If Barack Obama's agenda isn't socialist, then what is it? For reference, please consult the Socialist Party USA's platform and the official program of the Communist Party USA
Recently in Politics Category
Rep. Betty Sutton just introduced a warm-and-fuzzy-sounding piece of legislation. It's called the Foreclosure Mandatory Mediation Act of 2010:
Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH13) joined Ohio Reps. Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH11) and Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH15), as well as Reps. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Kendrick Meek (D-FL) to introduce H.R. 4635--a measure to combat foreclosures. Ohio has been particularly impacted by the foreclosure crisis and projections indicate no signs of change. In Ohio's 13th Congressional District alone, 17,555 homes are projected to be foreclosed upon over the next four years. This legislation will require lenders of Federal loans or guarantees to enter into mediation with homeowners prior to placing the property in foreclosure or a sheriff's sale.
Since anything advocated by Maxine Waters automatically gets my antennae twitching, I went to the bill's text, which contains this key nugget (the emphasis and links are mine):
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, before a qualified mortgagee may initiate a foreclosure proceeding or a sheriff sale, the qualified mortgagee shall conduct, consistent with any applicable State or local requirements, a one-time mediation with the affected mortgagor and a housing counseling agency, at the expense of the qualified mortgagee.For purposes of this section the term 'housing counseling agency' means a housing counseling agency certified by the Secretary under section 106(e) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(e)); or a neighborhood housing services program established by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation under section 606 of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 8105);
The parties are forced into mediation (even if it's a slam-dunk case of delinquency by the borrower), and look who foots the entire bill for the mediator's fees: the lender trying to foreclose on the delinquent borrower. When the government keeps forcing a company to incur new costs, the company must eventually pass on those costs to its customers. Otherwise the company will go bankrupt.
If this law passes, it will end up costing you more to get a mortgage. Care to guess which legislators will then wail and gnash their teeth about "predatory lenders screwing the poor" and "fat cat bankers jacking up fees" when those inevitable effects occur? Now, this is par for the course among politicians who have no clue how a free market works. They think the solution to every government-imposed problem is more government regulation and spending. What's unusual is that this isn't the worst part of the bill.
Behold the people who elected Barack Obama and his running mate, uh ... um ...
Imagine that. Ignoramuses in L.A.! Who'd a thunk it?
Robert Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, and Erick Erickson are doing yeoman's work covering the rise of Doug Hoffman and the fall of RINO Dede Scozzafava in the special election for the vacant U.S. House seat in New York's 23rd District. Could it be that the NRCC is finally noticing the priorities expressed by GOP's conservative base?
Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich still appears to be stuck in some alternate universe where you can slap an (R) on a ham sandwich and it deserves his hearty endorsement.
--
11:35 AM Update: Scozzafava quits. The Other McCain just doesn't quit.
I know, I know. It's about as sporting as clubbing baby seals, but I can't resist.
Thanks. I feel better now.
I say the following as a retired U.S. Coast Guard commissioned officer who swore and upheld a solemn oath to defend the Constitution.
Newsmax's John L. Perry is either nuts, a naïve fool, or a childish attention-seeker. His latest column speculating on the possibility of a U.S. military coup to unseat President Obama fails the most basic B.S. test. Perry hasn't the first clue about how our military's leadership understands its oath of office, nor does he demonstrate even the most rudimentary comprehension of our Constitution.
By publishing this bilge the editors at Newsmax have forever beclowned themselves.
More commentary:
Cassandra cracks open a can o' whupass
Click on the images below to see them at full size.
Before Obama's site was scrubbed:
After Obama's site was scrubbed:
See the difference? Look at the second bullet point.
It's a start. The first one's a matter of semantics, but the third one's still a lie.
Boy oh boy, I hope so. These crooks don't understand Americans who value individual liberty and limited government, but we understand them and their entire rotten playbook. Their houses are built on sand, and we're the onrushing tide. Stand by for a collapse.
... according to the not-so-subtle excuse offered by NPR blogger Frank James in defense of ACORN:
Meanwhile, conservatives show no signs of letting up.
...
It's also important to keep in mind that ACORN's workers are coming from the same low-income neighborhoods the organization serves, with all that entails -- poor schools, high crime and the sorts of social problems that have been documented for decades.
So the flaws conservatives are pointing out about ACORN are not so much problems associated with that organization per se but more about the problems of being poor and minority in urban America.
Wow. The sheer chutzpah here is breathtaking. This isn't proof of a problem with ACORN per se? According to his logic, every organization serving poor urban minorities (and employing same) must also be riddled with criminals. I suspect quite a few non-profits based in heavily urbanized areas would vehemently protest Mr. James' blanket slur.
What alternate universe does he live in? In JamesWorld, we are expected to gaze in condescending pity upon community organizers advising would-be politicians how to get away with mortgage fraud, tax evasion, and child prostitution. After all, the community organizers are those people. You know what he means, right? Wink-wink, nudge-nudge ... the ones who have dark skin and no money and live in the 'hood. They don't know any better, the poor dears.
