POLITICALPYRO CONTRIBUTORS

This from the THINKPROGRESS Web Site:

This week, both the websites of CafePres.com and Zazle.com decided to stop selling merchandise that featured the latest right-wing craze: the slogan “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8.” However, Cafe Press then changed its mind and told ThinkProgress that it was reinstating the merchandise, which fell within “fair political commentary.”

Whether it’s “fair political commentary” was quickly questioned. While 109:8 reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office,” the next line is, “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow,” suggesting far more violent rhetoric than simple criticism. Diana Butler Bass at Beliefnet has explained that Psalm 109 is “considered one of the most difficult of all the psalms — full of violent images of vengeance and death.”

This From the POLITICALPYRO.Blog

The new item is more to the point… so to speak. Shown here by Speaker of the House D-Nancy Pelosi, the new item gives the “American voter a view of how we are going to stick it to them”, exclaimed a worked-up Pelosi.

“Sales are through the bottom and up to the roof” said a light hearted and gay unnamed source at contributors.blogsome.com. “We never expected that this item would bring so much pleasure to so many, it was truly unexpected joy and an uplifting moment for us.”

The portion of the Psalm 120:2 that the Pelosi strap-on is speaking too is verse 2:

Deliver my soul,
O LORD, from lying lips,
From a deceitful tongue.

Sources outside the White House said that the “Forgive Obama’s Lies” strap-on incorporated the big three (Religion, Politics and Sex) where the Bear and Button only had just two. The sources went on to say…” Any time you can merge those three things, you have what we deem here in Washington the ‘Bill Clinton Tri-fecta’.”

I leave it up to you… A cuddly bear, or a Pelosi and her strap-on…

The Pyro still goes without basic Internet service… But, from time to time he will text message me and unload a few thoughts or ask me what I would like him to comment on. Today you will be treated to his latest cynical rant…. Ted Kennedy.

When others speak about Ted they look at his so called ‘contributions’ rather than his character as a human being. Ted’s unwillingness to resign is key when assessing this.

Like Woodrow Wilson whose wife ran the country for over a year when he was incapacitated by a stroke… Kennedy clung on to his power tighter than his own wheelchair when bouncers from the local titty bar were hired to lift the senators fat ass on and off his majesty’s royal yacht.

It has been rumored but not confirmed that during the inaugural when Teddy suffered a massive seizure someone managed to stick a pen in his gin filled mouth to get a signature for the pending Health Care takeover.

Even in death Kennedy still retains his power to sign legislation… aids have been seen placing documents over his grave for 2 drops of alcohol that percolates from the gin soaked soil above his coffin.

These drops, like the drool from the corners of Wilson’s paralyzed mouth will serve as an official signature until his replacement can be named in 2025, when the grave is expected to run dry.

Any senator with any regard for his constituents would have allowed the people to name a replacement the second he was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer.

But not Teddy. He was only loyal to himself.

The way you can tell that Teddy sucked as a human and a politician is that he never ate a bullet. It would have been a waste of metal.

As his brothers lay in their graves, done in by the hands of hired mob assassins… Teddy was given a pass for his grandfathers gangster days as a rum runner… As Joe amassed blood money that fueled the ambitions of his corrupt, power motivated doings. The irresponsible behavior that surrounded Teddy’s life style was SOP.

This is why Teddy saw himself as immortal… He thought he could buy his way out of death.

So the senate seat now remains vacant, as so do the eyes of Mary Jo Kopechne, amidst the ruins created by a man whose legacy was merely to create a pile of human wreckage for someone else to sort through and clean up.

After the success of Mary Jo’s demise, Ted Kennedy elected himself Mayor of Cooterville and stamped his way through fifths of Jack Daniels and a populace of pussy.

He was so far down the tit line he had to suck his moms asshole.

Sorry ass Commie Fuck! Never worked a day in this life. He should be deader.

‘The Cause of My Life’> This is what Ted Kennedy deems his calling.
Inside the fight for universal health care.

>Click Here for the Link<

You know what Americas problem is? Its people like Ted Kennedy. Here is a murderous, rapist, drunken, drug using, scandalous, and lets not forget… privileged family with no end insight of ever spending its ill gotten family fortune and they want to give us something that he wouldn’t even use. Hey Ted, watch this video and tell me… Why should I trust you?

It took me a few minutes to get through this piece. Its nicely put together and does not miss anything.

Here is the Link: Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor

When I first saw this I nearly fell off my chair. But then…. I had too remember that it was a Kennedy that believed this.

