The Conservative Lifestyle

Let the Games Begin

2012-01-14T23:01:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the silly season. It is unlike the four seasons that we go through from year to year in that they last 90 days each while the silly season lasts from the beginning of the first debate until November 6, 2012. The first debate took place in September of 2011.

The best way, or maybe better put, the ideal way for a person to be elected President is to get people to vote for you as opposed to voting against the other guy. However, this election, it’s likely that most will vote against the current resident of the White House rather than voting for the Republican. The current President is so bad that this race could possibly be over when one of the Republicans emerges as the nominee, although the press won’t ever admit it and not allow it to be over until November.

The choices we have for the Republican nominee are all appearing as though they are trying to find ways to lose the nomination. I always break things down to Conservative, moderate and liberal. On the Conservative side, there is Newt Gingrich and possibly Rick Santorum along with Rick Perry. The remaining two are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.

I’m not going to say much about Ron Paul. I just think he’s weird. He’s got some weird ideas about foreign policy and some even stranger statements about our fighting terrorists in the middle east following the attacks on September 11, 2001. If you’re a Ron Paul supporter, I’m sorry if those words offend you, but just as much as you think he’s the best choice, I think he’s weird.

Rick Santorum and Rick Perry, while considered Conservative in the past, have their own problems. Santorum, while a member of the Senate was involved in the overspending by the government. Rick Perry, while leading while Texas was creating more jobs than anywhere in the country is too lenient about illegal immigration and comes across as wishy washy in the debates.

This leaves Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Gingrich is a former Speaker of the House. He led the turnaround in 1994 which gained the Republicans control of the House. He was instrumental in putting together and implementing the Contract with America that helped the Republicans take control. He also fought and won in getting a balanced budget during the Clinton administration.

With defined goals and a plan you’d be hard pressed to find someone better than Gingrich. The problem with Gingrich seems to be when the goal is reached, he either has too much time on his hands with no direction or starts contemplating various visions for the future but he doesn’t keep those ideas quiet until they are thought out. He thinks out loud.

Gingrich is an amazing speaker. He can recite history as though he lived through it and apply it to todays problems and make both easy to understand if you take the time to listen to his speeches. But is he patient enough to wait for any changes he makes to filter it’s way to the people, and can he control his ideas without going overboard?

Mitt Romney is a problem. He appears as a store manikin. Every hair in it’s place. That applies to his speeches as well as everything else about him. Everything seems staged, planned or scripted. Even to a tuft of hair being out of place. It’s as though it’s placed out of place on purpose.

He will speak to people when he does his glad handing routine, but he appears to be just tolerating that he must speak to people. If someone disagrees with his position and asks a follow up question of him when he answers their original question, he thanks them and walks away.

Romney began the government health care plan in the State of Massachusetts when he was governor. It became the model for Obamacare nationwide in 2009. Yet he says he will sign the legislation to end Obamacare.

Romney has gone back and forth on abortion. Regardless of your position on abortion, Romney has been there.

Romney would be great with the economy. I have no doubts. But, I have all sorts of doubts about him on immigration, foreign policy, social issues. Worst of all regarding Romney, can he be trusted? I find myself not believing him. That he will say anything to get elected whether it’s the truth or not and I don’t believe he’s really as flexible on any topic as his back and forth record on various issues would lead you to believe.

I believe this race will come down to Romney and Gingrich. I’m afraid that Romney will win, but don’t take that as Gingrich being my ideal choice. Neither of them would be an ideal choice. However, either would be better than what we currently have as President.

One thing is for certain. If you like nasty elections you’re in for a really great year on that front. Obama has already put out attack ads and it’s not even time for that competition. Romney has proven he can and will say anything about an opponent whether it’s true or not. Gingrich has a very sharp tongue as well as we’ve seen the past couple of weeks following Romney’s attack ads.

There does seem to be one thing missing this year from the past two years. The Tea Party. Spending has not been the hot topic whether due to the moderators at the debate or the lack of participation from the Tea Party. Perhaps that will change and the Tea Party will again step up. If so, I suspect it will be in the Senate races which could very well be more important to this country than the Presidential election.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Occupy.......

2011-11-25T08:47:00.001-05:00

Better than two years ago, in February of 2009 a new protest group turned up on the scene. They carried signs protesting the so-called stimulus plan that we now know has failed miserably. This group attended holiday functions and started their own protests. In addition to their signs they carried the American flag as well as signs from Revolutionary War period that said "Don't tread on me".

They attended town hall meetings put on by various politicians across the country, challenging the politicians to explain their backing of the stimulus plan and the bailouts of banks and insurance companies. It expanded into protests of the proposed health care takeover. When politicians tried to ignore the questions by giving rambling answers that obfuscated the question or just ignored the question altogether, they were challenged by their constituents and forced to either give an honest answer or they were booed by their own constituents at their meetings, and sometimes, their honest answer revealed their true disdain for their citizens and they were booed for that. This led to the largest turnaround in elections since the 1920's, in the 2010 elections.

There were very few incidents of violence, although some accusations of events. Eggs thrown at a Tea Party bus in Nevada. The occasional poster of Obama as a witch doctor, or the joker (which was also done to President Bush). Most of the incidents and violence that took place came when the politicians brought in the unions and started restricting the town hall meetings and led to the use of telephone town hall meetings where the policians wouldn't have to face their own constituents.

These Tea Party protests were the people of this country complaining that the government was giving money to certain segments. The takeover of health care. The confiscation of General Motors and turning it into Government Motors and selecting who would get stimulus money. Protesting the failed cash for clunkers.

Now we know that the stimulus money has gone for "green" companies, and those that supported Obama, and of course, who can forget the money given to teach men in Africa how to bathe after sex.

In October of 2011 a new group has emerged. First they were called Occupy Wall Street. Now they are called "Occupy ..." whatever city they protest in. What do they want? They want FREE college education. They want FREE health care. They call themselves the 99% and those that have money as the 1% and call for the 1% to pay higher taxes.

To think about this logically, you have to ask why they would want anyone to pay higher taxes. After all, they want free health care. So why would they be calling for higher taxes? If the health care is free, nobody should have to pay any taxes. After all, the health care is "free". They want free college education. Why do they need anyone to pay more taxes if the education is "free"?

It reminds me of Governor Granholm in Michigan a few years ago. She had the State of Michigan provide "free" laptop computers to all 6th grade students in the state. The plan was stopped a year later saying that the state couldn't afford the "free" laptops. It must be really bad when they can't afford something that's "free".

These Occupy.... groups have been camping out in parks such as Zuccotti park in New York. It's not a public park where they'd at least have an argument about their right to assembly and their right to protest. It's a private park that they've taken over, violating the law by not leaving when the park closes and not leaving.

The protests have been marked by violence. Women and children being raped and even men being raped. Protestors defacating on police cars. Their personal hygiene may be suffering because they don't bathe. Head and body lice has become a real problem there.

They have threatened to burn down Macy's, and now are saying that they are going to disrupt the largest shopping day of the year on black Friday by protesting outside businesses. The protests haver turned violent with clashes with the police across the country.

The Occupy crowd has recently been complaining. They aren't just complaining that they are having clashes with police, but they are complaining about the homeless. Not because there are homeless, but because there are groups that support them that are providing them with food and the homeless are showing up and eating that food.

They aren't complaining about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which is heavily involved in the meltdown of the housing markets. They are complaining about the millions in bonuses paid to Wall Street executives. They aren't complaining outside the White House over the stimulus money paid to Solyndra to delay their bankruptcy filing until it's convenient for the Obama administration, they are complaining the upper 1% of income earners aren't paying as much in taxes, even though the upper 1% pays the bulk of the taxes in this country yet say nothing about the 47% of the people aren't paying any taxes, but actually receive money on their tax returns from the government.

It's quite a comparison between the two protest groups. The Tea Party was complaining about too much government and allowing the people to remain free and unencumbered by restrictions of government while the Occupy crowd wants the government to provide them with everything so they don't have to work for what they get. The Tea Party wants to work for what they get, while the Occupy crowd wants the government to take away from those that earn their pay and give it to them.

The Tea Party protestors worked during the day and protested on their own time at meetings and weekends while the Occupy crowd has camped out for nearly two months on private property (owned by the rich) and had sex with anything that moves of any age or sex and craps on government vehicles.

The really odd thing is that the Tea Party has been accused of being anti government while they were protesting too much government while the Occupy protestors are wanting the government to provide everything while abusing private property, government property and each other. I wonder if they've noticed that the government has no integrity and is broke.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Unbelievable!

