anybody dragged from the street is better than the last one.

I'm no Xenophobe but rather than make PATHS to citizenship he should read up on the history of the last attempt made to reduce illegals. He might want to consider securing borders and re-opening Ellis Island.

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

Many thanks to those who protested yesterday. It shows we are tired of wastefull spending and enough is enough!

"Today is tax day, and across America, taxpayers are holding tea parties to protest out-of-control government spending. Their concern is no tempest in a teapot. The tax burden on American families is growing increasingly heavy. According to the Tax Foundation, tax-freedom day came on April 13 this year. That day marks the point of the year when taxpayers have earned enough money to pay off their federal, state and local taxes. It takes Americans about 3 1/2 months of labor to cover their tax obligation. That time will increase as government continues to grow. President Obama's current budget proposal admits to plans to raise taxes by almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) estimates that hundreds of thousands will turn out to protest this tax servitude. ... Today's tea parties are carrying on a noble American tradition of protesting unfair taxation. Mike Allen, co-author of 'A Patriot's History of the United States,' explained to us: 'America was born out of hatred of a strong centralized government. The Boston Tea Party (and a half dozen other concurrent tea parties from New York City to Charleston) protested government subsidies to create monopoly status for a corporation, the East India Company. From that point onward, tax protests have peppered American history.' The first tea party to protest taxes occurred on Dec. 16, 1773, when patriots called the Sons of Liberty dressed as Mohawk Indians, boarded ships in Boston Harbor and threw 342 chests of tea overboard. Other colonials followed the lead of Sam Adams and his fellow Bostonians by tossing tea into the sea. Today's tea-party movement is building steam because taxpayers are steamed. As ATR's anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist explained ... 'These are real people with real lives taking the time and effort to do this in reaction not to a tax increase yesterday, but in reaction to too much spending that will lead to tax increases and inflation years from now.' These modern Mohawks are angry because they fear the future is being poured down the drain. This kind of activism is our cup of tea." --The Washington Times

"People are tired of wasteful government programs and welfare chiselers, and they're angry about the constant spiral of taxes and government regulations, arrogant bureaucrats, and public officials who think all of mankind's problems can be solved by throwing the taxpayers' dollars at them." ++ "Government can't tax things like businesses or corporations, it can only tax people. When it says it's going to 'make business pay,' it is really saying it is going to make business help it collect taxes." ++ "We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." ++ "Our tax policy is engineered by people who view tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure." ++ "Raising taxes will slow economic growth, reduce production, and destroy future jobs, making it more difficult for those without jobs to find them and more likely that those who now have jobs could lose them." ++ "My friends, history is clear: Lower tax rates mean greater freedom, and whenever we lower the tax rates, our entire nation is better off." --Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

Some more hope, even if a few years late:

Obama administration breaks with the years of 'climate change denial'

The Obama administration took a bold first step towards limiting the gases that cause global warming today after formally declaring that such emissions are a danger to public health.

... most definitive break to date with eight years of "climate denial" under George Bush.

The EPA said the science about the dangers posed by greenhouse gases was compelling and overwhelming, and that the increase of such gases was the unambiguous result of human emissions.

"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement.

[...]

Global warming also posed a national security threat, the EPA said.


Regards,
Martin

( Also posted in CLIMATE CHANGE, GREEN HOUSE,OCEAN FALLING PH etc. )

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

When slapped, Obama should slap back

By Eugene Robinson
THE WASHINGTON POST

April 21, 2009

It's hard to argue with the results thus far from President Obama's “no drama” approach to campaigning and governing, but I think he should learn to chew a little scenery when the occasion demands. Theatricality is one of the weapons in any leader's arsenal, and a well-timed glower or growl can have more impact than a sheaf of position papers.

Obama's critics are upset that at the recent Summit of the Americas, held in Trinidad and Tobago, he treated his fellow leaders from around the hemisphere as peers. Obama's collegial attitude was, indeed, a break from tradition – and was long overdue. Nothing would have been gained by barking orders at our neighbors and reinforcing the old image of insufferable yanqui arrogance.

There were a couple of moments at the summit, however, when Obama would have been right to throw off a little heat.

One was his encounter with Venezuelan President Hugo ChÁvez, whose public persona is the polar opposite of Obama's. ChÁvez is all theater, all the time. He made the most of his introduction to the new American leader, enfolding him in an all-smiles handshake and presenting him with a book that harshly indicts the long, painful history of U.S. intervention in Latin America.

Any idea that ChÁvez is some sort of threat to the United States is absurd. It's hard to see his fiery anti-American rhetoric as anything more than performance art, given that he has been scrupulously careful to avoid even the slightest disruption of the U.S.-Venezuela economic relationship. Venezuela owns Citgo, among other concerns, and is a reliable supplier of oil to the thirsty U.S. market.

It should also be noted that ChÁvez has acquired his extraordinary executive powers – he obviously wants to be president-for-life – through the ballot box. Americans may not like him, but Venezuelans do – a majority of them, at least. However, it's impossible to overlook his anti-democratic methods of silencing his critics and neutralizing any potential opposition. Even though he uses Venezuela's oil to bolster the Castro regime in Cuba, ChÁvez is hardly a by-the-book socialist. He's more of an old-style Latin American strongman, a caudillo, and that's no model for the 21st century.

ChÁvez can be charming. But when Obama shook the man's hand, he should have telegraphed clearly, through posture, expression and language, that he was not amused. ChÁvez's gift of the book was meant to affront, not to enlighten, and I would have advised Obama to reciprocate in kind.

The other moment for presidential theatrics was Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's 50-minute speech excoriating, yes, the long and sordid history of U.S. meddling in Latin America. Asked later about Ortega's peroration, Obama replied curtly that “it was 50 minutes long.”

Obama was correct not to walk out on the speech. But as was the case with ChÁvez's tendentious present, Ortega's speech was intended as a slap. When Obama spoke later, he should have prefaced his promising call for an “equal partnership” with other countries in the hemisphere with some strong pushback against those who would rather relive the insults of the past than move forward.

Granted, the history of U.S. involvement in Latin America is pretty sordid. And granted, Obama made clear that he intends no abdication of American leadership, but rather a new atmosphere of mutual respect. Most of the assembled heads of government – including Presidents Luiz InÁcio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Felipe Calderón of Mexico, leaders of Latin America's two biggest economies – responded to Obama's initiative graciously and with an eye toward the future.

ChÁvez, Ortega and a few others, however, made a show of being rude. A flash of presidential anger from Obama would have been in order.

My argument isn't that Obama should try to be someone he's not. It's that he's declining to use one of the tools at his disposal. As public anger over the U.S. bank bailouts was rising, a well-timed burst of presidential outrage might have allowed him to get out in front of it.

Obama was right to show respect for the leaders of neighboring countries big and small at the Summit of the Americas. Those who were not gracious enough to show respect for him deserved to be given – metaphorically, of course, and in the spirit of hemispheric cooperation – the back of the presidential hand.

Editor's note: Robinson is the 2009 recipient of the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.

---

me@rescam.org

Obama's tortured logic

By Ruben Navarrette
Union Tribune

April 22, 2009

President Obama insists that his administration doesn't torture.

But just what does Obama think he's doing to some of his supporters by releasing interrogation memos that cast the Bush administration in a bad light, then refusing to follow through by prosecuting the offenders? While thrilled about the disclosure, many on the left are furious over the reluctance to prosecute. The New York Times editorial page argued that, without accountability, “there is no hope of fixing a profoundly broken system of justice and ensuring that these acts are never repeated.”

Such criticism is unfair. Obama was right to release the four memos, and also right not to prosecute CIA officials who acted with authorization from superiors. You'll never convince the extremes – on both right and left – but both decisions serve our national interest.

