Thou Shalt Not Have Strange gods…

Eleven million taxpayer-funded dollars.  Supposedly to help 400 people in Detroit find jobs.  Even if every one of those 4o0 people found a job, that would be $27,500 in taxpayer money spent, per job.  Ludicrous enough, no?

Well, what if only TWO (2) of those 400 people found jobs?

A chunk of an $11 million stimulus grant meant to provide low-income Detroit residents with clothing for job interviews reportedly aided just two people — far short of the 400 job-seekers the money was meant to help.

The findings were part of a new audit on the city’s Department of Human Services, according to The Detroit News.

That, my friends, comes to a cost of $5.5 MILLION dollars.  Per job.  Nice return on investment there, Barry.
Fast forward to yesterday (emphases added):

In the wake of lobbying by President Obama and Senate Democratic leaders, the Senate Thursday defeated legislation to speed up construction of a U-S.-Canadian oil pipeline.The White House victory came after the president started personally calling Democratic senators Wednesday night. The vote underscored the extent to which rising gas prices and energy supply have become a central political issue.

So, to Barack Obama, a stimulus program that costs taxpayers hundreds of millions, and which is a failure by any clear-thinking person’s standards is hailed as a success; while killing a program that creates at least 25,000 jobs, all without a dime of taxpayer money, is somehow considered a ‘victory.’

To Barack Hussein Obama, nothing can be successful; nothing can be true and real unless it is a direct machination of government. No matter how big the failure a government program is, it is still a success, because to a statist like Obama, nothing is possible, nothing is real unless it has its underpinnings in government.

To Obama, Government is reality. The government is the source of all that is good and just in the world.  The private sector is what is contrived. To Obama, the private sector is an anomaly; an abomination that must be controlled so as not to infringe upon the government’s influence in people’s lives. The god of Government is a jealous god. Thou shalt not have strange Gods before it.  Even religion itself takes a back seat to Obama’s real religion.

(image credit here)

After all, in order to appease the god of Government and to gain its good graces, one must certainly give alms:

More than half of Obama’s 47 biggest fundraisers, those who collected at least $500,000 for his campaign, have been given administration jobs. Nine more have been appointed to presidential boards and committees.

At least 24 Obama bundlers were given posts as foreign ambassadors, including in Finland, Australia, Portugal and Luxembourg. Among them is Don Beyer, a former Virginia lieutenant governor who serves as ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

….

Obama has appointed 59 ambassadors who were not career Foreign Service officers, and of those, 40 percent were bundlers.

Welcome to the church of Obama.

God help its heretics.

Advertisements

76 thoughts on “Thou Shalt Not Have Strange gods…

  1. Cluster March 9, 2012 / 12:49 pm

    This just in: Obama continues to work against America –

    Thursday’s squeaker of a Senate vote on the Keystone XL pipeline serves both as a warning to President Barack Obama that a majority of both houses of Congress supports the pipeline and as encouragement to Republicans to keep pushing the issue.

    Obama had personally lobbied Senate Democrats with phone calls urging them to oppose an amendment to the highway bill that would fast-track the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline. And as it turned out, he needed every bit of their help.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73795.html

    • bozo March 11, 2012 / 6:50 am

      Keystone will cost our midwestern farmers two billion dollars in higher gas and diesel costs, all of which will go into Canadian pockets.

      “Millions of Americans will spend 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel as tribute to our ‘friendly’ neighbors to the north,” the highly respected Dr. Verleger wrote. “The Keystone XL pipeline will move production from Canadian oil sands to a deepwater port from where it can be exported.”

      But that is not merely Verleger’s opinion. It’s based on findings of the economic consultants hired by TransCanada – contained in their analyses of the pipeline’s impact on Canadian oil producers and in official testimony before Canada’s National Energy Board.

      “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally [the US Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil,” concludes a 2009 analysis on behalf of TransCanada by Purvin & Gertz, Inc., an oil economics firm based in Houston. “Access to the [US Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest market] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude.

      You REALLY wanna take TransCanada’s side versus our own farmers? Republicans are screwing our own heartland while you cheer them on.

      What is wrong with you people?

      • greg-o March 11, 2012 / 12:10 pm

        bozo,

        “The Keystone XL pipeline will move production from Canadian oil sands to a deepwater port from where it can be exported.”

        “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally [the US Midwest]…”

        Are you saying the US Midwest is a foreign (exported) market? I realize leftist refer to such vast areas of America as “flyover” but really.

        I don’t see this as taking TransCanada’s side over our own farmers any more than Sen. Schumer asking Saudi Arabia to boost production as a slight against our own farmers. Canada is a much more friendly oil supplier than Saudi Arabia, don’t you think? And that doesn’t even account for the tens of thousands of American jobs, including union jobs, that would be created, even among those farmers as those workers will need something to eat.

