Wednesday, April 27, 2011

White House Under Fire, Answers

Over the past few weeks, Donald Trump has been hammering the President about not having released his birth certificate. It's been a daily drumbeat. The really funny thing is that Trump said from the outset that he believed that Obama was born in Hawaii, but that Obama created this firestorm by not releasing the birth certificate.

Yesterday, Obama caved and released the long form birth certificate to the public. So what's next?

So will this be the end of Trumps possible run for the White House? If he's serious, I doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised if he next talks about Obama's education and that nobody has come forward claiming that they knew him in school. Or maybe he'll question Obama's return to the United States following his going to school in Indonesia while living with his parents. He moved in with his grandparents while his parents stayed behind.

There is question as to whether Obama could get his citizenship back when his parents weren't around to apply for it after having become a citizen to attend school in another country.

There are also the questions about Obama getting college aid as a foriegn student to attend college.

One question gets answered, but it opens the door for more questions.

If Obama can be coerced into caving to Donald Trump before Trump is even an official candidate, how many more items will Obama cave on? If he's that easily manipulated by American citizens, how easy is it to manipulate him on the world stage?

Obama, once again, shows himself to be at a loss as to how to be President of the United States.

You're welcome to comment.


Monday, April 11, 2011

Is Chicago School Taking Kickbacks for School Lunches?

A government school in West Chicago named Little Village academy has banned lunches and snacks brought from home unless accompanied with a doctors note. Under the guise of healthy eating, a government school is requiring that all students buy their lunches at school. The principal of the school, Elsa Carmona claims that it's a common practice amongst schools, but couldn't or wouldn't name another that employs this practice. A check with the Chicago School Board said that it's up to each individual school to set their policies. So what do the kids say about this? Most students must take the school lunch from the cafeteria or go hungry, or both. What they are finding is that kids don't like the lunches and throw most of it away, which means they go hungry. This is nutritional? Maybe they'll have food police to make sure the kids eat everything on their plate next. The money aspect interests me. The federal government pays the school for each free, or reduced price lunch the school provides. In addition, the provider of the food, in this case "Chartwells-Thompson" makes more money because they are paid for each lunch provided. This brings the natural question. Is this really being done for nutritional purposes or is the school taking advantage by collecting money from the Feds by forcing kids to buy their lunches at school? Then there are other questions. Does anyone affiliated with the school have a known or even silent business interest in Chartwells-Thompson? It is not the responsibility of the schools to see to it that kids eat properly. That is the parents responsibility. The schools have enough trouble teaching kids how to read, write, add and subtract. For instance, how nutritional is it to force kids to buy lunch at school. have them throw it away uneaten? How economical is it? After all, the kids are buying lunch but not eating it. Isn't this policy teaching these kids that it's okay to waste food? This is just another example of the failure of the schools in this country. They focus on everything but education. You're welcome to comment. Brett

Sunday, April 10, 2011

The Election Results are in.....Sort of

Since the election of George W. Bush in 2000, there have been accusations of voter fraud that continue even now, 11 years later. During that time, there have been three Presidential elections, 6 elections for the House, 6 elections for the Senate, and countless local and state elections across the country. Still, voter fraud is an acceptable and expected charge in each election.

The latest is in Wisconsin. A Supreme Court seat was up for a vote. The incumbent, a Republican, was expected to win and turnout was expected to be low for this election. Due to the recent events in Wisconsin with them trying to balance their budget, and the challenge to the recent law passed regarding collective bargaining, this election could decide the fate of the recently passed law.

The Democrat, JoAnne Kloppenburg would rule against the collective bargaining agreement and the Republican, David Prosser would rule in favor of the agreement. That would be the swing vote deciding the fate of Wisconsin's collective bargaining law.

I will put aside the problem I have with either side already knowing how a judge would rule before arguments are even heard before the court and talk about the election results. Originally, Kloppenburg claimed victory the day after the election, but Prosser did not concede saying their numbers still looked strong.

The margin of victory in the preliminary annoucements regarding the results showed that Kloppenburg had indeed won by 204 votes. It was then reported the next day that a bag of votes had been found that hadn't been counted. This was apparently an errant report. What was found was that the city of Brookfields votes were not reported by the County clerk in the announcement.

The margin of victory changed and has gone to the Republican. Prosser now leads by 6,744 votes. This is a seemingly insurmountable lead.

With all of the voter fraud accusations over the past decade, I find it hard to believe that a county clerk would purposely ignore one city's vote count to create a controversy. On the other hand, you never know about people these days. After all, a man built a homemade flying saucer and claimed his son was in it while it flew off in the wind only later to be discovered that the mother and father had used their son to gin up publicity for themselves while the son hid in the house for several hours. Maybe the county clerk wanted to make a name for herself.

In this country, we strive to be the best in the world at everything we try to do. Until the past fifteen to twenty years we've been very successful. But our education has gone into a nosedive and we're no longer number one in all categories. We now have a leader that cedes the lead to others rather than taking advantage of what is still the greatest military in the world, and now, even if we do count votes correctly, we don't report them correctly.

With each election, we find that those that are elected or hired to count, can't count by ones, or when they do count, they don't report correctly. Come to think of it, our county clerks are on a par with the press who don't report the news any longer but rather write the news in a slanted fashion.

It's hard to believe that there are actually people out there that want to change our votes from one man, one vote to allowing those with higher incomes to having more votes. If we can't count by ones, how are we ever going to be able to count by twos, threes or fives?

Mistakes can be made. Mistakes will be made. But they should be the exception, not the rule and since the year 2000, the mistakes or accusations have been the rule.

It's been well proven that computers are not helping the election process. They are instead creating more problems. How do you know that when you put your ballot in the scanner, that your vote was registered on the proper candidate? You don't. I've asked when I slid my ballot into the machine how I could know it was counted properly. The best answer I've gotten is "trust the machine". What evidence do we have to trust these machines, the election workers or even those that report the results provided by the machines or the workers?

I expect to give my best to anything that I try to do. As a Conservative, if a liberal tries to take a shortcut to get the results that they want rather than the actual results, I expect them to be charged for their crime and prosecuted. However, as a Conservative, I expect better from Conservatives. If they take a shortcut to get the results they want rather than the actual results, I expect them to be charged for their crime and prosecuted and given one more day in jail or one more dollar fine than a liberal. It's because I expect more from Conservatives. I expect them to be honest and I expect liberals to be dishonest.

This election reporting in Wisconsin may just be a mistake, but if it's found to be that this clerk had anything to do with under-reporting the results on purpose, she ought to be fired for incompetence at the very least.

You're welcome to comment.