Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, July 10, 2014

The Senate voted 71 to 26 on Wednesday to confirm Julian Castro as secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, catapulting the young Democratic mayor of San Antonio to the national stage and putting him in charge of the agency as it grapples with a sluggish housing recovery and efforts in Congress to overhaul the nation's housing finance system. Castro gained national attention in 2012 as the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention and is considered a top prospect for a vice presidential nomination in 2016.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Castro gained national attention in 2012 as the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention and is considered a top prospect for a vice presidential nomination in 2016.

First a Hussein, now a Castro? Why not. Let's hope the Dems can wrangle up a Lenin, Stalin or Marx for the top spot just so we can watch the head of every Repub simultaneously implode.

#1 | Posted by censored at 2014-07-10 11:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

@ CENSORED

Obama's already given medals of honor to guys named "Clinton" and "Carter".

#2 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-10 11:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't see how running a rape dungeon in Ohio qualifies this guy to head up HUD....oh, wait.

#3 | Posted by TheQ at 2014-07-11 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

well a son of la raza racists moves to washington..

okay....HEY last time we had a hispanic director of this department who was mayor of san antonio,.,.that HAD to work out really well didn't it???

"The Henry Cisneros payments controversy was a lengthy investigation begun in 1995 into allegations that Henry Cisneros, United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, had lied to the FBI background check investigators about payments he had made to his former mistress. Independent Counsel David Barrett was appointed to investigate the matter. In 1995 Cisneros was indicted; in 1997 he pled guilty to a misdemeanor; in 2001 he was pardoned by President Bill Clinton."

#4 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-11 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

my post above is also good for comment concerning the democrat double standard on dealing with criminal activities...compare his punishment to the probably punishment of anyone anti obama.

#5 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-11 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

So sad that HUD even exists, recently spent sometime on their website. Near absolute waste of taxpayers dollars, and yet I see no constitutional justification for the department to exist. Handing out printed money with interest on it, and altering the local free market process;.....to buy votes?

It is federal government bureaucrats meddling in 50 state and 100's of local private markets and affairs, with a stated mission goal to "to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all." - sounds a bit cult-ish to me

Got central planning?

#6 | Posted by danv at 2014-07-12 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

So sad that HUD even exists, recently spent sometime on their website. Near absolute waste of taxpayers dollars, and yet I see no constitutional justification for the department to exist. Handing out printed money with interest on it, and altering the local free market process;.....to buy votes?

#6 | Posted by danv at 2014-07-12 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Providing the general welfare of the country includes providing housing for the poor.

#7 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-12 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

"So sad that HUD even exists, recently spent sometime on their website."

That is because you have so little knowledge of our real history. Home ownership was something only a very small minority could aspire to before Roosevelt came along and put into place governmental agencies like HUD to make it possible for working class people to buy their homes. So many right wingers honestly believe the nonsense they spout largely because they have no real understanding of what life was like before liberals passed life altering reforms which have made this country vastly better and richer.

3.bp.blogspot.com

#8 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-12 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

yeah that liberal mortgage thing where a person's income had no bearing on what they ""bought", ....that really helped us out didn't it...

puuuulease...

#9 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-12 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Re #8 - That is not a good curve, exponential growth in housing prices is not sustainable. Look what happened in 2008. States and local government are more than capable of providing housing for the poor. How can one department manage housing the nations poor from Washington DC over a country as large as our?

"Providing the general welfare of the country includes providing housing for the poor.

#7 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-12 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag"

General welfare clause. never ending government programs are not the principle our government was founded upon. I need water, should i get free water, free wood for my fire, free food? The fed. gov is not a charity.

#10 | Posted by danv at 2014-07-12 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

He's obviously being groomed by the DNC for the "first latino president campaign", after the "first woman president" campaign. Identity politics is their bread and butter.

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-12 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"yeah that liberal mortgage thing where a person's income had no bearing on what they ""bought", ....that really helped us out didn't it...
puuuulease..."

Can't really blame HUD or government for that, blame companies like Countrywide for that stuff.

"General welfare clause. never ending government programs are not the principle our government was founded upon. "

What a backwards country we would be today if we had clung to the original limits of the Constitution, if we existed at all as a nation considering the "no standing army" thing.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-12 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a backwards country we would be today if we had clung to the original limits of the Constitution, if we existed at all as a nation considering the "no standing army" thing.

Just think with no standing army we wouldn't have gone to Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc. Not sure how that would make us backwards.

#13 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-07-12 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Just think with no standing army we wouldn't have gone to Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc. Not sure how that would make us backwards."

Could have been problematic in WWII though, without one we would probably have been invaded long ago. It's ridiculous to even pretend we don't need an Army, that doesn't though excuse the misuse of it by politicians.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-12 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni due to advances in weaponry I would agree that a standing army is a requirement in this day and age.

IMO though the founders understood that any standing army would be misused hence the reason they objected to one.

I don't know the answer although in one of his books Heinlein had a nifty idea that any war other than a direct invasion must be placed before a referendum with a draft pulling first those who voted for war second those who did not vote and those who voted against war last. We would still need a minimum standing army, but the referendum would prevent misuse by politicians.

#15 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-07-12 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a backwards country we would be today if we had clung to the original limits of the Constitution, if we existed at all as a nation considering the "no standing army" thing.

As usual, Constitutional law if far more nuanced than you acknowledge and yes, the General Welfare Clause has been read broadly from the beginning. www.law.cornell.edu

"No standing armies" is not what the Constitution says, although that was the original debate. Article I Section 8 Clause 12 provides, "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years[.]" Ever heard of the NDAA or its predecessors? It comes up every year. Wonder why?

#16 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-12 07:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort