THIS VIDEO WILL PROVIDE SCARY FACTS!!

Press Secretary Perino joined the "Dumb as a Box of Rocks" club!!

JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, during a press conference, Press Secretary Dana Perino was ask a question about the Cuban Missle Crisis and Bay of Pigs. Her response was that she did not know anything about them! Where did this person who works in the office of the highest position in the United States get her education? Geez, this was taught in our required educational system. Not having gone to college, I have no idea if this is covered in the history classes at that level.

But there is absolutely no excuse for ANYONE who went to school in the United States of America to not know what the Cuban Missle Crisis/Bay of Pigs was all about. Especially if you work in the White House Administration!!! Dana Perino is a perfect example of the "No Child Left Behind". She obviously fell through the cracks! I would love to read something written by her. Bet her sentence structure and possibly her spelling are lacking as well!!

Check it out at Perino: I Didn't Know What The Cuban Missile Crisis Was Be sure to read the responses to the article. They are priceless!!

It is unnecessary for so many homes to be lost in So. Cal. fires!

While I have a small bit of empathy for those who have lost their homes in the So. Cal. fires, I also have even more disdain for them.

Let me fill the rest of the country in on what these homeowners have done. The canyons and hillsides of So. Cal. are nothing more than chaparral - dry chaparral ripe for Santa Ana conditions (low humidity, high temperatures and fierce winds). Yet people want to buy/build in these areas - mostly for the view, but also for the prestige of living in these so called rich enclaves. They do so knowing that every summer we have no rain and what turned to a lovely shade of green during our rainy season (which is very short-lived here) will dry out and become fodder for fires.

Then the fires come and burn them out. They shed their tears and then hold out their hands to FEMA for assistance - to rebuild their home right back in the same place. They may be lucky for several years, but eventually, the fires will ravage the area again and the cycle starts all over again. Then the rainy season comes and there is the danger of landslides in their area.

I live in the flatlands of So. Cal. I choose to do so because I am in no danger of losing my house to fires during the Santa Ana conditions (unless my crazy neighbor sets fire to their house accidently). I am also not in any danger of flooding or landslides. I do not feel that any view/prestige is worth the loss of my personal property.

As a lower middle-income family, I will be subsidizing the monies FEMA hands out to these high income families to rebuild their mini-mansions. Is this right for me to help them rebuild when I use common sense and they will never have to subsidize me? I do not think so.

From what I am hearing on the news, it sounds like insurance companies are wising up and are going to be refusing to take on homeowners who continue to build/live/rebuild in these areas. Good. Maybe this is what it will take for these homeowners to finally use some common sense in selecting where they will live.

If you could see the huge homes that are built in our mountain resorts, these homes are second homes for the rich in the LA area. When you hear of the loss of homes in the mountain areas, the majority of these homes are people who live there 365 days a year. For them, I have sympathy, but not for the homes that were lost that are 2nd homes. These people still have the main residence to live in.

EVERYONE needs to use their good judgement in deciding where to buy/build. And cities should cease allowing developers to build in these fire prone areas. Sometimes they need to consider what is best versus the almight $$$.

Everybody wants their share of the $$$

From the Seattle Post-Intelligence:

Last updated September 20, 2007 4:38 p.m. PT
MARCELA SANCHEZ

WASHINGTON -- Once every month, the average immigrant in the United States steps into a money-transfer facility and wires about $250 overseas. Minutes later somewhere around the world, a relative or friend can step into a similar facility and receive the cash -- minus fees and other transfer expenses. This transnational economic activity, repeating itself millions of times every month, added up to about $274 billion worldwide last year -- a lifeline for millions in some of the poorest corners of the planet and an amount at least double all official foreign aid combined.

For years, immigrant organizations, governments and international financial institutions have focused energy and resources on figuring how they might leverage those billions to help improve the conditions that make people become immigrants in the first place. Largely absent from this effort -- and in fact a frequent target of criticism -- has been the middleman: the money transmitter.

