Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Perception vs Reality


The lines are blurred, but are they blurred purposely, or maybe because people think too much into words or is this the way culture is headed?


Politicians blur the lines purposely. For instance, Nancy Pelosi said during the health care debate that the bill had to be passed so that the American people could find out what's in the bill. As though the people have no interest or no right to know what the options are, or the debates are that are eing presented. Does she really believe that people trust politicians?


These lines blurring have moved into television programs. The program "House" is an excellent example of this. The character is constantly analyzing why people do things, say things and what they mean by what they say without taking into consideration that the patient may actually be telling the truth about the events, pain or whatever is going on in that episode. But it's scripted television so he's always going to guess right (or analyze correctly) by the end of the episode because it's a script. It's not real life.


These lines are becoming more and more blurred in everyday life as well. If you say something to someone else, are they hearing what you are saying or are they hearing what they think you "really" mean? An event is relayed to another person, and the person hearing it reacts to the last part of the event, but not the rest of the event, and because that is their reaction, the person relaying the events questions the reaction thinking there is a hidden meaning other than what's actually said because the first comment made is regarding one particular thing in the event rather than talking about the event as a whole or even one item at a time.


The Republicans put out a pledge during the campaign. One of their pledges was to repeal the health care plan that was passed without one Republican vote and without the backing of the people. This plan can be voted for repeal in the House and would likely pass. It will then be voted on in the Senate and may pass. But the assumption is that if it reaches the Presidents desk, that he'll veto the repeal and we'll continue to be stuck with the expensive and poorly put together Obamacare. There aren't enough Republicans in Congress to override his veto.


So the talk the past few weeks has been about getting rid of parts of the Obamacare plan but keeping the good parts. The lines are being blurred. This is not what the Republicans ran on. They ran on repealing Obamacare. They ran on cutting spending. They ran on being more accountable to the people which government has not been the past year and a half to two years.


It seems that it's almost useless to say what you mean and mean what you say any longer. It is only say what you mean, get what you want and to heck with what you mean because you didn't mean what you say.


A husband and wife Michigan were recently divorced. This came about because the husband used the wife's password to his wifes E-mail and discovered that she was having an affair. Divorce proceedings ensued. However, now the husband is being charged with a crime for hacking into her E-mail and finding out that she was having an affair. The divorce was finalized in recent weeks, but his felony trial comes up on February 7 for the hacking.


The divorce coming about because of an affair makes perfect sense. It happens everyday, but charging the man with hacking into a computer in his own house, that both he and his wife use, and charging him with a felony to boot, seems to be something other than what the law was intended for. But since the prosecutors, if successful, gets another felony conviction under their belts. Was the law created for this purpose? I think not. I think it's just an unintended consequence of the law being created.


There seems to be no common sense left in government nor even in the country any longer. The perception becomes reality, whether it was the reality or not. With everyone analyzing every thing said that others say, or everything done that others do, the perception becomes the reality and the poor slob that may never have intended anything that the other has decided, is the one that suffers.


If someone was to ask me what it's like outside, if I say the sky is a deep blue, will another person then get upset with me because they heard that the sky as it looks puts me deep in the blues? When in fact, the sky being blue might please me because the sun is shining, and it's not raining or snowing.


The people of this country did not like what they were hearing from the leaks about the health care bill. They wanted to know what was in it, they wanted some parts to be voted down, and then when the final bill came up, they wanted it defeated. They didn't want it to pass and become law then find out what was in it. They wanted to know before it was voted on. They didn't want the 2,400 page bill passed until it was fully read and understood.


The man didn't hack into his wife's E-mail to stage a terrorist event or steal state secrets. He looked at his wife's E-mail supposedly to try to help his stepchild, but discovered his wife was having an affair. Why is this a felony?


Legislators represent us. We should be informed before the bills pass and if we choose to not be informed, then it's our fault. But to accept how good a bill is going to be because it's named "Health Care Reform" and to be told how happy we'll be after it's passed and find out what's in it, is wrong. Perception is reality until the reality is discovered.


The Republicans asking for a vote based on their statement that they'd repeal the health care bill and then deciding to keep parts of it and get rid of parts of it rather than doing as they said is again, perception (they'll do it, we'll vote for them) but once elected the reality is we'll still be stuck with Obamacare.


I like a deep blue sky because it usually means warmer weather, but definitely not any precipitation. That's the reality. Thinking that I mean it put me deep into the blues is the perception that someone else has decided by analying my words without regard to how I put them together let alone what I really meant by my words.


I can think of one way that reality can be reality rather than someone making a decision based on their own perceptions of what is voted on, looked at or said. Discuss it. Find out the truth rather than guessing at it.
It's beginning to appear that we're going to get more of the same from the Republicans as well. It's too bad if it happens this way because it's not what I voted for.


You're welcome to comment.


Brett














Saturday, December 18, 2010

Government Schools Continue to Fail Students


In the past month, there have been two incidents in the Public School systems, or Government schools, that show very clearly the failure of the system and those running the schools.


We send our kids to school to learn. One of the ways you learn is to make mistakes. One of the ways you mature is to experience things. My son turned 18 a couple of years ago. Shortly after his birthday, he wanted something or to do something. I don't remember what it was, but he wanted to argue about it. At one point, he said "Dad, I'm an adult now."


My response to him was that he may be legally an adult, but he's not mature. The 18th birthday didn't turn him into a man. His actions and inactions showing his maturity or lack of it, it was determines he's an adult.


Last week, in Florda, there was a high school basketball game. A player pushed an opposing player and was called for a technical foul. He didn't like the call. So he pushed the referee. The referee promptly ejected him from the game which made the kid even madder and he grabbed the ref and threw him over his shoulder and to the floor. The referees then called the game, awarded the win to the other team.


Then punishment was discussed in the press, on the talk shows and just about everywhere else. The kid could be charged with assault. A high school kid charged with assault. A kid that isn't mature, which he made very obvious with his reaction to a call. This is a missed opportunity.


In my perfect world (ahem), this kid would be permanently suspended from playing. He'd still be forced to be on the team, which means that he would sit on the bench in street clothes with the other players for the rest of the season. He'd be forced to watch his teammates play and when he would normally be in the game, he wouldn't be allowed and have to watch as his friends and teammates had to do his work for him that he can't do because of his actions. He'd be forced to meet the refs before each remaining game, and shake hands with them and call the sir, and smile.


When the game is over, he'd be ordered to approach each referee and congratulate them on the job they did refereeing the game. During school hours, he'd be in detention each day for the remainder of the basketball season and for each day he missed, whether due to illness or other absence from school, he'd make up each day following the season until his time was served.


He's a teenage kid. Do we give up on him? Or do we correct his behavior? There is only one reason to prosecute this kid. If the referee was injured, then I can understand involving the law. He has to pay the price for his actions. But, why involve the legal system on a school incident if there is no injury to the referee? To charge this kid with a felony for his actions on the basketball court, removes his chances to better himself and likely improves his chances for more problems later.


The second incident happened in Howell, Michigan at their high school. Apparently, a female student was wearing a belt buckle with the confederate flag symbol on it. A teacher, Jay McDowell, ordered her to remove the belt buckle apparently saying that it was intolerant of gay students and bullying of gay students. Another student criticized the teacher for wearing an anti-bullying gay pride shirt with the gay pride symbol on it. He supposedly said "I don't accept gays, it's against my religion." McDowell ejected him from class.


For ejecting this student from class, McDowell was suspended for one day without pay. Since this happened, it's been an ongoing topic in Howell, Michigan.


A 14 year old student in the Ann Arbor school system came to the board meeting in Howell and sang the praises of this teacher. That student claimed he's gay.


An ACLU attorney for the group Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) group praised McDowell for his support of "gay rights" but also said that he was wrong for taking away the students freedom of speech. McDowell is an economics teacher.


Again, in my perfect world, this was another opportunity lost. Rather than ejecting the student from his class, the teacher could have opened up a discussion on anti-bullying and even anti-gay-bullying. Yes, it's an economics class and probably not within the scope of the class, but the teacher made it a part of his class by telling the one student to remove her belt buckle and also by his own wearing of the gay pride shirt.