Here is the story…
NEWSWEEK/Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

Without a Doubt
Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does.

Tomorrow Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama meet for the first time, an affair much anticipated and in some circles frowned upon by American Catholics in the wake of Obama’s controversial Notre Dame commencement speech in May. Conservatives in the church denounced Obama’s appearance as a nod by the premier Catholic university to a conciliatory politics that heralds the start of a slippery moral slope.

In truth, though, Obama’s pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they’ll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won’t care, because they know Obama’s on their side. In fact, Obama’s agenda is closer to their views than even the pope’s.

It’s fitting that Obama’s visit comes just days after the publication of “Charity in Truth,” a Vatican encyclical that declares unions, regulation of capitalism’s excesses, and environmentalism to be ethical imperatives. The document gives moral credence to Obama’s message and to progressive politics writ large.

Even more intriguing is the pope’s support for political activism, which he refers to in the encyclical as “the institutional path … of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly.” As a member of a family that preached that politics is an honorable profession, I see that he is opening the church to roles that for too long have been neglected. Here Obama (the community organizer from Chicago) could teach the pope a lot about politics—and what a Catholic approach to politics could entail. They agree, too, on poverty and Middle East peace. So far so good on papal-presidential concordance.

But there they part ways. Politics requires the ability to listen to different points of view, to step into others’ shoes. Obama might call it empathy. While the pope preaches love, listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy (as it is for many in power). The hierarchy ignores women’s equality and gays’ cry for justice because to heed them would require that it admit error and acknowledge that the self-satisfied edifice constructed around sex and gender has been grievously wrong. Before he became John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla had a telling all-or-nothing formulation: “If it should be decided that contraception is not an evil in itself then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit is on the side of the Protestant Churches.”

That attitude has resulted in some heinous decisions. Most famously, in the lead up to the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” in 1968, an advisory body of theologians and laity empaneled by the pope advised that the church should reverse its position on birth control and concede that the issue should be a question for morality and for science. But authority—not truth, not love—prevailed: Pope Paul VI, listening to the advice of Wojtyla, disagreed with the majority of these advisers, who had voted 69 to 10 for change, fretting that to change this position would weaken his authority.

In the same vein, American bishops in the 1970s struggled to produce a paper that would address the concerns of women. After nine years of effort, they gave up. Why? According to Bishop P. Francis Murphy, bishops see themselves as “teachers, not learners: truth can not emerge through consultation.” Pope Benedict, having lived in the safety and security of the Vatican for much of his professional life, is part of this culture that silences dissent. (His last job was as the enforcer of doctrine.)

In 1979, Sister Theresa Kane, the head of the Sisters of Mercy and the president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, greeted Pope John Paul II on his first visit to the United States by proposing that the Church provide “for the possibility of women as persons being included in all ministries of our Church,” including the priesthood. This was greeted with revulsion at the Vatican, which insists that the only people who can represent God in the priestly role are those with male sex organs.

Yet polls bear out that American Catholics do not want to be told by the Vatican how to think. Despite the rhetoric of love and truth, the Vatican shows disdain (if not disgust) toward gays. But 54 percent of American Catholics find gay relationships to be morally acceptable, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. Meanwhile, against all scientific evidence and protestations from clergy on the ground, the pope claims that condoms aggravate the spread of AIDS. Seventy-nine percent of American Catholics disagree, according to a 2007 poll by Catholics for Choice.

When Sen. John Kerry, a pro-choice Catholic, ran for president in 2004, several bishops decided to deny him communion. A poll done at the time by Time magazine showed that 73 percent of American Catholics disagreed with that decision, and 83 percent said the bishops’ move wouldn’t change their vote. In fact, more than two thirds said the church shouldn’t try to influence the way Catholics vote at all or tell candidates—even Catholic ones—what stance to take.

CNSNews.com
Federal Government Was Culprit in Housing and Economic Crisis, Says Congressional Report
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE ACTUAL REPORT

Washington (CNSNews.com) – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the chief culprits in the housing crisis because they encouraged people who could not afford payments to borrow money, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.

The claims in the report have long been advanced by conservatives, who argue that the Community Reinvestment Act and other federal programs fed the housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to the economic downfall in 2008.

But the report explains in detail how Fannie and Freddie — government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that were not subject to the same oversight as other publicly traded firms — “privatized their profits but socialized their risks.”

