Friday, April 30, 2010

Obama Takes 9 Days to Respond

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina came ashore in Mississippi. Three days prior to the Hurricane making landfall, President Bush declared it a disaster area.

Less than 5 years later, an oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico spewing the oil into the gulf on Earth Day. 5,000 barrels of oil per day is shooting up out of the earth into the Gulf.

During those nine days that the oil was flowing into the Gulf, President Obama was traveling around the midwest trying to sell Americans on Financial Reform and demonizing Wall Street. At the beginning of his campaign against Wall Street, the SEC said they were investigating Goldman Sachs.

In the midst of those nine days Arizona passed a law banning illegal aliens or foriegn invaders from Arizona. While doing one of his speeches in the midwest on Financial Reform, Obama became Anti Government claiming that the law was misdirected and claimed that this law will mean that if you're an illegal invader, and you take your children to get ice cream, you will be harrassed even though your ancestors may have been here for generations. This is a flat out lie on Obama's part, but it's interesting that he would lie and disparage the Arizona lawmakers making him one of those anti government domestic terrorists that they've been complaining about since the Health Care vote. Still the oil flowed.

Also during this nine days, Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano testified and when asked whether the borders were safe in Arizona, she said first that they were as safe as they've ever been. People are being murdered. Ranchers, officers of the law, and even some of the illegal invaders. In addition, kidnappings are running rampant. Senator Lindsay Graham pushed the question again and Napolitano said that the question was not a fair one. Still the oil flowed.

Finally, nine days after the explosion, we still don't know what caused the explosion, but Napolitano did do a flyover of the leaking oil rig where 11 people are presumed dead. The oil has reached the mouth of the Mississippi and the shores of Louisiana and Mississippi.

Animals are being covered in oil. The fishing season is upon the area and the fishermen are saying that this will ruin their businesses.

While this oil is flowing, let's take a look back again. It's August 2005. All eyes are on the Gulf of Mexico. There is a hurricane brewing. It's getting stronger. But we don't know if it's going to go to Mexico, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, or turn towards Florida and Alabama.

The hurricane continues to churn out in the gulf and grows stronger. Finally, nearly a week before the hurricane, named Katrina, actually hits shore, the tracking shows that it will hit anywhere from Louisiana to Florida. The presumed track is narrowing as the hurricane moves ever closer. The only question now is how far east it will turn in.

Three days prior to landfall, it's pretty well certain it's going to hit Louisiana and Mississippi. The experts are now questioning how large of a storm it will be, although it's known it will be a very large one. Just how large is in question. President Bush declares a state of emergency for the states on the Gulf Coast. He urges people to evacuate.

Twelve hours before landfall, Governor Blanco declares a state of emergency and tells everyone to evacuate. Mayor Nagin urges people to evacuate and opens the SuperDome to those that have no place to go.

The hurricane makes landfall in Mississippi. While it was a Category 5 in the gulf when it hits shallow water before making landfall the strength drops and it's a Category 2 when it hits land.

We all know what happened from there. People in New Orleans waited for the government to come and get them. 1,000 people died. 2,000 buses sat empty in a parking lot. Bush was called a racist for allowing so many black people to die. News programs showed the looting going on following the hurricane and they showed mainly minorities doing the looting. Again, racism was yelled out. Even Lewis Farrakhan jumped in with his conspiracy theory that Bush had ordered the levies blown up.

Liberals complained that it took President Bush two days to go to New Orleans. Yet, the hardest hit areas in Mississippi were rarely mentioned and not given the attention that New Orleans received.

Back to present day. Where are the news reports complaining that Obama has not been to the Gulf during any of the nine days since the explosion? Why has he not visited New Orleans? Is he a racist? Incompetent? Why has it taken nine days for Napolitano to fly over the region? Is the Federal Government ignoring New Orleans again?

Today, on the tenth day, Obama decides to suspend all new oil and natural gas leases off shore. It's an interesting response considering that there are 819 active oil rigs in the gulf and there have been over 6,600 rigs in the gulf.

