Bud Wright: Bankers boom, the border is in crisis, Akin returns

By Bud Wright

The Daily Advance

14 Comments | Leave a Comment

Being as we have settled deep into the dog days of summer, most of the people who create political news are making themselves scarce. Even those with dirt on their souls need a break now and again.

Remember the photos of Nixon attempting (in vain, I might add) to appear casual as he walked along the beach in wing-tipped brogans at San Clemente? Anyway, this makes it difficult for your friendly, neighborhood columnist to scare up major breaking stories that deserve the standard full column treatment, thereby necessitating that we must sometimes resort to a scattershot approach to punditry.

To this end I have mined as many sources as I could in order to excavate a few nuggets of pertinent information for your perusal. Pickings were admittedly slim. Still, I have found a few gem-quality stones among the dross.

In no particular order:

• The interest for college students borrowing money to further their education is 4.7 percent. The interest on banks borrowing money from the government is .75 percent. What does this say about our priorities? Possibly it says that students lack the economic wherewithal to buy even a single member of Congress, whereas the major banks can buy so many that they get the wholesale discount.

In a related story, banks collected over $30 billion in overdraft fees last year. Consider that for a moment. This means that banks siphoned $30 billion off of people who were flat broke. On the other hand, I could not verify that they had kicked any puppies or canceled Christmas. Humbug!

• There is a humanitarian crisis along our southern border. A diaspora of displaced kids from Central American countries is leaking over our border with Mexico. They’re fleeing into other countries as well because the rule of law has evaporated in their native lands. Despite the fact that decades-long American war on drugs is the core reason for most of this strife, somehow, according to the right-wing noise machine, it is entirely President Obama’s fault. He’s trying to deal with it by (humanely) facilitating deportations, but the obstructionist Republican faction in Congress is blocking his every proposal. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has compared this crisis to George W. Bush’s disastrous handling of Hurricane Katrina.

Perhaps his aides should point out to him that Katrina was a Republican debacle. Maybe he can come up with more appropriate disaster to use for purposes of blaming Obama. The sinking of the Titanic could work. Pearl Harbor might fit the bill. If not, there’s always the Alamo. I’m told that always works in Texas.

• Former Missouri Sen. Todd Akin is back in the news. Apparently, he’s written a book. You may remember that Akin lost to current Sen. Claire McCaskill largely because of his contention that there exists something called “legitimate rape,” from which women rarely get pregnant. See, if it’s real rape, the woman’s body somehow knows this and shuts down its reproductive function. If not, she’s lying. It’s quite simple, really. It seems rather obvious when you think about it.

Akin apologized at the time, but now rescinds his apology. Science, he says, supports his contention, and if you don’t believe him, “Google it.” I did. Ahm, no. Akin also begs forgiveness that he did not do more to “end this evil (the Obama presidency) that easily trumps slavery as the greatest moral evil in history.”

My goodness. Even worse than the Nazis? Let’s take inventory. He’s substantially lowered the deficit, unemployment is finally at pre-crisis levels and 20 million Americans are much less likely to die because of a lack of health insurance than before he assumed office. And yet, I’ve had long-term friends bristle and cease communication with me forever and always because I dared to link Obama’s unpopularity among 35-and-up whites with his race.

By the way, for those of you who regularly rant and rail, and label virtually everything I write as “hate speech” simply because it doesn’t jibe with your conservative outlook ... everything in this column (that is not blatantly tongue in cheek) is factual. I’m not picking on non-entities. I regularly single out behaviors and views that are manifested and promoted by mainstream Republicans. If I highlight extremist views and deeds, so be it. They’re out there…and multiplying, exponentially. I fervently believe that shinning a light on them weakens their appeal to people of moderate temperament. As to the oft-repeated contention that I only focus on conservative extremes at the expense of “balance,” that is because it is among conservatives that the most violent swings from what once was considered the ideological and philosophical center can be found.

Don’t believe me? Google it. I did. Ahm, yes.

Bud Wright is a published author who lives in Pasquotank County.

Comments

No..Mr Wright

Many object (both Conservative and Liberal) to a lot of what you write because a WHOLE lot of it is mud.

and put

that in your liberal left wing pipe and smoke it; Bud. Everything Barrack has done against this country will come back 10 fold.