2011-10-13T02:01:00.000-04:00

Please accept my apology:
The Obama Administration has been trying to apologize for the United States. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the family of Samir Kahn, the number two man killed at the same time as Anwar Al-Awlaki and offered the countries condolences for his death.

President Obama wanted to visit Hiroshima and apologize for the United States dropping the bomb that helped end WWII, but Japan said it was a non-starter. What's wrong with this picture? We offer to apologize for ending a war 65 years ago and the country that we defeated is refusing to allow us to apologize. Japan is not refusing it out of anger for us beating them.

Mr. President, if you really want to apologize, apologize to the American people for the mess you've created with your plans that have failed. I'm not sorry some terrorist is dead. But I am sorry that more aren't dead.

Lack of stimulation from the stimulus:

An airport received stimulus funds and used it to add to a terminal. Now it's completed and the ramps don't reach the airplanes. I should be fair here. Some of them do. But some of them don't. They aren't sure what went wrong and why they won't reach. Here's a hint guys. Your designers failed 8th grade math! Perhaps the ramps just need to be stimulated to reach. Maybe you can convince the White House for a little more stimulation.

Where's the complaints about high pensions on this one?:

In Illinois, at least 8 union officials are retiring with pensions totaling at or near $500,000 per year! One of these officials took a leave of absence from his $44,000 per year job to work for the union. He will now rake in over $400,000 per year from the job he took the leave from, and the union. Yet the "Occupiers" are complaing about Wall St. bonuses, bailouts of banks and investment companies and the press complains about the huge pensions from corporations for their CEO's when they leave their jobs. Why are they not complaining about these Union officials? Or maybe it's okay because the Union officials represent the "working man" while the CEO's represent the corporations and are not "working men". Can you say double standard?

Halloween is Dangerous:

In San Francisco, the city is requiring a man to take down his haunted house claiming it's too dangerous. Let's see, it's a haunted house, intended to scare people on a day designed to scare people. It's been there for seven years and they are only now just discovering it. The failure seems to be on the city's part for not doing their job for seven years to protect the people from being scared walking into a dangerously put together haunted house for one day each year. Apparently, in the seven years, nobody has been injured. Nobody has been frightened so badly that they've needed medical attention and nobody has complained about it, in fact, many have visited it each year. I wonder if they get that many showing up at city hall and if those that do visit are scared by what the city officials are doing to the citizenry.

Kill list:

The government supposedly has a "kill list"? Apparently, some are upset that Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered because he wasn't brought to trial and he's American born. He's recruited the man that shot over 30 people at Fort Hood, as well as the man that tried to blow up the plane over Detroit with the bomb in his underwear and he was hiding out in Yemen after broadcasting that he's part of al-queda. I think if there is a hit list or kill list, I can agree with the Obama Administration on this one. I might consider stopping when we've killed 3,000 terrorists to make up for the 3,000 Americans killed on September 11, 2001. But I'm more inclined to keep killing until we've killed more than we lost on that day as well as all of the brave soldiers that went and gave their lives to fight the war on terror. If Hillary wants to apoloize to the families of those terrorists that we kill, let her use her home phone and pay her own phone bill. I don't want my tax money going to apologize to anyone that hates this country and certainly not to anyone that wants to kill Americans.

Olive Garden refused to allow American Flag:

A kiwanis group wanted to hold their meeting at an Olive Garden Restaurant. Part of their meeting is to have the American flag and to pledge allegiance to it. The Olive Garden refused saying it would disrupt the "dining experience". The kiwanis members were upset, but still held their meeting. They just told their membership to close their eyes and imagine a flag blowing in the wind as they recited the Pledge.

I'd have done something different. I'd have gone out to their parking lot, held the meeting and ordered the food from the Big Boy down the road and had it brought down to the parking lot to eat. Let Olive Garden honor their commitment to have the group there for their meeting, but not darken their doors nor partake of their food. If I go to an Olive Garden now, I'll make sure I have the American Flag proudly and clearly displayed on my suit, my jeans, my shirt or whatever I'm wearing. If they aren't going to permit the American Flag, they can turn me away at their door. See how throwing patrons out for having the flag suits their "dining experience".

Occupiers claim violence is the only way:

Pajamas media has captured a leader of the Occupiers on tape saying that violence was the only way to get their message out using the French revolution has his example of a just violence. Shed blood? Pajamas media. Hmm, that's not NBC, CBS or ABC. I wonder why the main stream media hasn't picked up on that? Imagine if the Tea Party groups had advocated violence. The Tea Party, mainly representing Republicans, would likely have been vilified. After all, look what they try to do to them now. But the Occupiers are mainly representing and have the backing of the Democrats and their party.

It's also confusing to me why the Occupiers would be doing their thing on Wall St. They are protesting Wall st. for taking bailouts. But who gave them the bailouts? Where did the stimulus come from for those bailouts? Who signed off on the bailouts? Oh, that would be Obama.

Tea Party members hold up signs from the revolution such as "don't tread on me" and hand made signs protesting the bailouts and out of control spending. They never threatened taking the country with violence. Yet the Occupiers are not going after Obama or the Democrats, and they are threatening violence and bloodshed against fellow Americans. Hmm, I may have to rethink my position on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano when she said we have domestic terrorists. I wonder if she knew they were in her party though?

Give em guns:

Apparently, an arm of the Justice Department has given weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico and those guns are being used against Americans. It's also coming out that Eric Holder, Obama's attorney general was aware of this.

What kind of an idiot gives guns to another country to be used against the citizens of this country? I guess we may have that answer. The Obama Administration.

This was all one days news. I can't wait to see tomorrows news!

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Welcome to Government Health Care

2011-10-07T09:37:00.000-04:00

I'm going to tell you a bit of a story. This may be boring, but it's true.

Without going into specifics as to why, I now have guardianship of my 14 year old nephew. He was and is on medicaid for his health care. Medicaid is the health care plan that is used by people that don't earn enough money to buy their own health insurance or are in a low income household where health insurance is not a benefit of a job that may be held by the parents.

Upon acquiring guardianship of my nephew, I wrote to my brother and asked him to drop the medicaid so that I could get coverage for him. When there is a medicaid program in place, insurance companies will not allow you to be insured through them.

Since my nephew (his name is Ryan) is a 14 year old boy, it can be expected that there will be a need for doctors at various times for various reasons, whether it be regular exams and checkups or sports physicals or injury. Ryan is no exception and has proven it. He's playing football. Not having heard from my brother regarding this health plan, I've been waiting and probably even anticipating that first problem. Well, that problem has arisen.

On Tuesday of this week, in gym class, Ryan jammed his finger on a football. He didn't do this on the football team but did it in gym class. So apparently, he's been an accident waiting to happen. He gym teacher taped his pinky to his ring finger. It swelled, and got worse over the next two days. Wednesday night, he complained that his entire arm hurt. I told him to take a couple of motrin and to keep his hand above his heart. So on Thursday, I decided he needed to see the doctor. Then the real fun began.

The first step is to call the doctor. Not knowing how the medicaid works since I've never dealt with it, I told the doctors office that I wanted to bring Ryan in, but wanted to know if they were able to take his medicaid for their payment, and if they could look him up to get the number for his plan. First they said that Ryan would be a new patient. He'd been to them for his sports physical, but apparently that didn't remove the "new patient" status from him. I'm not sure why that would matter anyway. Then they told me I'd have to call the Department of Human Services (DHS) to get his medicaid information. They then said that they would call me back and let me know if they can see him.

Naturally, I raised my eyebrows at this. Someone who depends on patients for a living is possibly not going to see a 14 year old kid that may have broken his finger and is in pain? Oh well, I had to call DHS so I'd wait for their call back. In the meantime, I called DHS.

Now it gets real fun....or aggravating. I called the State DHS. It rang about three times, then the phone disconnected. Ok, this happens sometimes, so I'll just try again. Same result.

So I looked up the county that Ryan used to live in to call their DHS. I got a voice mail. If you are calling for this...push one, if for that, push 2 and so on. I pushed the button. The same voice came on again, this time much more faded. I get a whole new set of options to choose from. Found my option, pushed the button, and that same voice, even more faded started giving me more options to choose from. I couldn't hear what the options were, so I pushed zero. The phone rang again. And again, and again. I hung up after about the tenth ring and started the process over again. Same results. Push the option choice, and get the fading voice with each new set of options.

