“Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?

“It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies—policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.

“Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.

“That chaos is the dismal picture painted by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke a week and a half ago in the Capitol. As they pointed out, we confront a crisis of historic magnitude that has the ability to do serious injury not simply to our economy, but to the American people: not just to Wall Street, but to everyday Americans on Main Street.

“It is our responsibility today, to help avert that catastrophic outcome.

“Let us be clear: This is a crisis caused on Wall Street. But it is a crisis that reaches to Main Street in every city and town of the United States.

“It is a crisis that freezes credit, causes families to lose their homes, cripples small businesses, and makes it harder to find jobs.

“It is a crisis that never had to happen. It is now the duty of every Member of this body to recognize that the failure to act responsibly, with full protections for the American taxpayer, would compound the damage already done to the financial security of millions of American families.

“Over the past several days, we have worked with our Republican colleagues to fashion an alternative to the original plan of the Bush Administration.

“I must recognize the outstanding leadership provided by Chairman Barney Frank, whose enormous intellectual and strategic abilities have never before been so urgently needed, or so widely admired.

“I also want to recognize Rahm Emanuel, who combined his deep knowledge of financial institutions with his pragmatic policy experience, to resolve key disagreements.

“Secretary Paulson deserves credit for working day and night to help reach an agreement and for his flexibility in negotiating changes to his original proposal.

“Democrats insisted that legislation responding to this crisis must protect the American people and Main Street from the meltdown on Wall Street.

“The American people did not decide to dangerously weaken our regulatory and oversight policies. They did not make unwise and risky financial deals. They did not jeopardize the economic security of the nation. And they must not pay the cost of this emergency recovery and stabilization bill.

“So we insisted that this bill contain several key provisions:

“This legislation must contain independent and ongoing oversight to ensure that the recovery program is managed with full transparency and strict accountability.

“The legislation must do everything possible to allow as many people to stay in their homes rather than face foreclosure.

“The corporate CEOs whose companies will benefit from the public’s participation in this recovery must not benefit by exorbitant salaries and golden parachute retirement bonuses.

“Our message to Wall Street is this: the party is over. The era of golden parachutes for high-flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will the U.S. taxpayer bailout the recklessness of Wall Street.

“The taxpayers who bear the risk in this recovery must share in the upside as the economy recovers.

“And should this program not pay for itself, the financial institutions that benefited, not the taxpayers, must bear responsibility for making up the difference.

“These were the Democratic demands to safeguard the American taxpayer, to help the economy recover, and to impose tough accountability as a central component of this recovery effort.

“This legislation is not the end of congressional activity on this crisis. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will continue to hold investigative and oversight hearings to find out how the crisis developed, where mistakes were made, and how the recovery must be managed to protect the middle class and the American taxpayer.

“With passage of this legislation today, we can begin the difficult job of turning our economy around, of helping those who depend on a growing economy and stable financial institutions for a secure retirement, for the education of their children, for jobs and small business credit.

“Today we must act for those Americans, for Main Street, and we must act now, with the bipartisan spirit of cooperation which allowed us to fashion this legislation.

“This not enough. We are also working to restore our nation’s economic strength by passing a new economic recovery stimulus package—a robust, job creating bill—that will help Americans struggling with high prices, get our economy back on track, and renew the American Dream.

“Today, we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership that has left us left capable of meeting the challenges of the future.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) said that Pelosi’s speech “poisoned” the Republican caucus and “caused a number of members we thought we could get to go south.”

“I do believe that we could have gotten there today, had it not been for the partisan speech that the Speaker gave on the floor of the House,” Boehner said. “We put everything we had into getting the vote to get there today.” Boehner added, however, that lawmakers have “no choice” but to work together and would have to find “a middle ground to bring enough votes to avert a crisis.”

The Sacramento Bee has published recent stories about the Federal Government investigating St. Hope Academy and Kevin Johnson here. The “stories” are wrought with editorial and opinion, and low on facts. Bee writer Terri Hardy and perhaps her editor once again look shallow, unprofessional and vindictive.

During the primary, Kevin Johnson became so fed up with Terri Hardy’s dirty tactics and sensationalized stories that he cut off her access to him. She had gone so far as to inappropriately hunt down one of the St. Hope employees at his home, to try to get him to speak to her about the allegations of impropriety by Johnson. Is she attempting to get even?

Kevin Johnson, on local talk radio today, answered the allegations - again.

The Bee’s Terri Hardy wrote: The findings from the federal probe followed by a day the government’s announcement it was barring Johnson, St. HOPE Academy and a former official from access to federal grants and contracts for up to a year.

That, in turn, left city officials scrambling Thursday to figure out what it would mean if Johnson were elected mayor. Questions that the city attorney is looking into include whether Johnson would be able to vote on projects involving federal funds and whether his position at the helm would affect the city’s eligibility for federal money.

