Monthly Archives: February 2015

It’s Time

Posted on by
2

…for the Party of No to get out of the way and let legislation happen. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) had this to say through her spokesman Drew Hammill about her fellow Democrats’ insistence on shutting down DHS* in favor of protecting President Barack Obama’s unconstitutional “executive actions” concerning immigration:

With only four legislative days left until the Republican Homeland Security Shutdown, Speaker Boehner made it clear that he has no plan to avoid a government shutdown. The speaker’s reliance on talking points and finger-pointing was a sad reflection of the fact that the Tea Party continues to hold the gavel as they insist on their futile anti-immigrant grandstanding.

Government shutdown. Not DHS shutdown. No exaggeration there. Pelosi’s proxy statement more honestly reads

With only four legislative days left until the Senate Democrats’ Homeland Security Shutdown, Minority Leader Pelosi made it clear that neither she nor her Senate colleagues have a plan to avoid a department shutdown. The Minority Leader’s reliance on talking points and finger-pointing was a sad reflection of the fact that the Democratic Party insists on its futile illegal immigrant grandstanding and vote pandering.

Note, too, that the Democrats are willing to hold hostage American homeland safety against preservation of those “executive actions”—”hostage” being their term, not Republicans’.

 

*Never mind, in the Democrats’ panic mongering, that DHS won’t, in fact, shut down in any substantive way: all the protection forces, from TSA to border control will remain on the job. They just won’t be paid on time, courtesy of the Senate Democrats’ constant filibuster of the House-passed bill that fully funds DHS.

Journalistic…Naiveté

Posted on by
Reply

Throughout the long negotiations over the fate of Iran’s nuclear program, President Hassan Rouhani has withstood scathing criticism from hard-liners at home by sticking to his case that a deal with his country’s longtime enemies will bring peace and prosperity.

So the political stakes are high for the moderate president as talks enter their homestretch toward a June deadline.

If he succeeds in sealing an agreement, Iran could see much-hoped-for relief from withering sanctions that are dragging down the economy at a time when the OPEC producer is trying to ride out a severe slump in oil prices.

This AP article goes on in this vein, touting the economic benefits to Iran, and so the political benefits to Rouhani, of “sealing an agreement.”

This is naïve. Success in “sealing an agreement” means Iran gets its nuclear weapon. Full stop. Economic and political benefits in the near term are purely side effects. Political benefits in the longer term are nuclear Iranian domination of the Middle East and the destruction of Israel.

So, unfortunately, is Dubai-based political analyst Theodore Karasik naïve.

Rouhani was elected on, promoted and supported the idea that he would help the Iranian economy recover. And of course the nuclear agreement is tied to that because of the sanction. If there is no nuclear deal, the presidency will go back to a more ultraconservative leader—under a nuclear Iran[.]

Iran remains under, has been under for quite some years, ultraconservative leadership. The mullahs, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are in charge. Their global face, Rouhani, is just smoother about it than Rouhani’s predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What the AP (and, apparently, Karasik) constantly miss in this is that getting the weapon is the purpose of these “negotiations,” and the drive for the weapon is to satisfy Iran’s goal of wiping Israel from the map and beyond that of emphasizing that regional domination. The mullahs, after all, are less Islamic than they are political descendants of Cyrus, Darius, and the Xerxes. (A longer term side effect is the ability to arm Iran’s terrorist allies, don’t forget.)

Israeli Election Commission Censorship of Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress

Posted on by
Reply

The article, by Reuters, is being censored in its entirety, even though it’s about the Commission’s planned censorship and not an attempt to carry the speech.

From http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/16/us-election-israel-congress-idUSKBN0LK1C320150216?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

or via Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RevelationsRevealedNow/posts/1540371689585941

Following is that article.

Israeli election chief puts curbs on Netanyahu’s speech to U.S. Congress

By Luke Baker

JERUSALEM Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:11am ESTNetanyahu

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a handover ceremony at the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem, in which the new Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Gadi Eizenkot replaced outgoing Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz, February 16, 2015.  Credit: Reuters/Ronen Zvulun

(Reuters) – The head of Israel’s election commission acted on Monday to limit any pre-election boost Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may get from a March 3 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he will warn of the threat from Iran’s nuclear program.

