The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25596196/detail.html

 

printemaillinkShare this:twitterfacebookmoreText Size:AAAChannel 2 Uncovers Proof Terrorists Crossed Mexican Border

 

 

WSB-TV

Posted: 3:44 pm EDT November 1, 2010

Updated: 12:10 pm EDT November 2, 2010

 

ATLANTA -- The U.S. Border Patrol has captured thousands of people they say are classified as OTM which stands for "other than Mexican." Documents show many of them are from terrorists nations like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen. Federal authorities call those groups SIAs, which stands for "special interest aliens".

 

Federal officials have offered few details about the number of actual terrorists caught along the border.

 

Retired immigration agent Michael Cutler says the actual threat is being covered up. "Incredibly the government is attempting to keep the citizens like a bunch of mushrooms. Keep us in the dark and feed us a bunch of manure."

 

Government officials have denied that terrorists have crossed our open border. Still, Channel 2 Action News has proof they have. Channel 2 Anchor Justin Farmer found documents filed in federal court in San Antonio, Texas, in May. They show an indictment against Ahmed Muhammad Dhakane for allegedly smuggling hundreds of people from Brazil to Mexico, then into the U.S. The federal indictment states it includes some Somalis from the terrorist group Al Shabob. Terrorism experts say the group is responsible for terrorist attacks and suicide bombings worldwide.

 

"To this day we do not know where those 300 Somalis are," said Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas. "We do know they are in the United States."

 

A 2009 Government Accounting Office report confirmed agents have picked up three known terrorists who crossed the southwestern border of the United States. No other information was released.

 

"There are many people not only being apprehended, but slipping through the cracks on our southern flank that are very dangerous," said McCaul.

 

Intelligence officials have admitted on record there is a terrorism threat. In 2007, former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell told the El Paso Times that terrorists have been crossing the border. He said there are many situations where people are alive today because the terrorists were caught.

 

Sheriffs along the southwestern U.S. border also are aware of the threat.

 

"There is (intelligence) we have that is very troubling", said Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, Ariz. "Things are not getting better, they are getting worse."

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25596196/detail.html

Move along, nothing to see here..................

[Balta1701]

The answer to this is clearly a $40 billion invisible, non-functioning fence.

 

Seriously guys...what do you think the answer there is? If everyone coming across that border was doing so legally, then the couple hundred people you really, really want to catch would be the ones who stand out, by doing so through other means. That's a problem created because we want to pretend that enforcement-only is a realistic policy.

[NorthSideSox72]

After it took two days to declare a winner, I don't want to see anyone complain about the Republicans calling this election a mandate. This from the worst governor in the entire country.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11...e-tax-pat-quinn

 

As bad as Bush's declared "mandate" after a 51-49 wartime win was, Quinn's is laughable.

 

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25596196/detail.html

 

Another reason I tend to agree with Republicans on better defending our borders, but not necessarily on the methodology.

 

That said, I'm highly skeptical of a "news" article that refers to a long list of "terrorist nations". They seriously, honestly, just labeled the entire populations of those countries as terrorists?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The answer to this is clearly a $40 billion invisible, non-functioning fence.

 

Seriously guys...what do you think the answer there is? If everyone coming across that border was doing so legally, then the couple hundred people you really, really want to catch would be the ones who stand out, by doing so through other means. That's a problem created because we want to pretend that enforcement-only is a realistic policy.

No one other than the straw man you are creating, again, is saying that enforcement at the border is the only part of any new policy. You are quite simply making that up.

 

And yeah. I'd rather have a $40B virtual fence that takes another $20B to get right... than an $80B real fence that still requires the $40B telemetry anyway AND has much, much worse side effects.

 

[Balta1701]

No one other than the straw man you are creating, again, is saying that enforcement at the border is the only part of any new policy. You are quite simply making that up.

 

And yeah. I'd rather have a $40B virtual fence that takes another $20B to get right... than an $80B real fence that still requires the $40B telemetry anyway AND has much, much worse side effects.

You think "Enforcement only!" is a straw man? Come on man. That is the only policy that the political right will accept. In 07, you had Bush trying to figure out a way to push a bill that the Republican caucus would be happy with, but they refused to move a bill that had any sort of guest worker program or any acknowledgment that there was anything which could be done other than increased enforcement. Enforcement only is exactly what the incredibly vocal minority that cares about this issue wants.

 

And really, the "Virtual fence" is one of those things the budget hawks ought to be raving about. It's been a $20 billion money pit that has produced absolutely nothing except profits for Boeing. That could pay for 10 Obama trips to India! I used to use the line "Defense spending doesn't count", because people are happy to rant and rave about out of control spending, even spending that doesn't exist, but the moment anyone tries to say "maybe $100 billion a year to occupy a country isn't the best use of our money", "Oh my we can't cut spending, how dare you not support the troops!". If you're willing to keep dumping money into the southern border, I think it's probably fair to start lumping that in with defense spending.