Once again, the liberals are quick to accuse when Bush is President, but duck and cover for their President.

You're welcome to comment.


Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Arizona Fights ILLEGAL Invasion

On Friday, the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, signed into law a bill that is designed to put an end to the illegal invasion that has been going on in this country.

Many press accounts call it an Anti-Immigration law. Others are saying that it's discriminatory and will lead to racial profiling. It is not Anti-Immigration. It's anti invasion. The law does not state that if you're not an American you're not welcome. It says that if you're in Arizona illegally, you're breaking the law. There is a similar federal law. The difference between the two is that the Federal Government has done nothing to enforce the law.

In 2006, President George Bush with his new best friend Senator John McCain wanted a new immigration bill that included amnesty for those currently here illegally. They didn't call it amnesty, but it amounted to amnesty in that those here could work towards citizenship and remain.

The public outcry put a quick stop to this. They didn't want a reward given for committing a crime. Illegal aliens cost us big dollars. We educate their children, we pay for their health care, they collect our social security dollars, they get refunds on their tax returns despite not having paid any taxes during the year.

McCain even stood in front of a group of people offered them money for working in the fields claiming that Americans wouldn't do that job. He backed off in a hurry when a group of people stepped up and asked where to sign up.

The new Arizona law does not just go after illegal immigrants, who are in fact, invaders of this country, but it also includes punishment for employers that hire illegal invaders.

In 2006, the Democrats didn't want the new law to go after the illegal invaders but rather go after the employers that hire them. As if it was the employers sole responsibility for illegals being here. Now they are claiming that the Arizona law is akin to Nazi Germany where everyone had to carry papers on their person. It is already law that any foriegn visitors to this country carry their visas with them at all times.

This new law goes after the illegal invader. It goes after the employers that hire the illegal invaders. It also specifically prohibits racial profiling, which is something that I disagree with. It's highly unlikely that blonde haired blue eyed women are illegals from south of the border. It's also unlikely that they will have bright red hair and freckles.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Democrats reasons for allowing the illegal invaders to stay in this country is so that they can recruit new voters. The Democrats need the poor to vote because those that are satisfied with living off of government benefits have their best friends in the Democrat Party. It is really the Democrats only chance to come close to victory in coming elections.

The Democrats have one problem. The American people. In Arizona 70% of the people were in favor of this new law. Governor Brewer has been running at 46% in polls for her re-election. Since signing the law last week, she has jumped 16 points!

Boycotts are now being called for of Arizona. San Francisco has already stopped all travel of city employees to Arizona. Another California legislator wants Governor Schwarzenneger to stop all business transactions with Arizona. People are even calling for a boycott of Arizona Tea. Arizona Tea is a New York company! I'm more inclined to stage my own boycott of anyone that wants to boycott Arizona even though boycotts don't really work.

Arizona is not the first to enact a law like this. Utah already has one in place and now Texas is wanting the same type of law.

If California wants to complain and refuse to do business with Arizona due the law, the illegal invaders can just move a few miles to the west and cross in California. Then California can either welcome them with open arms or have the Arizona problems. How many citizens of California will have to die, or be kidnapped before they start looking at the same type of law as Arizona?

Remember Robert Krentz was murdered by an illegal invader who then fled back to Mexico. His dog was also killed. Why aren't the Democrats and PETA complaining about the death of the dog by the illegal invader?

I've long thought that retirement for me may be in Arizona. This law only makes the state of Arizona more enticing to me for my retirement years.

You're welcome to comment.


Friday, April 23, 2010

Tax Cuts Don't Need To Be Paid For

For the past eight years, and especially the last two years, all we've been hearing is that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich and weren't paid for. It's long since been debunked about the tax cuts only being for the rich. We already know that everyone benefitted from the tax cuts.

Oddly enough, it was the Democrats that made the point more clear than anyone else. They did this when they began saying that they were going to leave the tax cuts in place for anyone making less than $200,000 per year and end the tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 per year.