      • Amazona March 11, 2012 / 2:47 pm

        But isn’t it the freakzos who keep lecturing us that oil is “fungible” and that increasing domestic production won’t affect worldwide oil prices?

        All we ever hear from them when we want to increase U S production is at it won’t matter, it’s a world market etc.

        Now suddenly prices for Canadian oil will increase if they move it through the U S, and we will have to pay more for it.

        Guess the best solution is to build the pipeline AND increase domestic production, eh?

      • Amazona March 11, 2012 / 2:56 pm

        Freakzo also tries out tired old PL tactics—–the effort to pretend that building a pipeline will mean ” taking sides against our own farmers” and “screwing our own heartland” (the same “heartland” for which they have such contempt come election time).

        But all he does is illustrate how happy the average (or in his case, below average) PL troll is willing to sound as dumb as dirt if in doing so he can argue for an RRL agenda,

        And I wonder just who it is who has so much respect for this Dr. Verleger. This tactic sounds like forker crap—– you know, when when of the undead claims that a demon source is ever- so-highly-regarded.

        You guys are so funny, and directly responsible for the confidence of conservatives going into this election.

      • bozo March 12, 2012 / 5:14 am

        “Are you saying” I’m not saying anything. TransCanada is testifying, no, boasting to their own government that this pipeline will jack up Canadian profits at American farmers, truckers, manufacturers and consumer’s expense, billions of dollars more that will be passed along to you and me.

        But somehow, as farmer’s and manufacturer’s fuel costs rise, they’ll hire more people? What?

        I’ll be honest and admit this testimony caught me by surprise. I just figured America would be on the hook for potential environmental disaster. But TransCanada, not me, not Al Gore, not Sean Penn, TRANSCANADA testified to Canada’s National Energy Board that this pipeline will “Increase the price of heavy crude” in the American midwest markets. You know, where Americans grow food and stuff.

  2. bardolf March 9, 2012 / 2:20 pm

    PART of 11 million dollars
    PART of 11 million dollars

    Is English really that tricky Leo? Maybe all the money was wasted, but at no time was ALL 11 million meant for clothing. OTOH Obama is wasting big bucks on a situation worse than Detroit, namely Baghdad.

    Anyone got the amount spent per day in Baghdad by the US government in the form of contractors?

    That billion dollar embassy could pay for 100 Detroit operations alone.

    • Jonathan Swift March 9, 2012 / 3:09 pm

      Yes, the full $11 million grant was actually for a service center, which itself included a clothing store that was designed to get clothing to the needy. My guess is that the rest of the grant was used in a relatively correct manner because I don’t see any news stories about it. And the clothes funding itself was basically hijacked by a private contractor who did not have enough oversight, so it is not like the two people that were helped got $75,000 suits or anything; the money was really basically embezzled.

      That is not to say that the story is not still cringe-worthy, but having a private contractor ship off $150,000 of your funds when they shouldn’t have is a lot different from a governmental body being so inefficient that it spent $11 million on two sets of clothing. We have plenty of real issues to worry about without making new ones up.

    • Amazona March 9, 2012 / 4:13 pm

      So what is your point? Are your points?

      That gee, there’s no proof that ALL of the money was wasted, stolen or whatever? So who cares?

      And the fact that articles have not been written (yet?) about waste other than involving the clothing store is supposed to justify the sanguine “guess” that ..the rest of the grant was used in a relatively correct manner ..

      Well, you do at least admit this is just a ‘guess’ on your part, and you do add the qualifier “RELATIVELY” to the correctness with which the money was guessed to be administered, so you really haven’t said much of anything at all except to join dolf in his usual nit-picking.

      But you did get to post another non-political pseudo-comment.

      • bardolf March 9, 2012 / 4:55 pm

        Amy

        His point is when Leo did the mathematics he used the eleven million figure for the numerator and two for the denominator. He did so without knowing what either number meant and so came up with a meaningless number, five and a half million PER JOB.

        Your constant defense of moronic, meaningless comments like the five and a half million only contributes to the perception of innumeracy on your part as well.

        Hint: Whenever you see a thread with the following symbols {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} aka numbers, you should tell yourself ‘Amy, those scary symbols are numbers, and they have some real meaning, and you don’t know it, better keep quite on this thread’.

      • Jonathan Swift March 9, 2012 / 5:32 pm

        My guess was based on the fact that the report in question was a audit that encompassed the whole grant, so it is likely that other misappropriations would have been identified at the same time. I said “relatively” because there is almost always some way that a project can be managed more efficiently, so I didn’t want somebody to jump up and down about how awful a person I am when they found some source indicating another $25 was lost in efficiency someplace. My overall point was that the exaggeration involved in this post is not conducive to an objective assessment of the problem and what needs to be changed to solve it.