The speech has caused controversy in Israel and the United States, where the Democrats and the White House are angry that the Republican speaker, John Boehner, invited Netanyahu to speak at a sensitive time in the nuclear negotiations between Iran and six big powers including Washington, and only two weeks before Israel’s closely fought March 17 election.

Following complaints from opposition parties, election chief Salim Joubran decided that Netanyahu’s address should be broadcast with a five-minute delay in Israel, giving news editors time to cut any statements deemed partisan.

“Editors-in-chief of broadcast channels will watch and make sure that nothing the prime minister says can be construed as election campaigning,” Joubran said in a statement. “Any campaigning will be omitted from the broadcast.”

President Barack Obama, at odds with Netanyahu over the Israeli prime minister’s criticism of the nuclear talks, will not meet him during his visit, saying it is a breach of protocol to receive a foreign leader before an election.

In Israel, Netanyahu has been roundly criticized even by some of his right-wing allies, mostly for appearing to put his ties to the Republican Party ahead of the close relationship Israel has always had with the United States.

After weeks of negative commentary, officials close to the prime minister’s office said last week the format of the speech could be changed, with Netanyahu possibly speaking behind closed doors or in smaller groups of congressmen rather than in a primetime televised address.

But Netanyahu appeared to put paid to any change of plans, saying he was determined to honor the invitation. The Israeli leader has vowed to foil what he says would be a “bad and dangerous agreement” on Iran’s nuclear program.

With a month until the election, some polls suggest voters are unhappy about him going to Washington. A survey by Army Radio showed 47 percent thought Netanyahu should cancel the address, while 34 percent said he should go ahead with it.

Overall, however, Netanyahu’s Likud party remains marginally ahead, with most polls expecting it to win 24 or 25 seats in the 120-seat parliament, just ahead of the center-left opposition.

Even if the center-left wins, most analysts expect Netanyahu will be the only one able to form a workable coalition among right-wing and religious parties, allowing him to return as prime minister for a fourth term.

Corporate Dishonesty

Posted on by
Reply

I received in today’s snailmail a document postmarked Sacramento, CA, Permit No 1827. In bold, black print, the envelope carrying this document had the following notice:

WARNING: $2000 FINE, 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH FOR ANY PERSON INTERFERING OR OBSTRUCTING DELIVERY OF THIS LETTER.

Who sent me this very important document? Who knows? The originator was so ashamed of himself and/or what he had to say to me that he declined to put his address, much less his name, on the envelope.

I opened it.

It turns out it’s from some crowd calling themselves 1st Nationwide Mortgage, and the document was signature-stamped by someone claiming to represent Chris Arco, Senior Vice President, First Nationwide Mortgage.

If this crowd is so dishonest it puts misleading threats of dire consequences on the outside of its envelope, and/or if it’s so cowardly it won’t put its name and return address on the outside, then on what basis can any of us take it seriously?

I put its trash into the recycling bin for pick up next week. Yeah, we recycle in Texas, just like they do in California. Only we recycle our trash to our own facilities, we don’t mail it out of state.

Who’d-a Thunk?

Posted on by
1

According to President Barack Obama’s Department of Education, his student loan forgiveness program already is experiencing cost overruns to the tune of nearly $22 billion. Obama’s 2010 PAYE expansion at the time was projected to add $9 billion to the taxpayers’ bill for students not repaying their debt. As the DoE put it,

The 2015 amount includes a net upward reestimate of $21.8 billion, primarily related to revised interest rates and increased participation in income-driven repayment plans.

Or, in the words of James Schneider, who wrote the article at the second link,

[S]welling enrollment due to looser loan rules is driving up costs….

Or, Romina Boccia, of the Heritage Foundation:

They didn’t account for the market risk in making these loans[.]

Or, Steve Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense:

…hard to see how this is going to come out as a net positive as the administration predicts[.]

Or, Lindsey Burke, also with the Heritage Foundation:

Somebody pays for that loan forgiveness. And that is the three-quarters of Americans who don’t have bachelor’s degrees themselves.

Now, how does that work, exactly? Who could have expected such an outcome? Apparently everyone in the Universe except Democrats.