In Michigan, they have a thing called Mi Child. A catchy little ditty for My Child. I went online and looked that up, and found the medicaid program with it. This was to apply for these programs. But there was a number with it. So I called and actually spoke to a live human being.

Let me pause here. This process of finding these different places and following the prompts has taken me about 50 minutes so far. But finally, I got someone that wasn't a computerized voice mail. I was told that I had to call the DHS in my county since Ryan was now living with me. She gave me the number and I thanked her and called my county DHS.

Called my county DHS and they told me I had to call the county DHS where Ryan was registered. They gave me a number. I called it. They told me I had to call the State DHS and gave me a number. I called it. They sent me back to Ryan's old county DHS (yes, I'd already been there a couple of times), and they gave me yet another number to call.

His old county DHS sent me back to the state DHS with yet another phone number. Again, I was pushed off. So I called my county DHS again and this time, I told the operator the process I had gone through. She put me through to the "screener". Voicemail. Called again and this time, told the operator (different operator) my story and she put me through to the "screener" again. This time, I got a live person. I told my story yet again.

She said she couldn't give me any information on Ryan's plan because I was not listed on there, that only his dad could get it. One thing with each person that I spoke to that I haven't mentioned is that my brother has not cancelled anything and has not returned my calls or letters. They all said that he's committing fraud by not cancelling it out and should be charged.

After hearing this several times and telling them that I'm not interested in prosecuting I finally said to this last person, 'if you want to prosecute him for fraud, have at it, but right now, I have a kid with a possible broken finger and I'm trying to get him to a doctor that seems to be balking at seeing the kid, and using the system in place to pay for the bill of taking care of this finger if anyone ever decides that a 14 year old is worthy enough to be seen'.

It's now 10:00 a.m. I've been making these calls since 8:30. 90 minutes of phone calls! I think I've been more than patient with all of these dolts. Then I said, "look, I'm only interested in getting his policy number. This kid is in some pain due to this finger injury. If you're going to give me the number, give it to me, otherwise I'll just write a check to the doctor and pay for it out of my own pocket!' She gave me the number.

As if like clockwork, when I hung up the doctors office called. They said, "we may be able to see him at 3:15." I said, "May?" I said, "if you don't want to see him, I can take him to the witch doctor down the road. I'm going to pick him up from school and bring him in an hour. If that's not good for you, turn a 14 year old kid in pain, away." This is a town of maybe 1,000 people. Did they all get sick today?

We arrived at the doctors office. They don't have an x-ray machine in their clinic, but that's okay because they don't accept the plan Ryan is on anyway. So they sent us to another urgent care clinic.

We saw a doctor. They took his temperature, measured him, weighed him and the doctor looked at it and said "I don't know if it's broken. It may be. We don't have an X-ray machine so I'm going to send you to the hospital and they can X-ray it and to just take Motrin with food." I've been doing that for two days already! I needed this hassle to be told to do what I've been doing??!!??

Off we went to the hospital. They, like the others, took all of the information on Ryan. Ryan is now in every system in the midwest. They took the X-rays and said that someone would call me later. No waiting to find out. No option if it's broken to have it splinted or a cast put on. Just pretty much a "see you later." So I asked the girl if it was broken. She said the radiologist would have to read it. I said, "you see these things every day and you've obviously worked at this for a few years, just tell me if you think it's broken." She said she couldn't do that, that she could lose her license. I promised not to tell. She wouldn't talk. Apparently, if Ryans finger is broken, it's a state secret.

It is now 9:25 a.m. on Friday. I have not heard anything yet about his finger.

So why this long drawn out recitation of the events of one 14 year old kid with an injured pinky? This is government health care! This is the inefficiency of doctors and doctors offices! This is what we can expect in three years whe government health care takes over.

I can't cancel Ryan's insurance through the government because I didn't sign him up. But it's my tax dollars paying for it. I can't get normal insurance on Ryan because the state medicaid program has him in their clutches.

What happens when you go to a business and you can't get the product you want due to inefficiency or just plain old poor service? You go to another company to do your business that's better, don't you? Well, I can't do that with health care because the government controls the process and the products and the procedures.

Don't we constantly hear from government officials and elected officials that we must do these things "for the children"?

Government does two things correctly. Only two. First, they operate the military, which is their primary job and they do it well. The other thing they do well? Well, it took me going through this process to figure out the other thing they do well. That is that they are the best at screwing up everything else they touch!

So what happens to Ryan's finger? If I don't get a response and results today by the time he gets home from school, I'm taking the tape off of his finger, grabbing a flat piece of wood and making a splint and taping that to his finger and leaving it until it starts feeling better and giving him motrin for the next couple of days and hope that it doesn't get worse. If it improves, I might start referring to myself as Dr. Brett.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

You Are Being Tracked!

2011-09-28T11:27:00.000-04:00

Not long ago, I was driving on I-96 in Lansing in the rain. Driving 70 mph, I came to an overpass heading uphill and then it would start downhill after crossing the overpass. As I reached the top of the overpass I saw what looked like a lounge chair sitting in the middle of my lane just past the peak of the overpass. I barely had time to figure out if I should go to right lane or to slide over the shoulder to get around it and of course there was someone right behind me. Luckily, I missed the chair as did the guy behind me. I then grabbed my cell phone and called 911 to let them know that this chair was sitting there and someone wasn't going to be so lucky.

When I called, they asked my name, where I was and where the chair is. I told them my name, but wasn't sure which mile I was on. They said not to worry about it that they had my location and name. They did this before I reached the next mile marker to get my bearings on where I was. At 70 mph, that only takes me a minute, at the most, to figure out where I am.

Cell phone companies can track us. Our GPS systems in our cars know where we are. Who else has access to our GPS systems? When you pull up to a stop light, look at the light and around it. You'll likely see cameras. How many people have received tickets in the mail without having been stopped by a police officer?

Today, it's reported that Facebook can track us and have been tracking what you're looking at on the internet. Not just while you're on their site, but even after you leave it.

Two days ago, it was reported that the new health care law, Obamacare, will require doctors to forward your medical information to the government for them to track.

Now there are two more stories. One an op-ed written by Peter Orzag, the former budget director in the Obama administration saying that democracy should be suspended to allow policies to go through and to offset the gridlock in Washington.

Governor Perdue from North Carolina, a Democrat, says that she thinks that elections should be suspended for two years so that Congress can work on fixing the economy without having to decide between their re-election and what's good for the people they represent.

It's appearing more and more that we have a government run amok. Our Government has borrowed more than they take in for years. It's really blown up the past two years spending more in the past two years through the failed stimulus plans and gimmicks like cash for clunkers, and other things they've done, than all previous Presidents combined.

We've been inundated with sex scandals over the past 15 years in government as well as in the school systems where our children are attending. We've got federal, state, and local governments abusing the money that they do receive either spending money on things that aren't necessary or in voting themselves outrageous salaries and benefits. The Post Office is going broke and we'll likely see a massive reduction in services, which will only add to the mail not arriving in a timely fashion, at the right place if it even arrives at all.

When all of these things go wrong and create a bad economy or unseemly arguments and even threats between party members of the other party and even in the halls of Congress, the government comes to us and says it's the other guys fault and we must all share the sacrifice. In the meantime, these irresponsible people want to know our every movement and monitor our activities. I really expect that the next time the doctor tells me to turn my head and cough, some government official is going to be standing next to me saying "Please cover your mouth when you cough".

The ones that need the tracking are our government officials. Our elected representatives. From our local government all the way to Congress and the White House. Attach the GPS devices to their waistbands. Sign them on to Facebook so that we can see where they are going and what sites they are visiting while representing us. Give them cell phones so that when they go to the hooker everyone knows it from their wives to the voter.

Obama, and the Congress want to know our every movement and want to direct even how we think on different matters, but they can't stop illegal aliens from crossing our borders. They want to direct the size of the toilet in your home to save water, but they can't get the mail system to operate.

They claim that they must do this for our protection from the evil corporations, yet they bailed out and took over General Motors and Chrysler. They became the companies that they claim to hate. They think they know what's best for our health insurance but want to eliminate the experts, the insurance companies.

We are being watched with nearly everything we do. The good thing about them tracking us is that the government fails at nearly everything. If they were going to go to the trouble of tracking me that day on I-96, why did I have to call them? Why didn't they see with their various tracking devices that someone had lost a chair in the middle of the expressway? Why didn't they remove it before I even had to call them and make them aware of it? It makes me wonder if I could have sued them for their failure if I had hit that chair.