      • Amazona March 9, 2012 / 5:36 pm

        Oh, get over yourself. I know exactly what happened, I quickly saw that Leo had skipped a step, and I also realized the glee with which you swooped in to gloat over his mistake.

        I did not “defend” the mistake. You really have to quit listening to those voices in your head, as they seem to delight into leading you into making sweeping statements which are not true. (Let’s not forget the long drawn-out exposition of your fantasies when you spun a simple family move from one city to another into an elaborate scenario involving a young girl being kicked out of school by nuns who simply could not stand her, and poor parenting by her father because he took another job. It was not a high point in your posting career, but it did illustrate the odd nature of what passes for rational thought once your mind gets away from numbers.)

        And speaking of numbers, thank you so much for the quick tutorial on what they are—when you digress into actual teaching of your actual subject matter it is easy to see why some of your students rate you as overbearing.

        But I’ll tell you what—I’ll trade you. I won’t post any more on numbers, and you don’t post any more on politics. That way we can both avoid looking foolish.

      • J. R. Babcock March 9, 2012 / 5:41 pm

        and so came up with a meaningless number, five and a half million PER JOB.

        I just took it as hyperbole — something the Left engages in on a regular basis.

      • bardolf March 10, 2012 / 12:41 am

        Your hateful racist rant, below, has you deleted for an indeterminate period of time. // Moderator

  3. Ms Miller March 9, 2012 / 3:15 pm

    Thanks for this oh so truthful article. Too much of everything is due to money and the kings who desire to keep the most of it for themselves.
    Keep up the truthful writing. It is refreshing to read fearless truth.

  4. bardolf March 9, 2012 / 5:15 pm

    Off topic, but then again without Mark Noonan this blog gets a reasonable topic about once a month! I just wish it was the liberal quacks who were killing B4V instead of people as lazy as newt gingrich not even phoning it in anymore.

    Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest
    http://news.yahoo.com/family-florida-boy-killed-neighborhood-watch-seeks-arrest-044537742.html

    You can shoot people if they are coming into your house, not just because you don’t like they look different and eat skittles.

    Watch out Neoconehead, Je$$e and $harpton are on there way to your neck of the woods.

    • neocon1 March 9, 2012 / 5:26 pm

      baldork

      If you threaten an old man in Fla you might end up dead.
      Of course let the “ju$tice” bros “sort it out. forget about those 200 plus episodes of 48 showing the REAL goings on in our communities.

      IF he shot the kid for no reason he will be charged most likely 2nd degree murder.

      PS walk careful in MY neck of the woods…….. 🙂

      • neocon1 March 9, 2012 / 5:31 pm

        communism coming to a neighborhood near you…….

        This Spring, We‘ll See Action’: Piven Issues Dark Prediction on Occupy Wall Street

        According to Frances Fox Piven:

        The Occupy Wall Street movement is entering the phase where it “makes trouble.”

    • neocon1 March 9, 2012 / 5:38 pm

      Penalties for Assault & Battery in Florida

      Assault is a second degree misdemeanor, which has a maximum penalty of 60 days in jail and a $500 fine. FL Criminal Statute §784.011

      Battery is a first degree misdemeanor, which has a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail and a $1000 fine. A Second Offense Battery charge becomes a felony battery (3rd degree felony) with a penalty of up to 5 years in jail an a maximum $5000 fine. FL Criminal Statute §784.03

      An Aggravated Assault charge is a felony assault third degree felony, which has a maximum penalty of 5 years in jail and a $5000 fine. FL Criminal Statute §784.021

      An Aggravated Battery is a second degree felony, which has a maximum penalty of 15 years in jail and a $10,000 fine. FL Criminal Statute §784.045

      PS

      assault and battery on a Sr citizen is a FELONY, a FORCIBLE felony can be met with deadly force.
      many 13 yo “kids” are gang bangers and killers.

      • neocon1 March 9, 2012 / 5:42 pm

        : West Palm Beach fire captain jailed on battery on a senior citizen charge

    • Amazona March 9, 2012 / 5:52 pm

      And there you go again, inventing things and then pontificating on your silly fantasies. Too bad you have no concept of the relationship between cause and effect.

      Just look how stupid you can be if you just put a little effort into it. No, dolf, the boy was NOT killed just for looking different and eating Skittles. You really need a little feedback mechanism of some sort, so you can see just how dumb you sound when you let those voices dictate your posts.

      Yes, the boy was probably approached because he did not fit the profile of people who are usually in that neighborhood. Yes, that is not very fair, but on the other hand it is a standard law enforcement technique, to look more closely at what seems out of place. In a perfect world no one would attract attention because of his skin color, but then you are leaping to the conclusion that it was just skin color that attracted the attention.

      Was he heavily tattooed? Was he wearing gang colors? Was his attire what attracted the unwelcome attention?