Last week, some might say, things changed. Western Union, the largest money transmitter with more than 17 percent of the global market, announced a $50 million, five-year philanthropic initiative to help migrant families. The Colorado-based company said it would underwrite educational grants, offer free wire transfers during humanitarian relief efforts and enlist some of its 312,000 agents and representatives as financial mentors to businesses and individuals.

This program would build on Western Union's contributions to specific economic development projects in Mexico, the largest recipient of remittances in the world ($23 billion last year). The new contributions would bolster programs such as "Tres por Uno" (three for one) that match every dollar invested in Mexico by U.S.-based immigrant associations for projects such as paving roads or opening factories with a dollar each from Mexican federal, state and local governments.

A federation of hometown immigrant associations in Southern California received $120,000 from Western Union last year to conduct such work in Mexico. According to Efrain Jimenez, the group's vice president, the donation wasn't huge, but it was significant as a demonstration that "the private sector can and should exercise its social responsibility" and as a symbol of solidarity with immigrants at a time when that can be politically costly.

Some immigrant advocate groups, however, are not impressed by Western Union's altruism. Last week, the Transnational Institute for Grassroots Research and Action, which claims to represent more than 150 immigrant organizations in the United States, called for a boycott of Western Union, arguing that its new campaign is a "marketing gimmick" that will do little to benefit immigrants here or their families abroad.

TIGRA is particularly concerned that initiatives such as Western Union's give immigrants little say on where the money is spent. Rather, TIGRA would have Western Union and other money transmitters donate directly to a fund managed by TIGRA.

Of course, TIGRA wants their fair share of the $$$. Thats the American way!!!

While that might raise an eyebrow of suspicion, TIGRA has reason to be skeptical. Money transmitters have profited for years from the poor. And, TIGRA argues, even with this initiative Western Union's philanthropic activity will represent less than 50 cents per $100 profit. (Western Union's spokesman Dan Diaz disputed TIGRA's claim and cited the Consulting Network, which found Western Union's giving at just below the average for U.S. corporations.)

Money transmitters cannot be blamed for the poverty of their customers. Indeed, Manuel Orozco, remittance expert at the Inter-American Dialogue, said that Western Union should be given credit for connecting "some of the world's poorest to the global economy." Still, Orozco added, Western Union is far from a beacon of corporate giving.

In the past, it has been governments and organizations such as TIGRA that have successfully pushed money transmitters to lower their fees and become more altruistic. Ten years ago, it cost on average $30 to send $300 to Mexico; today it costs $10. During the 1990s, Western Union was sued for not disclosing extra profits from favorable foreign currency exchange rates, resulting in a settlement that included the establishment of the Western Union Foundation.

As Francis Calpotura, TIGRA's executive director, put it, remittances are "one of the very few tools" immigrants have to wield power in their world. This is especially true in today's political environment, where they have seen little success in influencing the immigration debate in Washington. One might hope that TIGRA and Western Union can find a way to see themselves as partners on the same side of that struggle.

This article just shows you how much money earned in the US is leaving the US. This is bad for our economy (but great for Mexico's economy!!).

Foster mother tortured girl for years

From the Seattle Post-Intelligence paper comes this article:

Last updated September 24, 2007 9:09 p.m. PT
By SCOTT GUTIERREZ
P-I REPORTER

A Federal Way woman who punished her foster daughter by jabbing hypodermic needles into the girl's eyes and smashing her feet with 10-pound weights pleaded guilty Monday to assault charges and could face up to 14 years imprisonment.

Chornice Y. Kabbelliyaa, 34, a licensed foster care provider who tortured the girl for years, is scheduled for sentencing Nov. 16 at the Regional Justice Center in Kent. Kabbelliyaa took in the victim, now 16, and her brother, when the girl was 5, according to court records.

Kabbelliyaa pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree assault, plus two counts of second-degree assault. Prosecutors will pursue the longest possible prison term under sentencing guidelines, which ranges from 10 to 14 years, King County Prosecutor's Office spokesman Dan Donohoe said.