“In the short run, this government intervention was successful in its stated goal – raising the national homeownership rate,” says the report, the result of an investigation launched last fall by Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“However, the ultimate effect was to create a mortgage tsunami that wrought devastation on the American people and economy,” says the report. “While government intervention was not the sole cause of the financial crisis, its role was significant and has received too little attention.”

The report talks about the Clinton administration’s National Homeownership Strategy, citing President Clinton’s directive to “lift America’s homeownership rate to an all-time high by the end of the century.”

The Clinton strategy further said that Freddie and Fannie should reduce down-payment requirements and, according to the report, “called for increased use of ‘flexible underwriting criteria,’ which it said could be achieved in concert with ‘liberalized affordable housing underwriting criteria.’”

“That is the perfect smoking gun that tells how Barney Frank [D-Mass.], the Clinton administration and others would do it in those days,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, said Tuesday in a speech at the Heritage Foundation.

“The seeds of the meltdown began with the well-intentioned goal that everyone have a home even if they can’t afford it,” he said. “It led to one of the biggest ponzi schemes ever.”

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made 54 percent of the “subprime” mortgage loans from 2002 to 2007, or about $1.9 trillion in mortgage loans to borrowers with credit scores lower than 660.

The report comes after Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) – who fought against regulation of the two quasi-public mortgage giants — and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) wrote a letter in June to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac calling on the GSEs to lower lending standards on condo buyers.

The report argues that lowered lending standards were the cause of the housing crisis and did not exempt the Republicans or the Bush administration from blame. It said placing certain lending quotas for under-served populations allowed “both Democratic and Republican administrations to consistently make campaign promises to boost homeownership through government intervention in the market.

Consequently, under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, HUD dramatically increased these quotas, which reached their zenith when the Bush administration raised them to 56 percent, 27 percent and 39 percent, respectively.”

“As home prices continued their dizzying rise, many people decided to cash in by buying a house with an adjustable rate mortgage featuring a low introductory teaser rate set to increase after a few years,” the report continues.

“These borrowers, confident in the oft-cited assertion that U.S. home values had never before fallen in the aggregate, planned to sell or refinance their investment before the mortgage rate adjusted upward, pocketing the difference between the initial purchase price and the subsequent appreciation in value,” says the report. “However, buyers failed to grasp the effect of a government policy that had quietly eroded the prudential limits on mortgage leverage, creating a dangerous speculative bubble.”

The report also talks about how the two GSEs became a powerful lobby. Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson opened up “partnership offices” in congressional districts, hired relatives of members of Congress, and GSE employees contributed $15 million to federal campaigns from 1998 to 2008. Throughout that time, all attempted reforms in Congress were blocked.

Also, in 1995, “Johnson seeded the Fannie Mae Foundation with $350 million of Fannie stock. The company used this foundation to spread millions of dollars around to politically connected organizations like the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute,” states the report.

Fannie and Freddie were not subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, while executives were paid well. Former Fannie CEO Franklin Raines earned more than $50 million in compensation during his six-years at the helm, the report says. Fannie and Freddie paid billions more to shareholders. “Thus, the government subsidizations of GSE operations amounted to little more than corporate welfare,” the report says.

The report cites Frank’s accusations that to blame Fannie and Freddie is to blame only the lender and not the borrower.

“This misses the mark entirely. In fact, responsibility for the erosion of mortgage lending standards, which began with government affordable housing policy, rests squarely on the policy makers who advocated these ill-conceived policies in the first place,” the report says. “Borrowers quite naturally responded to the incentives they were given, irrespective of their socioeconomic status, and risky lending spread to the wider mortgage market.”

They say… Whats good for the goose, is good for its gander… or if you like, If you can’t beat them join them.

As they blame Bush, ‘W’, GW… Which ever you prefer, for everything that is wrong with the world, I thought a bit of turn about, tongue and cheek was way over due. Hence the reason for the title of this post. Now, lets get to the meat.

Congress Needs to Beware of Growing Populist Anger

By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

One of the main reasons why the Democratic Party lost control of the House in 1994 was that House Democrats responded too late to growing public dissatisfaction with their actions. The 111th Congress, though very active in its passage of legislation, needs to pay attention to the current rise in populist sentiment in the electorate. In order to effectively curb these feelings, Congress should implement reforms to increase transparency in government.

Why did the Democrats lose the House in 1994 after 40 years of rule?