      What was his response to being approached? Was it a nice smile and a friendly discussion about who he was and what he was doing? Or was he belligerent and possibly even a little threatening?

      Now I am going to take the time here to point out the obvious: I AM NOT SAYING THAT HE WAS DRESSED IN GANG COLORS, THAT HIS ATTIRE WAS THAT OF LOCAL GANGS, THAT HE WAS COVERED IN BODY INK, OR THAT HE WAS BELLIGERENT WHEN APPROACHED. I AM NOT SAYING HE DID A SINGLE THING THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE ALARMED THE MAN WHO SHOT HIM OR THAT MADE HIM LOOK LIKE A THREAT.

      There—now you don’t have to accuse me of saying something I did not say.

      What I AM saying is that you have no idea what happened there, and you still went off on some rant. You don’t know, I don’t know, only the person or people who were there have a clue.

      As for being shot for eating Skittles, well, once again we have to consider the source when wondering just how anything this stupid could possibly be considered, much less posted.

      • neocon1 March 9, 2012 / 5:59 pm

        Trayvon, who lived in Miami

        yeah, NO GANG BANGERS there eh?…..liberty city?
        something happened the man did not shoot ole tray-von for his skittles…….ju ju bees? could happen.

      • neocon1 March 9, 2012 / 6:08 pm

        baldork

        your homework assignment………..compare the 60 or 70 yo something’s rap sheet against that of the 13 yo “honor student” tv

      • neocon1 March 9, 2012 / 6:11 pm

        ole tre should have listened to THIS….LOL

      • Amazona March 9, 2012 / 9:10 pm

        This was not Trayvon’s own neighborhood. He was visiting his father and stepmother. There was no reason for anyone to automatically know he had a right to be there. Therefore, there was nothing wrong with Neighborhood Watch noticing a stranger in their midst and even asking him what he was doing. A gated community with an active neighborhood watch program pretty much telegraphs a high degree of sensitivity about security.

        The article about what a great kid Trayvon was, etc. etc. was written by the attorney hired by Trayvon’s family, not exactly an unbiased observer of fact.

        At this point no one knows what was said to Trayvon or how he reacted. I suggest that leaping to the conclusion he was shot because of his skin color is equally as racist as shooting him because of his skin color.

      • bardolf March 10, 2012 / 12:18 am

        You seem incapable of understanding that racist rants will get you deleted, possibly for good. This post was so full of racist hate it calls for a period of deletions. // Moderator

      • Jonathan Swift March 10, 2012 / 9:13 am

        Who cares if he was belligerent or possibly even a little threatening? Unless he outright physically assaulted Zimmerman, it ultimately doesn’t matter. Being in a neighborhood watch does not give you the authority to do anything to a private citizen. If Zimmerman put a finger on Trayvon without first being attacked himself, he is in a the wrong.

        And no, it is not racist to suspect that a black teenager killed in a upscale neighborhood might still be alive if he were white. Recognizing that there are racists in the world does not imply in any way that all white people are racist, which is the sort of generalization that you’d need to make the comment racist. You can’t just call every comment that you don’t like that has anything to do with race “racist”.

      • Cluster March 10, 2012 / 9:34 am

        You can’t just call every comment that you don’t like that has anything to do with race “racist”. – Jonathan

        But the left does that ALL THE TIME. Do you not recall how the left, and the media (sorry for the redundancy), are able to hear “code words” and “dog whistles” in nearly every innocuous comment made by the right??

        I am so tired of people being obsessed by the color of someone’s skin and the apologists that stand by ready to make an issue out of it, namely liberal democrats. Democrats are the party that divide people into categories, so you may want to direct your comment to whom the real racists are, and that wouldn’t be the conservatives.

      • Jonathan Swift March 10, 2012 / 10:02 am

        It is amazing how often you guys post variations on “but the left does it!” and think it is a compelling argument. Do you try to justify all of your bad decisions by complaining that somebody else also made the same bad decision?

      • Amazona March 10, 2012 / 10:52 am

        Who cares if he was belligerent or possibly even a little threatening? Unless he outright physically assaulted Zimmerman, it ultimately doesn’t matter.

        Uh, yeah, it does. If you make a threat and the threatened person believes that you are serious and that you have the ability to carry out that threat, that is assault.

        There is no obligation to be physically battered before taking steps to protect yourself.

        Yes, it is very possible that if Trayvon had been white, he would be alive today. And it’s possible that it would not have made a difference. As I said, no one knows.

        Just as it is true that a black kid might not be passed over for a job if he were not black—but stopping there, instead of going on to the reality, which is that his choices, made to a great extent based on the color of his skin, included gangsta clothing, possibly gang colors, tats and piercings and incomprehensible ‘Ebonics’.