You're welcome to comment....but be aware that you're being watched.

Brett

2011-09-20T13:24:00.000-04:00

This week, President Obama proposed raising taxes. So what's surprising about this? The only surprise is that he's waited so long to lay out a tax increase plan in any detail. Up to this point, we've just been inundated with "tax the rich" or "make the rich pay their fair share".

I did some checking. According the U.S. Census Bureau, we have 307,006,550 people in this country as of 2009. We have 236,000 that have earned income above $1 million per year. That is .0077% of the people in this country. Please note, that's less than 1% of the people in this country earn $1 Million or more per year.

It's tough reading numbers and correlating them. But let's give it a shot. According to the Internal Revenue Service, those earning over $1 million per year are paying over 20% of the taxes. Put these numbers together. Less than 1% of the people in this country are paying 20% of the taxes paid.

Here's another for you. People making over $1 million per year are paying 29.1% of their income towards taxes. While people making between $50,000 and $75,000 per year are paying just 15%. So again, let me simplify it for you. The "rich" are paying a 29.1% rate while the middle class is paying 15%. Do we really need to be told that 29.1% is a higher rate than 15%? Apparently so, because here's the quote from Obama. " It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million." So I can only ask, who is it that really doesn't get it? The American people or President Obama? The facts state that it's President Obama that doesn't understand simple math.

Obama has decided to call this the Buffett Rule. If I were Obama, I'd hestitate to use any word that that sounds like "buffet" meaming food. I'll explain that in a minute.
Warren Buffett is not being completely honest when he talks about his secretary paying more in income taxes than he pays. Technically, he's correct, so he's not a complete liar, but he does lead people to believe something that's not true. Warren Buffet pays 15% capital gains tax on his investments. He doesn't pay income tax for work. So he's comparing his secretaries income tax to his investment tax.

I said that I'd explain my little comment about the name of his plan. A report is out by the Department of Justice saying they paid $16.00 for donuts. $8.00 for a cup of coffee, at conferences. This reminds me of the $600 toilet seats from about 30 years ago.
Obama does seem to have a problem with naming his different little policy plans and even his campaign. There's the Buffett Rule a day before the DOJ talks about spending millions on appetizers at conferences and his slogan for re-election seems to be "Winning the Future". After the nearly 3 years we've gone through do you really think that a slogan with the initials "WTF" is something a normal man would use for his re-election campaign (Thank you for that information Bev)?

The good news in all of this is that the Buffett Rule will not come to pass (no pun intended). The Republicans in the House will not vote for raising taxes during a recession.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Humility and Honor vs Self Aggrandizement and Embarrassment

2011-09-16T13:58:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush speech after capture of Saddam Hussein:
The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq .
The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the
dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by
a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many
dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and
freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the
nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate 'them.

And Now Let's hear from the Narcissist!

Barack Hussein Obama speech, Sunday, May 1, 2011:
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the
killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of my war against al Qaeda, even as I continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread
to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan . And finally, last week, I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan .

The Only Thing Stopping it is Politics

2011-09-13T10:29:00.001-04:00

President Barack Obama gave his speech to the Joint Session of Congress last week. It was nothing more than a campaign stop at taxpayers expense. During his speech he told Congress not to play politics but to pass the bill immediately.

Yesterday, the plan was unveiled. The jobs bill will cost $447 Billion. It will be paid for by tax increases and closing tax loopholes (just another way of saying tax increase).

Obama is correct. The only thing stopping this bill from ever getting off the ground it politics. His political games. Not Congress. Oh, don't misunderstand, Congress will join in with the game and Obama will claim politics is stopping it. His lead spokesperson in this is likely to be Representative Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.

The proposal is to close loopholes in the tax code for Oil Companies. If this was to happen, who would pay? According to Obama, Oil Companies. But what he doesn't seem to get,,,,ever,,,,, is that companies, including oil companies, don't pay taxes. They pass the expense of the taxes on to you and I. So he can claim it's a tax or a closing of loopholes for oil companies, but that's just political speak. The fact is that it will be a tax increase on you and I.

The proposal calls for a tax increase on private jets. This happened once before, but not with jets. It happened with Yachts. That luxury tax nearly wiped out that business. It certainly set it back for years. An interesting little side note is that John Kerry bought a boat, and stored it in another state because they didn't have the tax that Massachussets had. Kerry will vote for a tax increase, but he won't pay it, and he's one that can afford that increase. Once again, it's politics that Obama is playing by going after those that can afford a private jet. The result will be a business that starts going under, and jobs lost.

The proposal calls for a tax increase on those earning $200,000 per year. Obama has been whining about this since he began running for President in 2007. He's now inserting it into his "jobs bill". Do you really think he's not playing politics? If he really wants to avoid politics, he could talk about the 47% that don't pay taxes but rather get a refund from those that do pay taxes. But now, I'm being political.

Obama stands up and says don't play politics just pass this bill. In doing so, he's playing the politics by making the first accusation while he's the first in line to play politics.

This jobs bill never had a chance to pass. Obama knew this before even arranging for the campaign speech before a Joint Session of Congress. The entire charade that the President is putting is pure politics. Those serious about a jobs bill ought to be asking instead, why is Obama playing politics when we really need a jobs bill?

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Tax Hikes, Ponzi Schemes and Cowards

2011-09-12T14:59:00.000-04:00

Tax and Spend
Following President Obama's campaign speech last week to a Joint Session of Congress, thinly veiled as an important speech on jobs, the plan is now coming out. It's a typical Democrat plan. Tax and spend. He wants to raise taxes on those earning $200,000 per year as well as oil companies and Airlines to pay for his $447 Billion jobs bill that he's sending to Congress.

If you don't pay attention to politics and what's happening in Washington, I would think that you'd be confused by this.

According to the President, he agrees that we shouldn't raise taxes during a recession. But he's proposing a tax hike.

According to the President, the bill will be fully paid for. However, the taxes are geared to pay back this money for this new stimulus (or jobs bill, if you prefer) over a ten year period. But I didn't hear him say the spending would take place over a ten year period.

According to the President, Congress should extend the payroll tax cut, otherwise Republicans will be responsible for raising taxes on the people. But he's proposing a tax increase in his new jobs bill.

Is it any wonder he's failing at running this country? He says not to raise taxes while he proposes raising taxes. His previous stimulus schemes ended up costing the country more and now he's wanting to add class warfare to his list of failures.

Ponzi Scheme

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulant operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors.

The above describes social security. Ponzie scheme is how Governor Rick Perry of Texas describes social security. It's now being reported that at the Republican Debate tonight in Tampa, Florida, that Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney are planning to attack Perry for calling it a ponzi scheme. Do they really believe that social security is not a ponzi scheme? Or is this them coddling to the media because the media has been talking about Perry calling it a ponzie scheme?

If Romney and/or Bachmann or any of the other candidates go after Perry regarding this, they will have lost a lot of ground in my opinon. I am not advocating for Perry. Maybe on this issue, but I'm not sure that Perry is the right guy for the job. I like him, but I'm not convinced. So my thoughts above are about the issue, not the candidate.

Social Security takes from the workers of today and gives it to the retirees who were the workers of yesterday. The largest group is now retiring. When the last of the baby boomers are retired and drawing social security, there will be alot less workers to pay for the retirees benefits from social security. This is why social security is acutarially assessed as being broke by 2039.

If Bachmann or Romney or any of the others go after Perry for calling social security what it is, they will only hurt themselves. I just hope that Perry doesn't back down and sticks to his guns.

September 11, Rememberance

The anniversary of September 11, 2001 where we were attacked by fanatics is really spoiled. I watched some of it on Sunday morning and saw politics. Leading up to it, I saw politics.

Need an example? In New York, the Mayor, Michael Bloomberg said that first responders will not be invited to the ceremonies. He also said that there would be no religious leaders speaking. One man, supposedly a leader, determining how and who may honor the nearly 3,000 people murdered that day by an enemy that does not wear a uniform.

It reminded me of the news organizations following that fateful day. They decided that it would not be good for the American people to see those attacks so they quit running the visuals of the attacks, "for the good of the people". I believe that we should always see it as long as this war continues. Let the American people worry about their own mental health. With most of the press being halfway crazy, I'm not sure they are the proper ones to decide what is good for others physche.

Paul Krugman even giving a hint at the suggestion that we are in the wrong in any way, shape or form, for what happened on September 11, 2001 only proves that some of the press doesn't have an elevator reaching the top floor.