How can they claim that only the rich got tax cuts if they are now saying that they are going to leave the tax cuts in place for the middle and lower class? Or, do they believe that only the rich got a tax cut and they're just trying to do a sales job on the rest by telling them that they are ending the tax cuts on the rich?

The myth is that tax cuts need to be paid for. We have history to prove that this is untrue. In the 1980's, Ronald Reagan cut taxes. He lowered the top marginal tax rate down from 70%. This had the effect of raising tax revenue to the federal government. This continued for eight of the following ten years.

When President Bush lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003, the same thing occurred. Tax revenue rocketed up. How can this happen?

If you're earning $50,000 and you're taxed at 20% you pay $10,000 in taxes. But suppose your taxes are cut and you're only taxed at 10% on a $50,000 per year income. You now have $5,000 in your pocket. What will you do with it? Groceries? Pay additional on your house? Buy things that you don't need but want? Save it?

Most would do a little of all of the above. What each will do though is put it into the economy. They'll spend it at their local store. When they spend it, the generate the need for someone to work. You can't spend money at a store that's closed. So you've created a job. Some may travel, which generates the need for hotels. You'll need a desk clerk, housekeeping, maintenance. All of these are done by people working for pay. If they are working for pay, this creates income, which creates a need to pay taxes, which increases the tax revenue.

When you buy, you're being charged a sales tax in your state. Again, more revenue. If you save the money, you'll pay taxes on capital gains in addition to earning more money on your savings. Even if you save it at the bank, they have to make money on that money so that they can lend money to others, not to mention paying for the teller to do their job, the bank manager, and so on.

Tax cuts don't need to be paid for, they pay. Now imagine if the government actually decreased spending in addition to the tax cuts. That savings by not spending money, along with the increase in tax revenue due to the tax cuts, can now be used to pay down the debt.

Since Obama took over the Presidency, we've got record deficits and record debt. The deficit has been increased four times. The debt has been doubled. That's just in a year and a half!

Why are the Republicans letting the Democrats control the language on taxes and spending when these simple facts are backed up by history? The Republicans would look like hypocrites if they did this. They spent so much money from 2001 through 2006 that they could have made Democrats proud. The Republicans can only make themselves look bad when they start talking about pulling back on spending. It's a hit that they need to take and they need to make that point forcefully even at their own expense.

It's entirely likely that the Republicans will take over the House in November. They are on the verge of actually taking control of the Senate in November as well. If you believe Dick Morris, it's going to happen. They need to take these hits and show that they are going with a more conservative approach.

We elect these people to be good stewards of our money and to represent us in government. The people, for the most part, want reins put on spending and they want taxes lower. The people have it right. If this was left to the people, this country would be living within its' means and be thriving.

In Washington and in state capitols around the country, our elected officials spend our money, put us in debt by their own actions, then come to us and say 'we need you to pay more for our mistakes and our lack of control with your money'. So they increase taxes, thinking they'll pull in more money to the government when in fact, they are doing just the opposite.

Tax cuts don't need to be paid for. They pay us. As they cut taxes and our incomes remain more and more in our control, the country thrives and grows. Get this debt paid down and the deficit reduced or even balanced, and taxes can even be cut more giving more of the people's money back to them causing and even greater growth and sustaining a strong economy. Each time it happens, it works. We are the strongest economy when we are fiscally responsible.

Tax increases need to be paid for. Tax cuts pay for themselves and generate profit that may be returned to the people to create more economic activity, innovation, and t opay for education and make this the strongest country in the world.

Republicans need to take control of the message as well as the Congress.

Your comments are welcome.


Monday, April 19, 2010

School Sponsored Pedophilia?

The Lower Merion School District in Pennsylvania has now admitted that they took inappropriate photos of students from the laptop computers.