One can make a case that the early stumbles of the Clinton White House, including the excruciating delay in enacting an economic plan along with the failure to get health care through, created a backlash against ineffective one-party government. One can make a case that former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s (R-Ga.) long-term plan to nationalize the Congressional elections, culminating in the “Contract with America,” finally provided a coherent and attractive alternative. But a critical element in the public backlash against the status quo in Congress was the populist anger at the elitism and corruption that the public saw engulfing Washington, D.C.

The first eruption of that populist anger came in 1989, with a pay raise for federal officials that had been endorsed by outgoing President Ronald Reagan, incoming President George H. W. Bush and all Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders from Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) to the aforementioned Gingrich. But that broad bipartisan support meant nothing to average voters struggling with a sluggish economy and stagnant wages.

remember vividly going to board the train at Union Station to attend the House Democrats’ retreat at the Greenbrier resort–the location itself was a public relations nightmare akin to auto executives flying private jets to D.C. to beg for public money. We had to run a gauntlet of angry protesters holding signs and hurling epithets.

The leadership needs to avoid any sense that it is protecting Members because of their personal ties to them.

That was followed in 1992 by the House Bank brouhaha, revealed by Roll Call, which showed that a slew of House Members had overdrawn their accounts at the House Bank. It did not matter that the “bank” was not a bank in the traditional sense, but a repository for Members’ paychecks until they could be deposited in other accounts, and that the only money in the bank was from the lawmakers themselves; the story created a firestorm emphasizing that Members of Congress played by a different set of rules than the rest of us, exempt from the constraints or fines that we face. Many superb lawmakers lost their next elections (or retired prematurely) as a direct consequence.

The next train wreck was predictable. For some good reasons related to separation of powers issues, Congress exempted itself from regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and other executive agencies. But to the public (and to the minority party), this was another clear case of an imperial, insulated, pampered and arrogant Congress applying onerous laws to others while exempting itself.

Throughout 1993 and 1994, I went regularly to the leaders in the House importuning them to act to solve this problem. The answer was easy: create an independent office within the legislative branch to enforce the laws where applicable to Congress, avoiding separation of powers issues. Tom Mann and I worked with Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Dick Swett (D-N.H.) to come up with a bill creating an Office of Compliance. Early passage would signal a Congress ahead of the curve, moving to reform itself.

But the leaders did not think it was that big a deal and waited until the last days of the 103rd Congress to pass the bill–too late to avoid the surge in anger or to defend the indefensible, and they went into the 1994 election looking like they acted only after getting caught red-handed.

I raise all this history because it is déjà vu all over again. The populist anger is back, and not just in the United States–the reaction in Britain to parliamentary expense abuses is directly reminiscent of the reaction to the House Bank. So far, it has not been directed at Congress, in part because the 111th Congress has been so remarkably productive, in part because of the popularity of President Barack Obama, in part because of the ineptitude of the minority party leadership. But one can see the train wreck coming.

Some of the seeds go back to former Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), preceded by Jack Abramoff and former Reps. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Jim Traficant (D-Ohio), et al. Of course, some of the cases contributed mightily to the Republican loss of Congress after 12 years of rule, but all underscored a continuing public sense that Congress was more concerned with feathering its own nest than with the problems facing average Americans in their everyday lives.

Throw in Illinois’ former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and Sen. Roland Burris (D), a case getting more and more putrid. Add the Congressional bailouts of banks and their executives and the auto industry, amplified especially by the American International Group bonuses. The scapegoats now are AIG and auto and bank executives, but that can switch in an instant to politicians.

Now throw in the PMA Group and Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.). The Murtha case, of course, goes well beyond PMA, to include throwing sensitive national security-related earmarks with abandon to companies in his district that were inept or corrupt and to rewarding or punishing companies that used the right lobbying firm or did the right business with Murtha’s relatives. Include also executive officials in the Defense Department and elsewhere giving no-bid contracts to companies with ties to Murtha and his family members to curry favor with the powerful lawmaker. I can’t sort out from this vantage point what is illegal or not, but it all stinks to high heaven.

Simply asking whether the ethics committee is investigating the issue is not enough. I hope the committee is acting, and I believe that the leadership of the panel, under Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and ranking member Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), is finally functional. I also am truly encouraged by the start of the new Office of Congressional Ethics, also with top-flight leadership.

But if Congress wants to avoid the kind of public anger that engulfed the political process in 1994 and 2006, it needs to go much further. The leadership needs to avoid any sense that it is protecting Members because of their personal ties to them. And Congress needs to enact further reforms to make the earmarking and contracting process work better.