Bullying is a problem. Any sort of bullying is a problem. It's been a problem since the beginning of time. But what this teacher did was nothing more than bullying. He took his position of power and forced someone in his charge to either tolerate his position on a topic or leave. However, the student didn't have the same opportunity. He couldn't order the teacher to change his shirt or take the day off work.


Even a discussion on gays probably wouldn't have changed this kids mind on the gay lifestyle. I know that it wouldn't change my mind. But at least each sides positions would be aired out, and the teacher could actually lead by keeping it a civil discussion with open ideas. When intolerance is the answer, the result is a battle with one side or the other moving to a more drastic action to get his/her point across.


Even if the kids didn't learn that there is no moral or legal reason to think the gay lifestyle is wrong, and on the other side, even if the teacher didn't learn that the gay lifestyle is wrong in many religions and should be illegal (if that's the kids position), the free discussion done in a respectful and tolerant way, would have been more towards teaching than anything else.


The kids would have learned that even though people disagree, they can still discuss topics and draw their own conclusions from the discussions on whether the topic is something that they are for or against.


Instead, what the students seem to have been taught is that they must accept a position even if they are against it because someone with power has deemed it so. They've just learned that they are not free to believe as they choose and they are not free to state what they believe.


Maybe, just maybe, had the tolerance been displayed allowing all sides to state their positions, it could end some of the bullying at least in the area of bullying gay students. Although, I have a hard time believing that there are that many students in one high school that are gay. But that tolerance exhibited with a discussion may have also helped in other areas that bullying takes place in.


So in one instance, we have a school system insisting on treating a student like an adult by possibly prosecuting him and in another we have a school system that doesn't allow for a student to learn by treating them as though they have the wrong opinion on a topic.


At home, the kids should be punished. If the basketball player was my son, he'd have been turned over my knee that night when he got home (if that bothers you non-spankers, then don't look). In school, the basketball player should get punishment for his actions in school, but his punishment should be to face what he did not to be tossed out and ignored and given up on.

The student in Howell, if he was my child, if he spoke disrespectfully to the teacher, and there is no indication of that, would also have been given a lesson on speaking respectfully at home by me. But at school the discussion should have taken place because it was a learning experience even if there is no certain outcome on the topic.

It's annoying to see people with their children acting up in public and they try to reason with them, but at the same time, it's annoying to go too far in public in meting out punishment to them. But that's a topic for another time.




There is no wonder to why the Government School Systems are failing our children in this country. These are just two examples.





You're welcome to comment.





Brett

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Socialism Loses Twice More


Socialist policies in this country took two hits today! First, the House of Representatives. The Speaker couldn't get the votes on the rules to pass the Bush Tax Cut Extension. Finally, in the early evening, they came up with the rules and debate is going on as this is written. It is expected to pass the House.


It's a little disconcerting to see that the Democrats are still claiming that it is unfair that this tax cut for the rich is going to pass because President Obama agreed to this deal which is to include no amendments.


It's also a bit unnerving that the Democrats think that taking the money from the rich to give to those that don't have as much is perfectly acceptable. The rich earned their income as we all earn our incomes. They were just better at making money than others whether it's due to a better education, harder work or an inheritance or even a combination of the above. Someone worked for that money and to take it from them, to give it to someone that hasn't earned it is redistribution of wealth or socialism. All rich people didn't make their money at the expense of others. They made their money because they took advantage of all the country has to offer. Many of them failed the first few times they tried a new venture before finally finding their niche.


The rich are not getting a tax cut. They are having their current rates extended just as the rest of us are having our current rates extended. Yet, the Democrats have fought this and are now whining about it.


In the Senate, the Democrats brought out the Omnibus Appropriations bill and laid it out for everyone yesterday. 1,924 pages were slapped on the table and they said "we're voting on this." Nobody has read it. The Democrats planned to just put it out there to be voted on without the opportunity to read the bill.


Included in that bill were over 6,700 earmarks. The very item that the American people told the government they no longer wanted. The people said they wanted the spending stopped.


The Republicans were doing everything they could think of to stop it. They put out a 1 page continuing resolution that would keep the government running into next year until they can deal with the appropriations in a sensible manner.


The appropriations bill has been in the works for months and many earmarks were put into the bill long before the election. The election had a resounding no attached to it when it came to earmarks and ridiculous spending.


When the Democrats dumped it on the table yesterday, it included all of those earmarks. Had they listened to the people following the election, AND been smart, they'd have offered the Continuing Resolution because of all of the earmarks. Instead, they chose to ignore the people and stick it to them one last time while they still have the power.


Then Senator Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina requested the entire bill be read before a vote. Late today, the reading began. During that time, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D) found he didn't have the votes for cloture. So a little bit ago, he went to the floor of the Senate and announced that he was stopping the reading and the Continuing Resolution would be the way to go.


One page, trumped 1,924 pages. 42 Republicans stopped 58 Democrats. This is a good example of why the filibuster and a 60 vote majority works, but that's a discussion for another day.


During this back and forth before DeMint requested the bill be read on the floor, CNN and MSNBC were talking about the hypocrisy of the Republicans because they too had earmarks in the bill. However, as many times as they were told that the earmarks were put in before the election and these Senators changed their positions because of the elections and what the election meant, they dismissed that response and continued with calling one side hypocrites but didn't complain that Obama would sign the bill even though he promised too, transparency and earmark free bills.


There were a couple of Republican Senators that still wanted the earmarks in the bill even though Republicans had decided to forego earmarks. Kit Bond of Missouri, George Voinovich of Ohio and Bob Bennett of Utah all were for leaving their earmarks in and likely would have voted for the bill had it come to a vote. All three are leaving the Senate for good in the next week. Not a proud commentary on their service to the nation to leave with that as their last act. I'm particularly surprised at Senator Kit Bond being part of this.


These earmarks took money which comes from the American people and gives it to others. $10 million to the John Murtha Foundation for example. Another took $48 million and distributed it to inner cities. Just given to them. This to fight poverty. Again, Socialism. Take from those that have and give it to those that haven't earned it.


In one day, Socialism was handed two resounding defeats! If the Republicans can keep this up in the new Congress during the new year and for the next two years, there is still hope for this country to survive this debacle that began in December 2007.


If the Republicans follow through and actually repeal the Health Care law that was just put in place last March, that will be three strikes on Socialism and that one will be out. But it's just one batter in the first inning of a nine inning game. There are many more issues to deal with. The Republicans are off to a good start and the new Republicans aren't even in office yet.


These next two years are looking better and better. The Republicans need to keep this pressure up and the American people must keep writing their legislators on each issue to see to it that these elected officials do things the way the people want them done.


Who knows, we could see Socialism only in other parts of the world.


You're welcome to comment.


Brett





Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Congress Proves Elections Turned out Correct


This President and this Congress have proven themselves to be silly at best. They just don't get it. After two years of passing legislation in spite of being told by the American people that they didn't want these bills. The stimulus passed with just three Republicans, who are really not Conservative and one of those Republicans made it official by changing to the Democrat Party. That would be Arlen Specter.


The House passed the Cap and Trade bill, aka Cap and Tax. The American people didn't want it. Then came the health care debacle. The Senate passed the Health care takeover bill against the wishes of the American people. When Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy in the Senate, the Republicans now had a way to stop the health care bill. Unless the Democrats in the House passed the bill exactly as the Senate had passed it. If there were any changes it would go back to the Senate for a vote and Scott Brown would have been the vote that stopped it from reaching 60 votes and passage.


The Health Care bill came with a pricetag. The Louisiana Purchase to get Senator Mary Landrieux's vote. The Cornhusker Kickback to get Senator Ben Nelsons' vote. A buyout in Connecticut to get Senator Dodd's vote.


Then in the House, Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan agreed to vote for it along with his coalition because Obama promised to stop abortion from being in the bill with an Executive Order. Not one Republican voted for the bill and many Democrats backed away from it, but they got enough to pass it. Again, against the will of the American people.


With the largest tax increase in history looming at the end of the year, the Democrats shut down Congress to go and campaign for the upcoming election rather than pass the extension to the Bush Tax cuts.


The people spoke. Democrats were voted out across the country. The Republicans gained 63 seats in the House and added Senate seats as well. More importantly over the long haul, they also took over many many more state legislatures and Governorships across the country.