You may remember that on November 11, 2009, Harriton Assistant Principal, Lindy Matsko, reprimanded a student, Blake Robbins, a sophomore, for inappropriate behavior in his home. She apparently claimed that some candies the boy had on his desk were drugs. Blake told his parents about it and they immediately complained of the school spying on their son via a laptop computer the schools give to all of the students each year.

The school system claims they put the camera's on the computers for security purposes to retrieve lost or stolen laptops and that they are not spying on the students in their homes or anywhere else they take the laptops.

There are now new developments. The school district has now acknowledged that investigators recovered a "substantial number of webcam photos". The article which I read this, states that they expect to start notifying parents of photographed students soon.

In the past three years, there have been no less than 30 school teachers nationwide that have been convicted of having sex with students, and that's just the female teachers.

I hesitate to write about the school systems because of what I learned when my children were old enough to start attending school. But what's happening in this school system in Pennsylvania is not just about the quality of education. It started out as more of a story about the character of the assistant principal. Or maybe I should say lack of character. However, that has changed with these recent developments.

It is bad enough that a parent complained about a school laptop computer taking one picture of a student at home. Now it's turned into much much more.

The School Board President, David Ebby says that they will soon be notifying the parents of the other students who's pictures have been taken for them to come in and view them. He says that they hope to start that process shortly and adds, "the privacy of all students will be strongly protected." NOW they are going to protect the privacy of the students?!!? Shouldn't they have thought of this when they first decided to attach cameras to the laptops before issuing them to the students? This is akin to saying 'now that we've been caught, we're going to do things correctly.'

In motion filed by Robbins attorney it asserts that school system captured "thousands of images" including websites and excerpts from online chats. Apparently, some of these images are of students in their homes in various stages of undress. There are allegedly images of other family members as well.

To have pictures of students, under the age of 18 seems to me to meet the definition of child pornography! The school board, the administrators and the teachers should all be charged with child porn and if found guilty, put on the sexual predator list after they get out of prison.

The school district has commissioned an internal investigation and promises the results within a few weeks. Why are they investigating themselves? Why aren't the police investigating this. If I rob a bank, can I go and get my own investigators to look into whether or not I robbed the bank?

A couple of years ago, my daughter wanted me to go with her on a school outing. Yes, she's back in the system again. I called the school to make the arrangements for me to go with her. They said that before I could go, I had to have a background check performed on myself and provide them with the written report. This was just so that I could ride on the bus with my daughter to attend this particular event. When I asked why I was told that it had to be done because I would be on a bus with other children.

My response to them was that if that was their requirement, then I demanded a written background report on each of my daughters teachers. Naturally, they refused saying my request was "ridiculous". My reply to them? I said, "Duh". I drove myself to the event.

Our children are sent to school to be taught. In my childrens case, from the time they got on the bus in the morning until they time they got off the bus in the afternoon was nine hours. Seven of those hours are spent inside the building. It's bad enough that we have to worry about which teachers may or may not be dangerous to the well being of our children.

In Pennsylvania, it appears that those parents not only have to worry what their children are learning and whether or not there are predators watching over them, but the parents now must worry about what they are bringing home.

These schools, which I call "government schools" are slipping in their quality and have been for years. It is no longer the best education available. This school system is taking pictures of children at home. The website I mentioned showed a picture of this sophomore sleeping. Not in class. In his bed! I won't put that on here. Now we're finding out that it goes much much further than this.

Add to this the young high school girl in Massachussets who recently committed suicide because she was being bullied. Again, the school system failed. The bullying was reported by her and by her family. The school did nothing. Now there are six other young students being charged with various crimes. But none from the school system are being held responsible.

It's becoming increasingly clear that these school systems cannot be trusted with the care of our school children. In the State of Washington, children 13 and up can get mental and physical care through the school system without parental consent. Recently, a fifteen year old girl went to the school clinic. They took her to an abortion clinic where she got the abortion, then returned her to school to finish the day. Her parents didn't find out about the abortion until several months after the fact.

Is this why we send our children to school? To be bullied and have nobody in authority do anything about it? To have an abortion behind the parents back? To bring home computers so the school system can spy on children and their family members without consent?