We were attacked by al queda. We didn't provoke them. We didn't invite them. They attacked us. They chose to take flying lessons and skip the classes on landing them. They chose to board the planes carrying box cutters as weapons. They chose to fly the planes into four buildings and only American heroes prevented them from achieving their entire goal.

Am I worried about collateral damage in Afghanistan, Iraq or even Iran? Not in the least. It's the enemy that is hiding behind the skirts of their women, or behind the toys of their children AFTER they attacked our women and children and other non military personnel, I'm not the least bit worried about blowing up a mosque if that's where the terrorists are hiding. Those that murdered our citizens are cowards and were cowards. They prove it by hiding behind their women and children and sending those same women and children off to the store with bombs strapped around their waists.

Paul Krugman has the problem. Not America.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Obama Proves He Can Save Money

2011-09-09T08:36:00.000-04:00

President Obama proved on Thursday night that he does know how to get things done without spending money...at least his own money, for his own benefit. Before a joint session of Congress, Obama gave a campaign speech. It cost his campaign nothing. He had a captive audience in both Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate. He also had a national television audience free of charge to his campaign.

We know that it's campaign season because Obama, a very Liberal Democrat, has proposed tax cuts and even dared to call the end of the payroll tax from a year ago, a tax increase if it's not extended and claimed that the Republicans would be responsible if the payroll tax cut was not extended.

He claimed that his bill that he's going to forward to Congress in a few days, would be deficit neutral and not increase the debt. The estimated cost is $447 Billion. He didn't say how he'd pay for it, but claims it won't add to the debt nor the deficit. Didn't he also make that claim about his stimulus package in 2009? Following that debacle, the deficit quadrupled and the debt increased three fold.

He is true to his Liberal roots in that he thinks the only solution to the economic problems in this country comes from Government. The only thing he's proven with all of his schemes is that the answers the government has are the wrong answers. His plan has not worked!. In fact, all of his little schemes have failed.

The claim by Obama, and Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schults (D) Florida is that his plans saved the country from falling into another Depression. How does one prove this? There is no way to prove this, nor disprove it. We do know that the only thing that has been successful in turning an economy around is to lower taxes. Reagan did it in the 80's to much success. Bush the younger did it in 2001 and 2003. Each of those tax cuts increased revenue to the federal government because people were making more money following the tax cuts. That added income meant they paid more in dollars in taxes, even though they paid a lower tax rate. That added income meant more spending by citizens which caused the economy to move forward in great numbers. It created jobs, which of course, lowered the unemployment rate, eventually down to a rate of 4%.

Obama also slid back to his Liberal Democrat roots by calling for those that have been "fortunate" (as though all of those that are rich didn't work for it and earn it) to pay their "fair share".

This is just another stimulus package. His stimulus packages have never worked. Remember Cash for Clunkers? Failed. Remember the $800 billion stimulus? Money that went to unions, and cronies and of course to African men, in Africa, to teach them how to wash after sex to avoid STD's.

Remember that his stimulus package would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%? Unemployment shot up to 10.2% and has settled in at 9.1%. The 8% unemployment rate was packaged as a nightmare before the stimulus, now it seems like a dream to get that low.

His speech was a constant cadence of "you should pass this bill immediately". He ended each paragraph with it when running through what he wanted. 'The bill will put more first responders in jobs, you should pass this bill immediately.' 'My bill will put more teachers in the classrooms and help our students and strengthen our schools, you should pass this bill immediately'. 'This bill will help restore our infrastructure including a run down bridge between Ohio and Kentucky, you should pass this bill immediately.'

That last line was a good example of this being a campaign speech because he's been losing so much support in Ohio, that they are almost to the point of dropping the O's in Ohio because of the "O" in Obama.

Obama had a national audience, in a prestigious setting, where the utmost respect is shown for the office of President. Congress stands up and applauds the President. Not the man, but the office. Many in this country don't understand that. They see a standing ovation for the President in Congress and they consider it for the man, not the office.

It's slick advertising at no financial cost to the President. He was able to make a speech, in a forced friendly group at no expense to his campaign but rather paid for by the taxpayer and the media. There could be a cost in ethics if the American people that don't follow politics ever catch on to his schemes.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Let The Silly Season Begin

2011-09-06T08:00:00.000-04:00

With two weeks until fall begins, in a year prior to an election, the silly season has already begun. Obama is in full campaign mode, although it can be said he never left campaign mode since the last election in 2008. On the other side, the Republicans are lining up almost as long as the unemployment lines to take that job away from Obama. The press is already inserting themselves into the election, which is to be expected.

Let's start with the Republicans. This should have been an easy year for any candidate to run against Obama. In Mitt Romney's case, he's made it look easy until recently. He gives a speech once in awhile, but the rest of the time he seemed content to assume the front runner status and not say much.

Newt Gingrich shot himself in the foot within hours of announcing his candidacy. Herman Cain has stayed on message, but he's seen as on the fringe. Ron Paul is in again with the only difference being that he's not going to run for his Congressional seat at the same time. That has more to do with his age rather than confidence in his Presidential bid. Tim Pawlenty never got off the ground and dropped out after the Iowa straw poll. We've been told that John Huntzman will be a formidable candidate, but other than that, I've heard nothing about or from him. Former Senator Rick Santorum is also running, but he seems forgotten until he appears on the dais at the debates.

Representative Michelle Bachmann is a tea party favorite and has been at or near the lead and withstands the attacks on her in the press by the press as well as by those that consider her a Right Wing Extremist. Now, Governor Rick Perry of Texas has entered the race and taken a good sized lead. This has brought Romney out in public again. Finally, there is Sarah Palin out there running around the country, who hasn't announced yet, but may...or may not.

Thus far, the most blatant stunt by the press has been against a man not running. Former Vice President Dick Cheney was promoting his book and last week appeared on the Today Show on NBC. Following the interview, as they went to commericial, they didn't just cut out as they normally do but rather slowly backed out with the camera shot to include a woman standing outside the window who held up a sign, blocking the window showing Cheney as the camera panned back, pushing for the arrest of Cheney for war crimes.

As for President Obama, he has never stopped campaigning or whining about former President Bush. We are seeing the same thing in Obama as we in Michigan did with former Governor Jennifer Granholm. Within months of Granholm taking office, the economy in Michigan began falling like a rock. Her favorite line was "I inherited this from John Engler.." the former three term Governor who was term limited out after 2002. Her re-election bid in 2006 was all about how Engler had destroyed Michigan. Engler had a 3% unemployment rate, while Granholm's soared to over 15% unemployment and still she was re-elected. Now we're seeing the same thing in Obama.

We've been hearing "it's Bush's fault" from day one with the Obama administration. Bush had an unemployment rate that reached as low as 4% and hovered at 5% for most of his 8 years following his tax cuts. 5% is consider full employment. In his last year, it moved up to 7%. Obama promised that unemployment would not reach 8% if his stimulus was passed. It passed and unemployment grew to 10.1% and is now stuck at 9.1%.

Obama spent the first two years with no meetings with Republicans. On the other hand, his party held a filibuster proof Senate and a wide margin lead in the House. He didn't need Republicans to get his agenda passed. Yet it still took over a year to get his health care plan passed. Now he spends his time giving waivers to his followers (who wanted health care passed but don't want to be part of it). Over 1,700 waivers so far.

His incompetence was on full display with his lack of ability to get anything done when he had both Houses of Congress on his side. He has not had the people on his side. In the last election the Tea Party was created and became part of the Republican party. They are Conservatives standing up. This caused the largest turn around in an election in over 70 years. So Obama now rules with executive order, implementing more than 600 regulations on businesses during July.

The silly season used to refer to the lead up to Christmas when people would rush around in preparation for the holiday and do some crazy things. Now we include politics. Christmas' silly season is about four weeks long. Politics will last about 14 months. Yesterday, James Hoffa warmed up a union crowd in Detroit for President Obama and declared war on Republicans. An odd thing for them to do since these are the same people that claim we've gone into two wars on a credit card. Now they want to declare war on Republicans allowing Obama to continue to put everything else on a credit card.

Let the silly season begin? We can't stop it from beginning.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Debt, Debt, and More Debt

2011-07-14T16:30:00.001-04:00

As we approach the August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling, the news is full of predictions of the credit rating for the country going into a slide and downgraded. They are predicting doom and gloom. I almost expect locusts next.