Obama, who didn't include Republicans in anything the last two years, now worked out an arrangement with the Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts. This time, he didn't include the Democrats in the deal. They were left out and they were livid claiming that Obama "caved".


To make matters worse, he then came out and instead of praising the two sides for working out a deal for the American people that they said loudly and clearly that they wanted in the election, he instead said that he had to negotiate with "hostage takers" (the Republicans) and told the Democrats it's the best deal to be had and they should get over it.


After this monumental screw up, he needed damage control. So he called in former President Bill Clinton and Clinton took over the press conference. Obama actually walked out and left it all to Clinton to deal with.


Today, the Senate passed the tax cut extension with a vote of 81-19. The House Democrats are still angry.


But then today, the Democrats came out with the appropriations bill. Another 1,900 page monstrosity. Included in this were earmarks totaling $1.1 Trillion Dollars!!


Both Republicans (who agreed recently to a moratorium on earmarks) and Democrats put in big dollars for their districts. Dollars we don't have. Not one legislator is going to have time to read this before the vote. Democrats have been whining that the tax deal was going to blow up the deficit and the debt, then turn around and add $1.1 Trillion dollars to that shortfall.


The American people have said loudly and clearly that it's time for Congress to get it's financial affairs in order. Cut spending. Stop taxing. Stop passing bills that we don't want. But this Congress flipped the bird to the American people by putting out this massive spending plan.


We are 16 days from taxes going up, and finally the Senate passes the tax cut extension bill. They've only had 8 years to do it. They still have to wait for the House to pass it. We are 21 days from all of those that we elected this year to taking over the House and their new Senate seats and this current Congress is spending as though the people didn't matter. But then, the people haven't mattered to this President and this Congress for the past two years, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.


Prior to the election, the question was beginning to be asked 'how long can this country survive'. Now the question seems to be 'can the country survive another 21 days.


This new Congress that comes in is going to have it's work cut out for it. Repealing Obamacare (which also failed in Federal Court this week), cutting spending in massive amounts, not to mention dealing with the border issue and Americans dying on the border that this Congress and this President don't seem to care about.


You're welcome to comment.


Brett





Friday, December 10, 2010

Deal? Or No Deal!


President Obama hasn't just blinked, he's now hammering those eyelids up and down he's creating a windstorm. Word came out this morning that he's open to renegotiating the tax deal that he entered into with Republicans earlier this week.


You'll remember that earlier this week it was announced that the Bush tax cuts would be extended for everyone. In addition to keeping the tax rates the same, they agreed to lower the payroll tax, leaving more of your hard earned money in your pocket rather than in the hands of the government to misuse. They did agree to set the estate tax at 35% beginning at $5 million.


This infuriated Democrats! Apparently, they were left out of the discussions. They were so mad that one Democrat was heard to say "F*** the President", making Joe Wilson's "You lie" comment during a speech to a joint session of Congress, seem like a compliment.


This president seems to have a problem getting along with others. For the first 18 months of his Presidency, he never met one on one with Senator Mitch McConnell who is only the leader of the Republicans in the Senate. Now that the Republicans are on the verge of taking over the House following the election which gained them 63 seats, and the Senate Republicans have gained six seats, he's now willing to talk to the Republicans, but not to his own Democrats.


In response over the deal, Obama came out and lambasted the Democrats and the Republicans. He said that Republicans had held the middle class hostages and that while he wouldn't deal with hostage takers, he makes an exception when the hostage is in danger. Calling Republicans hostage takers after having just come to an agreement with them is not working and playing well with others. Telling his own Democrats to in essence "man up" shows that he can't play well with friends either.


Now he's showing that his word means nothing. Actually, this the second time on this topic that he's gone back on his word. During the campaign, he said that he would see to it that the Bush tax cuts for the rich would be rolled back. Then he agrees to extend them, then he is open to renegotiate.


We've all seen how meanings have changed. Sports figures have contracts and they renegotiate them while still under contract. I remember a day when a handshake was as good as any contract. Now, a signature on a piece of paper isn't worth the ink used.


If the Democrats can't honor an agreement, the Republicans should demand more and give less in the next agreement. They should argue to extend all of the tax cuts, remove the estate tax, extend the payroll tax decrease to two years and get a 10% decrease in spending across the board. I would also add a repeal of Obamacare to the bill. They might as well go for everything because the Democrats can't honor agreements.


If the Democrats can't accept that, let them go home for Christmas and come back after the holidays. The Republicans can then come back with the majority in the House and a larger minority in the Senate and pass their own plan, and make that plan retroactive to January 1.


The Republicans have something more powerful on their side that Obama and the Democrats don't have. The American people behind them.


You're welcome to comment.


Brett



Thursday, December 9, 2010

Profiling: What??? I'm a White Guy??!!???


In the 1930's, there was a baseball pitcher by the name of Dizzy Dean. He was from the deep south and was quite a character. He mangled words purposely, as well as having a way of making complicated things simple and maybe simple things complicated.


When he retired, he became a broadcaster on the radio for baseball games. In those days, announcers weren't permitted to say anything about the weather. In one game, the clouds burst out with a rainstorm. Dean was announcing the game and naturally, when the game is delayed, he has nothing to say because there is no game going on.


Wanting to inform his audience about the situation but unable to tell them it was raining, Dizzy said in his deep southern drawl, 'well, we have a delay of the game heah. I cain't tell ya'll why, but if you poke yer haid outta the winder, I'm sure ya'll will figgure it out.'


Today, the police, the feds, the TSA agents aren't permitted to profile anyone. This is partly what the Arizona law passed recently has been fought about with the liberals claiming it's racist because it targets hispanics.


We have tied our own hands to protect people's feelings. Unfortunately, we're protecting the wrong people. If a store is robbed and the call goes out over the police radio, it's gotten so ridiculous when it comes to profiling that I don't know how they know whom to look for. Suppose it's a white guy that robs the store. The calls goes out saying we're looking for someone wearing a light blue hooded jacket that zips up the front, blue jeans, tennis shoes and white socks and has a handgun. Are they not allowed to say he's a white guy?


Suppose it's a black guy. Same mode of dress. We're not allowed to say he's black? Suppose there are five people walking down the street all wearing the light blue hooded jacket, jeans, tennis shoes and white socks. One is white, another black, another a blonde hair blue eyed female, one hispanic and one is an old man with gray hair, stooped over from age and arthritis. When the police come up on these people, which do they look to as a suspect? They don't know the race of the perpetrator because nobody is allowed to say.


The gun is naturally concealed, so the only way to find the person is to stop them all and treat them all equally. Do we now need one officer of each gender and race and age to check out the like person in that crowd of five?


What is the problem with saying it's a white guy that robbed the store? Or saying he was black or hispanic if that's what they were. Are we afraid that if we single them out that we'll destroy their self esteem when they find out they are white? Black? Hispanic? Blue eyed blonde female? What white guy doesn't know he's white? What black guy doesn't know he's black?


How many more people are put in danger because we can't identify people by their race or gender along with the rest of the description?


What happens is that we now have 7 year old boys strip searched at airports or 23 year old white men having to say "Don't touch my junk" all because we're afraid that he could be a middle eastern man that is a terrorist. We have women that are possibly singled out for an agent to grab women in areas that only their husbands grab, but not because they fit the profile, but because they may be well endowed or in great shape.


In Arizona, the majority of those that are in this country illegally will have brown skin. It seems to me that the obvious place to be suspicious is when you have someone with brown skin pulled over for a traffic violation.


We're going so far to avoid even a hint of racism, that in nearly all aspects of law enforcement, not to mention day to day living in offices and factories we're getting to be afraid to call an apple an apple.


Back in the 30's and 40's, announcers couldn't tell you that there was a rain delay. They dumped that rule because it was silly. Banning profiling is silly in the same way. If we follow through to the nth degree with this profiling, fingerprints will not be allowed on criminals. Everyone has a unique fingerprint. If we fingerprint one, and it's not the same as the other, isn't that too profiling? Each fingerprint is an individuals. Just like each person is an individual.


The fact is that not everyone is same. Not everyone is the same color. Not everyone has the same color hair. Not everyone is a criminal and not everyone is honest. The laws should be enforced against the lawbreakers to protect the innocent, not enforced against the innocent to protect the lawbreakers.