Of course, there is still the chance that the administration could satisfy supporters by going after the memos' authors – Jay Bybee, Steven Bradbury and John Yoo, who were all formerly employed by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. That's considered a long shot given that Obama has talked about turning the page and looking forward.

Yet just this week, Obama seemed to hedge on that by saying the matter should be handled by the attorney general. Americans should not use truth commissions and political show trials to settle old scores, even if it would – in this case – give the Bush-haters some perverse satisfaction. What it would certainly do, as former officials in the Bush administration and others have said in recent days, is hamper the work of the CIA by making agency operatives afraid they could be punished depending on the prevailing political winds.

My concern is not what Obama did, but his reasons for doing it. The president insists that releasing the memos promotes transparency.

In a way, it does. Obama's motives can be awfully transparent – as in you can see right through them. Obama seems to be using sleight of hand and rhetorical flourishes to try to have it both ways.

Just a few days after taking office, the president signed – against the advice of U.S. intelligence officials from the Bush administration – an executive order that bars the CIA from using interrogation methods that amount to torture. Then Obama signed more executive orders that preserve the CIA's authority to carry out renditions, or secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries where they might be tortured. So you could say that instead of engaging in torture, we outsource it.

Now, by releasing the torture memos over the objections of CIA Director Leon Panetta, Obama is being portrayed in the media as the “un-Bush” – more enlightened and more humane than his predecessor, the same message that he recently heralded throughout Europe. At a town-hall meeting in Strasbourg, France, Obama delighted in telling the crowd: “I can stand here today and say without equivocation or exception that the United States of America does not and will not torture.”

But apparently, Obama doesn't like to deal with the messiness that comes from holding people accountable for their actions. If the president feels so strongly that torture should never be tolerated, he could authorize a full investigation into what took place during CIA interrogations and allow for the prosecution of wrongdoers. And, if he really believes that actually carrying out the punishment would do more harm than good, he could pardon the offenders if convicted. But that decision could harm his legacy.

So, it's easier to try to make the whole episode disappear with a good speech. And, Obama delivered a fine one this week at CIA headquarters.

“Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes,” Obama told the CIA staff. “That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be president of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.”

Right again, Mr. President. Those who serve our country, often at great personal sacrifice and against impossible odds, should be proud. And when elected officials simply do the right thing rather than manipulate public perception by making themselves look good and others look bad, they provide a kind of leadership of which we can all be proud.

---

me@rescam.org

Where are we headed ?

"At the rate that Obama and the liberals are going, when it comes to piling up the national debt, nationalizing banks and major companies, scuttling our missile defense system, reaching out to Islamic and Communist tyrants, funding ACORN, AmeriCorps and Hamas, discussing nuclear disarmament with Russia at the same time that Iran, Pakistan and North Korea are gearing up, talking tough to Israel while currying favor with the Arabs and the Islamists, I have no idea what will be left to salvage a year-and-a-half down the road."--columnist Burt Prelutsky

USA was due to Iraq war and rise of religious fundamentalists in republican party so unliked that you can head only up.

Where are we headed ?

"At the rate that Obama and the liberals are going, when it comes to piling up the national debt, nationalizing banks and major companies, scuttling our missile defense system, reaching out to Islamic and Communist tyrants, funding ACORN, AmeriCorps and Hamas, discussing nuclear disarmament with Russia at the same time that Iran, Pakistan and North Korea are gearing up, talking tough to Israel while currying favor with the Arabs and the Islamists, I have no idea what will be left to salvage a year-and-a-half down the road."--columnist Burt Prelutsky

As much as Burt makes pretty words it would be so much nicer to know what your opinion is. Burt isn't here to dispute or convey any further opinion had I a counterpoint.

My counterpoint is National debt? This all W's doing. He is our modern Hoover. Do nothing Herb let the country slide and so did W. Let the markets do as they want happened before and ended in 1929. Perhaps W wasn't a great historian even though his BA is in History.