How did we get here? Are the Democrats to blame? Are the Republicans to blame? The answer is an emphatic yes! They are both responsible. The Democrats want to raise taxes. This never works. The Republicans want to cut spending. This is never followed through on.

There is an old saying in business. "Spend money to make money." It's true to a point. If you want your business to grow, you have to put in some funds to help it grow. But, if you're looking to increase sales, you don't buy new shoes. If you're looking to increase the quality of a hammer, you don't buy balsa wood to make it sturdy.

Politicians have been charged with being good stewards of the money they receive because they receive that money from the taxpayer. They are taking our money to keep this country alive so that we can continue to enjoy the freedoms we've earned throughout our history.

What they have done is wasted our money for decades. These past two years under Obama they've spent more than all previous presidents combined. But we can't just blame Obama. He's only the latest and biggest spender we've had. We can blame George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and we can blame each Congress we've had.

They've borrowed money from social security. Social Security was already a system doomed to failure. They sped the failure up with their borrowing of that money. The war on poverty was only supposed to cost us $9 million dollars. As little as ten years ago, we were spending $650 Billion dollars on over 80 welfare programs. So here we are 40 years after the start of the war on poverty and poverty is worse.

Whenever we get into a recession, where is the first place that the big spenders look to get money to save the government from their overspending? Notice I said "THEIR" overspending. They come to the people. In the early 90's we had a recession. Remember Bush the Elders "no new taxes" pledge? It started the recession. Then we had Bill Clinton getting on TV one month after being elected and saying he tried as hard as he could and he just can't justify giving the middle class a tax break as he'd promised. Al Gore cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate and we had more new taxes. The economy flattened out again. The growth dropped from 4.1% in the final quarter of 1992 and languished at 2.6% growth for the next two years.

We never see them cutting their pay or even freezing their pay. It's a small thing because if they cut their pay, or even didn't take pay for a year, it's not even a drop in the bucket. But to increase their pay as they have over the years along with the gold plated benefits they get, is just completely wrong however you look at it.

How many times have we heard of the waste, fraud and abuse of the welfare system and they tell us they just "can't" prevent all of it. So they admit that their war on poverty won't work but they continue to throw billions of dollars down the drain each year.

President Kennedy knew what worked and President Reagan proved Kennedy right. Lower taxes create more revenue to the government. People work harder to earn more if they don't have to pay higher tax rates. They get to keep more of their money. However, they are still paying more even though the rates have come down. Because they are earning more!

Reagan lowered the tax rates, dropping the highest rate down from 70% to 28% and the country flourished! Unfortunately, the politicians saw this money pouring into the coffers from this added economic activity and instead of being wise, they created more programs to spend money on that has been nothing more than added waste.

Bush lowered tax rates twice. In 2001 and 2003. Revenue to the federal government set new records. They were getting more and more money in via taxes, and the country again flourished. The unemployment rate was at or below 5% for the first seven years of Bush's Presidency. But the politicians spent it. Oh yeah, they paid down the debt a couple of times. But only small amounts and not consistently. Instead they created more programs to spend money that don't give a return for the buck.

Now we have Obama. He's spent money hand over fist and finally after two years admitted that shovel ready didn't really mean shovel ready. Now he wants to come to the American people and tell them to pay more to the government to pay for the governments wasted expenditures. But it's the people that are suffering, not the government. The government screws up the economy and the people are the ones suffering. And he wants the people to pay more to get the economy moving, which has FAIILED EACH TIME IT'S BEEN TRIED.

His latest threat is that if he and Congress don't get a deal so that they can raise the debt ceiling, he may not be able to pay seniors their due. It's an empty threat. If he follows through on it and does withhold checks to seniors, what will happen? He'll lose votes. One thing a politician doesn't want to lose is votes.

Congress is no better. The Republicans are saying cut spending and no increase in taxes. That's all well and good and that's what I hope happens. But, it's not binding beyond a year. They are all talking about ten year plans. They have no control over nine of those years. They can pass legislation to cut spending for the next ten years, but the next Congress can come in and change all of that.

Let's assume for a moment that they come to a deal and they do agree to cut spending for the next ten years. That cannot be the end of it. Revenue to the government if falling. They need to increase the revenue. But not with more taxes! They need to revamp the tax code. They need to lower taxes! If they were smart, they'd go to a flat tax or fair tax. Everyone pays the same rate. If you make $1 million dollars per year, you pay 10% in taxes. If you make $10,000 per year, you pay 10% in taxes. Everyone keeps 90% of their pay. With that 90%, they will go and start businesses and hire people. They will spend their money to get the goods and services that they need and even things they don't need but want. They will invest. This will generate more income for those they buy from and because there are more businesses and more people working and more money in the economy, the tax revenues will go up for the government. This HAS WORKED EACH TIME IT'S BEEN TRIED!

As people see more opportunity, less will be living on welfare because they can have more by working. Charitable giving will increase, as it has each time more money is left in the people's hands because the American people are a generous people for those less fortunate. But when they give willingly, they give more. When it's confiscated and redistributed, they find ways to avoid paying added amounts.

If they can't reach a deal, so be it. We'll see where Obama decides to cut back. Maybe his buddies at GE will not get a zero tax burden after a $5 Billion profitable year.

I have said that the fault of this lies with both Republican and Democrat. It is Congress and the Presidents that have failed. I realize that there are more than 80 new Congressmen that weren't in office 40 years ago. But they hold the title of their predecessors and are responsible today for solving the problem and they each get the blame for those that held their seats in the past. They have the opportunity to solve the problem or they can continue the problem or they can make it worse. THIS becomes the responsibility of the American people. Not paying more taxes to pay for Presidents and Congresses that have been incompetent. Our responsibility lies with making sure that we put people in Congress and the White House that will be good stewards of the people's money and if we put a bad one in, it's our responsibility to get him/her out of office quickly and put someone in that will be good stewards of the financial well being of this country.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Is Casey Anthony Innocent?

2011-07-12T08:00:00.000-04:00

In the past week, I've heard, as we all have, the stories about Casey Anthony's acquittal. She was found Not Guilty by a jury for the death of her daughter, Caylee Anthony.

I know virtually nothing about this case. I hate hearing about children hurt, let alone murdered. So when this story came out originally, the only thing that I knew was that a girl was missing and her mother seemed to be inconsistent in things she said to police. Beyond that, anytime it was mentioned, I changed the channel. For awhile there, I was changing the channel alot.

Right from the start, this seemed to be turning into another OJ Simpson farce with Geraldo Rivera doing nightly programs analyzing every piece of data that leaked out and every possible thought that Simpson may have had whether he had them or not.

The only thing that I'd really heard since the original story about the girl missing was quick blurbs on the news all with the idea that Casey Anthony was guilty of killing her daughter and waiting for the trial was the only thing from getting the guilty verdict, and of course programs like Nancy Grace who advertised what they were going to discuss and it was about Anthony and the latest. Almost as though it was a regular television series.

Now the verdict is in and she's found not guilty. Did she kill the little girl? I don't know. Maybe. But the public is sure up in arms about it. New laws are now being proposed about it being illegal to not report a child missing within a certain time frame. Apparently, because Anthony didn't report her child missing for 31 days.

These trials should be tried in court. It would be good if the prosecution would just present their facts at trial rather than on the television programs. It is as though they want the public to force the jury to come in with a certain verdict or else by their early commenting on television before the trial is even started. The Defense as well.

Now, one of the jurors has quit her job because she's been threatened for coming in with the "wrong" verdict. In addition, she's apparently left and gone into hiding. She fears for her life.

How can someone so upset about a child murdered and the supposed perpetrator being found not guilty, then turn around and threaten murder on another? If they are so upset about a murder, how can they then threaten murder?

We have laws and a justice system in this country. It's not perfect, but that lack of perfection protects many that are not guilty from being found guilty for something that they didn't do. Unfortunately, it also is flawed the other way and some innocent people are found guilty that really weren't. It's not justice if it only works the way one person or even one group of people want it to work, it will be even more flawed.

Did the prosecution do a poor job? Maybe or maybe even probably. Did the defense do a good job? Again, maybe. Suppose for a minute that Casey Anthony is really innocent. What's her life going to be like now? Most think she's guilty and won't want anything to do with her. Jobs will be hard to come by. A real life will be hard to come by. In addition, she has to live the rest of her life with the fact that her daughter is dead, in addition to the majority of the country thinking she's guilty.