[NorthSideSox72]

You think "Enforcement only!" is a straw man? Come on man. That is the only policy that the political right will accept. In 07, you had Bush trying to figure out a way to push a bill that the Republican caucus would be happy with, but they refused to move a bill that had any sort of guest worker program or any acknowledgment that there was anything which could be done other than increased enforcement. Enforcement only is exactly what the incredibly vocal minority that cares about this issue wants.

 

And really, the "Virtual fence" is one of those things the budget hawks ought to be raving about. It's been a $20 billion money pit that has produced absolutely nothing except profits for Boeing. That could pay for 10 Obama trips to India! I used to use the line "Defense spending doesn't count", because people are happy to rant and rave about out of control spending, even spending that doesn't exist, but the moment anyone tries to say "maybe $100 billion a year to occupy a country isn't the best use of our money", "Oh my we can't cut spending, how dare you not support the troops!". If you're willing to keep dumping money into the southern border, I think it's probably fair to start lumping that in with defense spending.

That's an interesting point - and I am actually not all that opposed to having that be more of a military thing than it is.

 

But on the enforcement only thing, your memory is not the same as mine. The right is (in general) against any sort of amnesty, and they've been slow to accept demand side measures. But I don't recall the complete blockade against a guest worker program, at all. And for the record, I was talking about people HERE, since you seemed to be talking about people HERE. Even the furthest right wingers on here like Alpha, if I recall correctly, are fine with making changes to allow more workers in legally as part of a plan.

 

[Balta1701]

But on the enforcement only thing, your memory is not the same as mine. The right is (in general) against any sort of amnesty, and they've been slow to accept demand side measures. But I don't recall the complete blockade against a guest worker program, at all. And for the record, I was talking about people HERE, since you seemed to be talking about people HERE. Even the furthest right wingers on here like Alpha, if I recall correctly, are fine with making changes to allow more workers in legally as part of a plan.

The ones here might well be, sure. They're not the ones making policy, as you will probably note.

 

The reality at the national level is...a significant chunk, maybe 1/2-2/3 of the Republican party, was fully unwilling to do anything that wasn't enforcement-only. About the only policy issue in 8 years that I'd agree in principle with W on was comprehensive immigration reform, and I'd say most Democrats were in the same boat. However, any concept of doing that was fully stopped by the portion of the party that had no interest in allowing anyone else into the country and kicking the ones who are here out.

 

If you'll notice...at present...our national policy is 100% the latter. Pretend that there is no demand for migrant workers, and arrest and detain wherever possible.

[southsider2k5]

The answer to this is clearly a $40 billion invisible, non-functioning fence.

 

Seriously guys...what do you think the answer there is? If everyone coming across that border was doing so legally, then the couple hundred people you really, really want to catch would be the ones who stand out, by doing so through other means. That's a problem created because we want to pretend that enforcement-only is a realistic policy.

[Cknolls]

Having lived in California during that...let me just say...good luck with that!

 

California; you have to be really, really stupid to emulate our politics.

 

Gavin Newsom after election victory :

 

"We're nothing but a mirror of our consistent thoughts. You tend to manifest what you focus on. If you look around for what's wrong, you'll find it. But as all we know up here in San Francisco, when you focus on what's right, you see it all around you. . . . There is absolutely nothing wrong with California that can't be fixed by what's right with California. . . . If you're from another state, you'd love to have the problems of California."

 

Huh?

[Cknolls]

The answer to this is clearly a $40 billion invisible, non-functioning fence.

 

Seriously guys...what do you think the answer there is? If everyone coming across that border was doing so legally, then the couple hundred people you really, really want to catch would be the ones who stand out, by doing so through other means. That's a problem created because we want to pretend that enforcement-only is a realistic policy.

 

 

Gatling Guns every 20 feet.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2011666&spid

 

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - Illinois Republican Mark Kirk won't be seated in the U.S. Senate in time for the start of the lame duck session of Congress this month - unlike two other newly elected senators.

 

The session begins Nov. 15. But state officials say the paperwork officially declaring Kirk the winner of the Senate race won't be delivered until Nov. 29.

 

That should still allow Kirk to participate in two weeks of the session in December. He argued strongly during the campaign that voters needed to send him to the Senate quickly so he could help block spending and tax increases.

 

Two Democrats are expected to be sworn in at the start of the lame duck session. Chris Coons of Delaware will fill the remainder of Vice President Joe Biden's term, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia replaces the late Robert Byrd.

