving hail storm to hold your sign,” he said.
Despite the recent losses, some Bay State Republicans remain hopeful, looking toward 2014 when there will be races for governor and U.S. senator.
"Gabriel Gomez did extremely well in a lot of different pockets of the commonwealth,'' said state Rep. Todd Smola, R-Warren, and one of only four GOP legislators from Western Massachusetts. "There's a lot of red territory in the state of Massachusetts after that election."
Gomez, in his first statewide election, won large swaths of Bristol, Essex, Hampden, Worcester and Plymouth counties, though he lost key cities such as Brockton, Gloucester, Lowell and Quincy. In Middlesex County, home to almost 23 percent of the state's voters, Gomez won 21 of 54 communities, but was crushed in swing communities such as Lowell and Waltham, which Brown had won in 2010.

Smola said Gomez's victories in certain communities are a good sign for a Republican statewide candidate in 2014 such as Baker or Brown. "Next year will be a good chance for the Republican Party to make some gains," Smola said.

State Rep. George Peterson, R-Grafton, who serves as assistant minority leader in the state House, said the GOP should continue to emphasize the need for more balance on Beacon Hill.
Republicans can win, Peterson said, by emphasizing a need for lower taxes and more reforms in state government. Such a platform could appeal to independents, who might be eager for change next year, he said.

With state spending at record levels and the economy still sluggish, "That's going to be a huge argument for the Republican Party and a very good one for us," Peterson added.

Peterson is among those who expects Baker to be the frontrunner for the party's nominee for governor. He said 2014 could be like 1990 when Weld won the corner office; that year, the Democrat-controlled Legislature raised the income tax to 6.25 percent when the state's economy was in poor shape.

Now, Democrats on Beacon Hill are poised to raise the gas tax by 3 cents a gallon and impose the sales tax on computer design services.

"A lot of people are going to be pretty upset," Peterson said.
 
Commentary

As I said in the title of this post they are DOOMED!

Sunday, July 7, 2013

Liberal ULTRA ULTRA Hypocrisy At It's Finest



                                            University Bans Religious Necklaces

cross
 
 

     There is no better example of political correctness and religious intolerance run amok than the liberal bastion that is our colleges and universities. Long a breeding ground for what was supposed to be “tolerance” and the acceptance of opposing viewpoints, a large number of our academic institutions have become the epitome of the intolerance they supposedly abhor. A perfect example of this intolerance is the recent controversy at Sonoma State University where a female student was asked to remove her cross necklace because a school supervisor thought other students would find it offensive. The resulting controversy, according to news reports, was characterized by “political correctness that got out of hand”.
  The student, Audrey Jarvis, was forced by the University to seek a “religious accommodation” to be able to wear the cross. Rightfully she has asked for an apology from the University.
  According to Ms. Jarvis’s attorney, Hiram Sasser, it’s “amazing in this day of diversity and tolerance on university campuses that a university official would engage in this type of religious discrimination.”
  Mr. Sasser likely means well, but in this case is sorely mistaken.  University campuses have become a bastion of intolerance, specifically in regards to anyone who holds Christian and/or conservative beliefs.  For decades the liberal establishment has been doing their best to indoctrinate university students into their leftist worldview. As a result the push for “equality” and “tolerance” has created an atmosphere where any opposition to the preferred liberal, pro-abortion, anti-religious, pro-gay rights mindset is not tolerated by the establishment whatsoever. The sad fact is the concept of our universities as a model for open debate and multiple viewpoints is an antiquated notion.
  In the Sonoma State example Ms. Jarvis was told that she could not wear her cross necklace because it might “offend others and it might make incoming students feel unwelcome.” This pathetic mindset, not unusual among the liberal elite, is a sad reminder of the point we’ve reached as a country when it comes to political correctness. The idea that an incoming freshman would somehow be offended by a Christian symbol that’s been around for two-thousand years and something they’ve seen numerous times before is indicative of how weak our culture has become in the endless quest never to offend anyone. Of course a gay pride symbol or a pro-abortion sign is as offensive (or more offensive) than a Christian cross. Good luck getting Sonoma State to tell a student to remove a gay pride symbol from anything. In the process of trying not to “offend” other students the university effectively discriminated against a student who has every right to display the symbols of her personal belief system. While Sonoma State moves to dismiss the case as an isolated incident it’s a perfect microcosm into the mindset of a good number of our liberal college professors and academic staff.