"banks collected over $30

"banks collected over $30 billion in overdraft fees last year. Consider that for a moment. This means that banks siphoned $30 billion off of people who were flat broke." ---- The lesson here - if you don't have the money in the bank, don't write the check or swipe the card. Be responsible. "according to the right-wing noise machine, it is entirely President Obama’s fault. He’s trying to deal with it by (humanely) facilitating deportations," ---- Border security. President Obama, Janet Napolitano and others in the administration have claimed that the border is secure. As demonstrated daily, it is not secure. We have many thousands of poorly educated, low-skilled illegal aliens flooding into this country. These are the same people who will compete with our low skilled citizens for jobs. The unemployment rate for African Americans is 11.5 percent, more than double the rate for whites (5.4 percent). Under these circumstances, why would democrats want to flood more and more unskilled labor into the market to compete for low skilled jobs? The bottom line - the Obama administration has consistently applied immigration laws only when it's convenient to them. They ignore laws that don't fit their agenda. As early as July 2010, the White House began contemplating “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” or ways that Obama could achieve policy outcomes absent action from Congress. In many instances, it has followed through on these suggested “alternatives,” most notably in June 2012, when the administration unilaterally implemented portions of the DREAM Act, legislation that had repeatedly failed to pass Congress. Since then, the administration has granted legal status to more than 500,000 applicants, while rejecting fewer than 15,000. Obama’s Justice Department has pursued legal action against states and municipalities that set out to do local enforcement of immigration laws, while declining to take action against those states that ignore immigration laws or prevent federal agents from enforcing them. The Obama administration has, by its own admission, neglected to enforce federal laws barring the admission of immigrants likely to become a “public charge,” defined as an individual who is “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” House Republicans say border security must be addressed before any other aspects of immigration reform are considered, and the Obama administration’s attitude on border security has been nonchalant at best. Following a February 2013 report from the Government Accountability Office, the administration was forced to admit that it lacked any official metric by which to assess the security of the Southern border, which ran afoul of legal mandates established in 2006. According to the New York Times, administration officials said “they had resisted producing a single measure to assess the border because the president did not want any hurdles placed on the pathway to eventual citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally.” Most recently, in December 2013, a federal judge in Texas accused the administration of actively abetting the trafficking of illegal immigrants along the border, a practice the judge described as “dangerous and unconscionable.” So, President Obama's and his administrations performance is what has resulted in the lack of trust by the Republicans in congress. If comprehensive immigration reform is passed - will Obama and his subordinates selectively comply with portions of the law they like and ignore portions they don't like??? Of course they will - that's what they do.

sparatus, ....

nice cut and paste. What do You think?

Respectfully Submitted,

Force 12

You're right - some of it is

You're right - some of it is Force 12. I should have provided the link. But, if I find something that makes my point, I guess I could take the time to retype it in my own words ---- or take the lazy way (cut and paste).

I assume

(and maybe I shouldn't)that you are aware that the current crisis (of undocumented, unaccompanied minors form Central America and NOT Mexico)is being driven by a law signed by President Bush? Furthermore, at least by some measures,President Obama's administration has deported more undocumented immigrants than Bush -- and indeed, the Administration has been criticized for it by some on the Left.

If my house is infested with

If my house is infested with cockroaches and my neighbor has none I can say I've exterminated hundreds more roaches than my neighbor but that doesn't particularly make me the better housekeeper. Likewise deporting more illegal aliens from a country that's overrun with them because he has little choice doesn't make the president tougher on illegal aliens. As I recall the current president broadcast to the world that any illegal alien under the age of 16 could stay in the country and reap the benefit of full citizenship without any consequence. I think that may have had something to do with the draw we are now experiencing. The proof of this is that the rush is occurring on the Obama watch. Blaming Bush is a tired old liberal game that's about played out. The guy that's had the con for 5 years is now responsible and all the polls show that the public now concurs with that concept.

I do, Melanie. The law

I do, Melanie. The law President Bush signed was intended to combat underage sex-trafficking from Central America. Quoting from an article in the Washington Post " Thus, comparing the deportation statistics across different presidential administrations is dicey because it is unclear what categories of people are actually being counted and categorized. Moreover, different administrations choose to emphasize different statistics. Dara Lind notes that the Bush administration seems to have reported removals and returns together, but Obama’s administration has emphasized only its number of removals. Meanwhile, many media reports continue to use the term “deportation” when they mean either return or removal or some subset of those. The Department of Homeland Security that issues official statistics must now try to retrofit new legal categories to old data, and even it cannot excise the term deportation altogether because pre-1996, there were, in fact, deportations. Confusion about terminology helps explain the conflicting accounts cited above. The aforementioned New York Times article focuses on return numbers. But the Economist is also right, because if you combine the Obama’s return and removal numbers, he is well over the controversial 2 million mark. This confusion enables political spin, too. If you want to portray Obama as weak on enforcement, use the removal numbers, which, compared to his predecessors, are lower. If you want to make Obama look tougher on enforcement, combine the return and removal numbers (like George W. Bush apparently did) or use the now meaningless “deportation”; both moves would conflate return and removal — and boost the overall number of expulsions. But don’t expect these nuances to make it into political discourse anytime soon. Way back in 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit described immigration law as “second in complexity only to the internal revenue code.” It would appear little has changed."

And Sparatus

I read widely on both Conservative and Liberal sources -- both print and on-line. I'd be much more interested in your own words, maybe followed by a link for clarification and/or sources.

that being the case then

that being the case then Melanie, you can understand some of the controversy when comparing deportation numbers.

sparatus,

I appreciate reading your views, through your own words or reflected in others. Thank you for posting such thorough information.

Yes

I admitted that the terminology is causing a great deal of confusion. And, frankly, it is SO confusing, I can't tell the truth. I probably could if I spent hours and maybe days trying to sort it out. But I have a family that needs attention and just don't have time.

I agree

that the math is fuzzy because of the varying terms, especially over time. It is very difficult to compare apples to apples. But certainly the hard Left believes that this Administration has stepped up deportations. This current crisis is the result of "unintended consequences" of a Bush-era law, just as Hobby Lobby is a result of "unintended consequences" of RFRA.

Hobby Lobby

Changes no access to any birth control for anyone! It only makes the users pay for those that terminate a fertilized egg, no I intended consequences. I guess the leftists need look no further than Nancy Pelosi, the co-sponsor of the bill that the Supremes Court upheld.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Top Jobs