If a criminal is surprised that he is the race he is, I think singling them out for breaking the law is the least of that criminals worries. To use Dizzy Deans vernacular, maybe he ought to look in a mirror with a color chart next to him so that he's not surprised by his race when he eventually is arrested.'


You're welcome to comment.



Brett





Monday, December 6, 2010

Obama Finally Agrees to a Stimulus Package that Works!


President Obama has been dragged kicking and screaming to a Stimulus package that works. Earlier today, he finally came to an agreement with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts. He now has his liberal buddies mad at him.


During the Presidential campaign he ran on eliminating the Bush tax cuts. Instead he spent more money than George Washington through George W. Bush combined.


The day after Presidents Day in 2009, less than one month after he took office, he signed into law his stimulus package which paid out billions of dollars calling them shovel ready jobs. A problem he had was that apparently, nobody owned any shovels. The stimulus failed. He tried cash for clunkers. It too failed.


He then moved to health care reform and plowed in tax increases and government intervention into the health care reform plan. The American people were against these initiatives and more not mentioned. This was shown with the elections of Chris Christie in New Jersey as Governor and in Virginia with the election of now Governor Bob McDonnel. Both Republicans. As the health care reform was nearing a vote, the House was held by Democrats and only a simple majority was needed to pass their plan.


In the Senate 60 votes were needed to pass it and they had the 60 when they passed their version. However, Senator Ted Kennedy died and a special election was held. The Republican, Scott Brown won and promised to be the 41st vote in the Senate against health care reform which would then stop the health care takeover.


However, the Democrats had already passed health care reform in the Senate when they had the 60 votes. So the only way to get health care through was to have the House vote on the Senate plan as it was. It couldn't be changed or it would have to be voted on in the Senate again and it would have lost with Brown's vote.


So without any markup between the two Houses, to prevent the Republicans from stopping a flawed health care bill which they were not included in, they passed the Senate version to keep Senator Brown from putting an end to that plan.


The American people were livid and in November, the Democrats were kicked out in massive amounts. At last count 64 House seats went to Republicans. The Republicans gained seats in the Senate as well and they also gained in massive amounts around the country in Govenorships and state houses.


Obama then changed his tune somewhat and the Republicans warned the Democrats. They will not allow any bills to pass until the tax cut extension was handled. The Democrats already shut down both Houses in September to go and campaign. So they were obviously not interested in fixing the problem of taxes increasing on January 1.


Following the Republican overwhelming victories in November and with the majority of seats up for re-election in 2012, not to mention Obama's own job, he had no choice but to give in on the tax cut extension debate.


This is interesting because for years the Democrats have been claiming that the only ones that got a tax break from Bush was the rich. Now they've had to admit that everyone's taxes would increase after the first of the year. For 18 months, prior to the election of 2010, Obama didn't even meet with the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, one on one.


They continued to fight to increase taxes (as Democrats do) on the rich. They apparently don't believe that all men are created equal. The rich were apparently created as better Americans and the Democrats wanted to punish them. In the meantime, not knowing what was going to happen with tax rates after the first of the year, the rich kept their money on the sidelines. They weren't hiring, they weren't investing.


Today, Obama had to give in. He's now come to an agreement with the Republicans, albeit for only two years. This will stimulate the economy. Following the first of the year, the Republicans, if they follow the voice of the people, will start cutting spending. That too will stimulate the economy.


When Bush signed these tax cuts back in 2001 and 2003, revenue to the government set new records. So why did the deficit increase? Because the Republican Congress spent the additional money. The Democrats continued to spend when they took over in 2007.


Why was job growth slow during the Bush years? Because for the first six years, the average unemployment rate was 4.5%. Full employment is considered at 5%. How do you have higher employment numbers when everyone is already working?


Why did the tax cuts expire at the end of 2010? Because the Democrats that voted for the tax cuts wouldn't vote for them unless there was an end to them.


In 2007, Democrats were elected and took over both houses of Congress because Republicans spent as though they were Democrats with all of that extra income created by the tax cuts.


Just this agreement alone, should decrease the unemployment rate over the next two years. If they Republicans are actually successful at cutting spending, the economy could come roaring back even faster.


This will make the 2012 election very interesting. Will Obama get credit for the pickup in the economy or will the American people realize that Obama had to cave on this?


It will also be interesting to see if the Republicans follow through on their attempt to repeal health care reform, and if they do, will enough Democrats get on board to override an expected veto. Or will Obama realize that he blew it with health care and sign a repeal to health care to get himself re-elected next time around.


I've been flipping between Fox News and CNN since this announcement came out. Fox News is upbeat that a deal was reached. CNN and their "best commentators on TV" are all nailbiting and saying that this tax deal is not paid for and the deficit will have a hole blown in it, and saying that Obama has lost his Democrat base.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. Tax cuts don't cost money. These aren't even tax cuts. These are maintaining the current tax rate, although they are apprently giving a one year payroll tax cut.


The money does not belong to the Government. It belongs to the people that earn the money. The goverment only confiscates some of those earnings when they tax us.


Obama was dragged kicking and screaming to agreeing to extending these tax cuts. I'm now hoping that the Republicans can drag him kicking and screaming to cutting spending and to repealing health care.


The beneficiaries of this deal are the American people. While it won't be an immediate effect on unemployment, and economic growth, it won't be a long delay before we start seeing this deal working for everyone.


It is nice to see that Obama now agrees that Americans don't need a tax hike next year and that it would be bad for the economy and for the people.


You're welcome to comment.


Brett





Thursday, November 18, 2010

1984 Is Here: 26 Years Later


More and more continues to come out about the sexual molestation of American travelers at airports around the country by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).


Since the "underwear bomber" aboard the flight headed to Detroit, the TSA has started putting in scanners that show body parts to protect airline passengers. At the time, we were told that these images would not be saved and would not be put out for the public to see. Since then, the TSA has added patdowns which we're all familar with thanks to John Tyners video of him being patted down and uttering the now famous line "don't touch my junk or I'll have you arrested."


We are now seeing pictures of young children being groped by TSA agents, as well as nuns and more and more women as well as men are coming out with the graphic descriptions of what's being done to them under the guise of "security".


Two days ago, a story was released out of Florida showing 100 of the scans that have been released to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. Apparently, there have been 35,000 scans maintained by the machines in Florida. This is not only a direct opposite of what we were all told when these scanners were first installed, but it may very well be in violation of laws.


It might be a good idea to look to see what the Constitution says about this. The fourth amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers , and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


This story has been on the news, especially since the John Tyner incident. Now there is one more wrinkle being added. If a person is wearing baggy pants, the TSA agents will reach into the pants. It's no longer just copping a feel through the pants, but now reaching right in and actually touching.


How many terrorist attacks have been stopped by these scanners or the groping? Not only that, but how many terrorist attacks has the government stopped on airplanes in this country? The answer? None. Not one terrorist has been stopped by a government program or official on a commercial airline.


The underwear bomber was stopped, but he was stopped by two things. Apparently, he was unable to get the bomb in his pants to go off, but even the fire that was started by that was put out by passengers and the bomber himself was stopped and tackled by a Dutch passenger. Not one government official. Not even a sky marshal.


Then there is the worst day in our history where four planes were hijacked on September 11, 2001. Two flew into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and the fourth never reached it's target, but again, not due to the government, but rather by passengers who took matters into their own hands and fought back against the terrorists after they had taken control of the plane and ended up crashing in a field in Pennsylvania.


The government is putting travelers through molestation lines to protect us from terrorists and yet, it's been American citizens that have saved the butts of government people.


The government (Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano) claims that they aren't changing their policies because it's working. No terrorist has gotten through their screenings. However, they have not captured any terrorists trying to get through the screenings either. They are now talking about adding these scanners at train stations, bus depots and subways.


The TSA however, is investigating John Tyner for refusing the scanner and the pat down. He didn't get on the plane. He did as he was instructed and left the airport without getting on his plane. But the government wants to prosecute him and fine him up to $11,000 for refusing to be molested by the government.


A group out of Virginia is now trying to organize a protest for the heaviest travel day of the year, November 24. They want everyone to refuse the scanner (which apparently is now being discovered has high doses of radiation exposure) and have everyone go through the pat downs, or government molestation. My hope is that people also refuse the patdowns on that day.


Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri claims that these patdowns are nothing more than a love tap. Whenever the government claims to do things for our own good, I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it a "love tap". Frankly, if I'm going to get a love tap like that, I'd prefer it be someone of my choosing and not some government official. It's bad enough they are tapping my wallet every day.


In the meantime, cargo is not secured. We're in more danger of terrorists bringing down a plane by putting a package on the plane, as we've seen in recent weeks with the attempts at bombing planes from packages as they arrived on the east coast. Perhaps the government should concentrate on molesting boxes and packages on planes before children, women, nuns, and men.


If we allow these scanners, which don't stop bombs from appearing on planes, to permeate our country, the terrorists have won and we have a whole new set of terrorists in this country. These new terrorists will be the government officials also known as Big Brother. The predictions from the book 1984 are coming true. They are 26 years later, but they are coming true right before our eyes.


You're welcome to comment.


Brett








Saturday, November 13, 2010

The Myth of the Liberals


If talk of taxes are very dry reading for you, then I apologize. However, with the debate going on over extending the Bush Tax Cuts, it's important to understand some facts.


The argument from the liberals is that we can't afford to extend the tax cuts on the rich. We don't need to make the rich richer. Making the rich, richer doesn't help the middle class. The rich can afford it.


We've all heard the line that nobody has ever gotten a job from a poor person. It's simple but more importantly, it's true.


I looked at the most recent history of tax cuts. The Reagan Tax cuts of the 80's, the Clinton tax increases of the 90's and the Bush tax cuts of the 2000's. My source is the Joint Economic Committee, which can be found at the government websites.


Tax rates in 1981 were cut. Prior to those tax cuts, during the tax year of 1981, the "rich" or top 1% of income earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes.

By 1988, the top 1% of income earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes.


This is the exact opposite of what the liberals have been saying in their arguments. If the liberals were right in their argument, that tax cuts benefit the rich, they should have been paying something less than 17.6% by 1988. But that just isn't the case.


So if the tax cuts are so good for the "rich" as the liberals say, then they must be bad or at the very least, negligible for the middle class. Under that reasoning, the middle class must be paying more too. However, that's not the case at all. During that same period from 1981 to 1988, the tax burden on the middle class dropped from 57.5% to 48.7%! That means that the middle class had their taxes go down by 8.8 points, while the richest had theirs increase by 9.9 points! To give you a better idea of what the tax cuts did, the tax revenues in 1981 were $244 Billion. However, in 1988 with tax rates lower, the tax revenues were $466 Billion! If the liberals were right in their arguments, it should have been much less than $244 Billion in 1988, not a $222 Billion increase in revenues!


So how can tax rates come down yet those that have the most, actually end up paying more than when the taxes were higher? This is really very simple to understand, but liberals refuse to look beyond statism. They have more money during the year that they are able to put back into their business in several forms.


First, they can increase their inventories. After all, if everyone got a tax decrease, more people will have more money to spend, therefore, a business owner must have more supplies to sell to those wanting to buy.


Second, because they have more inventory to sell and more customers buying, they have a need for more people to sell their product. So they must hire more people. The people they hire, don't have a job or they wouldn't be applying for a job. That now means that they have more money to spend because they now have a job where they are earning money.


Third, Because they have more inventory, and because they have more sales, this generates more income for them, which means they pay more dollars in taxes even though their tax rate is down. They also have an added expense due to the new employees that they had to hire. While we pay over 7% to social security out of our paychecks an employer also pays that amount for each employee. Yet, they still hire pe0ple because they have more sales and need the workers, whether those workers are there to sell the product, produce the product or put together the product.


What this means is that while the "rich" are getting a tax break, they are paying more taxes because their income increases. They take advantage of the additional capital due to lower taxes and actually create a situation where their taxes increase by investing that capital into their businesses, and making more money.


Will the tax cuts make the rich get richer? Yes, as it should. Those that work hard for their earnings will reap the rewards of that harder work. When they are freed up by lower taxes, they know that they will have more dollars to put into their business and earn even more dollars to pay taxes on. They don't have to look for ways to lower their tax burden by avoiding taxes with investments that are free of taxes or ship their jobs oversees to avoid the taxes in this country. They can then keep the jobs here, keep the money here and keep the reinvestment here.


But what happens when taxes are raised? In 1993, a tax increase was pushed by Bill Clinton and the Democrat Congress. In the spring it was voted on and naturally it passed in the House where the Democrats controlled. In the Senate however things were more even and there was doubt that the tax increase would go through. That's when Al Gore, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate and more importantly, the tie breaking vote, chose to vote for the Democrats and Clinton and the tax increases became law. In addition, those increases were retro active to January.


The effect of that tax increase was a decrease in tax revenue. There was also a decrease in productivity. During President George H. W. Bush's final quarter of his Presidency, the economy grew at a robust 4.6%. The tax increase took effect in January the following year and the economy grew at just 2.6% for the next two years.


Again, it was proven that tax cuts work. President George W. Bush got tax cuts put into law in 2001 and 2003. This had the effect of increasing tax revenue to the Federal government in record amounts! It also had the economy growing per quarter at better than 5%. One quarters growth was actually at 8.5%!


There was another benefit to these tax cuts. Unemployment during the first 7 years of his presidency was averaged at 4.5%.


Once again, as in the 80's and the 60's and the 20's, tax cuts increased the economy, tax revenues and lowered unemployment.


This year we're not even talking about cutting taxes. We're talking about extending the tax cuts already in place that are due to expire on January 1, 2011.


If we know that decreasing taxes increases the governments checkbook, why then do we have deficits? We should have had profits many many years ago and the government should not be in debt and should not be operating on deficits. The answer? Spending. The government spends more than it takes in. When they receive extra money, they don't pay their obligations, they spend it on other things driving us further into debt despite the increase in funds.


Do you know when the last time was that the government spent less money than the year before? I didn't know. I looked it up. The year was 1965. In 1965 medicare/medicaid was passed. The war on poverty was started. Since that time, spending has increased each and every year!


If you look at graphs of spending, you can see that the largest years were during the Depression, wars and in the past two years. President Roosevelt tried to spend our way out of the depression. It failed. It only brought on a second depression in 1937. We are now doing it again.


If we want to see prosperity again in this country, we need to pass these tax cut extensions and pass them quickly! If we want to expand the recession and possibly put us into a depression, the path we're on with the massive spending, bailouts and talk of increased taxes is the right way to ruin this country.
The arguments put out by the liberals is nothing more than a myth. Tax cuts and even tax extensions for anyone does not need to be paid for. To the contrary, tax increases need to be paid for. This is why the liberals lost the election in the House, the Senate, the Governors, the state chambers and even local elections. They lost due to the health care debacle. The cap and trade threat. The financial overhaul attack on Wall St and the banks. The liberals will never admit this, but it is what cost them the election. Just like the excessive spending by the Republicans cost them the election in 2006.


You're welcome to comment.


Brett




Sunday, November 7, 2010

Hide The Women and Children. The Government Perverts are Here as the TSA


Government intrusion has hit new heights. In recent years, the government under the auspices of safety has taken to "protecting" the public with newer technology. Originally, they said that they'd have full body scanners but that the scans would not be saved. They'd be destroyed as soon as they were viewed and the prospective passenger was cleared of having any hint of weapons or bombs in their clothing or strapped to their body in some fashion.


It was only a matter of days, however, that it was discovered that those scans weren't being destroyed and that Transportation security Agency (TSA) workers were keeping these for their viewing pleasure. This happened within days of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano assuring the nation that their privacy would be respected.


The story was amplified when an employee attacked his co-workers that were making fun of his lack of endowment.


Following the failed underwear bomber attempt last Christmas on the flight coming into Detroit, that the TSA stepped up their measures. They then added that you could opt out of the body scanners but you had to go through a pat down by a TSA employee. Recently, they've changed their policy again and now put some through pat down's as well as the full body scan.


Immediately, when I heard this I thought that men were patting down men and women were patting down women. Not so fast. That's not the case at all. But, what really got to me is that young children are having to go through this. Also, not male to male and female to female.


I have two daughters that are now young teenagers and a son that is now 20. When they were younger, they were taught that NOBODY is to touch your "private areas" except a doctor and even then, not unless one of the parents is in the room with them.