Commentary

I never ever want to hear some blovating big mouth on MSNBC, CNN or even the NYT on tolerance diversity and acceptance its all bullshit


 
 
 
 
 

A NYT OPED From July 4,2013


Opinion/Editorial




 
 Normally I would take an oped from this mornings New York Times and the error of their ways but I figured I would look at the one published on our nations birthday to see what they wrote.
 This is the second lead OPED from three days ago "Every Ordinary Fourth" is the title.
 It begins "Here we are in the high seas of summer, rounding the corner called the Fourth of July. Most years, it seems, we barely get a glimpse of it before changing tack and sailing on toward all those months that end in “ber.” It would be nice to anchor here, to stretch the day into a week or a month, to see what the waves wash up and to learn the tides before the current carries us away.Do we, as a nation, eat more hot dogs on July Fourth than any other day of the year? What about potato salad and deviled eggs? Are there still legions of children hand-cranking ice cream, watching the pale gray slurry of rock salt and ice with appalling impatience while the grown-ups stand by recalling their own apprenticeship at the crank? This is a day for the historical re-enactment of Fourth of Julys past, if only the ones we remember from childhood. In a way, that is the point of fireworks in the dark, to recapture a childlike sense of awe and surprise. We watch with our reflexes, vulnerable to the boom and sizzle in the night sky.
   Wow the NYT waxing in a poetic fashion this is a first.
   It continues "There is something self-evident about the Fourth of July. We know its origin and its meaning. Its iconography is straightforward, even if the text behind it — the Declaration — is complex. It retains a simplicity that resembles no other major holiday. It celebrates a vital principle, but it is lacking in rites and ritual. We set aside the day, which seems to include a bit of everything — family, patriotism, parades, and simply doing nothing. Yet you could say its significance can be found in the doings of any ordinary American day — something that’s all too easy to forget until July Fourth comes along as a reminder.
 Here we go it is not complex the Declaration of Independence you make it that way you morons at the NYT editorial board because you all don't understand or give a dam about what it means.
 Again it celebrates a vital principal but it is lacking in rites and ritual because you idiots embrace political liberal/socialism with the far left in this country for so long you dumb asses at the NYT which has nothing whatsoever to do with our nation or it's founding principals and even what our God Blessed founders believed in.

Sunday, June 30, 2013

NYT And Voting Rights


Opinion/Editorial


 
 

  Now the New York Times this morning wants to get involved (poking it's nose) in the rights of voting. Funny I find this amusing since they believe in socialism so much and tout liberalism at every turn.
  This mornings lead OPED is entitled "The Future of Voting Rights" according to their warped view of things. It begins "When five justices of the Supreme Court disabled the Voting Rights Act last Tuesday, they left it to Congress to find a new formula to restore one of the great landmarks of equality and once again protect the nation’s most fundamental democratic right. That is unlikely for the moment given Congressional dysfunction, as the justices certainly knew, but it is hardly impossible in the months and years to come. What is needed now is a new coalition — as loud and as angry as the voices of 1965 — to demand that Republican lawmakers join Democrats in restoring fairness to the election system. Discrimination at the ballot box continues and is growing.
  I would love to see what the NYT interpretation of restoring fairness to the election system would be but I have an idea already.
  It rambles on "It comes in more forms than it did a half-century ago, but it is no less pernicious. Instead of literacy tests, we now have rigid identification requirements. Instead of poll taxes, we now have bans on early voting, cutbacks in the number of urban precincts, and groups that descend on minority districts to comb the registration rolls for spelling errors.
These measures, largely undertaken to reduce Democratic votes in the Obama period, have a direct impact on minority voters in dozens of states. But they also affect the poor of all races, older people, students and legal immigrants, increasing the need for expanded legislation.
  Rigid requirements Yes NYT so we have less voter fraud this is being more than fair.
They can't stay away from the race game.And this ridiculous conspiratorial point from the NYT "These measures, largely undertaken to reduce Democratic votes in the Obama period."
Here is the last part of the whining "Fortunately, the court did not throw out Section 5 of the act, which allows the Justice Department to invalidate discriminatory voting practices, but it got rid of the formula that determined where the department could act. That leaves Congress and the Justice Department several ways to restore the government’s jurisdiction. The department can still use Section 3 of the act to get states or cities back into its jurisdiction, allowing it to judge election changes. To do so, though, it must show clear intent of racial discrimination, which is easy to hide. Congress should revise that section to allow coverage when a state makes a voting change with a disparate racial impact, not just discriminatory intent.       
Section 2 of the act also gives the department or private citizens the right to sue any local or state government for an improper election practice. These kinds of legal actions, though expensive and difficult, are likely to become the principal tool for enforcing voting rights, and the department needs to gear up to fight many more of them.
The day after the court’s decision, in fact, a group of black and Hispanic Texas residents filed a Section 2 lawsuit in Corpus Christi to stop the state’s revived voter ID law. Texas was one of five states that triumphantly used the Supreme Court’s decision to move ahead on ID requirements that had previously been blocked. Congress has the power to make these suits easier to file — one way, for example, would be to allow plaintiffs to show that a practice diminishes minority voting rights, a standard in the now-paralyzed Section 5.
Congress can still make Section 5 usable again with new rules for inclusion. For example, it could require pre-clearance for any state found to have violated a federal election law in the last few years, which would include most of the Southern states along with many others. At a minimum, all states and localities should be required to disclose on the Internet any voting change, allowing citizens and Washington a chance to raise concerns.
The most fundamental change Congress could make would be a law declaring a universal right to vote that could not be infringed by any level of government. The Voting Rights Act was aimed at combating discrimination “on account of race or color,” which was the urgent problem of the time. Discrimination has now broadened to encompass more groups of different kinds, and it is time for a broader law, especially given the Supreme Court’s clear intent to dismantle all racial protections.
That is not just a liberal fantasy, either. It was encouraging last week to hear several House Republicans, including the majority leader, Eric Cantor, say they were interested in restoring protections to voting. One of them, James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, put the challenge well: “This is going to take time and will require members from both sides of the aisle to put partisan politics aside and ensure Americans’ most sacred right is protected.”
  Once again needless hyperbull from the liberal mouth piece of this country.
    

 
 
 
 

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Budget Blame Game From NYT


Opinion/Editorial

 
 

  They still don't get it and they never ever will these self righteous idiots at the New York Times especially their holier than thou editorial board on how to build an economy or even how to recover from a bad economy which of course the people with their political warped views helped to cause.
  This mornings lead OPED shows this to be true "Extreme Budget Cuts of 2014" well we will see what extreme is to the NYT I have no doubt that we already know.
  It begins "The most shameful achievement of the House Republican majority has been the elimination of $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending through 2022, which has already held back the economy from substantial growth and done real damage to people and communities that depend on government dollars. The widespread pain caused by this year’s sequester is the best-known aspect of these cuts, but caps that will continue to limit virtually every program for nine more years will also be extremely harmful.Republicans, though, still aren’t satisfied, and are continuing their campaign to radically reshape Washington’s relationship to the country. The 2014 spending bills now emerging from the House Appropriations Committee are worse than in any previous year and would make some programs and departments unrecognizable."
  The NYT still buys into the BS about how Government $pending spurs the economy. To quote the NYT "The 2014 spending bills now emerging from the House Appropriations Committee are worse than in any previous year and would make some programs and departments unrecognizable." It would be unrecognizable because it would cut Government spending this is the correct way to go.
  More waste of time "The spending limits imposed by Republicans in the Budget Control Act of 2011 will be different in the upcoming fiscal year. The arbitrary, across-the-board cuts of the sequester will come to an end for most discretionary spending (the kind that has to be renewed each year), but the severe overall limits on each department’s budget will get worse as total discretionary spending declines by 2 percent. The difference in 2014 is that lawmakers can reallocate money within departments as they see fit, within the limits, and won’t be confined by the sequester rules.
House Republicans, of course, have decided to exceed the caps for their favorite programs. They want to give the Pentagon a 5.4 percent increase — $26 billion it doesn’t need — along with a 3.3 percent raise to Homeland Security. To pay for that, and still shrink the budget, they are demanding severe cuts from spending bills for which they have little use: nearly 19 percent out of the labor, health and education bill; 15 percent from the financial services oversight bill; 14 percent from the interior and environment bill; and 11 percent from the energy and water bill.
Those percentages, just to be clear, represent cuts below this year’s already ruinous sequester levels. The effect is visible in several of the bills that have emerged from the Appropriations Committee:
TRANSPORTATION AND HUD The overall level is cut by 9 percent, or $4.4 billion, below the 2013 sequester. That means Community Development Block Grants are cut by 45 percent to $1.6 billion, well below the $2.7 billion put in place when President Gerald Ford created the program in 1974. Amtrak would be cut by a third, as would the HOME Investment program, which creates affordable housing.
ENERGY AND WATER Spending on renewable energy programs would be cut nearly in half to $1 billion. But somehow an extra $450 million was found for further development of coal, natural gas, oil and other fossil fuels.
AGRICULTURE The bill cuts $120 million needed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to enforce the Dodd-Frank financial oversight law.
Even more severe cuts are likely when the environment and education bills are released in the coming weeks.The Senate, though, has taken a very different approach. Rather than perpetuate the unnecessary austerity of the spending caps, the Senate budget would raise an additional $1 trillion by eliminating various tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, while still cutting an equal amount of spending in areas that are not vital. But Republicans in both chambers have ignored all entreaties from the White House and the Senate to sit down and negotiate.       
The White House, urging compromise, has threatened to veto any Republican spending bill outside of a negotiated budget agreement that increases vital investments. The House, apparently, would rather drag the country through yet another budget showdown.
  I think the NYT has discretionary spending confused with too much Government spending but wait they don't understand the fact of too much Government or too much Government $pending.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