The Lower Merion School District should fire the entire school board immediately. They should fire the assistant principal immediately. They should fire every adult that had knowledge or should have had knowledge of this, immediately and the city, state, or federal government ought to put all of them on trial for pedophilia and sentence them to the maximum time allowed.

Young Blake Robbins, the student who was originally reprimanded, and his parents are doing the one honorable thing in this entire fiasco. They are filing a class action lawsuit. Not just him, but any other students that were violated. I hope that includes any students that aren't involved but want to protect themselves from having it happen to them in the future.

It's not lost on me that the child's name is ironically "Robbins". I believe it was Christopher Robbins that was at the 100 acre wood where Winnie The Pooh is. Imagine someone actually doing something like this to Christopher Robbins.

You're welcome to comment.


Tuesday, April 13, 2010

When the Community Leaders Don't, We Must

With the recession, that has been almost as bad as the one in the late 70's and early 80's, Flint has been dealt another heavy blow. It's gotten so bad that they are now tearing down empty houses and leaving the lots empty. They are going back to gravel roads in some areas of the city. They just can't pay for the upkeep of some of those streets.

On March 24, the city of Flint laid off 23 firefighters and 46 police officers. That's when the trouble began. Fires were started across the city. In the week that f0llowed more than 40 fires were fought in Flint. Five of them from midnight on the 25th of March until after daylight.

Suspicion is being floated that this is union thugs starting the fires. Mayor Dwayne Walling held a press conference about the fires and hinted that the fires were set because of the layoffs. In addition to the fires, the city has another problem.

There is a system called Mutual Aid where communities in surrounding areas help each other out when there are fires. Flint has help from Flint Township and the township gets aid from the city. Clio, Mt. Morris, Burton and others are in on this mutual aid to assist their neighbors. Some of them are now refusing to assist Flint since the layoffs. In particular, the city of Burton refuses to assist. The fire chief and the Mayor of Burton are in agreement that they will not assist any longer.

The City of Flint cannot afford to pay for the firefighters that they had, so they had to lay off police and fire to save money as they face a budget deficit in the millions. These layoffs add to the list of unemployed in the Flint area which has already suffered for years since the decline of the General Motors plants in the 80's.

The response of some of the surrounding communities is shameful to say the least. Especially if those cities are refusing to help because of the layoffs. It would be one thing if the mutual aid was heavily favored for one community over another. It's not fair to the taxpayers of Burton to pay for their firefighters to always be in Flint. However, that's not the case. Burton seems to be refusing to help because of Flint's choice to layoff Firemen. If this is what the City of Burton is doing, they are not taking into consideration the people that the firefighters are paid to protect. The citizens!

If these fires are in fact being started by union thugs or those in their employ, then it just shows they are no longer an organization to be proud. You may remember that it was a sit-in by a union in 1936 that caused the unions to realize that they are better served by banding together rather than being a bunch of local union groups. It would be another example of the unions trying to grab too much power but they aren't doing it by just refusing to work because they think their membership is being treated unfairly, but now they are putting the people they are hired to serve, at risk. Some of those houses that caught fire were occupied homes. Luckily, the people that lived in those homes escaped unharmed physically. However, two firemen have been injured in those fires.

When the unions put their concerns ahead of the safety of the people, the unions have outlived their usefulness. Their concern for wages, benefits and days off mean nothing when they are involved in hurting those they are supposed to be doing their jobs for.

This is just the beginning. This is just happening in a community right now. What happens when it starts happening on a national level? Perhaps it's time for people to start hooking up their garden hoses and watching out for their immediate neighbors. Keep an eye on your neighbors to ensure their safety and help out when they are in need. It's becoming more and more apparent that those entrusted with the public safety are too busy worrying about themselves and trying to prove their worthiness. Unfortunately, the tactics they seem to be using is only showing how worthless they are.
Many have probably heard about Flint and about the problems it's had over the years. But it's not going to end with Flint. It will happen in other areas that become depressed if the economic times don't change or return to the problems of last year. The next story could be in any State in the country. Including your own. When the Communities leaders and elected officials are looking out for themselves rather than those they are supposed to serve, it's time for people to start re-thinking their priorities in the leaders that they elect.