Now imagine if you have younger children and you are about to take them a flight to visit family or take a vacation during the holidays. Your younger children are going to have their bodies exposed in the body scanners and then they will be touched by some stranger wearing a uniform.


If someone groped a child in the park, they'd be arrested, put on the sexual predator list and forever be branded a pedophile. If someone groped a female in the park, same result, minus the pedophile label. But now we are expected to submit our women and children to this humiliating abuse by government workers!


From all of the information coming out, the government workers in these positions amount to nothing more than government sponsored sexual deviants and pedophiles.


I'd be tempted to do a couple of paragraphs about how this is the United States submitting to Bill Clinton antics, but this is not funny. This is only showing that this government is not only out of control but also sick. They are getting cheap thrills under the guise of security.


I don't fly. I have a fear of flying. I would fly if there were an emergency that required me to be somewhere for someone, but I can't imagine anything being so important to get on a flight and subject my family or anyone that I cared about to this sort of humiliation by the government.


I will not tell my children that it's okay to have government workers touching their private parts. We can't even trust teachers in our schools any longer, so I'm certainly not going to tell them to trust government workers. If I were married, I would not have my wife subjected that humiliation. I'm just one person. If the majority of people felt like I do and refused to fly, what would happen to the airline industry?


There's an old line that you should be wary if someone says "I'm from the government and I'm just here to help you." Can you trust them to grope you before getting on an airline?


All you have to do is look at the elected officals in government. We constantly hear of scandals that those we elect being caught in compromising positions either with sex or money. David Vitter has been caught with a prostitute. The former Governor of New York, Elliott Spitzer, who championed going after prostitution rings was caught using prostitutes when he was traveling.


There was the guy from New York that resigned last year because he was making sexual advances on his male interns and workers. The one in Indiana who admitted to an affair with a worker in his office has since resigned. Even the spouses of politicians such as Senator Debbie Stabenow's husband caught dealing with a prostitute. And we're supposed to trust other government workers?


Teachers have been convicted of molestation and rape of children in their care at school. At least thirty in the past three years all around the country and those are just the women!


This government has gotten more and more intrusive, but now that they are taking sexual advantage of women and children in airports, one has to ask the question. What is coming next?


You're welcome to comment.


Brett




Thursday, November 4, 2010

Former Republican Presidents vs. Former and Present Democrat Presidents


A clip of former President George W. Bush is out there promoting his appearance on Oprah's show on November 9, 2010. He was asked about President Obama's performance thus far into Obama's term. President Bush would not comment. He went so far as to say that the job of President is very difficult and that Obama didn't need a former President commenting on his performance. Then Bush went abit further and said he thought it was demeaning of the Presidency for former Presidents to enter the fray. Bush said that he'd have liked to have had that same consideration when he was elected.




There is an unwritten rule on former Presidents that you don't speak out about your successor for at least the first year. It undermines the current President. It's more of a protocol than a directive. There are examples from the past. Rarely, did you hear President George H. W. Bush say anything about President Bill Clinton. One time that I can find, in fact. President Ronald Reagan never said anything about his successors. President George W. Bush has not said anything about President Obama. He refuses to do so even when prodded. Even Gerald Ford refused to comment on his successors except supposedly to Bob Woodward, but required that it never be revealed until after he died.




On a side note, when President Bush took office he didn't say much about the previous administration. Even when he first arrived and found carpeting ripped up, items missing and even the "W's" taken off of all of the computer keyboards in the White House. He just told the staff to fix it or replace it and not talk about it.




Yet, how many times have we heard Obama blame Bush for everything and anything that goes wrong in his administration? It's almost a daily talking point. If Obama was to slip getting out of the Presidential bathtub, he'd blame Bush for leaving soap suds behind on the bottom of the tub.




Now think to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. They won't even go away, let alone shut their mouths. Bill Clinton was making comments within two weeks following Bush's inaugural and then again after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Although most of what we heard then was that he wished it would have happened on his watch so he could be as popular as Bush was then.




Jimmy Carter has been outspoken since the day he was driven away following the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Even Ronald Reagan, who had more reason to comment than any President in my lifetime, said nothing about his predecessor, when he was left with double digit unemployment, double digit inflation and double digit interest rates.




President George W. Bush remains Presidential and a class act even when he's no longer President. It's really too bad that the current President doesn't act Presidential even while he's President. Before anyone jumps on me, here's some examples. Calling Republicans "enemies" of hispanics. Appearing on any talk show that will have him. The Daly Show and even with Ryan Seacrest.




He can talk to off the beaten path programs, but he can't speak to Fox News which is only the number one News Organization in the country and has been number one for 9 of their 13 years in business.




Meanwhile, President George W. Bush finished his book and is about to make the rounds promoting his book and still refuses to say anything negative about President Obama. Not only is that class, but it's also got to be a shining example of restraint given how horrible this President is.




You're welcome to comment.




Brett










Now the Real Fun Starts


Now that what's been predicted has come true, the fun is about to begin. The face of the Democrat Party (pictured above) is gone. But he's not the only one. There are over 60 others that are gone.


Just to clean up abit, I thought, and said that I thought, that the Republicans would gain 70 seats. I only missed by about 5. But I missed, so that should be a reminder that I'm only giving my opinions on here. There are many that write in blogs that make declarative statements that refuse to accept any other positions.


So now what happens? Well, the real fun begins and it's already started. Yesterday, the Democrats were saying that it's now up to Republicans to cooperate with them. Unfortunately, I expected this sort of a statement from them, but it still leaves me dumfounded when I hear it. Let me be clear here. There are over 60 seats in the United States House of Representatives that are now held by Republicans that were held by Democrats. There are six new Senators.


In the House only two Republican incumbents lost. How many Democrat incumbents lost? 40? That should dispel the notion that this was an anti incumbent year. Unless only Democrats were incumbents. In addition, 19 state chambers flipped to Republicans.


The Democrats now saying that the Republicans will have to cooperate with them is the height of arrogance. What this means is that now politics will play a role in governing for the next two years. Yes, it would be nice if things got accomplished, but not the wrong things.


First order of business would be extending the Bush tax cuts. Obama has already blinked on this. He says he's willing to make the middle class tax cuts permanent, and to extend the tax cuts for those making up to $1 million. The Republicans should accept the middle class tax cuts being permanent, but they should hold out for the everyones tax cut extension to be made permanent. Failing that, which they probably will, they should back down to extending those tax cuts for another two years. These should not be separate bills. They should stay together as one bill. If they split it to two bills, they'll not get the extension for the wealthy. If it's extended on the upper class, it will come up again at the next election. This will have the effect of jobs being created almost instantly.


Second item, should be the repeal of Obamacare. As much as the liberals don't want to admit it, Obamacare, along with the stimulus, cap and tax and wall street reform all contributed to the Democrats demise this election. It's likely that they'll fail at repealing Obamacare. The House will pass it with ease. The Senate may pass it because there are another 33 seats coming up for election in 2012. This bill does not need to be tweaked, as Harry Reid says, it needs to be eliminated.


If it does manage to get through both the House and the Senate, Obama will veto it. Then we'll see if the Democrats are really serious about cooperation and will vote with Republicans to override the veto. If not, we'll have another issue in 2012 to go after those Democrats as well as Obama, who is up for re-election.


Failing to repeal Obamacare is not the end. The House can then just fail to fund Obamacare. It will die on the vine until the Republicans get a veto-proof majority or we get a new President in 2012.


Third is immigration reform. It doesn't need to be reformed. The current immigration laws need to be enforced. Immediately. More and more Americans are dying along the border. How many AMericans have to die before this President figures out he's got it all wrong.


We're in for some fun, as well as some frustration, for the next two years. It is my hope that the Tea Party does not go away and they prove themselves to be a formidable force.


But for now, I'm celebrating. Alan Grayson is gone. He's the epitome of what's wrong with the Democrats. Now he's gone and that is worth celebrating. The work begins after the Holidays.


You're welcome to comment.


Brett

Monday, November 1, 2010

Proper Attire for Election Day


As with anything these days, there is a proper way to dress when you go to vote on Tuesday, November 2. But, the style of dress is not necessarily the same in various regions of the country.