NYT Wants Government To Regulate Waste Plants


Opinion/Editorial


 
 

  Of all things now the New York Times wants the federal government to regulate chemical (waste/dung) plants. More and more BS pun intended BIGGER GOVERNMENT influence in our lives.
  This mornings lead OPED shows this to be the case "A Failure to Police Chemical Plants" is the title.
  It begins "The deadly explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Tex., in April has highlighted glaring shortcomings in federal and state regulation of facilities that produce, store and use toxic chemicals.The casualties in Texas — 14 killed and nearly 200 injured — were shocking, but the fact is that chemical disasters imperil millions of Americans who live and work close to industrial plants in dense cities and sprawling suburbs. Last November, the Congressional Research Service identified 2,560 facilities that could each put more than 10,000 people at risk in the event of an accident. Last year, 1,270 people died in more than 30,000 chemical spills and accidents. The Texas catastrophe showed that federal regulators have been far too lax in their oversight of ammonium nitrate, the fertilizer at the center of this explosion. The West Fertilizer Company stored 540,000 pounds of the stuff at its plant in 2012 (it is unclear how much it had in April). In spite of the potential risks posed by the fertilizer, plants are allowed to keep it near residential areas. Plants with large quantities are required to tell the Department of Homeland Security how they keep the material secure, but the West plant did not bother to do so. More broadly, the explosion is a reminder that the Obama administration has failed to uphold a promise the president made as a candidate in 2008 to require the industry to switch to safer chemicals and processes wherever feasible. The Environmental Protection Agency could compel plants to switch their materials and methods by invoking the general duty clause of the Clean Air Act, which calls on them to prevent accidental release of dangerous chemicals and to minimize the consequences of such releases.Wow they actually went after Obama for a change LOL!
 And the NYT actually gives Bush credit for something OMG! is the earth shifting LOL."Many environmental groups and Christine Todd Whitman, an E.P.A. administrator during George W. Bush’s first term, have lobbied for such a change. But the agency has not required the switch to safer technology, under pressure from the industry, which argues that such a mandate would be costly and cumbersome.
  But as always is the case with the NYT they have to revert back to the liberal game of race and victimization "The health risk is particularly great for the poor and racial minorities, who are more likely to live in communities near facilities using hazardous materials. Much of this is the result of racial politics that put dangerous plants in segregated and poor neighborhoods where land is cheap. Restrictive zoning laws and subtler forms of discrimination can also make it hard for the poor and members of minority groups to move to nicer neighborhoods. A study published in the American Journal of Sociology in 2010 found that black and Hispanic families tended to live in areas with more industrial pollution than whites — even with similar levels of education and income.
 No how about where governments build housing for those on welfare and those who can't get off their asses to save their lives.
  It goes on "For example, more than 40,000 people live in a three-mile radius around a Citgo oil refinery in Corpus Christi, Tex., which uses a host of flammable and toxic chemicals, including butane and hydrogen fluoride. This population has an estimated per capita income of $12,700, and nearly 90 percent of those people are Hispanic or black, according to an analysis of E.P.A. and census data by an alliance of environmental groups known as the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters. By contrast, the State of Texas has an average per capita income of about $25,500, and about 50 percent of its population is Hispanic or black.
Similar disparities exist around the country in places like Detroit and northern New Jersey, and they have persisted for decades in spite of the increased awareness of environmental injustice since the 1980s, when several important studies documented the problem in detail.
In 2009, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would have required the riskiest plants to switch to safer technology, but the Senate did not adopt the legislation. Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey introduced a similar bill in January, but it is unlikely to advance given the partisan gridlock in Washington.
Some chemical companies have voluntarily adopted safer materials and methods. In 2009, Clorox said it would switch its seven bleach plants from lethal chlorine gas to a safer process that uses “high-strength bleach” as a raw material. Such efforts are welcome, but policy makers cannot wait for the industry to move to safer technologies on its own. It is critical for the E.P.A. to take action under the power it already has.
  The NYT can't get away from the race card. Many of the aforementioned Hispanics are probably Mexican immigrants (some legal and but for the most part an educated guess mostly ILLEGAL) well since its Texas a little common sense here go back home then and get off welfare.