For years, Kabbelliyaa, who also goes by Lewis, was the focus of complaints from teachers, counselors and others about the girl's well-being, giving social workers several chances to remove her from the home. In a story earlier this year, The News Tribune in Tacoma revealed how Department of Social and Health Services workers often took Kabbelliyaa at her word when investigating complaints and gave her the benefit of the doubt because of the reported family connection between her and the victim. Kabbelliyaa claimed the victim also was her cousin.

The agency reviewed its own handling of the case and retrained or reassigned some workers as a result, according to the newspaper.

But, inside her home, Kabbelliyaa once beat the girl with an umbrella for handing her a mismatched pair of flip-flops. Doctors examined the victim and found she had no vision in her right eye and puncture wounds to her left eye, caused by needles used to treat Kabbelliyaa's mother's diabetes. The girl's tongue was burned because the defendant had heated forks on a stovetop to stick into the girl's mouth, court documents say.

After some beatings, Kabbelliyaa would forbid the girl from attending school until her injuries healed, court documents say.

It wasn't until January 2006 that authorities removed the girl from Kabbelliyaa's apartment. At first, Kabbelliyaa denied the girl was home, but social workers with DSHS' Division of Licensed Resources and a police officer sent to investigate noticed a blanket on the floor move. They lifted the blanket and found the victim hidden underneath, court records say.

Kabbelliyaa ran from the building, fleeing with her three biological children. She was arrested a month later in Houston by a fugitive task force under the U.S. Marshals Service. A judge determined earlier this year that Kabbelliyaa was competent to stand trial after her mental health was evaluated at Western State Hospital.

She is being held in the King County Jail with bail set at $1 million.

Where the hell was the social worker? After repeated complaints filed from people at the school the girl attended, why did the social worker continue to take the word of the foster mother (yup - lower case, this woman does not deserve the respect that comes with the capital M)?

First off, the social worker should be fired and then lose her license. Secondly, she should be brought up with charges - I am sure there are some laws on the books that relate to her negligence in this matter.

If more of these "lax" social workers had to face charges for their misdeeds, I think they would start taking their jobs more seriously.

I am fully aware that they are spread thin and have an overload of cases. But I think they should all band together - perhaps a union would be the right word - and let it be know that they will handle on the number of cases that they can and do their job correctly. Then the Department of Social Services would have to sit up and take notice that the will have to hire more people for the appropriate coverage.

Would it make sense to keep adding more and more students in a classroom to avoid having to hire more teachers? No - the teacher's union won't allow it. They have a limit as to how many students can be in a classroom. I assume that each state is different. Here in California, the max for 4th - 12th grades is 32 and K-3 is 20.

I think that there should be a maximum number of cases allowed per social worker so they would be able to do their jobs right and avoid cases such as these occuring.

Being a foster child must be an absolute nightmare.

I guess they license just any ol' body as long as they are breathing. Sure, they have to pass an inhome inspection. Anybody can pass that and then once licensed, do as they will just to be able to collect the almight $$$ without having to lift a finger to do anything for it.

My niece was a foster parent (still holds her license). She has cared for many children (she taught kindergarten students) with nothing but love and nurturing. She eventually adopted two of her foster children. Currently she has put on hold to do any more fostering until her children are a little older, as she is a single parent.

When will these States/Counties/Cities get their heads out of their backsides and see the rampant victimization of our most vunerable resources - those whose own home has been torn asunder for whatever reason and who have been left to the devices of the State/local governments to decide their fates. Unfortunately, that fate often times leads to death.

I have seen many children in foster care. They are sad, lonely, confused, desolate and often times rebellious and violent. Gee, I wonder what could have possibly led to this?

You go Bollinger!!!

September 24, 2007
By NAHAL TOOSI

NEW YORK - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the stage at Columbia University to a blistering welcome from the president of the school, who said the hard-line leader behaved like "a petty and cruel dictator."

Ahmadinejad smiled as Columbia President Lee Bollinger took him to task over Iran's human-rights record and foreign policy, and Ahmadinejad's statements denying the Holocaust and calling for the disappearance of Israel.

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

"When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous," Bollinger said. "The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history."

Ahmadinejad rose, also to applause, and after a religious invocation, said Bollinger's opening was: "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here."

