Posts Made By: Jeffrey Counsil

david elosser said:

Nope. It's Obama and the liberal Democrats in Washington that now want to spy on your purchasing habits. You can bet your last unemployment check these same Democrats would be howling mad if Bush has made this same proposal years ago.
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/data-248115-financial-bill.html

First, the Democrat's answer, as always, is to set up even more government agencies and suck up more tax dollars in the process:
[SIZE="Small"]The bill sets up two new supersnooping federal agencies to collect data on ordinary Americans:

*The Office of Financial Research. This supposedly would predict risk in the system by collecting massive amounts of new financial data, such as patterns of credit card use.

*The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It would collect data, especially on consumer transactions.[/SIZE]

Second, as with the Health Care Bill, you will have little or no rights. They would be collecting without your knowledge or consent:
[SIZE="Small"]Another problem, he added, is that the law "is extremely vague and empowering of the regulators. You as a consumer will have no opportunity to opt out. They'll be collecting, anyway, and you won't even know."[/SIZE]

And, as in the case of illegal immigration, the problem is not really that we need new laws, but that we need ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS:
[SIZE="Small"]He noted laws on the books made illegal what Bernard Madoff did in his massive Ponzi scheme; and that the Securities and Exchange Commission repeatedly had been tipped off to Madoff, yet did nothing. So, no new laws are needed, just enforcement of existing fraud laws.[/SIZE]

And like the Health Care Overhaul, this new bill will be a 2000-page boondoggle:
Giving more snooping powers to a government that failed to act in the past, despite many warnings at all levels, is not the answer.
AMEN TO THAT!

David E

david elosser said:

This is sick, and yet such a teachable moment. First, Bill Clinton, with all his million$, allows his own niece to take food stamps instead of helping her out. And now this:

By 2007, seven years after leaving the White House, the Clintons had earned a combined $109 million through speaking engagements and bestselling memoirs. Even so, apparently they would prefer American voters to settle Mrs Clinton’s remaining $771,000 debt rather than paying it themselves.

Wanna spend a day with America's first Black President, Bill Clinton? A chance costs as little as five smackers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7124638.ece

David E

david elosser said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/14awlaki.html?hp

The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism....The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy.

No kidding! So we have a Democratic Congress that believes that his cell phones calls should be protected, but it's okay for Obama to be judge, jury, and executioner? Meanwhile, non-US citizens that have committed or attempted acts of terrorism get read their Miranda rights and tried in New York City?

David E

david elosser said:

...the House Of Representatives did something constructive!
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1005/house_passes_beer_bill.html

David E

Rob Wiederrich said:

Good for them...Since California is boycotting them..they now today said they will refrain from sending California power . Arizona contributes 25% of Californias power needs. 8O

Boycotts can be expensive.....especially if they're stupid.

Scott Satko said:

Jeffrey Counsil said:
As much as it sounds hypocritical, it is the prudent thing to do to protect the President.

Oh, I don't disagree with you, Jeffrey, but I was trying to point out the irony between the way this situation was handled and the way the Arizona situation is being handled (i.e., this is being handled one way because it is in the President's best interests to do so, while the AZ situation is being handled another way by the President and his administration because handling it that way will put the President in the best political light). As usual, it's all about Obama.

James C Chandler Jr said:

Blitzer-Calderon video:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/may/20/video-calderon-illegals-mexico-we-send-them-back/

CNN Transcript:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1005/19/sitroom.01.html

BLITZER: All right. Let's talk a little bit about Mexico's laws. I read an article in "The Washington Times" the other day. I'm going to read a paragraph to you and you tell me if this is true or not true. This is from "The Washington Times": "Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to reenter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals."

Is that true?

CALDERON: It was true, but it is not anymore. We derogate or we erased that part of the law. Actually, the legal immigration is not a -- is not a crime in Mexico. Not anymore, since one year ago. And that is the reason why we are trying to establish our own comprehensive public policy talking about, for instance, immigrants coming from Central America...

BLITZER: So if...

CALDERON: -- (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?

CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually...

BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?

CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?

And if they explain...

BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.

CALDERON: Yes.

BLITZER: But once they're in...

CALDERON: But not -- but not in -- if -- once they are inside the -- inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is a crime anymore in Mexico.

BLITZER: Immigration is not a crime, you're saying?

CALDERON: It's not a crime.

BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job...

CALDERON: No, no.

BLITZER: They can work.

CALDERON: If -- if somebody do that without permission, we send back -- we send back them.

BLITZER: You find them and you send them back?

CALDERON: Yes. However, especially with the people of Guatemala, we are providing a new system in which any single citizen from Guatemala could be able to visit any single border (INAUDIBLE) in the south. And even with all the requirements, he can or she can visit any parts of Mexico.

BLITZER: I ask the questions because there's an argument that people in Arizona and New Mexico and -- and Texas, they say they're only trying to do in their states what Mexico itself does in the southern part of Mexico.

CALDERON: I know. And that is a very powerful argument. But that is one of the reasons why we are trying to change our policy.

And let me be frank, Wolf. In the past, Mexican authorities were in a -- in a -- in an unfortunate way in the treatment for immigrants. But now we are changing the policy. We changed already the law. And that is different today. We are trying to write a new story, talking about immigrants, especially coming from Central American countries.

david elosser said:

Do we need any more proof that Obama's foreign policy has fallen to shambles? Two of what used to be strong allies with the US, Turkey (a member of NATO!) and Brazil, have joined hands with Iran.

By Charles, Krauthammer-
That picture [below] -- a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam -- is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003885.html
David E

david elosser said:

ABC News has learned that President Obama will replace the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair (ret.)...On the heels of a number of intelligence failures involving the Fort Hood shooter, failed Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab, and questions about failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, it was no longer clear that Blair - tasked with coordinating the 16 intelligence agencies and ensuring that they cooperate and share information - still had the full and complete confidence of the president, sources say.

Okay, so Dennis is taking all the blame for the recent intelligence fiascos during the Obama administration. IMO Janet "Clueless" Napolitano ought to go as well. But let's not loose sight of the real reason we have an intelligence problem: we have 16 intelligence agencies working on the same job, and how the hell is anyone going to coordinate that many agencies? It's not possible, and our enemy knows this and is smart enough to take advantage of this.

David E

david elosser said:

There are RATS in the White House!
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/05/obamas-special-guest-at-the-white-house/1