You're welcome to comment.


Friday, April 9, 2010

Death Threat from the Left or a Joke?

The Record of Bergen County obtained a memo put out by the Teachers Union in Bergen County, New Jersey (a regional office of the National Education Association) which seems to threaten Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.

The memo includes a closing prayer. The prayer says, " Dear Lord, this year you have taken my favorite Actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcet, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite Governor."

I will be very surprised if this shows up in the main stream media...or lame stream media..... today. But there are a few questions that this brings out.

First, does this constitute a death threat? After all, the media, when playing the tape of the woman that called Bart Stupak following his health care vote said that millions of people were wishing him ill health. This teachers union is not just wishing for Governor Christie's ill health, but actually wishing for his death. Doesn't that fall on a par with a death threat?

Secondly, it's prayer in a memo from the Teachers Union. Should the teachers union be invoking God and prayer in their writings?

Third, this governor has only been on the job for just under four months. How is it that they turn their ire towards him when he's trying to clean up the mess of the previous governor? Now, I realize that the liberals blame Bush for anything and everything that has gone wrong since the Revolutionary war, but with just four months on the job, I would think that if the liberals were intellectually honest, they'd have to blame former Governor Corzine for the problems in New Jersey.

The association president, Joe Coppola said, "the prayer was meant as a joke and was never meant to be made public." Does that make a death wish of another okay? That would be the same as a bank robber saying 'I didn't mean to get caught.'

When the tape was first made public following Bart Stupak's vote on health care, I said that what the woman said wasn't a threat, but it was pretty crass for someone to wish another ill will. This falls in the same category as far as I'm concerned. Asking God to strike down a governor is just as stupid as what the womans said that called Stupak's office.

On the other hand, there may be hope yet. At least the unions are acknowledging that there is a God. I wouldn't have believed that before today.

You're welcome to comment.


Bart Stupak Retires

Democrat Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan's upper peninsula has decided to retire following his stunt during the health care debate.

Stupak held out on the vote for health care until the abortion question was answered. The answer was an Executive Order signed by President Obama a day after the health care signing. The signing of the Executive Order did not receive the pomp and circumstance of the health care bill signing rally. Rather it was held in a closed office, shut off from the press with Stupak and a limited few others in attendance.

Stupak claimed that he had received threats, both at home and his office, for holding out on the vote for health care, but none were published. He claimed he also received threats following his changing of his vote for health care and one was published, which wasn't really a threat but more just a woman saying that millions of people wished him ill health.

Stupak says that his decision to retire has nothing to do with his health care vote. Instead, he's saying that he's retiring to spend more time with his family. This is what many figures that become controversial use as a reason for leaving their particular profession.

This seems to be the prevailing excuse for retirement in politics lately. Senator Byron Dorgan retired to "spend more time with his family". Representative Bill Delahunt announced his retirement in March to "spend time with his family". It, of course, has nothing to do with a controversy over his inaction regarding the death of three people.

Representative Charles Pickering (R) from Mississippi announced he wouldn't run again for Congress in 2008 because he wanted to "spend more time with his family". Later he filed for divorce from his wife.

It's not just limited to politics. Magic Johnson of the L.A. Lakers retired to "spend time with his family". Same with Karl Malone.

In Stupaks case, he's 58 years old. He's not retiring. He's leaving Congress but he's not retiring. He's now going to start up another business. Usually starting a new business means more time away from the family building that business.

His timing is suspect. The controversy over the health care bill. In addition the Tea Party Express announced that they are targeting Stupak this year and have been in his area in recent days.

Whether he's leaving to "spend time with his family" or not, the good news is that he's leaving Congress.

You're welcome to comment.