"There were insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully," Ahmadinejad said, accusing Bollinger of offering "unfriendly treatment" under the influence of the U.S. press and politicians.

When the powers that be at the college decided to book the leader of Iran, just what were they thinking? Just who were they trying to prove something to? Ahmandinejad or the U.S.?

I applaud Columbia President Lee Bollinger for telling this dictator like it is! And to the powers that be who authorized this, if he/she is upset by Mr. Bollinger's remarks, just whose side of this "war" are they on?

"The Conservative Post" and Fred Thompson on Santuary Cities

Another post from theconservativepost.com from August 24, 2007:

-Scott Miller

This is why “I’m with Fred”.

“The consequences of “sanctuary cities” may be most obvious in the city that became the first in 1979 — Los Angeles. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, a confidential California Department of Justice study from the mid-1990’s showed then that at least 60 percent of the members of L.A.’s most violent gangs, with membership in the tens of thousands, were illegal aliens. Of all outstanding murder warrants in Los Angeles, 95 percent are for illegal aliens. Frustrated police say they are powerless to pick up even well-known, previously deported felons.

The costs of policies that offer shelter to criminals are borne not just by the citizens of Newark, Cambridge, and other sanctuaries though. According to the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, illegal aliens made up 27 percent of the federal prison population in 2005, totaling 49,000 and costing federal taxpayers $1.2 billion. There were also more than 220,000 illegals in state and local prisons and jails. Now, I am not suggesting that all illegal aliens are violent criminals. They are not. Most are peaceful folks just trying to get by like the rest of us. But we would be far better off if we checked on people as they come into the country rather than find out who the bad ones are after they victimize people here.”

Many are becoming a bit frustrated that Fred has not announced yet… not me. I believe he will announce either on Labor Day, or directly after. Perfect timing as people are out of vacation mode, and will begin paying attention to the upcoming political battles in earnest in Sept. Make way for Fred!

Okay, Fred, just how are you going to check the people when they are entering the county illegally? That is how they become illegal!

And since our Government has failed to reimburse cities the monies spent incarcerating the illegals when they break the law, the cities soon realized by incarcerating them BECAUSE they are illegals would bankrupt them. So they had to stop doing so only on the basis they had broken the law simply by being an illegal.

When will our Government step up to the plate and spend the monies they promised to the cities that are doing the job for the Government?

Secondly, when a city/county police/sheriff does recognize that an individual is an illegal why are they not picked up and delivered to the local INS (pardon me, ICE) facility? Then they could put them in their facility pending deportation.

So many unanswered questions and if only bureaucracy would simplify the "rules", it could be done efficiently. But I don't think bureaucracy could do anything without the long redtape and rhetoric. Simplify, simplify, simplify!!!

Just another stab at the already downtrodden elderly

In the Washington Post letters to the editors today:

A House bill would fund expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by stripping funds from the Medicare Advantage program, on the theory that health plans providing comprehensive protection for seniors are overpaid.

I would like to know why no mention of who is behind this bill? I think people have the right to know who their representative is that is so willing to hurt the senior citizens in lieu of the children.

While it is not fair that either take a beating, I know the children are our future, but it is the seniors of this nation that have had a hand in the state (or disarray) of this nation today.

I know of no other nation that so easily disregards their elderly. Most nations respect them.

Say NO to Basing Congress Seats on Illegals!

Tell Congress to Support Support Only Counting U.S. Citizens
ALERT: As you may know, the U.S. Constitution requires the Census Bureau to count everyone in the census. The once-a-decade population count is then used to apportion seats in Congress and to appropriate billions of dollars in federal spending each year.

What you may not know is that the Census Bureau also counts illegal immigrants in their population count -- and those illegals help determine Congressional seats too!

Because illegal immigrants are counted in the process of apportioning districts, they skew Congressional Representation by giving districts with very few citizens the same voice as districts that sometimes have up to three times the number of citizens.

Furthermore, because the Constitution allows for illegal immigrants to weight district size, certain illegal immigrant-heavy states enjoy undue influence in Presidential elections because they are granted more Congressional seats, and therefore more representation in the Electoral College than they would have if illegal aliens were not considered.