The posts from extremely conservative opinionists, He's no journalist, just inflame the few people that actually believe that same old song. Fortunately, there are fewer people than ever that actually listen to this rubbish.

BTW I've read that inciteful opinion twice. I see nothing in it that helps this country get out of its current situation. right now if you don't have a constructive alternate solution that helps as many people and businesses as possible then its probably best to sit down, shut up, and let the man do his job. If current policies fail then we can do something different. DOing nothing is never a solution to an economic dilemma

also any soultion that includes tax breaks for the top 1% of the population is not a solution. I threw that out there before it was even suggested

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Where are we headed ?

"At the rate that Obama and the liberals are going, when it comes to piling up the national debt, nationalizing banks and major companies, scuttling our missile defense system, reaching out to Islamic and Communist tyrants, funding ACORN, AmeriCorps and Hamas, discussing nuclear disarmament with Russia at the same time that Iran, Pakistan and North Korea are gearing up, talking tough to Israel while currying favor with the Arabs and the Islamists, I have no idea what will be left to salvage a year-and-a-half down the road."--columnist Burt Prelutsky

As much as Burt makes pretty words it would be so much nicer to know what your opinion is. Burt isn't here to dispute or convey any further opinion had I a counterpoint.

My counterpoint is National debt? This all W's doing. He is our modern Hoover. Do nothing Herb let the country slide and so did W. Let the markets do as they want happened before and ended in 1929. Perhaps W wasn't a great historian even though his BA is in History.

The posts from extremely conservative opinionists, He's no journalist, just inflame the few people that actually believe that same old song. Fortunately, there are fewer people than ever that actually listen to this rubbish.

BTW I've read that inciteful opinion twice. I see nothing in it that helps this country get out of its current situation. right now if you don't have a constructive alternate solution that helps as many people and businesses as possible then its probably best to sit down, shut up, and let the man do his job. If current policies fail then we can do something different. DOing nothing is never a solution to an economic dilemma

also any soultion that includes tax breaks for the top 1% of the population is not a solution. I threw that out there before it was even suggested

It seems you did not read my post. Obie is going to use this opportunity to strengthen the democratic party, not the country. He is playing politics with the crisis. Even if you do not agree with my posts, please take a hard look at what is going on in washington and decide for yourself.

Is this what you think? I read his words I'd like to read yours. Please tell me you do have an opinion. I'm sure the opinion writer you quoted is quite sincere about his opinions. I've yet to read anything about your opinions. I'd Hate to think that you are sharing the same brain and don't have anything other to contribute other than the other mans opinion.

When I was a young man I was unsure which way the wind was blowing. I read articles and op/ed pages to get a bearing on my direction. As I aged I didn't rely on them anymore. I have an opinion on many things and don't rely on others to speak for me. I may not always have a popular opinion but it is mine to defend. I don't ask others to agree with me but I do ask that they express their own opinion so that I can understand them as well as I hope they understand me. That being said I never agree in whole with any political pundit or other orator. Which leads me to the understanding that if someone is in total agreement with another person on a hundred topics then one or both of those people has compromised their values. If hundreds and thousands agree them well we have politics

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Is this what you think? I read his words I'd like to read yours. Please tell me you do have an opinion. I'm sure the opinion writer you quoted is quite sincere about his opinions. I've yet to read anything about your opinions. I'd Hate to think that you are sharing the same brain and don't have anything other to contribute other than the other mans opinion.

Quoting another person does not mean you completely agree with them, if at all. The content I post is meant to foster discussion. From what I can tell you would rather I use more fact than opinion. Which is fine. What I do not do is ramble on and fail to mention where I get me information from. Well, I try not to.