 

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2011666&spid

This is dictated by each state, correct?

 

[Balta1701]

This is dictated by each state, correct?

To most of the extent yes...the States decide based on their own rules when and how to send credentials for a Senator to Washington.

 

However, the Senate does have a role; the Senate itself can decide to refuse to accept the credentials of a Senator. They wouldn't do that for a guy legitimately elected, but there was some talk about refusing to seat anyone Blagojevic nominated back when that all went down.

[StrangeSox]

To most of the extent yes...the States decide based on their own rules when and how to send credentials for a Senator to Washington.

 

However, the Senate does have a role; the Senate itself can decide to refuse to accept the credentials of a Senator. They wouldn't do that for a guy legitimately elected, but there was some talk about refusing to seat anyone Blagojevic nominated back when that all went down.

 

I think what NSS was driving at is that this isn't some partisan delay. It would have been the same for Alexi G.

[lostfan]

It was on the ballot.

 

I'm glad Brady didn't win, but I'm sad that Quinn did. Also, politicians should not be allowed to use the word "mandate" anymore, or they get automatically impeached.

There are no mandates in American politics unless you win like 70 or 80% of the vote. I hate it when politicians do that. Or even using the word "majority" when you're talking about 53%. Ugh.

[EvilMonkey]

Chris Christie calls oout the head of Parisippany NJ district by name as an example of someone gaming the system for their own benefit. I like it.

 

[Balta1701]

Chris Christie calls oout the head of Parisippany NJ district by name as an example of someone gaming the system for their own benefit. I like it.

 

Chris Christie gets called out by the U.S. DOJ's Inspector General's office as an example of someone gaming the system for his own benefit.

[EvilMonkey]

Chris Christie gets called out by the U.S. DOJ's Inspector General's office as an example of someone gaming the system for his own benefit.

The officials declined to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the findings on the record.

And this "When you break the rules and make taxpayers cover your $450 suites at the Four Seasons, you lose your right to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility," doesn't fit with this "While the total cost of what was charged over the federal government’s allowed maximum appears to equate only a couple thousand dollars,". That's not very many stays. And I have to say to this: so what? Why do you seem to think that if someone on the right advocates cuting costs, that they could have never overspent in their lifetime? If he was cutting these costs WHILE racking up overages, then you have something. otherwise, what you posted is total crap and irrelevent. What are your thoughts and comments on the video link I posted? Do you approve of what he was describing?

[southsider2k5]

I can't believe that Obama has the nerve to go on to the world stage and essentially call China a currency manipulator at this point in time. Did he completely forget about QE and QE2? How about the stimulus plan, or the TARP bailouts?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-12/o...f-the-hook.html

 

President Barack Obama attacked China’s policy of undervaluing its currency minutes after he and other Group of 20 leaders ended a summit that failed to agree on a remedy for trade and investment distortions.

 

“It is undervalued,” Obama said of the yuan, speaking to reporters in Seoul after the meeting concluded. “And China spends enormous amounts of money intervening in the market to keep it undervalued.”

 

The G-20 leaders agreed to develop early warning indicators to head off economic turmoil as emergency talks on Ireland’s debt reminded them the recovery from the global financial crisis remains fragile. Obama and his South Korean counterpart, Lee Myung Bak, failed to complete a free-trade agreement.

 

The two-day gathering was marked by clashes over whether Chinese or U.S. policies were more to blame for economic imbalances that endanger the global recovery. China took aim at the Federal Reserve’s monetary easing, highlighting dangers it said the move posed to financial stability and rejecting policy prescriptions that fault its exchange-rate regime.

 

“I have to give this round to the Chinese,” said Tim Condon, head of Asian research at ING Groep NV in Singapore. “In an international negotiation like this China has seized on” the easing “to its advantage and managed to deflect any kind of criticism the U.S. might have been able give.”

 

Obama and Hu have arrived in Japan, where about half of the G-20 leaders will gather again in Yokohama for a weekend meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

 

Imbalance Guidelines

 

Finance ministers from the G-20 will work next year on a set of “indicative guidelines” designed to identify large economic imbalances and the actions needed to fix them, according to a joint statement released as the Seoul summit came to a close. The indicators will be selected with the help of the International Monetary Fund and developed next year when France holds the G-20 presidency, the statement said.

 

“Uneven growth and widening imbalances are fueling the temptation to diverge from global solutions into uncoordinated actions,” the statement said. “Uncoordinated policy actions will only lead to worse outcomes for all.”

 

China has $2.65 trillion of foreign currency reserves, more than double any other country. It ran up a $201 billion trade surplus with the U.S. in the first nine months of this year, more than the U.S. deficit with the next seven-largest trading partners combined, according to Commerce Department data.