Sunday, May 12, 2013

NYT Needs To Take A Huge Step Back


Opinion/Editorial

 
 

  People need to understand that when the media especially those in the liberal left wing media e.g. here the New York Times mention the nasty Washington insider lingo like BIPARTISANSHIP it does not mean that it is good for the country.
 Those who don't understand the way politics is conducted in this country or those that are ill informed on the issues whenever they here BIPARTISAN or with ship added on the end people that don't understand what's going on get all warm and fuzzy inside.
 This mornings OPED is no different in the NYT entitled "First Steps to a Better Immigration Bill" while mentioning BIPARTISANSHIP they still go on the attack I'm LMAO too.
 It begins "After the Senate Judiciary Committee ended its first day of marking up an 867-page immigration bill on Thursday, plunging into the details of what could be the most ambitious overhaul of the system in a quarter-century, one thing was clear: it is a lot better to be deep in the weeds of a complicated bill than trapped in the desert of a stalemate, which is where immigration reform has been since the last big bipartisan bill collapsed in 2007.Since that failure the country has lined up solidly in favor of comprehensive reform, and members of Congress are pushing forward to fix the immigration system in all the ways it is broken — at the border and in the workplace, in the clogged lines of hopeful immigrants waiting to get in, and for the 11 million living here outside the law, waiting to become Americans. That the Senate bill’s sponsors, four Republicans and four Democrats, have stuck together and gotten it this far is evidence that Washington’s ability to get anything done through bipartisanship and compromise is not entirely dead.
 One thing that is important to remember that when the NYT talks or mentions about compromise its the RINO republicans that meet in the middle with the far left.
 It goes on "That message has not reached some Republicans on the committee — notably Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Ted Cruz of Texas — who spent their time trying to drag the debate back to the border.(in other words Republicans the few that there are left that want to follow our Constitution)      
Mr. Grassley offered an amendment that would essentially abolish the path to legalization by tying it to border-sealing benchmarks that would be impossible to meet. Mr. Sessions proposed having not one border fence but two, a double-walled barrier across 700 miles of desert. Mr. Cruz went all in, saying he wanted to triple the number of Border Patrol agents and quadruple the cameras, sensors, drones, helicopters and other equipment there.
Mr. Cruz, a Tea Party darling who in a very short Senate career has already developed a reputation for incoherence and reflexive truculence, did not say where a debt-ridden America would get tens of billions of new dollars to dump along the Rio Grande or give any evidence as to why this was necessary. Nor did he impress anyone when he baldly insisted that the committee was rejecting all efforts to enhance border security. In fact, the committee passed amendments to spread security measures across the entire border, not just at certain hot spots; to tighten auditing of border spending; and to add private landowners along both borders to a task force overseeing border security.
What these border-fixated senators — and their counterparts in the House — refuse to accept is that they have already won the argument. Though the 2007 bill died, practically every enforcement goal in it has since been met. The border is already more militarized than ever.(this is an outright lie)
As Senator Charles Schumer of New York astutely noted, in a fairly heated exchange, the Republicans who keep talking about border security are really concerned with something else. What bothers them is the idea of ever legalizing the 11 million people who live on this side, not that side, of the border. They have no plan to deal with them, and no other ideas than to block the bill that would bring them onto the right side the law.
And neither do the Demorats  right Schumer. Notice the NYT say 11 million people no how about the fact that probably over three fourths that .75 are here ILLEGALLY or as you leftists love to put undocumented.
The worst border amendments were defeated on Thursday. Some good amendments passed, including one from Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, that requires border agents to ask people they detain about spouses and children, and to consider family unity and safety when holding or repatriating anyone. Another would withhold reimbursement for expenses incurred by state and local police departments that practice racial profiling.Here we go again racial profiling same old BS crap.       
The markup of the bill resumes Tuesday and may continue for weeks. There are hundreds more amendments, including many important ones that would improve the bill.
The Judiciary Committee chairman, Patrick Leahy, has amendments that would extend family-sponsorship rights to gay and lesbian couples, a serious omission in the current bill. That will be a contentious one, because Republicans have declared that marriage equality is a deal-breaker.
There are some strange amendments, like one from Mike Lee of Utah that would exempt an array of domestic servants, including coachmen, footmen, butlers and valets from laws that prohibit hiring the undocumented. And there are many more poison pills, designed to break apart the coalition and return the system to the failed status quo.No NYT you're the very heart of the failed status quo.       
Here is a perfect example of the BS BIPATISANSHIP crap On their first day of wrangling with the bill, most of the senators showed a commitment to fairness and compromise, qualities that could lead the Senate to pass legislation that will help generations of new Americans. Congress needs to keep moving forward, leaving the enforcement-only minority stuck in the desert, perhaps someday to realize that the argument they cling to is well and truly dead.
 