        I understand being resentful at being stopped because you look different. This is natural. But if you have made the decision to look different, and furthermore if the decision you have made also makes you appear to be dangerous, then you carry a lot of responsibility for the way you are perceived. If your appearance of being dangerous is amplified by a dangerous demeanor, and/or by a threatening one, then you bear a lot, if not all, of the responsibility for what happens.

        As I said, we don’t know if Trayvon was wearing gang colors, or dressed in a way that suggested gang activity. For all we know, he was wearing a pastel button-down shirt, chinos, and looked like a Jehovah’s Witness. All I am saying is that until we do know if his personal choices in appearance and demeanor contributed as much, if not more, to a perception of him not belonging in that neighborhood as did his skin color, if his personal choices in how to deal with being questioned led to a perception of him being a threat, then it is knee-jerk racism to accuse anyone of shooting him just because of his skin color.

        And this knee-jerk racism is getting very tiresome, as it has become a staple of the Leftist attack mentality.

        What I would like to know is, why are YOU so deeply invested in seeing this as an example of nothing but racial discrimination?

      • Amazona March 10, 2012 / 1:50 pm

        You know what’s REALLY amazing? The way you guys scoot off to change the subject when anyone brings up the Constitution and how your emotion-based wish lists simply do not comply with it.

        In a post I made last night, posted at 9:15 in whatever random time zone the blog gremlins chose for it, I responded to your post, swifty, with this:

        *** “I would think guys would be in favor of trying to help people get jobs rather than just handing out welfare checks, right?”

        Oh, yeah, but you forgot the caveat …as long as the ‘helping people get jobs’ part is done by the state, or by the people, because it is not a delegated duty of the federal government..

        Everything should be held up to the 10th Amendment. Motive is not the issue here, it is a combination of Constitutionality (or lack of same) and the corruption inevitable with no oversight. ***

        Now, someone with a truly political point of view, going out of his way to post on a political blog, probably would have responded to this political comment with some political discussion of his own.

        But nah, not here. Here the representatives of the Left are completely indifferent to real politics, preferring instead to indulge their hateful pathologies by blindly attacking anything and everything they think represents the imagined and despised CONSERVATIVE position on anything.

        So this morning you go off on a totally predictable troll rant about alleged racism, which is after all one of the themes you can be drawn to and wallow in, being so dependent on blind bigotry and Identity Politics and all.

      • Jonathan Swift March 10, 2012 / 2:46 pm

        Ah, Identity Politics again. I remember when you stopped responding to me when we were having a discussion on that topic. Should I come back and try to rub your face in it every time you post anyplace else, too?

        I am more or less uninterested in having that Constitutional discussion with you because there isn’t really a point. On my reading, I think you’re right, and the Constitution doesn’t allow Welfare or any of another thousand things that our federal government does. The sensible fix to me would be to amend the thing instead of pretending that the necessary and proper clause gives the federal government the right to completely ignore the 10th amendment. But that’s really a logistical rather than ideological discussion, except now I might just get to hear you gloat over how wanting to use the built in mechanism for changing the Constitution means I hate the Constitution.

      • Jonathan Swift March 10, 2012 / 2:51 pm

        Oh, to go back to the original topic, it really wouldn’t have mattered how threatening Trayvon appeared, as that doesn’t allow for the legal right to shoot him to death. There is a line that he could have crossed that would ultimately have made it Trayvon’s fault, but it sure wouldn’t have been crossed even if he were heavily tattooed, wearing gang colors, and shouting profanity at Zimmerman.

      • neocon1 March 10, 2012 / 5:56 pm

        johnny slow

        battery on a senior citizen is aggravated battery in Fla. If tra-von got in his face then pushed the elderly gentleman that constituted FELONY BATTERY, in Fla that can be met with deadly force.

        Funny how you immediately attack the older gentleman. Believe me if there were a crime he WILL be arrested and charged If not ? a legal self defense case.

        PS
        try to go into liberty city at night being white and see how long you live…a two way street here.

      • neocon1 March 10, 2012 / 6:15 pm

        Before the officer arrived, the department got at least six 911 calls from residents bordering the walkway where the confrontation occurred, reporting two men fighting.

        there you have it.

      • neocon1 March 10, 2012 / 6:17 pm

        The police chief said that there is evidence to support Zimmerman’s self defense claims.

        When the police arrived, according to an incident report released yesterday, Zimmerman was found standing over the body, with his gun in his waistband, complaining that he yelled for help, but no one came out to help him. The back of his shirt was wet, with grass clippings on it, suggesting he was knocked down at one point. He was also bleeding from his nose and the back of his head.

      • RetiredSpook March 10, 2012 / 7:31 pm

        But that’s really a logistical rather than ideological discussion, except now I might just get to hear you gloat over how wanting to use the built in mechanism for changing the Constitution means I hate the Constitution.