This makes absolutely no sense. Apportioning Congressional seats, divvying up taxpayer dollars and determining the President of the United States should be based on numbers of citizens, not illegal aliens!

Thankfully, there IS something we can do about this.

Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) has introduced H.J. Res. 6, to amend the U.S. Constitution so that only legal citizens are represented in Congress and in Presidential elections. The bill calls for an amendment to ensure only citizens of the United States are counted and considered when Congressional Districts are allocated. It simply reads: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States."

Rep. Miller has introduced this bill -- now WE have to push our Congressmen to PASS it!

Grrrr . . . . .

Everyone really needs to read the article Treat illegal immigrants decently by Jagdish N. Bhagwati, Senior Fellow for International Economics.

From the end of the article:

Once passions aroused by the proposed reforms have cooled, Americans should be ready to see that a way must be found to treat illegals with the decency and respect that humanity requires, while respecting equally the innate American sense that laws matter. After all, America’s identity has been formed by immigration and an ever-expanding set of human rights. Perhaps a different and more realistic approach might get us what we could not achieve with uncompromising proposals.

In particular, why not build on the unappreciated fact that the illegals are not today the underclass with few rights that they were for many years? Immigration experts Guillermina Jasso and Mark Rosenzweig have shown that, under existing laws, almost 30 per cent of the new legal immigrants have had some illegal experience. With vastly increased ethnic minority populations, especially Hispanic, the illegals enjoy a higher comfort level than at the time of the IRCA. The Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa gave his response in 2006 to Mr Bush’s State of the Union speech in Spanish. There are numerous non-governmental organisations, such as the National Council of La Raza and civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, that give the illegals a substantial sense of protection.

If asking for full citizenship through the amnesty is currently impossible, we can work instead to raise this comfort level to something much closer to what citizenship brings, without asking for full citizenship. Cities such as New Haven have begun to do this. It never makes sense for the best to be the enemy of the good.

Can't you just feel your blood pressure rising?

I have never treated any illegal any differently than I do anyone else. And in the field I work in (education) I deal with them on a daily basis. However, how you treat anyone and the privileges that they are given are two very different things.

This writer, along with every illegal immigrant and their legal cohorts here in the United States are expecting privileges that even the citizens of the United States are not afforded.

While those privileges may be on the table for the citizens, just try to get any of those privileges when you need them. You will lose out over the illegal every time.

This from Sebastian Mallaby, Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies, and Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow for International Economics

The Low Risk From Immigrants
May 28, 2007
Washington Post

Of the many infuriating assertions in the immigration debate, perhaps this one takes top prize: that we have to keep illegal immigrants out for the sake of our security. This notion is wrong, not just because undocumented workers are statistically less likely than native-born Americans to commit crimes or because they are serenely indifferent to al-Qaeda’s teachings. It is wrong because it misses the most basic rule of smart homeland security.

What is not mentioned anywhere in the article is the cost to taxpayers for the illegals and the diseases that are being brought into the United States unchecked. It also fails to mention the terrorists cell groups that are now coming in from Mexico illegally. And missing from the article that every illegal here in the United States has committed a crime just by entering the United States illegally. Thus the statistics are very skewed.

And this article will probably send you over the edge. Not enough immigrants

Appleseed - good or bad?? Determine for yourself.

I have just come across an organization - Appleseed - and in reading their website, I really cannot determine for myself the realm of people they help. On the surface, it appears that they help the poor and downtrodden.

They discuss assisting immigrants.

Immigrants make valuable contributions to American communities and are often some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Appleseed works to ensure that immigrants are well served in their communities and that they are afforded the rights and opportunities they deserve. Our Immigrant Policy Program is focused on helping to improve law, policy, and practice on immigrant policy issues at the state and local levels. Our Latino Immigrants' Access to Financial Institutions project educates immigrants about financial issues and works with banks and credit unions to develop better ways to serve the unique needs of this growing market.

However, nothing in their message indicates if the people they help are illegal immigrants. I would really like to know!!

