Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Ms.Sherrod should remain Unemployed.

Shirley Sherrod was forced to resign a few afternoons ago from the Department of Agriculture, after Andrew Breitbart released an edited video of Ms.Sherrod discussing an incident in which she prejudiced white farmers for racial reasons, but we later learned she was using her 1980's racism to discourage it in 2010 America.

However, the aftermath has been hectic. Conservatives are debating whether or not Ms.Sherrod should have been fired, whether or not Andrew Breitbart knew he didn't have the whole tape, as well as if the Department of Agriculture dealt with the situation correctly.

So what's right and what's wrong?

1. Ms.Sherrod deserved to be fired. Who knows how many people she discriminated against as a government official before realizing it was about communism, and not racism. That record alone is cause enough for her to be fired.

2. Andrew Breitbart is a skilled new media wizkid, but this time he screwed up. Reviewing video of Ms.Sherrod, without proper context, and than deciding to publish it, still with proper context, was a pure rookie journalist mistake.

3. The Department of Agriculture should have been concerned about finding what the truth was, instead of fearing what Glenn Beck would say. In fact, Beck didn't even address the topic until after the firing of Sherrod and the backlash occurred.

Just as no-one would tolerate a former KKK member remaining in the federal government after admitting he descriminted against blacks for an unknown number of years, we shouldn't allow a black woman to receive her old job back after admitting what she did. Just the way it is, because that's fairness.

Subscribe

Bookmark and Share
Consider advertising on our site!

Monday, May 25, 2009

Obama Discusses Americans' Responsibility: Follow the Government, Pay Taxes, and Love Liberty

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Fort Belvoir, Virginia- In a press conference after his annual golf game on Memorial Day, President Barack Obama took a minute to reflect on the significance of the United States.

"I stand here before you, a young President in an age of violence, turmoil, and recession. What the next year holds, I cannot say. What tomorrow will bring, I cannot know. But I know this: every American has a responsibility to help his fellow man.

"When you look around, we see people without healthcare, families without food, men and women without jobs. Now, I ask you this: what is our responsibility to these people, the less fortunate who live in our country? The answer is not clear, but the feelings are.

"Our commitment is to help those in need. We must take this obligation not with pain or malice, but with zeal. We must restructure healthcare and make it available to all. And we must pay our taxes so that those without jobs can receive the money they need. We must love one another like we love our family, and we must allow the government to have the power to help those in need.

"In our country, the government is the only structure that can rebuild our economy and help the needy. What other organization can earn public trust, use money to its fullest extent, and give people jobs? But the most important point of the government is trust. We all must trust the government to do the right thing, and most importantly, you all must trust me. I can help everyone; all I need is your trust, loyalty, and taxes. That's all I ask.

"But importantly in this time of upheaval, I ask that you put your trust in the government and what it can do. Let the government rebuild the country, let us help each other, and let us lower crime. Yet remember, regardless of what the government does, we will always protect your liberty. That is what the government is here to do; protect freedom.

"The Obama Administration will always be here to protect your freedom, you have my promise," President Obama concluded.

The President then declined to take questions, and left to loud applause from the Press.



Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Government to use GPS to Track Houses and Residents

According to examiner.com and the Bandera County Courier, the United States Census Bureau is planning to enter up to 140 million addresses into a giant, government-run GPS database.

Can I just ask a simple question: why? I mean, is not the factual location of our homes enough, or do they really need to see where we live? I suppose spying on regular citizens is something the administration would love to do, considering they want to control how the Census is taken, and take power away from the Census Bureau.

Imagine the power the Administration could wield. They can see where you live, they know who you are, and if Obama's proposal for "Preventative Detention" goes through, they can jail you with the flick of their wrist. They can sway votes and elections, they can jail their enemies. What next, I ask you, what next?

And don't even get me started with the security risks we face if hackers find out where people's homes are. What's more, it's not where they are, but what they are, how they are, what they even look like. Imagine the ease of a criminal finding the residence of anyone he wants to find.

Danger and power seem to go hand in hand if this is allowed to continue. Power and danger from an over-powerful administration, power and danger from tech-savvy hackers. It seems that Big Brother could be looking down on us any day now.



Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Get Ready to Kiss Some Rights Away: AP Sources: Obama wants Fed to be 'Finance Supercop'

Love the government in your business? Well, you'll love this.

From Yahoo! News:

WASHINGTON – The White House told industry officials on Friday that it is leaning toward recommending that the Federal Reserve become the supercop for "too big to fail" companies capable of causing another financial meltdown.

According to officials who attended a private one-hour meeting between President Barack Obama's economic advisers and representatives from about a dozen banks, hedge funds and other financial groups, the administration made it clear it was not inclined to divide the job among various regulators as has been suggested by industry and some federal regulators.

"The idea of having a council of regulators was pretty much vetoed," said one participant.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who briefly attended the meeting but did not identify the Fed specifically as his top choice, told the group that one organization needs to be held responsible for monitoring systemwide risk. He said such a regulator should be given better visibility into all institutions that pose a risk to the financial system, regardless of what business they are in.

"Committees don't make decisions," Geithner told the group, according to another participant.

Officials from the Treasury Department and National Economic Council, which hosted the meeting, told participants that the Fed was considered the most likely candidate for the job, according to several officials who attended or were briefed on the discussions.

The administration officials said a legislative proposal would likely be sent to Capitol Hill in June with the expectation that the House Financial Services Committee, led by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., would consider the measure before the July 4th recess.

The officials requested anonymity because the meeting had not been publicly announced and they were not authorized to discuss it.

A Treasury Department statement provided to The Associated Press on Friday confirmed Geithner's position that he wants a "single independent regulator with responsibility for systemically important firms and critical payment and settlement systems."

A spokesman said Geithner also is open to creating a council to "coordinate among the various regulators, including the systemic risk regulator."

Industry officials say such a council would likely serve as advisers and would not be given the authority that a "systemic risk regulator" would.

The Fed itself hasn't taken a position on whether it should have the job, although Chairman Ben Bernanke has said the Fed would have to be involved in any effort to identify and resolve systemwide risk.

Geithner said Friday the administration plans an "aggressive" package of reforms for the financial system including proposals to fundamentally overhaul how financial institutions pay their senior executives. Critics have charged that the bonus system used at many major institutions encouraged excessive risk taking.

"We had a financial system that did a terrible job of protecting consumers, of building a strong, stable financial system less prone to crisis and we are going to have to fix that," Geithner said in an interview on PBS' "Newshour." "You will see this president, this administration bringing sweeping reforms to our financial system."

In a speech Thursday, Bernanke said that huge, globally interconnected financial firms whose failure could endanger the U.S. economy should be subject to "a robust framework for consolidated supervision."

Naming the Fed as a kind of super regulator is likely to run into at least some resistance by other federal regulators and in Congress.

Mary Schapiro, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said Friday that she was inclined to support the idea floated this week by the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for a new "systemic risk council" to monitor large institutions against financial threats. The council would include the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, FDIC and SEC, according to the proposal by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair.

Speaking to the Investment Company Institute, the mutual fund industry's biggest trade group, Schapiro said she is concerned about an "excessive concentration of power" over financial risk in a single agency.

Lawmakers are divided on whether the Fed alone should assume the role of systemic regulator. Some say the Fed failed to prevent the current economic crisis and shouldn't be trusted with such a big responsibility. Others say the Fed should stay focused on its primary duty of setting monetary policy.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said this week he is "more attracted to the council idea" than having a single regulator play that role.

Unlike other regulatory agencies, the Fed does not rely on appropriations from Congress for its operating funds. It finances itself through its investments.

Fed Gov. Daniel Tarullo told Congress in March that the extent to which the new responsibility for systemic risk should fall to the central bank "depends a great deal on precisely how the Congress defines the role and responsibilities of the authority."

"Any systemic risk authority would need a sophisticated, comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach to systemic risk," he testified. "Such an authority likely would require knowledge and experience across a wide range of financial institutions and markets."



Get Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Saturday, January 31, 2009

US Mint Contemplates Putting Obama on Quarter

San Francisco Bugle Examiner
"News Under a Microscope"
Phil Hance