There has to be some doubt about who killed little Caylee because 12 people, sitting in the same place day after day, listening to all that went on in the trial, all came up with the same conclusion. Not guilty. Is the jury correct or is the lynch mob that has formed correct?

In our system, OJ Simpson is not guilty of killing his wife. Casey Anthony is not guilty of killing her daughter. If either or both verdicts were wrong and both of them really did commit the murders they were charged and acquitted of, they still have one final judgement that they must face. No legal wrangling when that time comes.

I have people that are important to me that have things to deal with that I'd much rather spend my time listening to, consoling and helping if I'm able. I don't need nor want the judgements of talk show hosts guiding my thoughts and actions.

So is Casey Anthony guilty of her crime? No. Not in the eyes of the justice system that we live under.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Constitutional Amendments

2011-06-17T13:33:00.000-04:00

During the past two weeks, I've received E-mails from people advocating changes to the Constitution. Particularly regarding a balanced budget, term limits and making Congress follow the laws that they pass for the rest of us.

Do we really need Constitutional amendments to do these things? If there are no honest, moral and ethical people left in this country, then I guess the answer would have to be yes. But I refuse to believe that everyone in this country is dishonest, immoral and unethical. There may not be many or any that are willing to run for office, but they are out there.

I'll start with Congress following laws that they pass for the country. Our Representatives and Senators are supposed to be....well, for lack of a better description, US. They are our neighbors and friends that we elect to office. This is usually true when they are first elected. Unfortunately, once they are elected, they are now part of the "elite". They set themselves up as being better than those that actually for them.

There is no better or more timely example of of this than Representative Anthony Weiner. He is still Representative Weiner as he hasn't yet resigned, although he did announce yesterday that he is resigning. Weiner had been in office for seven years. During that time he's taken part in a 401k offered to him as well as being eligible for a pension. The 401k, according to reports will get him $32,000 per year. He'll not be eligible, apparently, for another ten years. At age 62, he'll also be eligible for the pension which will get him another $46,000 per year income. After 7 years on the job, he qualifies for the pension, he only has to wait until he hits age 62. I wonder how many Americans are eligible for a pension after 7 years on the job, let alone eligible for $46,000 per year.

Term limits is something that is always put out there. People seem to forget that we already have term limits. It's called the ballot box. In Michigan, we actually have term limits in addition to the ballot box. People were clamoring for it for years and it was finally passed about ten years ago. Now, people are aleady calling for an end to term limits within the state. Term limits is nothing more than forcing people out that the voters don't have the time, energy or intestinal fortitude to vote out of office.

Yes, term limits would remove entrenched people like Nancy Pelosi, John Dingell and a host of others. But, if the people exercised their term limits ability by paying attention to what elected officials do, and the results their actions produce, and then voting them, there would be no need for the Constitution to do for them what they can't seem to take the time or effort to do for themselves.

Term limits would remove the bad officials, but it would also remove the good ones that are worth keeping in office for long periods of time.

The balanced budget is only admitting that our elected officials cannot control their urges to spend money. Not just the money we have, but money we don't have. There are times when it makes sense to run deficits. Times of war is one that stands out. Suppose we have a budget and we cannot spend more than what's budgeted. Do we then tell terrorists after a 9/11 event that they got away with it only because we can't afford to come after them?

Or we're already in a war, or two, or three, or four, and the money runs out. Do we now stop even though the objective hasn't been reached? Suppose we'd run out of money one day before Hussein or bin Laden. Do we then miss out on getting them because we just don't have the money to open the lid to the spider hole Hussein was hiding in? Or to go after bin Laden's compound?

We need politicians that will stand up during peacetime and say, "we're not going to spend this money because we may need it in the future for our soldiers." We need politicians that can control themselves to live within a balanced budget during peacetime so that if we have to go into deficit spending during a time of war, the numbers don't skyrocket so high that we can't dig our way out. That would be a responsible government.

What we currently have and have had for many years is a government full of spenders. They are like kids in a candy store. They have the ability to spend money we don't have and they do spend it. They are irresponsible. Do we really think that there are no responsible people left in this country that can control themselves when it comes to spending money we don't have?

The past two years, we've seen this irresponsibility at its' worst. The Democrat Congress didn't even try to pass a budget. The new Congress, which is split between both parties, can't even agree on a budget this year. The last Congress and the current President have spent more money than all of the previous Presidents combined!

Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget and limit terms and to follow the laws that they write for the rest of us. Maybe we don't have anyone with self control in government any longer. But if we do get a Constitutional amendment, spending won't be cut. Taxes will be raised. The spending problem will become more immediate and the first answer by politicians will be to raise money. Congress does not hold bake sales or raffles. Their first inclination is to raise taxes. Given the requirement of a Constitutional amendment, they will then be under the gun to get a solution by October 1 each year. This will make taxes the only real option which will then cause us to have a poor economy continuously.

Find the honest people, the ethical people and put them in office. One added little benefit of having honest, ethical and moral people in government is we might actually get elected officials that can keep their pants up and their skirts down.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

The Public (Lack of) Trust

2011-06-12T09:59:00.000-04:00

On Monday, June 6, I had to go and take an exam. It is something to further my career that was required by the State. I arrived and they took me right in. They asked for a picture ID. They then took my picture. I then had to sign in with date, time and signature. I was permitted to go into the testing area where the computers are with a calculator that they provided, two magic markers and two plastic sheets to do my calculations on.

Then it got strange. I was then told to take everything out of my pockets and put it a locker and handed a key. I took my money out and put it in. Then my wallet, car keys and cell phone. As I was about to close the locker up, she then told me that I had to leave my watch in there as well. I raised my eyebrows, I guess because she smiled and said people have watches now that have all sorts of programs on it that could be used to cheat. Then, after all of my pockets were emptied, phone and watch locked up, I started to grab the calculator, pens and "paper" to go in when she said she needed me to turn my pockets inside out. I did so. She then told me to turn around and she had to make sure my back pockets were empty. At that point, I couldn't resist any longer and said "I know this is Lansing, but I'm not a politician". She told me that within a month or so, they were adding another measure of security by getting metal detecting wands that they'd have to start using. I sat down in front of the computer to take my exam and staring me in the face is a camera watching me take the exam.

There was another event that happened that day. Something more significant than my taking some exam that goes on every day across the country. Congressman Anthony Weiner (D) from New York was holding a press conference. A week earlier he had been accused of having contact with various women across the country that turned out to be of a sexual nature through his twitter and facebook accounts. He had been denying it for a week, then during that week claimed that someone had hacked into his accounts and done this activity.

During his press conference on June 6, he broke into tears and admitted that it was indeed him that had been in touch with various women across the country and it was him that sent out explict photo's of himself to these women. Despite many calls for his resignation, he said he would not resign and to this point, it's about the only thing he's told the truth about. He has not resigned yet.

There are so many things that could be said about this. Not long ago, Speaker John Boehner was berated in the press about his crying, but nothing was said about Weiners crying other than that he was in tears. There's the natural comparison between Weiner and other past and present Representatives, such as Mark Foley, who was accused of sexual activity using their status as a Congressman. Just a week earlier a special election was held because Chris Lee (R) also of New York had resigned after it was revealed he'd sent pictures of his bare chest out via these social network sites. Charlie Rangel (D) also of New York justified Weiners actions by saying that "at least he wasn't going after young boys" (Barney Frank comes to mind). But then, Charlie Rangel recently lost his chairmanship and was censured for not paying taxes.

On June 10, it came out that the police in Delaware were interviewing a 17 year old girl who they said was having "conversations" with Weiner as well through the internet. Weiner's office again went into denial saying that he didn't know she was 17 years old. My first thought was, 'why should we believe him", after all, he'd lied for a week saying someone hacked into his accounts and planted the contacts.' On June 11, it was announced that Weiner was checking himself into rehab and that he did indeed know that she was 17, but there was nothing inappropriate in his contact with her.

While these stories were unfolding, the talk shows all had people on to talk about the situation with Representative Weiner. Democrats, who called for resignations from Mark Foley (who resigned quickly), from Chris Lee (who resigned quickly), Senator Jon Ensign (who is still on the job but not seeking re-election, Senator David Vitter (who is still on the job), claimed that Weiners "relationships" online were of a personal nature and a personal failing and did not need to resign. This seemed the old fall back from the Clinton era when they were saying his activities with Monica Lewinsky were a personal relationship and nobody's business. They also claimed that this was on Weiners personal time and not during his working time as Representative and not using government property for this contact. We now know that's not true as well. They also claimed that this is done by many more people in Congress, but they don't name names, and offer no proof. Just state that he's not the only one. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But he was caught! The others, if there are others, haven't been caught...yet.