US won't tell Britons why they're banned from travelling to America

British holidaymakers and businessmen banned from travelling to America under anti-terror laws will no longer have any right to know why they have been turned away.

The US Department of Homeland Security, set up following the September 11 attacks, last week applied for a blanket ban on disclosing the information it holds on Britons and other EU citizens.

Last month, Britain agreed to send the secretive US department all details of UK passengers before they fly to America.

The agency was given full access to huge amounts of information on individual passengers, including details of their credit cards, home addresses, e-mail addresses, frequent-flier records and even requests for special meals.

And, despite a huge privacy row in the European Parliament, it was also given permission to keep the airlines' lists of passengers' names for at least eight years.

The Department of Homeland Security last week said it intended to make this information available for 'routine use' by the intelligence community 'to protect the United States from terrorist threats' and to tackle cases of identity theft.

But it said it was also applying for a complete ban on disclosing the information it holds on individuals and then uses to turn passengers away.

Last week, it published a "notice of proposed rulemaking" for an exception from the US Privacy Act, which allows individuals to check records the American government holds on them.

The law is supposed to allow anyone to check files for mistakes but the new exception rule is being brought in on the grounds of national security and law enforcement.

If I were a Brit wanting or having to travel to the US, I would be plenty pissed that the US Government had all my personal information, especially credit card information. It would serve our country right if anyone in the UK never stepped foot on our soil again.

Does anyone else see the dangers of President Bush's new "laws" that he can glean information for anyone, at anytime, and in whatever means they deem possible? It ain't gonna get any better, folks!

America without illegals

In doing this piece, I will be concentrating on the illegals from Mexico. Not because I am a racist, but because 1) the majority of illegals are from Mexico and 2) this piece is about what effect it will do to the United States without them here.

The loudest rage about the need for the illegals here is to do the jobs that the American's won't do - topmost, working the farm fields.

What will happen? The people/companies that hired these illegals will be out of business. Odds are, they will have to move their business south of the border. That works for me! I do not have a problem paying a little more for my produce if the company and all its workers live south of the border.

To date, this country imports a large volume of our produce from Mexico and Central and South America. Sure, they cost more. But I would pay the extra for the produce. Why? Because in the long run, it would cost me less to pay the extra for the produce than it currently does to pay for the medical costs, education, and subsidies that the illegals get while here in the United States.

Since the companies would now be south of the border, that is where the work for them would be and they could "migrate" back to their homeland where jobs await them. They would no longer have the excuse of coming to the United States for work.

And when they return to their homelands, they can put their protesting skills to work to fight for their rights there.

I think this is a workable solution. What do you think??

A case for gun control

PETALUMA, CALIF. -- The buzzards led Nick Bursio to his prized calf. He found the body just over a rise in the field, with a bullet hole in its left shoulder, near the heart.

Bursio had heard of animals killed by rustlers for their meat. But not until that May morning had he ever imagined anything so senseless as shooting cattle presumably just to watch them die.

"I had a hollow feeling in my gut, to see that dead calf laying there, with the mother cow bellowing nearby," said the Sonoma County rancher. "I thought, what the hell's going on in this place?"

Authorities are searching for a drive-by shooter who guns down cows as they calmly munch grass in the rolling pastureland 50 miles north of San Francisco. Since February, five cows have been found dead in two counties, shot with small-caliber bullets designed to inflict prolonged pain and suffering.

Nationwide, an increasing number of animal cruelty cases are being reported outside city limits: Horses, cows, goats and other farm animals are being killed, authorities say, often by angry, reckless youths, perhaps acting on dares.

Although there are no statistics on such crimes, newspapers detail scores of cases. Two Texas college students were indicted last fall for slashing a horse's neck before stabbing it in the heart with a broken golf club handle. In Pennsylvania in 2005, three joy-riding men killed a pony named Ted E. Bear that belonged to a 4-year-old boy.

Last year, two Tennessee teens shot and killed 24 cows, many of them pregnant. "They just wanted to see what shooting cattle was like," said Hickman County Sheriff Randal Ward.