        It kinda depends on what you want change, Swifty. For example, if you want to amend the Constitution to allow only certain kinds of speech, that would be something that you’d have a tough time getting that passed. What specifically would you like to see changed in the Constitution?

      • Jonathan Swift March 10, 2012 / 11:53 pm

        neocon1,

        Yes, it was obvious from other stories that there was a physical altercation. That does not immediately put Zimmerman in the right. It is certainly plausible that he either drew a weapon on Trayvon or tried to physically restrain him, and in each case he would have been within his rights to fight back.

        RetiredSpook,

        I am not a lawyer or a Constitutional expert, so I’m probably not the best person to come up with the exact wording, but there are a whole lot of things that we take for granted that find their place in one of the vague clauses of the Constitution. Take the FBI, for example. The closest mandate you get for the FBI is the combination of mention of maintaining armies, and two phrases:

        ” to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

        “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

        That doesn’t seem like a whole lot of Constitutional mandate for a force that has jurisdiction over more than 200 categories of federal crime. But the alternative is to have more than 50 internal intelligence agencies over all of the states and territories, which present an information exchange nightmare for anybody trying to track down criminals across state lines.

        My thought is that if we expand the explicit list of powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution, our rights are better protected, because our list remains explicit rather than becoming a tangled mess when we fit in the things we want to do between the actual lines of text.

      • Amazona March 11, 2012 / 1:01 pm

        I either “stopped responding” to you because I had to go to work or because your tiresome circular thought processes made me realize I was wasting my time.

        You sneer, but you do not explain. Do you disagree with me that there is a difference between choosing a political system for governing the country and just choosing between more or less attractive candidates?

        Do you disagree with me when I point out that nearly all of the so-called “political discussion” on this blog is really about personality or events and not about the relative merits of the two systems vying for power in this country?

        Do you disagree with me when I point out the effort to define a political philosophy—–Conservatism—-by non-political acts?

        And why are you so deeply invested in portraying this shooting in Florida as racially motivated? Do you have a dog in this hunt?

      • RetiredSpook March 11, 2012 / 1:58 pm

        My thought is that if we expand the explicit list of powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution, our rights are better protected, because our list remains explicit rather than becoming a tangled mess when we fit in the things we want to do between the actual lines of text.

        Swifty, my first inclination would be to not give the Federal Government any more explicit powers than it already has, but you do raise a point that I have not given a great deal of thought to. It might make for an interesting future discussion.

      • Jonathan Swift March 12, 2012 / 3:52 pm

        “Do you disagree with me that there is a difference between choosing a political system for governing the country and just choosing between more or less attractive candidates?”

        I agree with you. You’ve broken down the political decision making process correctly into the two main portions: ideological and practical.

        “Do you disagree with me when I point out that nearly all of the so-called “political discussion” on this blog is really about personality or events and not about the relative merits of the two systems vying for power in this country?”

        See, here’s the problem. You complain about the discussion being about individual personalities and events, and that’s great. It means you’d like to move from the practical half of the political process to the ideological, which I agree is the much more interesting discussion. Then you move right back into the practical by trying to put it in terms of these “two systems” you keep talking about. Even if I agreed that there were two systems in this country, which is absurd as an external concept to the actual party system itself, it amounts to wanting me react to what our current political landscape is rather than having any interest in what I want the country to be.

  5. Count d'Haricots March 9, 2012 / 6:11 pm

    They were given an $11.0 M gift from the taxpayers to help people get jobs.
    They used part of that money to buy clothes to help people get jobs.
    They used the rest of that money to build a service center to help people get jobs.

    2 People got jobs.

    Not as sound an investment as Solyndra and Fiskers, but all-in-all what I expect from the redistributive left.

    ‘le drapeau noir, c’est encore un drapeau’

    • Jonathan Swift March 9, 2012 / 6:41 pm

      Incorrect. Two people received clothes to help them get jobs. The number of people helped directly or indirectly to get a job by the entire grant is not clear from the story.

      • Count d'Haricots March 9, 2012 / 7:29 pm

        If the number of people helped to get a job is “not clear” then how do you know my statement is incorrect? Assuming facts which are not in evidence?

        Stimulus money isn’t about feeling good over the number of people helped, judging the success of the enterprise is but how many jobs were “got.”

        Tell ya’ what, defend this; if the program had actually worked the way they planned it they would have dressed each person for an interview at a cost of $370.00 per person per interview. Does that strike you as a “sound investment?

      • Jonathan Swift March 9, 2012 / 8:01 pm

        The story also mentioned that part of the center involved a call center. You’re right in that I don’t have hard figures here, but it seems incredibly likely that the call center itself employed more than 2 people, even if they didn’t manage to help anybody else.

        “Tell ya’ what, defend this; if the program had actually worked the way they planned it they would have dressed each person for an interview at a cost of $370.00 per person per interview.”