Good Lord, what racist bilge!
--
9/15 Update: Maura Flynn gets it.
9/16 Update: Gregory of Yardale gets it too.
During tonight's joint session, Barack Obama faced a critic brave enough to call his dishonesty what it is:
For yelling "you lie!", I just sent Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina a $10 campaign contribution. If he hadn't apologized for his supposed rudeness in calling a lie a lie, I'd have sent him $50.
More coverage:
Hot Air
Gateway Pundit
Protein Wisdom
Conservative Culture
Ace of Spades
Another week, another address to a joint session of Congress. When in doubt, David Axelrod has just one prescription:
Obama's planned address to a joint session of Congress next week "will insert the president into the heated debate in a way he has avoided all summer." The Washington Post informed readers that the "White House is scrambling to take control of the health-care debate after watching from the sidelines." A "senior aide" to Obama says the president will be "much more prescriptive."
Why the White House press corps didn't just change the date on their old copy and run it again is beyond me. And I'll leave it to others to ponder the media's seemingly infinite capacity to give Obama as many do-overs as he might need.
Why the Obama administration is determined to do the time warp again is easier to decipher. Obama's advisers think the answer to every problem is more cowbell, if by "cowbell" you mean "Obama." It's like Obama guru David Axelrod is the Christopher Walken character from the Saturday Night Live skit about Blue Oyster Cult (if you don't know the reference, Google "cowbell").
Every time someone comes up with an alternative to throwing Obama on TV, Axelrod says, "No, no, no. Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription . . . is more Obama!"
Ecce:
Please keep going, Barry. The more America sees of you, the less they like what they see.
Why do we need The Maximum Leader to hector a captive audience of America's children to work hard for the country? His prepared remarks are full of barely-concealed creepy collectivist tripe.
--
Update: The OmniPresident sings in the Key of Me!
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
Washington Post reporter Alec MacGillis doesn't like the power wielded by U.S. Senators from states with small populations. He writes:
The Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six" that is drafting health-care legislation that may shape the final deal -- without a public insurance option -- represents six states that are among the least populous in the country: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa.Between them, those six states hold 8.4 million people -- less than New Jersey -- and represent 3 percent of the U.S. population. North Dakota and Wyoming each have fewer than 80,000 uninsured people, in a country where about 47 million lack insurance. In the House, those six states have 13 seats out of 435, 3 percent of the whole. In the Senate, those six members are crafting what may well be the blueprint for reform.
Climate change legislation, which passed in the House, also faces daunting odds. Why? Because agriculture, coal and oil interests hold far more sway in the Senate. In the House, the big coal state of Wyoming has a single vote to New York's 29 and California's 53. In the Senate, each state has two. The two Dakotas (total population: 1.4 million) together have twice as much say in the Senate as does Florida (18.3 million) or Texas (24.3 million) or Illinois (12.9 million).
Was this really what the founders had in mind? One popular story tells of Thomas Jefferson asking George Washington what the Senate's purpose is. "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Washington asked in return. "To cool it," Jefferson replied. To which Washington said, "Even so, we pour legislation in the senatorial saucer to cool it." A nice tale. But what if the coffee gets so cold that no one bothers to drink it? Or if the Senate takes its coffee black in a country that opted overwhelmingly for sugar and cream?
Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota (pop. 641,481, third smallest), chairman of the Budget Committee and one of the Gang of Six, does not see any problem. Asked whether it is appropriate that his vote counts as much as those of senators from states 20 times as large, he was flummoxed. "One would hope that people would support the Constitution of the United States," said Conrad, who was reelected with 150,000 votes in 2006, when Virginia's Jim Webb needed 1.2 million votes to win. "This was the grand bargain that was struck when the Founding Fathers determined the structure and form of the United States Congress." He added: "Are you proposing changing the Constitution?"
Well, maybe. Regardless, there's nothing wrong with taking a closer look at how things came to be the way they are. The fact remains that, hallowed as it is, the Senate is as much a product of bare-knuckled, self-interested politics as last week's fight over military earmarks.
This is so damn simple to refute that my head hurts (probably due to banging it on my keyboard after reading this garbage). Apparently, neither MacGillis nor his trusty fact-checking editors bothered to read Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which sets forth the rules for changing that Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Mr. MacGillis, your entire essay was an exercise in futility. To answer your question, yes, the Founding Fathers did actually construct the Constitution with ironclad protection for each State's equal representation in the Senate, even if every other State wants to strip it away through the amendment process.
This ain't rocket science.
Hat tip: This Ain't Hell
It might read something like this:
No law, bill, resolution or any act of Congress shall exceed 2000 words, including all footnotes, amendments and signatures. Congress shall not vote on any item longer than that. Each item requiring a vote shall be read aloud in its entirety in session to a majority of members. Those not in attendance may not vote on the item.
Certainly worth discussing, no?
Can you name a single Obama policy decision so far that's had the intended result?
Since when does this ...
The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . . .U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2
... mean "rubber stamp approval"?
More ads like this one, please.
Hat tip: Brutally Honest