For instance, if you're voting for Charlie Crist in Florida, the proper attire may be a pullover shirt that says across the front "It's all about me". If you're voting for Kendrick Meek, you could wear a shirt that has an arrow pointing at the guy next to you that is wearing the "all about me" shirt and have your shirt say "I'm with stupid".


In California, you would wear a shirt that says "ma'am" if you're voting for Barbara Boxer.


In Michigan....never mind, you're just happy to be dressed at all.


In Connecticut, the proper attire is the WWE logo on your shirt.


And of course in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, the proper attire to wear to the voting booth is a blue windbreaker with ICE written on the back. Just a word of caution if you're in the southwest wearing an ICE jacket. Make sure you're agile enough to move out of the way when a hoard of illegal alien invaders begin to make a mass exodus from the building.


Whatever you do, however you dress, just make sure that you go out and vote!


You're welcome to comment.


Brett




Friday, October 29, 2010

Charlie Crist Exposed by Bill Clinton Shenanigans


There are three candidates for the Senate seat in Florida that is open this year. Republican, Marco Rubio. Democrat, Kendrick Meek. Independent Charlie Crist.


Charlie Crist is currently the Governor of Florida. Marco Rubio is the former Speaker of the House in Florida and Kendrick Meek is currently a Congressman in Florida.


Earlier this year, Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio were on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. He was asked five times if he would remain a Republican or if he would be running as an Independent should he lose the primary. Christ said he was a Republican, that he was going to remain a Republican and he was going to win the primary. A few weeks later, before the primary and when it was apparent he was falling in the polls and wouldn't win, he left the Republican party and decided to run as an Independent.


Immediately, the gap between he and Rubio closed and it was again neck and neck and even for a few days, Crist had the lead. As the weeks went by, he fell further and further behind.


Enter former President, Bill Clinton. He was down in Florida campaigning for Meek a little over a week ago. However, behind the scenes, Clinton was urging Meek to drop out of the race telling him that he had no chance to win. Ok, no problem. We've come to expect these kinds of gamesmanship from the Clintons. They'll do something, lie about it, then the truth comes out later. This time though, it appears as though the Clintons made this public purposely to force Meek out of the race.


To what end? To give Charlie Crist the votes that Meek would have received and that difference could push Crist over the top to beat out Rubio. With such a short time before the election, it would be tough for Rubio to get out and counteract the shenanigans.


On Thursday, Charlie Crist was on the program "Off the Record" with Greta Van Susteran and admitted that he knew about the talks and said that Meek had decided to get out of the race, but then changed his mind at the urging of his wife. Crist was then asked if he'd been in touch with the White House. Again, he admitted he had talked to people at the White House about this but refused to give a name of whom he may have spoken with.


We can stop this story right here. We now have enough information, with one exception. Remember I said that Crist was asked if he would run as an Independent should he lose the Republican Primary and he said he was a Republican and would remain as one. Then he changed his mind.


In recent weeks, he's been asked if he wins the Senate race would he caucus with Republicans or Democrats. He's claimed to be a fiscal Conservative and a social moderate, but he didn't know who he'd caucus with. Does anyone really believe him? If he doesn't know, why isn't he being asked how he can make major decisions on legislation, if he can't decide with which party he'd caucus?


What this tells me is that his decision of which party to caucus with is based on who wins the elections and takes the majority. If it's the Democrats, he'd caucus with them. If the Republicans, he'd caucus with them. But there is one more scenario. Suppose it was a tie and he was the deciding member that would put one party in the majority over the other. Naturally, it can't be a tie with 100 seats and prior to his decision there would be 99 seats.


Ideally, it would be split like that and the decision would be left to him. The pressure would be on. Republicans would be after him as would the Democrats. He'd be the most important man in the Senate until he decided.


I believe though that he's already decided. Why would an Independent be speaking to the White House about Kendrick Meek dropping out of the race? Or turn it around. Why would the White House and Clinton (Democrats) be trying to get Meek, a Democrat, to drop out of the race so that Crist (an Independent) could win? After all, he's not admitted he's a Democrat.


If you ever wondered why the Tea Party, you have your answer above. The Tea Party is about Congress working for the American people and not for any particular party. These back room deals for legislation, and now with the forcing out of Kendrick Meek, are nothing more than everyday Washington politics about the select few maintaining power. What each and every one of those politicians doesn't understand is that the power they have is lent to them by the people. The Tea Party is about ending that loan for those making the backroom deals, as well as being more responsible with the people's money and keeping government out of the people's lives.


If you want to know about this adventure going on in Florida, just think back to the health care debate. Remember the Louisiana Purchase of Mary Landrieux' vote. Remember the Cornhusker Kickback for Ben Nelson's vote. Remember the deal with Bart Stupak of northern Michigan to keep government funding of abortion out of the health care bill, and the subsequent signing of the executive order and how it's already been violated in certain parts of the country. This Florida mess is along those same lines and this is exactly what we need to get out of Washington DC.


It does however, help out get Kendrick Meek out by costing him votes because the "major players" (of which Clinton seems to have involved himself several times now), which may be the intent of Clinton and Crist making all of this public costing Meek votes he may have otherwise had.


You're welcome to comment.


Brett

Thursday, October 28, 2010

There is Hope, There is Trouble Coming


This election could cause some great things to happen as well as some terrible infighting and yes, that I expect will come from the Republicans.


Congress left to campaign last month without deciding on the extension of the Bush Tax cuts. President Obama and his minions in the Democrat party say it's because the Republicans were holding the middle class hostage to protect the rich. The same could be said the other way. Obama is holding the middle class hostage to punish the rich.


Congress leaving without settling this important question has helped the Republicans in their campaigns alot more than their Pledge with America, which really has turned out to be a dud. Depending on who you listen to, the Republican stand to gain anywhere from 45 to 65 seats in this election in the House and between 8 and 10 in the Senate.


Democrats are now claiming in their debates and on the stump that they are "fiscal Conservatives". I don't know of one person on the planet that believes that. When was the last time you ever heard any Democrat claim to be Conservative in any fashion? The only time they utter Conservative, it's inserted just before or just after "right wing extremist". For them to now claim they are Conservative in any form just shows they are really running scared.


If how this looks holds true and the Republicans do take one or both Houses of Congress, we can expect the tax cut extension to be passed. Even if they don't take the Senate, it will still likely pass. This campaign has finally awaken the liberals in DC and they are scared for their jobs. It's entirely likely that some of the Democrats, especially the ones coming up in two years, will vote along with the Republicans to extend all of the tax cuts for everyone. Even if Obama vetoes it, the Democrats will likely vote with the Republicans to overturn that veto.


When old Democrats like John Dingell and Barney Frank are in trouble in this election, you know that most Democrats will take a long hard look at their "careers", if they survive this election. If either or both of those two lose, or even barely win, it won't affect how they vote, but it should make other Democrats think.


Then comes the trouble within the Republican party. There are already reports that the establishment Republicans are making noises about the tea party candidates to join them rather than doing what the tea party candidates ran on, which is what the American people want.


The tea party Republicans will be outnumbered, but they've been portrayed as outnumbered for the past two years and all they've done is stick to their beliefs and grown. If they can continue to do this as members of the House and Senate, we could see a civil war within the Republican party.


Sarah Palin has put out a warning about this very thing and said that the establishment Republicans ought to be careful or they could find the tea party break off into a third party. Sarah Palin is wrong in advocating this if that's what she's trying to do. If the tea party people stick to their principles the establishment Republicans could find themselves as the targets in the 2012 primaries and like Bob Bennett, Lisa Murkowski, Mike Castle and Charlie Crist, find themselves out of their "careers". The tea party should be working within the Republican party and fighting for their beliefs within the party and then replace the "old dogs" in the next election. Even if that means raising a stink during the next two years within the Republican party.


This will have the liberal media drooling for the next two years, but they have been drooling the past two years at the prospect of the tea party candidates getting spanked down for their "out of the mainstream" beliefs.


There is hope coming soon, then trouble, but even the trouble is a sign of hope. As long as the tea party can keep it's eagerness and energy flowing into the future.


You're welcome to comment.


Brett







Friday, October 22, 2010

News Organization Shows Class


Fox News has been number one in the ratings in nearly every category for ten of those fourteen years. Today the cable news organization displayed class in the wake of the firing of Juan Williams.