When I was a young man I was unsure which way the wind was blowing. I read articles and op/ed pages to get a bearing on my direction. As I aged I didn't rely on them anymore. I have an opinion on many things and don't rely on others to speak for me. I may not always have a popular opinion but it is mine to defend. I don't ask others to agree with me but I do ask that they express their own opinion so that I can understand them as well as I hope they understand me. That being said I never agree in whole with any political pundit or other orator. Which leads me to the understanding that if someone is in total agreement with another person on a hundred topics then one or both of those people has compromised their values. If hundreds and thousands agree them well we have politics

Above all I use this thread to express my distaste for many of Obama's decisions. I do not require that you agree with me, only that you decide for yourself instead of relying on the media.

Is this what you think? I read his words I'd like to read yours. Please tell me you do have an opinion. I'm sure the opinion writer you quoted is quite sincere about his opinions. I've yet to read anything about your opinions. I'd Hate to think that you are sharing the same brain and don't have anything other to contribute other than the other mans opinion.

Quoting another person does not mean you completely agree with them, if at all. The content I post is meant to foster discussion. From what I can tell you would rather I use more fact than opinion. Which is fine. What I do not do is ramble on and fail to mention where I get me information from. Well, I try not to.

When I was a young man I was unsure which way the wind was blowing. I read articles and op/ed pages to get a bearing on my direction. As I aged I didn't rely on them anymore. I have an opinion on many things and don't rely on others to speak for me. I may not always have a popular opinion but it is mine to defend. I don't ask others to agree with me but I do ask that they express their own opinion so that I can understand them as well as I hope they understand me. That being said I never agree in whole with any political pundit or other orator. Which leads me to the understanding that if someone is in total agreement with another person on a hundred topics then one or both of those people has compromised their values. If hundreds and thousands agree them well we have politics

Above all I use this thread to express my distaste for many of Obama's decisions. I do not require that you agree with me, only that you decide for yourself instead of relying on the media.

Ah I get it by writing "where are we headed?" you are released from having to explain how you feel about what you quoted. Here I was thinking that possibly you shared the opinion or at best were looking for someone to argue against someone that isnt here. I'd rather argue over content then context. As I stated before, it's always nice to have a bit of commentary of ones own when quoting someone regardless of their profession.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Appears they don't have enough of them to do so anyway.

---

If they finally get Franken sworn in they'll have it taken care of

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

President Obama to California: Drop dead

Union-Tribune Editorial

May 12, 2009

California has immense fiscal problems. That's not exactly news, but this is: President Barack Obama could soon make these problems far worse.

The background: In February, as part of overall spending cuts, the Legislature lowered – from $12.10 per hour to $10.10 – the state's maximum contribution to the pay of 300,000 unionized In Home Supportive Services health workers. This saved $74 million.

Most state employees were also subject to pay cuts. But after an April 15 conference call involving Obama administration officials, aides to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and representatives of the Service Employees International Union, the White House threatened to withhold $6.8 billion in federal stimulus funds unless the Legislature and the governor canceled the home health workers' pay cut before it begins on July 1.

The ostensible reason is an inventive reading of language restricting how stimulus money can be used. A more plausible reason is the SEIU's political clout. It gave $33 million to the Obama presidential campaign

This hardball is even more obnoxious than it first appears. The rationale under which California was allocated the $6.8 billion in stimulus funds was to help the state deal with surging Medicaid costs. But now the White House demands California back off its bid to contain such costs.

Then there is the bombshell April 13 investigation by the Los Angeles Times that found the $5.4 billion In Home Supportive Services program to be riddled by fraud. Attempts to investigate this fraud are severely limited. Why? Almost certainly because of SEIU political pressure during the drafting of bills dealing with in-home care. Whether dealing with the state or federal government, it sure is good to be the Service Employees International Union.

Beyond these specific concerns, there is a much larger issue: the appropriateness of the Obama administration's use of stimulus funds as a tool of coercion. If it's happening in California, it's probably happening elsewhere. We think far fewer members of Congress would have backed the $787 billion stimulus bill in February if they knew this is how the president would use it.