While many people will read this and rant about "guns don't kill, people kill", without the gun, this would not have happened.

I wonder what the parents of those teens in Tennessee think. Do they find what their kids did as amusing? Or are they outraged at their children? Odds are, as gun owners themselves, deep down inside they are feeling might proud of their kids for being such ace shots. Probaly not at all disgusted at their behavior. But will have to put on a face of outrage for the public to view.

Taking the blame and not taking responsibility!

EDWARDS HEDGE FUND $OAKS 'CANE VICTIMS
By ANDY SOLTIS
August 18, 2007 -- Embarrassed presidential hopeful John Edwards promised yesterday to take millions of dollars of his own fortune out of a hedge fund tied to subprime lenders who foreclosed on victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The populist candidate - who has denounced such lenders - invested $16 million of his $30 million in assets in Fortress Investment Group. The Wall Street Journal reported that 34 New Orleans homeowners struggling to overcome Katrina's aftermath faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress.

Yesterday, the red-faced Democratic candidate vowed to remove from his portfolio any Fortress funds that have a stake in those lender units.

"I will not have my family's money involved in these firms that are foreclosing on people in New Orleans," he said while on the campaign trial in Des Moines, Iowa.

When Fortress' connections to subprime lenders were reported in May, Edwards said he was unaware of it and would ask the company to help Katrina victims faced with losing their homes.

Any person who invest their monies has the responsibility to research any company they are thinking about investing in. Finding out after the fact that the company does some dirty dealing does not absolve anyone of their part in it.

While it is admirable that Edwards will be removing the funds from his portfolio, the damage done to unsuspecting people has been done and he has a part in this.

Funny how only AFTER someone digs and finds out this information that the guilty party claims to just now know about it. Bull - perhaps he was not aware of it, but that is his own fault for not doing his research.

THIS IS WHERE YOUR HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS GO!!!

U.S. paid $1 million to ship two 19-cent washers
The U.S. Defense Department said on Thursday that a flawed system designed to rush supplies to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan let a small-parts supplier improperly collect $998,798.38 to ship two 19-cent washers.

Loopholes in the automated purchasing system have been fixed and the ill-gotten gains were being returned to the U.S. Treasury, said Army Lt. Col. Brian Maka, a Pentagon spokesman.

The owners of C&D Distributors of Lexington, South Carolina, submitted online bids to the Defense Department to supply hardware components, plumbing fixtures, electronic equipment and other items, according to court papers.

Related shipping claims were processed automatically "to streamline the resupply of items to combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan," said a statement by Reginald Lloyd, U.S. attorney for the district of South Carolina.

Lloyd said C&D fabricated shipping costs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, as in the case of the washers, although the value of the items purchased rarely topped $100.

Lock washers place tension against a nut after tightening, to help prevent the nut from loosening.

Maka said the Defense Criminal Investigative Service launched an investigation last September into invoices submitted to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, or

"DFAS has put in place the internal controls necessary to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again," Maka said of the shipping fraud. "The money that they stole will be returned to the U.S. Treasury."

Charlene Corley, 47, of Lexington, South Carolina, as well as her company, C&D Distributors LLC, pleaded guilty to wire-fraud and money-laundering conspiracy charges in federal court in Columbia, South Carolina.

Darlene Wooten, Corley's twin and co-owner of C&D Distributors, committed suicide at her lake house last October after being contacted by federal investigators about the fraud, Lloyd said.

The improperly collected funds were used to buy beach houses, luxury cars, boats, jewelry and vacations among other things, prosecutors said.

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud is punishable by up to 20 years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. Conspiracy to commit money laundering carries up to 20 years and a fine of $500,000, or twice the value of the property involved in the laundering transactions, whichever is greater.

I have several questions regarding this, just the latest incident.

1) We have been hearing about this type of overcharging for many, many years. Why are they just now putting into place a system to make sure this does not happen again. And will this new system really stop all overcharging OR simply catch a few here and there?

2) I do not give a damn about streamlining to get products to our soldiers promptly when it comes to this type of "financial carnage". Someone in the chain should be held accountable for not pulling this and not sending it on to the department to submit payment to these crooks.