        I’ll assume you didn’t mean the “per interview” bit, as my guess is that you know people don’t throw away clothes after a single use, and go with yes, that actually doesn’t seem that unreasonable. Clothing makes a substantial difference in the interview process for anything besides completely unskilled jobs (and possibly even then), and $200-$300 seems like a pretty good spot to stop for return on investment, as it is enough to get a lowish budget suit. How much did the clothing you wore to your last interview cost?

      • Count d'Haricots March 9, 2012 / 8:17 pm

        The “call center itself employed more than 2 people, even if they didn’t manage to help anybody else.

        I don’t even want to have to address this bit of Keynesian double-speak.

        I’ll assume you didn’t mean the “per interview” bit

        The hell I didn’t, “To receive clothing, residents were required to have a job interview scheduled.

        ”$200-$300 seems like a pretty good spot to stop for return on investment, as it is enough to get a lowish budget suit.

        Sure, if the government is giving them away, that’s cheap. But, let’s see what happens in the real world; right here at the University we have a service where we “loan” clothing to students to use for interviews, the clothing is returned, dry cleaned and available for the next person.

        In Downtown Riverside there are several community based charities that offer a similar service to those in need. The Salvation Army, for one, has clothing available for people to use and return.”

        There are infinitely better solutions to buying “lowish” suits to give away to a few people when the private sector can help many more. And please tell me how giving away a suit of clothes with no expectation of remuneration of any kind is a good “return on investment”?

        How much did the clothing you wore to your last interview cost?

        Fair question, if anyone but ME was paying for it.

      • Amazona March 9, 2012 / 8:57 pm

        I have to remember to not drink Sprite while reading swiftyisms—it hurts when you laugh so hard it comes out your nose.

        “..it seems incredibly likely that the call center itself employed more than 2 people, even if they didn’t manage to help anybody else. ”

        This reminds me of my own observation that it seemed that the only people who got jobs from the so-called Recovery Act were the people who made the signs telling passersby that one day, honest, any day now, watch this space, we’re pretty sure some work will be done here.

        And the fact that with another of the “stimulus” efforts, the only jobs created were to hire people to help people apply for the money.

        You realize, if we were to make stuff like this up, we would be chastised, and rightly so, for being so mean and trying to make people look bad. It’s nice to know all we have to is sit back and watch them show do it to themselves.

      • Jonathan Swift March 9, 2012 / 9:01 pm

        “I don’t even want to have to address this bit of Keynesian double-speak.”

        Look, you might not like the jobs, but the fact is that you misread the statistic, and rather than just owning up to it, you tried to pretend there was some way that your misread statistic might have actually been randomly right. There isn’t, and it really isn’t a big deal that you misunderstood what was being said, especially given that the Fox News article is written to encourage exactly that sort of confusion. I wasn’t going to follow it up by demanding you bow before my superior reading skill or anything, and I am perfectly happy to assume that Leo’s original blog post was an honest mistake as well.

        “The hell I didn’t, “To receive clothing, residents were required to have a job interview scheduled.””

        Maybe you don’t understand your own terminology? Per person per interview implies that you will spend money on the same person more than once.

        “Sure, if the government is giving them away, that’s cheap. But, let’s see what happens in the real world; right here at the University we have a service where we “loan” clothing to students to use for interviews, the clothing is returned, dry cleaned and available for the next person.

        In Downtown Riverside there are several community based charities that offer a similar service to those in need. The Salvation Army, for one, has clothing available for people to use and return.”

        There are infinitely better solutions to buying “lowish” suits to give away to a few people when the private sector can help many more. And please tell me how giving away a suit of clothes with no expectation of remuneration of any kind is a good “return on investment”?”

        Yes, that actually does sound like a better idea. To be clear, we’ve made some assumptions about how the program was supposed to work that might be unfounded (it seems kind of odd that they spent money on opening a clothing store that was only supposed to clothe 400 people ever, doesn’t it?), but assuming all is as it appears, you are right, and it was a bad idea from the start.

      • Amazona March 9, 2012 / 9:01 pm

        I once donated about a dozen very nice, expensive, business suits to a Denver woman’s shelter, for women to wear on job interviews. They loaned the suits out, so women feel confident in job interviews.

        Taxpayer cost: $0 That is, $ 000.00.

        The shelter was run by the Archdiocese of Denver, it was funded by private donations, it counseled women on how to find, get and keep jobs, and it was and probably still is a great and successful program.

      • Jonathan Swift March 9, 2012 / 9:05 pm

        Amazona,

        I am not saying those were the only jobs that anybody found because of the program. I just cited it as an easy way, given just the information I have in front of me, to dismiss the idea that Count’s description of the number of jobs created by the whole $11 million grant was not reasonable.