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Wrong Way Is The Correct Way According to the NYT


Opinion/Editorial


 
 

 Budget cuts are at the center of this mornings New York Times lead OPED. Of course they are whining to no avail on why the cuts are there.
 The title is "Heading the Wrong Way" of the piece. It begins "At first glance, the latest economic growth report, released Friday, appears to show the economy revving up. In reality, the economy is either stuck in low gear, or worse, slowing to a stop as budget cuts harm not only the users of overstretched government services but the overall economy. This precarious situation urgently calls for more federal spending, not less, though that message has been lost on Congress."
 Same ol same ol more spending. Just for the record the two terrorists from the Boston Marathon they were both on public assistance aka welfare.so we need deep spending deep spending cuts.
 It continues their frivolous argument "From January through March, the economy grew at a modest annual rate of 2.5 percent, compared with a measly 0.4 percent in the last three months of 2012. That seems like a big jump, but it was less than economists expected and does not alter the big picture. Since the recession ended in mid-2009, quarterly growth has averaged around 2 percent. Every acceleration from that pace has inevitably petered out, which is why unemployment is high and pay is low nearly four years into what is officially an economic recovery.
Worse, there are signs in the latest report of a renewed slowdown. Excluding inventories, which tend to artificially depress growth in some quarters and raise it in others, growth in the first quarter of 2013 was only 1.5 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 and 2.4 percent in the third quarter.Underneath it all is the fiscal drag from ill-advised and ill-timed austerity measures. With the expiration this year of the payroll tax break, personal income declined sharply last quarter, forcing consumers to draw on their savings to support their spending. That is unsustainable, presaging weaker consumption in the months to come and, with it, weaker overall growth.       
At the same time, cutbacks in government spending took a big chunk out of growth, reflecting, in part, the onset of automatic budget cuts under the sequester. The hit from lower public spending will only intensify in the quarters to come as the sequester takes full effect, threatening to push growth below its already paltry 2 percent average.There is a tendency, in the gloom, to look for bright spots. Housing, for example, showed continued growth in the first quarter, but it was more than offset by the drag from cuts in government spending. If overall growth remains sluggish or even slows down, that could overwhelm the housing recovery, because the pace of home sales is inseparable from the pace of the economy. Without enough growth to power jobs and pay, potential homeowners will simply not have the income and credit profiles to buy.Lack of demand is also bound to take an increasing toll on corporate earnings, which also have been a bright spot. Already, some prominent companies, including I.B.M. and Caterpillar, have reported disappointing results, a reflection of waning demand not only in the United States but in recessionary Europe and in China, where growth has been below expectations. The longer and more widespread the weakness is, the less faith investors will have in the ability of the Federal Reserve to engineer a rebound. The real danger in the Fed’s efforts to revive the economy is not that its actions will cause inflation — of which there is no evidence — but that they will fail to revive the economy by any meaningful measure, denting investor confidence and, in the process, the stock market.That is not to blame the Fed. For years, Congress and the Obama administration have been working at cross-purposes to the Fed, as strategies to cut the budget have taken priority over strategies to increase growth, jobs and pay. Republicans have insisted on austerity for ideological and political reasons. The administration has done better by adding new taxes and investments to the cuts, but the reductions are still deep and damaging. The budget fights have endured even as the intellectual arguments for near-term deficit reduction have collapsed. They have endured even as the economies that have enforced budget cuts most strenuously have contracted, notably in Britain and in much of the rest of Europe. And they endure even as the United States remains impaired by fiscal wounds that are, unfortunately and undeniably, self-inflicted.
  As you can see the NYT theology is to spend spend  and spend and spend more of $$$$ that is not theirs usual liberal ungodly theology