The Federal probe is appearing more like a political witch hunt. Johnson stated that in the 19 year history of St. Hope, they have only taken federal funds for three years.

As for KJ receiving favors and benefitting from the works of the teens, he has never taken a salary or expenses from St. Hope. I wonder how exactly he receives benefit from it? By making the kids work?

Heather Fargo and consultant Richie Ross have stooped to another new low. These allegations first surfaced last April. Nothing new has been added. Johnson said he feels that the government employee running with this investigation is trying to further his own career, and using Johnson’s star status and high profile to do it, as this the investigator and the investigation is unprecedented in it’s relentlessness for the meager allegations.

This story and investigation has the fingerprints of Richie Ross all over it. Who else could have orchestrated the free publicity by the Sacramento Bee?

Meanwhile, Mayor Fargo is looking more desperate, witchy and underhanded.

The John McCain campaign sent out more than 1 million applications for absentee ballots to Republicans. Each had a line at the top next to a box: "I am a qualified elector."

Brunner sent a memo telling county election officials to reject those applications for absentee ballots if the box was not checked. "Failure to check the box leaves both the applicant and the board of elections without verification that the applicant is a 'qualified elector'," she wrote.

But that's contrary to state law and Brunner doesn't have the authority, according to the lawsuit and an opinion from Hamilton County's Republican Prosecutor Joe Deters.

Ohio law allows voters to request an absentee ballot on the back of a grocery sack if they want to, as long as they include their name, address, date of birth, signature and either a driver's license number, last four Social Security numbers or a valid picture I.D.

There is nothing in the law about checking a box to verify a qualified voter. The voter's signature is enough, because that's what is checked to send ballots, said Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Greg Hartmann, who ran against Brunner in 2006 and is now county chairman for the McCain-Palin campaign. "It's just bald partisanship," he said. "She's trying to disqualify likely McCain voters."

Alan Tomiyama

Recreation Manager

City of Sacramento Department of Parks and recreation

915 I street, 5^th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Hello Alan,

Thank you for meeting Thursday September 18, 2008 to try to work out solutions to the problem of the disappearing geese in Wm. Land Park.

I was surprised at your anxiety and agitation with my columns about the poaching problem at Thursday’s meeting. At the August 8, LPCA Parks Committee meeting, neither you, nor Mr. Brima nor Carol Stiver expressed even a hint of dismay. And at that meeting, you did not ask us to provide “proof” and/or “documentation,” as you stated Thursday. Both Craig Powell and I have detailed notes of that meeting.

At Thursday’s meeting, you took us back to May 2008 to try and give some perspective, however, you still have never asked me for my information. Let me share all of my detail with you since we have never had direct communication outside of the August 8^th meeting, and at that meeting, you and I did not speak. As Thursday’s meeting was dominated by your defense of the parks department, we were unable to get out some crucial detail that I possess on the issue:

I wrote a letter on April 22, 2008 to the LPCA outlining the problems I have experienced and witnessed in the park. I was told, by a LPCA Board member that it was faxed to each of the city council members as well as Carol Stiver at the Parks Department.

I wrote the letter because my calls to Carol Stiver since December, largely went unanswered, nor was there follow up, and the geese just kept disappearing. I am attaching a copy of the April letter.

I do not doubt that Carol made the calls she said she made to other departments, but there was never follow up with me. No one called to ask me about what I reported. No one from the city ever even asked me if what I reported was true and/or if I had evidence. 

I sent the letter to the LPCA to elicit their help. My letter was discussed at a LPCA Board meeting. But still geese were disappearing and no action plan was in place, and no one at the city was talking to me about it.

Ironically, the article that your department had Edgar Sanchez write in The Sacramento Bee, appeared to be a defensive gesture rather than a “we are taking action” article. And Thursday at the meeting, you stated that someone was supposed to call me. Again, ironic that the campaign to save the geese started with my complaints, but no one called to talk to me for that article.

You and Mr. Brima can complain that I never called you to ask what you were doing about the problem before I wrote about it, “as other journalists do,” but I don’t think I should have to chase down City employees for a problem I had reported to the city numerous times during the course of several months. Mr. Fleming’s total denial of the problem even existing tells me that he received bad intelligence from his staff and was caught with his pants down – not a good position in which to put the boss. My columns were not “inflammatory” or “volatile;” I was candid and direct. The columns were designed to inform the public of the problem as well as get the attention of someone at the City authorized to take charge.

I am an employer as well as a journalist. If my staff reacted to a client’s complaint and treated the client with the disregard and disdain that you and your department displayed at Thursday’s meeting, they would be reprimanded and disciplinary measures taken. The City of Sacramento staff needs to remember that they work at the pleasure of the taxpayers and voting residents of Sacramento. Just as I must never forget whom my clients are. Thursday’s meeting was nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the City’s inaction and ineffectiveness on a complaint by a resident.

At the end of Thursday’s meeting when you asked several times, “Is the LPCA Board behind this?,” it was apparent that someone from the LPCA has indicated otherwise to you. Board Members Scott Rose and Craig Powell both stated emphatically, “Yes, the LPCA is behind this.” There were three LPCA board members present at Thursday’s meeting, which should have been a strong signal that there was Board support for solving the poaching problem.

You may not agree with my tactics however I was able to finally get everyone’s attention through my columns, when my voice as a resident did not. And both of my publishers would not have printed the columns if this were not newsworthy. Again, contacting the Editor of Inside The City about my column was insincere and in poor taste.

Alan, my only concern is to get the killing of the geese stopped. I am a witness to the “poaching” in addition to Land Park residents and neighbors. If you need, I can fill a room with Land Park residents as well as regular park goers, who can testify as to what is occurring in Land Park – from the illegal fishing with nets and multiple poles, to people sending their kids into the ponds to catch turtles and crawfish while fishing with nets and climbing on the island for eggs and birds. I have seen all of this. I have witnessed unspeakable cruelty to the geese and ducks by children while their parents watched and even egged them on.

Land Park residents are fearful of confronting visitors about these violations. We are told by the police not to confront people on our own and instead ask for support from police and/or park rangers. But then we hear and are told by the city that there is one park ranger patrolling 8 parks at a time and the police have violent crime priorities. So Land Park continues to be destroyed by a group of people who either don’t know any better or don’t care while “understaffing” remains the excuse.

We are looking for creative solutions – thinking outside the box. We have asked for enforcement but I understand that without 9-1-1 documented calls, more enforcement is not possible. I understand the conundrum. We came to the Parks Department not to start something, but for help with solutions, that the LPCA Parks Committee can participate in as well.

I apologize if employees at the Parks Department felt attacked by my columns. My intention was only to get someone to pay attention to the problem. It appears I did that. I hope that we can continue our dialogue. Again, I appreciate you taking the time for the meeting Thursday and for the anticipated time you will spend working on trying to get the city code changed.

Sincerely,

Winston Churchill defined Socialism and the leftists who love it as “a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Leftists hate the world around them and want to change it. Conservatives mostly like America the way it is, and prefer to be left alone—by leftists. Probably the most interesting aspect of leftists and liberals is that they do not like change. Leftists and liberals only use “change” to acquire power; once they have the power, they fight any further change. They depend on coercion while seeking to diminish the core principles of our constitutional system.

The Left Brain
Leftists and liberals believe that our society is torn between the “privileged” and underdog victims of society, and they seek to fix all of the problems of society’s victims at the expense of the “privileged.”

Conversely, conservatives believe in right and wrong, and that there are consequences assigned to doing what’s right or what’s wrong.

Right and wrong, as well as the truth, never get in the way of a leftist’s agenda. Leftists believe in the ends justifying the means. Consequently, they actively support abortion on demand up to and including the third trimester, euthanizing grandma when she becomes too much trouble, condom dispensers on the playgrounds of elementary schools and even giving pubescent girls birth control without involving her parents.

The doublespeak that leftists and liberals use is challenging. Are we still supposed to believe in a government-mandated policy to “celebrate diversity” or “celebrate unity” as Sen. Barack Obama wants us to chant? And if he really is the great unifier, will all of the diversity training seminars go away because we are all so unified? Will we all become “Americans” instead of hyphenated African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Mexican-Americans?

This Orwellian line of thinking is terrifying. Columnist Ed Kaitz at The American Thinker identified it as George Orwell’s “doublethink.”

Kaitz wrote, “George Orwell claimed that there was something more calculated at work when politicians begin to claim for example that ‘Slavery is Freedom’ or that ‘Hate is Love,’ or in Mao Tse Tung’s words, that ‘Compulsion is Voluntary.’ The new and improved Democratic Party version seems to be that ‘Diversity is Unity,’ endemic of the Totalitarian mind. It meant the ability ‘to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory’ and ‘to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies.’”

Who can forget the totalitarian super-model Mao Tse Tung when he opined that those who oppose progressive change “must go through a stage of compulsion before they can enter the stage of voluntary, conscious change.” There’s nothing like a little “voluntary compulsion” to encourage change.

“Progressive” Thinking
Probably the most enjoyable column I’ve read this year about leftists is from Lyle H. Rositer, Jr., M.D., a forensic psychiatrist, who describes the liberal mind as political madness.

He wrote, “Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation…

“The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state.”

Comes with everything you see here:

- Dead Caribou
- M-16
- Snowmobile
- Sexy Librarian Glasses