The House might start with Rep. Jeff Flake’s (R-Ariz.) idea to delink earmarks from campaign contributions. My own idea to create independent commissions to rank needs and projects in Congressional districts akin to Senators’ judicial selection panels would help. And addressing the issue of contracting–which is what Cunningham did, getting bribes in return for steering sensitive defense and intelligence contracts to the corrupt companies offering the bribes–is critical for reform.

Every contract issued by the federal government needs to be put online before the contract takes effect, with a special scrutiny for every no-bid contract. There must be guidelines for making sure the process is above-board and sanctions for those who award contracts that do not meet the guidelines.

The current Democratic Congress is comparatively well-regarded by the public for its performance. Democrats are certainly in no immediate danger of losing their majority or even losing many seats in 2010. But public opinion is fragile here, and it would not take much to ignite that populist outrage. Acting now is smart politics–and very good policy.

Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.

The Nine Dirty Words of Communists: Lying, Dirty, Shrewd, Godless, Murderous, Determined…International Criminal Conspiracy

The Vatican has blocked the appointment of Caroline Kennedy as US ambassador

By Alex Spillius in Washington

Caroline Kennedy Photo: REUTERS

Vatican sources told Il Giornale that their support for abortion disqualified Ms Kennedy and other Roman Catholics President Barack Obama had been seeking to appoint.

Mr Obama was reportedly seeking to reward John F Kennedy’s daughter, who publicly gave her support to his election bid. She had been poised to replace Hillary Clinton as New York senator, but dropped out amid criticism that she lacked enough experience for the job.

The Italian paper said that the Vatican strongly disapproved of Mr Obama’s support for abortion and stem cell research. The impasse over the ambassadorial appointment threatens to cloud his meeting with the Pope during a G8 summit in Itay in July.

Ms Kennedy, 53, has said that she supports abortion. Raymond Flynn, a former US ambassador to the Vatican, said earlier this week that Ms Kennedy would be a poor choice.

“It’s imperative, it’s essential that the person who represents us to the Holy See be a person who has pro-life values. I hope the President doesn’t make that mistake,” he told the Boston Herald. “She said she was pro-choice. I don’t assume she’s going to change that, which is problematic.”

The White House refused to comment.

Thanks 2: Alex Spillius @ telegraph.co.uk

Related Posts:

The Nine Dirty Words of Communism, UPDATE: International Criminal Conspiracy

The Nine Dirty Words of Communism, UPDATE: GODLESS

The Nine Dirty Words of Communism, UPDATE: Dirty, Shrewd, Determined

Kennedy and Byrd stricken at Obama lunch —

Ted Kennedy was taken out of Barack Obama’s Statuary Hall Congressional luncheon after suffering an apparent seizure — a few minutes after Sen. Robert Byrd was removed in his wheelchair under the supervision of medical personnel. It was rumored that both had the Cannoli

There dropping like flies… 3 more to go. Who is next?

In a totally unrelated story:

Leno and Fallon have words…

Partial Transcript:

A Freudian slip?

3:11 ~ Ted Kennedy, the brother of John and Robert Kennedy… It is alleged that he was involved with a young woman named Mary Jo Kopechne, who was also killed in an automobile accident that he claims the he could not save her, he swam to power, she-toa-toa, safety. She died there in that automobile.

I have been watching this story for the past few days… seeing how it would develop. I have watched the pundits, and talking heads prattle on and on about hair brained notions of why, how and now.

For me this works in my favor… let me explain. Beyond her gender and skin color, she ~Caroline~ is the perfect fit for what I like to term these days… taking a lemon and making lemonade.

This Tsunami shift toward socialism has been a long time in the making. Ultra liberal ideals have been pushing on the doors of capitalism hoping to get a crack at securing the tax payer largess for their cradle to grave big brother mentality for decades.

Republicans for decades have thought of themselves as the protectors and gate keepers… but now have figured out that their efforts, though noble, have only let the water heat the proverbial frog slowly and the continued path would see it boiled.

You need not look further than Newt, McCain, and the RNC to see that this has finally been realized and the new plan is to give us all a real good heavy dose of what the left has been planning for decades with hopes that a speedy rejection will follow. This is where Caroline would be a perfect fit for this plan and I predict that you will see Republicans come out for her being the choice.

How can we turn this down?

NON-CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this message is written by one of the great unwashed and is not confidential; and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity that wants to read it. If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that by reading this message you are too, use, disseminate, redistribution or copying this transmission as needed to keep us all from becoming wards of the state.