For all these reasons and more, the Obama administration must drop its intervention into California politics. What's gone on to date isn't just disappointing and disturbing. It's scandalous.

---

me@rescam.org

Obama's presidency in a nutshell: "It is past time for rules that are fair and transparent. That is why I have called for a set of new principles to reform our credit card industry. Instead of an 'anything goes' approach, we need strong and reliable protections for consumers. Instead of fine print that hides the truth, we need credit card forms and statements that have plain language in plain sight, and we need to give people the tools they need to find a credit card that meets their needs. And instead of abuse that goes unpunished, we need to strengthen monitoring, enforcement, and penalties for credit card companies that take advantage of ordinary Americans." --President Barack Obama **What about a fair and transparent (and constitutional) government that doesn't use an "anything goes" approach full of abuse that goes unpunished?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." --Thomas Jefferson

that ended when bush stepped aside

Lawlessness from the White House

By George F. Will
THE WASHINGTON POST

May 14, 2009

Anyone, said T.S. Eliot, could carve a goose, were it not for the bones. And anyone could govern as boldly as their whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil – the rule of law. The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.

In February, California's Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state's fastest-growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly and cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that “loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester.”

But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.

Such a federal ukase (the word derives from czarist Russia; how appropriate) to a state legislature is a sign of the administration's dependency agenda – maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government. For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is.

The SEIU says the cuts violate contracts negotiated with counties. California officials say the state required the contracts to contain clauses allowing pay to be reduced if state funding is.

Anyway, the Obama administration, judging by its cavalier disregard of contracts between Chrysler and some of the lenders it sought money from, thinks contracts are written on water. The administration proposes that Chrysler's secured creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them, but that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in claims – and 55 percent of the company. This, even though the secured creditors' contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union.

Among Chrysler's lenders, some servile banks that are now dependent on the administration for capital infusions tugged their forelocks and agreed. Some hedge funds among Chrysler's lenders who are not dependent were vilified by the president because they dared to resist his demand that they violate their fiduciary duties to their investors, who include individuals and institutional pension funds.

The Economist magazine says the administration has “ridden roughshod over (creditors') legitimate claims over the (automobile companies') assets. . . . Bankruptcies involve dividing a shrunken pie. But not all claims are equal: some lenders provide cheaper funds to firms in return for a more secure claim over the assets should things go wrong. They rank above other stakeholders, including shareholders and employees. This principle is now being trashed.” Tom Lauria, a lawyer representing hedge fund people trashed by the president as the cause of Chrysler's bankruptcy, asked that his clients' names not be published for fear of violence threatened in e-mails to them.

The Troubled Assets Relief Program, which has not yet been used for its supposed purpose (to purchase such assets from banks), has been the instrument of the administration's adventure in the automobile industry. TARP's $700 billion, like much of the supposed “stimulus” money, is a slush fund the executive branch can use as it pleases. This is as lawless as it would be for Congress to say to the IRS: We need $3.5 trillion to run the government next year, so raise it however you wish – from whomever, at whatever rates you think suitable. Don't bother us with details.

This is not gross, unambiguous lawlessness of the Nixonian sort – burglaries, abuse of the IRS and FBI, etc. – but it is uncomfortably close to an abuse of power that perhaps gave Nixon ideas: When in 1962 the steel industry raised prices, President Kennedy had a tantrum, and his administration leaked rumors that the IRS would conduct audits of steel executives, and sent FBI agents on pre-dawn visits to the homes of journalists who covered the steel industry, ostensibly to further a legitimate investigation.

The Obama administration's agenda of maximizing dependency involves political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of “economic planning” and “social justice” that somehow produce results superior to what markets produce when freedom allows merit to manifest itself, and incompetence to fail. The administration's central activity – the political allocation of wealth and opportunity – is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.

---

me@rescam.org