 

Cliff Tan, head of emerging-market currency research at Societe Generale SA in Hong Kong, said the summit did nothing to curb what he sees as an inevitable decline in the dollar against emerging-market currencies.

 

Dollar Weakness

 

“The Fed will be buying Treasuries next week and I expect the world will continue to try to diversify away from a currency they don’t particularly want more of at present,” Tan said. “And that still means a weaker dollar.”

 

The G-20 said emerging markets facing a surge of capital inflows can adopt regulatory steps to cope, offering them cover to limit currency swings and stem asset bubbles as the U.S. adds $600 billion of liquidity from the Fed’s quantitative easing.

 

“In circumstances where countries are facing undue burden of adjustment, policy responses in emerging-market economies with adequate reserves and increasingly overvalued flexible exchange rates may also include carefully designed macro- prudential measures,” the G-20 leaders said in the statement.

 

G-20 discussions were clouded by concern Ireland may need the European Union to step in with a bailout after its bond yields surged to a record, a reminder of the financial crisis that led to the first summit in November 2008.

 

‘Difficult Negotiations’

 

“These were hard and sometimes difficult negotiations,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters in Seoul. “In the end the spirit of cooperation prevailed.”

 

The statement didn’t mention numerical goals for curbing current account imbalances, which U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had broached until days before the summit. He said last month that a ratio for current-account surpluses or deficits of 4 percent of gross domestic product was “likely to emerge as the basic benchmark.” China and Germany, which run two of the world’s largest surpluses, rejected the idea of targets.

 

“We agreed that we can’t measure sustainable growth and imbalances with one indicator, but that we need a number of indicators,” Merkel said. “These indicators will now have to be discussed, and that’s what the finance ministers will take up in detail next year.”

 

Stephen Roach, nonexecutive Asia Chairman for Morgan Stanley, said today’s agreement may shift the focus away from the U.S.-China dispute over the yuan because it puts pressure on all G-20 nations to address trade and savings gaps.

 

Workable Framework

 

“It really gives the G-20 a far more workable framework to address the broad subject of imbalances,” Roach said in an interview from Mumbai. “This is a far more reliable alternative than to try to resolve a multilateral problem through a bilateral currency” dispute.

 

The People’s Bank of China set the reference rate for yuan trading at 6.6239 per dollar today, the strongest since a peg ended in July 2005. The yuan has risen about 3 percent against the U.S. currency since June 19, when China said it was allowing a resumption of appreciation that was frozen in 2008.

 

Obama and Hu met for 80-minutes yesterday in talks spokesmen for both presidents said were focused on the currency.

 

“The Chinese jealously hold their right to be flexible, their right to adjust,” said Donald Brean, co-director of the G20 Research Group at the University of Toronto. “They would not want to commit to something that is so rigid with respect to their trade imbalances. That is not to say they don’t understand the underlying forces that are causing them.”

 

To contact the reporters on this story: Tony Czuczka in Seoul at [email protected]; Michael Forsythe in Seoul at [email protected]

 

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Bill Austin at [email protected]

[Balta1701]

I can't believe that Obama has the nerve to go on to the world stage and essentially call China a currency manipulator at this point in time. Did he completely forget about QE and QE2? How about the stimulus plan, or the TARP bailouts?

Really? You don't think that there is a fundamental difference between what China is doing and what the U.S. is doing, just based on the actual status of their economies?

[StrangeSox]

I can't believe that Obama has the nerve to go on to the world stage and essentially call China a currency manipulator at this point in time. Did he completely forget about QE and QE2? How about the stimulus plan, or the TARP bailouts?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-12/o...f-the-hook.html

 

I thought China's reaction, b****ing about US currency manipulation, was pretty ironic.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I can't believe that Obama has the nerve to go on to the world stage and essentially call China a currency manipulator at this point in time. Did he completely forget about QE and QE2? How about the stimulus plan, or the TARP bailouts?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-12/o...f-the-hook.html

They are essentially in a currency war here. But yes, I think China is the main culprit and right now, in terms of global currency markets, China's pegged Yuan and monetary policy associated with that, is the single biggest impediment to a larger recovery.

 

That isn't to say that the US isn't also making machinations that have global effects, because they are, just like the whole damn world is now. Its just that China is far and away the biggest problme. Them letting their currency float in the open market would be helpful for basically the entire rest of the world right now, and for them as well in the future.

 

[Balta1701]

and for them as well in the future.

IF...their government doesn't collapse the second they hit a legitimate economic blip.

[NorthSideSox72]

IF...their government doesn't collapse the second they hit a legitimate economic blip.

While none of us are expert in this, my personal guess is that the risk of that is very, very low.