Williams was fired for saying that he has some trepidation when he sees muslims in their garb getting on the same plane he gets on. There is more to it than that, but that was the line that got him fired. NPR didn't care about the context. They just used those words to fire him.


Williams, a liberal who is a regular contributor to Fox News, was called into Roger Ailes office and was immediately offered a contract extension and raise along with expanded duties on Fox News.


Nearly ever news organization takes aim at Fox News and makes jokes about their motto of "fair and balanced". They call them the Republican News Organization. I've always found it funny that they complain about Fox being right leaning while they have been liberal leaning for years. Rick Sanchez made it almost a daily routine to go after Fox before he was fired for his racist remarks on a radio talk show.


Yet, Fox has always had several liberals on as well as their conservative programming. Fox has the likes of Geraldo Rivera, Mara Liasson, as well as Juan Williams. He appears as a guest on several programs on Fox, as well as having guest hosted for Bill O'Reilly on several occasions. CNN really can't say the same thing. Neither can MSNBC, CBS, ABC and so on.


Williams has a family, and one of his children in college, yet he was fired for saying something that NPR took out of context. Roger Ailes said to him that his family would be taken care of, and made the offer.


Williams has been told that he likely has a very good case for suing NPR. After listening to him in interviews, I think it unlikely he will. This is another example of class. It seems the only ones that aren't displaying any integrity is NPR.


Juan Williams is a liberal and I can't think of anytime that I've ever agreed with his positions on anything, but the way he was treated by his employer, NPR, was at best despicable. He has had liberals and conservatives alike coming to his defense the past couple of days.


The President and CEO of NPR only made matters worse by suggesting that Williams might be seeing a psychiatrist. She has since apologized.


Juan Williams has taken the high road in this fiasco and Fox News showed what a classy organization they are by offering him an extension and a raise. Fox has shown in yet another way, why they are the number one news organization and Williams has shown that Fox only has the best on their network, from both sides of the aisle.


You're welcome to comment.


Brett

Thursday, October 21, 2010

If It Walks Like a Duck...You're Fired!


This seems to be a trying month for liberals and liberal organizations. Bill O'Reilly was on the View. At some point in the interview, while talking about the controversial mosque in New York, O'Reilly said that Muslims attacked us on September 11, 2001. This simple factual statement, sent co-hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg into overdrive. Apparently, what upset them was that he didn't use the term "extremists" following "muslim".


Joy Behar stood up and paused as if looking for support. She was then joined by Whoopi Goldberg and they walked off the stage together.


Now, imagine for a moment that you're sitting in your living and you have a guest over. That guest says something that you disagree with. Do you get up and walk out of your own house?


You could disagree without raising your voice. You could disagree and change the subject. You could just sit there silently. But do you really get up and walk out of your own house?


I'm not sure how what O'Reilly said is wrong. There were 18 men on those planes that were responsible for those planes going down. They were all muslims. So where did he go wrong? Because he didn't use the "politically correct" language of extremists?


Then yesterday, again, an O'Reilly connection. His guest, Juan Williams, was asked about the events on the View. Juan Williams said that he has a moment of trepidation when he sees a muslim in muslim garb, getting on the same plane he's getting on. National Public Radio then fired Williams.


National Public Radio is funded by tax dollars. Shouldn't an organization that is receiving tax dollars to keep it afloat be more inclined to support the government that supports it? Perhaps they aren't familar with first amendment and the right to free speech.


There is very little I agree on with Juan Williams. He's a liberal. He's a Fox News Contributor, which is odd enough in and of itself because according to the liberals Fox is all Conservative all the time. I can't think of a time that I've agreed with Juan Williams. But this was just flat out wrong. It was wrong even if NPR wasn't supported by the government. The fact that our tax dollars pay them, makes them even more ridiculous.


I guess the reason that I don't listen to NPR nor watch the View is pretty obvious. The question is, why does anyone else?


You're welcome to comment.


Brett



Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Obama Digging the Ditch Deeper

One of President Obama's seemingly favorite lines is that the Republicans, or President Bush, drove us into the ditch and now they want the keys back.
The truth is that if we're in a ditch, regardless of how we got there, the ditch is deeper under Obama than when he first got into the car. In Michigan we get deep snow at times. When you get stuck, you're not supposed to gun the car because all you do is dig yourself a little deeper making it harder to get out. You're spinning your wheels.

Obama has done exactly that. He's been spinning his wheels and digging us in deeper. Unfortunately, he's using our money to spin his wheels. I'm one that doesn't believe that his policies and stimulating programs caused us to avoid a depression. The only thing stimulating to his stimulus package was the money sent to Africa to teach them now to clean up after intimate relations with their partners, and that stimulation wasn't for the United States, it was for the guy getting soaped up.

In fact, I believe that the growth we've had, slow as it has been, is due to the free market system we live in. Obama's policies have only held that growth down but the free market is strong and still managed to improve the economy, albeit slowly.

In recent days, we've heard Obama say that there is no such thing as "shovel ready jobs", yet that's what he was advertising when pushing the stimulus plan a year and a half ago.

Today the National Debt Figures came out. Since Obama took office, the National Debt has increased by $3.039 Trillion Dollars. Does that seem like a lot to you? Well, I looked it up. Since Obama likes to blame the Bush administration, I thought a comparison might be in order.

On the day that George Bush was inaugurated, the National Debt was $5.727 Trillion Dollars. On the day that he left office, the National Debt was $10.626 Trillion Dollars. The debt grew by $4.899 Trillion dollars in the eight years Bush was in office. Compare this to the $3.039 Trillion Dollars in 18 months under Obama. From January 20, 2001 to October 19, 2002, the exact same time frame between Bush and Obama's time in office, the debt grew by $522 Billion dollars. Obama has raised the debt 5 times more than Bush has in the same time frame!

This made me wonder about between the time Bush took office and the Democrats took office in 2007. In those six years from the time Bush took office leading up to when the Democrats took over Congress, the debt was raised by $2.951 Trillion Dollars. Compare that to the two years that the Democrats controlled Congress. They raised the debt by $1.95 Trillion Dollars in those two years. In two years time the Democrats controlled Congress before Bush left office, they more than doubled what it took Bush to do over the previous 6 years!

Average that out and during Bush's first six years, the debt increase averaged $491 Billion dollar per year increase. In the first two years of the Democrat control of Congress, the average annual increase in the debt was $975 Billion Dollars. Average Obama's increase in the debt over the past 18 months and his average increase to the debt is $2.026 Trillion Dollars!

The Obama administration spent $787 Billion dollars on the stimulus package. This doesn't even include the "Cash for Clunkers" program. They now claim that if they extend the Bush tax cuts to the rich, it will cost us $700 Billion over the next ten years. What Obama spent in 18 months, will take ten years to spend by extending the tax cuts to the rich, if you accept their argument that tax cuts cost money. By extending those tax cuts, the economy will grow. There is no argument there. They only say we can't afford it. The $787 Billion that they spent on the stimulus didn't work. This was supposed to keep unemployment no higher than 8%. It's now hovering at 10% and it's been the longest period (14 months) of unemployment above 9% since the 1930's.

As I've said before, tax cuts don't cost money. They generate revenue for the Federal Government. The problem is that when the Feds get money, they spend it. They don't cut spending, they increase spending to higher figures and even higher than the increase they get in revenues.

It's hard to believe that they call the Tea Party extremists. The Tea Party is calling for spending to be reined in. They are calling for lower taxes not more taxes. History supports their positions. History does not support the Democrats positions.

While the debt growth under Bush and the Republicans was not something to be proud of, when it's compared to Obama and the Democrats time, it's the difference between buying a clunker and a cadillac.


This information released today on the debt shows that it's not Bush that drove us into the ditch. In fact, we plowed into that ditch and Obama not only kept us there but buried us in deeper. While the free market has tried to improve the economy, Obama and the Democrats have done everything they can to turn that ditch into a deep canal.


You're welcome to comment.






Brett






National Debt January 20, 2001 $5.727 Trillion Dollars



January 2, 2007 $8.678 Trillion Dollars +$2.951 Trillion



January 20, 2009 $10.628 Trillion Dollars +$1.95 Trillion



October 19, 2010 $ 13.665 Trillion Dollars + $ 3.037 Trillion