Meanwhile, there are starving children right here in the United States who could have benefitted from our tax dollars to put food in their mouths.

Odds are, these crooks will serve a minimum sentence that is no skin off their nose. Will they have to repay the government for their "error"? Probably not. So, crime will have paid.

If this is the best we have, the United States is in serious trouble!

Running for the Presidential office for 2008 are:

Democrats
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Christopher Dodd
John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
and
Republican
Sam Brownback
Rudolph Guiliani
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
John McCain
W. Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson
If this is the best the United States has to offer up as President of the United States out of a population of 302,586,723, we are in serious trouble.

Open mouth - Insert foot

"We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."

-A Louisiana State legislator quoted in the Wall Street Journal in Hurricane Katrina's immediate aftermath.

Whoever that legislator is has no business being in office with an attitude/opinion like that!

In every city, be it large or small, there will always be the poor families in need of housing.

This statement just screams "good, now New Orleans can start anew with the higher middle income and wealthy families".

But, no city can exist without the lower income families to do the menial jobs such as busboy at restaurants and working at fast food restaurants. And the lower middle income families provide services such as trash pickup, street sweeping, delivery mail, and more.

Think about what you say before you open your mouth, people! Cause what you say could well come back to bite you in your rear end!

U.S. Weighs Anti-Drug Trafficking Aid For Mexico

Aug 8, 2007 1:24 pm US/Pacific
(AP) WASHINGTON President Bush will propose tens of millions of dollars in assistance to Mexico to fight drug trafficking and violence that has ravaged the country and threatens to spill over into the U.S., a Texas congressman said Wednesday.

Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, said Congress will come up with the final sum to assist Mexico.

Officials said they began to talk with Mexico's President Felipe Calderon about new and substantial counter-narcotics aid shortly after he took office in December.

U.S. anti-drug officials have been impressed with Calderon's crackdown on drug traffickers since he took office. From December through June, Calderon sent more than 24,000 troops to areas plagued by drug violence.

Calderon has repeatedly pushed the U.S. to take more responsibility in fighting the two countries' common drug problem, including doing more to stop the flow of illegal U.S. arms into Mexico and trying to combat the demand for drugs north of the border.

Calderon has said he will work with the U.S. in any way possible to bring down Mexican drug lords.

Ok - so Mexico wants our help to stem the drug traffiking. How about the US make him a counter offer. We help you with stem the drug traffiking, you get your people who are in the US illegally back into your own country and help them in a way that makes it profitable for them to remain in Mexico.

Gee, I think that is a super plan. Very simple but effective.

But, do you think Congress could possibly deal with something so simple? Noooooo! Way too easy.

Just to show you - here is the other side of the fence

I stated that I will post political bits that will cover both sides of the fence. While it may appear to you to be rather lopsided, it is only because I am rather choosey about what I will post.

So to try to balance the fence, here is for the other side. An opinion piece by Larry Elder (I am a big fan of his - I think he is honest and fair in his opinion, even when I don't always agree with him).

Bush-Haters Endure Tough Week
Thu Aug 2, 3:00 AM ET
I did it again — opened my mouth.

I drove behind a car carrying two guys. Their bumper sticker read, "War Is Not the Answer." I knew better, but I pulled up next to them at a red light, rolled down my window, and said, "OK. If war is not the answer, what is?"

"Peace!" the driver angrily responded.

"Just curious," I said, "do you think people in Tehran drive around with bumper stickers like that?"

"So you support the war?!" his passenger shouted.

Gee, I thought, what a sudden change of topics. All I wanted to know, if war is not the answer, then what is?

"Which war?" I said. "Iraq? Afghanistan? World War II? The Civil War? Can you be a little more specific?"

The passenger turned purple. "The war in Iraq! And where are the weapons of mass destruction?"

"Look," I said, "I've got some bumper stickers in my trunk that say, 'Beheading Is Not the Answer.' Would you guys like a couple?"

"F—- off!" they said in unison. Their car roared off.

This is not the entire article, but the basic gest of it.