        Your donations were admirable, and it sounds like it was a good program. The question, as always, with any sort of charity programs is whether whether there are times when they don’t cover everybody in need and whether there is anything the government can or should step in to do about it. Execution questions aside, I would think guys would be in favor of trying to help people get jobs rather than just handing out welfare checks, right?

      • Amazona March 9, 2012 / 9:15 pm

        “I would think guys would be in favor of trying to help people get jobs rather than just handing out welfare checks, right?”

        Oh, yeah, but you forgot the caveat …as long as the ‘helping people get jobs’ part is done by the state, or by the people, because it is not a delegated duty of the federal government..

        Everything should be held up to the 10th Amendment. Motive is not the issue here, it is a combination of Constitutionality (or lack of same) and the corruption inevitable with no oversight.

  6. bloodypenquinstump March 9, 2012 / 6:55 pm
  7. RetiredSpook March 9, 2012 / 7:07 pm

    OT, but I never thought about “hot” and “billionaire” being used in the same sentence. Is this a great country or what?

  8. bloodypenquinstump March 9, 2012 / 7:42 pm
  9. bloodypenquinstump March 9, 2012 / 7:42 pm
  10. bloodypenquinstump March 9, 2012 / 7:43 pm
  11. bloodypenquinstump March 9, 2012 / 7:43 pm
  12. bloodypenquinstump March 9, 2012 / 7:44 pm
    • Count d'Haricots March 9, 2012 / 8:53 pm

      Persistant little creep, isn’t he?

      • Amazona March 9, 2012 / 9:02 pm

        Oh, yeah. I love it when the moderator leaves the name up, so we can see how pathetic and desperate these persistent little creeps are.

        I guess you get a pretty thick skin after being shunned your whole life.

      • neocon1 March 10, 2012 / 5:47 pm

        LOL LOL

  13. Count d'Haricots March 9, 2012 / 8:01 pm

    OT, but priceless!
    NetJets Inc, a private jet-sharing company owned by Warren Buffett‘s Berkshire Hathaway Inc, was sued for $366.3 million by the government to recover unpaid taxes, …

    On November 14, (Warren Buffett) sued to recoup $642.7 million in taxes and penalties, accusing the Internal Revenue Service of having mistakenly imposed a “ticket tax” meant to apply only to passengers who buy seats on commercial or charter aircrafts.

    Yeah, this guy wants to pay more taxes, sure he does. /sarc

    • bardolf March 10, 2012 / 1:07 am

      Your hate-filled racist rant, above, has you deleted for an indeterminate period of time. // Moderator

      • neocon1 March 10, 2012 / 6:00 pm

        WOW

        old baldork isnt usually a racist, like others sometimes he rants a bit maybe he was boozing.

    • neocon1 March 10, 2012 / 5:48 pm

      he and ole charley wrangle must have the same accountant.

    • neocon1 March 11, 2012 / 2:11 pm

      js03

      STUNNING………impeach, convict, remove, Treason= Hang.

  14. Jeremiah March 11, 2012 / 5:25 am

    No pipeline means less jobs, and more people on government checks each month.
    To Obama, government is the answer to our country’s woes, but there will come a point when the well has no more water to supply such a monumental demand, then he will see what a dreadful mistake he has made.

    • neocon1 March 11, 2012 / 12:56 pm

      Jer

      We made the dreadful mistake….HIM

      • neocon1 March 11, 2012 / 1:19 pm

        A LONG HOT summer is a comin…….

        Nation of Islam Threatens Glenn Beck: ‘Minion in the Synagogue of Satan’…

    • bozo March 12, 2012 / 5:24 am

      TransCanada, you know, the Canadian people building the pipeline, testified to Canada’s National Energy Board that the pipeline will increase fuel costs to our midwestern states by billions of dollars. Canada’s oil producers will reap this windfall. How will that make more American jobs?

      • neocon1 March 12, 2012 / 2:38 pm

        blowzo

        source and proof of this?

      • Count d'Haricots March 12, 2012 / 6:51 pm

        Bull$hit.

        TransCanada tesitfied that midwestern oil is cheaper than oil in overseas markets, so the fiscally sound thing would be to sell to the highest bidder.

        Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based environmental advocacy non-profit group released their “study” claiming this will have the effect of raising US oil prices and reducing supply.

        Gee, an environmental group lying about the impact of a oil pipeline, as surprising as creepy clown lying about the source of the information.

      • Amazona March 16, 2012 / 10:36 am

        freakzo-math says that if Canada sells its oil to another country after transporting across the U.S. in a U.S.-built pipeline, built by U.S. labor, refined in a U.S. refinery run by U.S. labor, this will alter the price of crude oil overall because the oil is being sold to another country.

        BUT let Canada build its own pipeline, with Canadian labor, and sell to that same other country, and there will be no impact at all on the price of crude oil overall.

        Why don’t you tell us how that works?

Comments are closed.