Apparently, the "public trust" is not a standard any longer. We elect these people to represent us in public office. To work for us. They are afforded some manner of prestige for holding the offices they hold. They are not elected to further their own careers outside of government, and they are not elected to use their positions to chase women, girls, or even boys and men for their own personal self gratification. They are there to further the agenda of the people that they represent in their own districts.

They should be held to a higher standard because they are sent to Washington to represent us. How does a Congressman further his constituents agenda chasing women from all over the country? Using a computer from his office to check his twitter account for messages from women is not representing his district. Checking private messages on his facebook account for pictures of women or to send naked pictures of himself to women, representing his district?

Imagine if you were using your computer at work for this activity. Wouldn't your boss fire you? You know the answer is yes, because there has been discussions in recent years about employers checking E-mail sent from computers at work. So why the different standard for a Congressman?

Weiner is now claiming to be a victim. He's checked himself into rehab for his "lllness" that he needs to get resolved which can only be done through professional help. He's requested a leave of absence from his job while he gets his problem "fixed". So now his actions have cost his constituents representation in Washington.

Trust in everyday life is important. The public trust however, should have, at the very least, the importance of the trust one person has for another, and I believe a higher standard because it affects the people that lent them the power of their voice in our form of government.

They pass laws for someone like me that takes an exam and do everything they can to be sure that I'm honest in taking an exam for my own career, but they don't hold themselves to any standards when they are there to represent us.

Honesty and trust are very important. Congressman Weiner has abused that trust. He abused his office with what he did. He's apparently lied to his wife and that is personal for him and her to deal with, but he lied to his constituents, and that is not his personal life.

Like Chris Lee, Mark Foley, and many others Anthony Weiner should resign. To remove him from office would take a recall campaign by his district. By the time they gathered the necessary signatures, and scheduled the election it would be spring. There were be another election on that seat the following November, about 8 months later.

The only other way is redistricting. His district could be and likely will be eliminated by the next election due to redistricting. So even the people couldn't elect him back into that office.

Honesty and trust seem to be something we don't demand any longer and that doesn't bode well for getting quality officials in elected office. When the honesty and trust are gone, the respect is no longer there. That probably explains the lack of respect shown for our government and those we put into it better than anything.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Memorial Day

2011-05-29T11:20:00.001-04:00

On Monday we honor those that have fallen in their quest and success at securing freedom for the American people. Those that paid the ultimate price. From the Revolutionary War right up through today.

Throughout this country's history, each war the enemy was easily recognizable. During the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, the enemy wore red coats. The civil war was between Blue and Gray.

During the past ten years we've been involved in a different war. The war on terror. The terrorists don't have a uniform. They also don't limit their attacks to military personnel. On September 11, 2011, a new sort of war was started. Instead of attacking the military, the terrorists attacked citizens.

The draft ended in the 70's, but the terrorists reinstituted the draft on September 11, 2011. They didn't have a lottery. The draftees weren't warned in advance that they could be drafted. Christine Lee Hanson was two years old and on her way to Disney World with her parents. She was drafted into this war.

Beth Ann Quigly, a trader at the World Trade Center. She was 25 years old. She was drafted into this war.

There were 2,966 deaths from the attack on September 11. Women, children, elderly. Of the 2,966, only 55 had any affiliation with the military. Those 55 were at the Pentagon.

Of those killed on that day, only those on the flight that went down in Pennsylvania chose to join in the fight against terrorism. But they chose it out of necessity because they were forced into the choice. They had heard about the other hijackings and decided to fight to take the plane back. They failed in bringing the plane to safety, but they succeeded in saving other lives by stopping the plane from reaching its' destination of either the White House or the Capitol.

Our fallen soldiers from wars in our lifetimes and wars previous to our lives will be honored on Monday. Even if it's just a cookout in the backyard or a day off work or school. Those that died at the beginning of this war, that didn't know they were about to sacrifice their lives and those that knew they were about to sacrifice their lives on the Pennsylvania flight are also warriors in this nations history.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

NY 26: A Referendum? Tea Party Needs to Step Up

2011-05-26T02:17:00.003-04:00

A special election was held in New York's 26th district on Tuesday. This seat was held by Congressman Chris Lee, who resigned following the discovery of pictures of him shirtless on Craigs List, apparently seeking out women.

Lee won his election with 68% of the vote in 2010 and the seat has been held by Republicans for fifty years. Obviously a Conservative district. But, as so often happens when a politician gets caught with his pants down, or in this case, his shirt off phishing for women, the party pays a price with an exodus of voters that just can't bring themselves to vote for anyone from that party based on one persons indiscretions.

This district was expected to be fairly close but still a victory for the Republican, Jane Corwin. The Democrat, Kathy Hochul was expected lose, and a Democrat who had run for the seat in the past, Jack Davis, ran as a Tea Party Candidate.

The results? Hochul won with 48% to Corwin's 42% with Davis getting 9% of the vote. The media and the Democrats are claiming it's a referendum on the Ryan budget which they say is going to destroy medicare. The Republicans are claiming that Davis took away votes from Corwin costing her the election.

First, Ryan's budget does not decimate Medicare. Even if it did, it would be a choic between ending it sometime in the next two years or waiting an additional six years and having it die on the vine. Medicare is already operating in the red, meaning it's spending more than it's taking in. It is projected to be completely out of money in 8 years. What have the Democrats proposed? Nothing. Even Obamacare has removed a substantial portion from Medicare and Hochul campaigned claiming that Obamacare was wrong to remove that money.

So if this was a referendum on Ryan's budget, then the people were misled in the campaign. Imagine that. Politicians lying to voters to get elected. I'm shocked!

Second, Jane Corwin, the Republican did not run hard. After all, it's a Republican district. She apparently thought it was going to be a fairly easy victory. So why get into the details of what she's going to do? Well, now she should know. Conservative viewpoints don't lose elections. Failing to express those conservative viewpoints will lose elections. She lost.

Third, the supposed Tea Party Candidate. Jack Davis is a former candidate on the Democrat side for that same seat. He's lost three elections as a Democrat. He only garnered 9% of the vote as a Tea Party candidate. But he really isn't a Tea Pary candidate. He was there to dilute votes from the Republican side. Was he successful? Probably. But not entirely.

It's likely that he received some votes by some that weren't paying attention and just voted for the Tea Party candidate because they believe in the Tea Party positions. But I'd be surprised if his entire 9% was due to that.

Democrats will run as anything they can to win. Hochul may really believe that Obamacare was wrong to remove money from Medicare. We'll see how she ends up being over the next year before the next election.

Republicans need to get their conservative views out there and not hide from them, or hold them back. If they are going to run for a seat, they should be putting their views out there and answering questions. Corwin would not get a huge majority like Lee did in his election, but she still should have received enough votes to win, even with the Tea Party candidate.

The Tea Party needs to step up. They wanted to back one candidate for the Republicans but when their candidate wasn't chosen to run, they wouldn't back the Republican that was. That's fine if she wasn't conservative, however, the Tea Party runs the risk of making themselves irrelevent if they only back people that embrace the Tea Party rather than the one that comes closest to their positions on the issues. They also run the risk of looking incompetent if they don't stand up when they have a phony person running using their name.

The Tea Party in New Yorks 26th district failed. The Republican failed. The Democrats won but not likely because of their message.

This is a perfect example of "lead, follow or get out of the way". The Tea Party failed in New York. They played politics. They didn't lead. They got in the way of the Republican and are partially responsible for electing a liberal Democrat. They didn't stand up for their name by coming out against Jack Davis.

If the Tea Party groups around the country start playing politics like this group did in New York, we're going to be right back where we started from. Politicians getting elected from both parties that don't answer to the people, but instead look out for their own seats (you can take that as the seat they won, or the seat they carry behind them, or both) once they are in office.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

3:00 AM phone call: Where's Obama?

2011-05-06T14:40:00.004-04:00

Since the recent killing of Osama bin Laden, there have been many variances on what actually happened.

First he was armed and shooting back, then he wasn't.

A woman was used as a shield, then she wasn't.

The human shield (woman) was killed, then she's injured.

First it was a "woman", then it was his wife.

There are many more questions about conflicting reports, as well as admissions that this came about due to "enhanced interrogations" (waterboarding), which Obama and the rest of the liberals have always railed against. I can only believe that they must think that if Bush is giving the orders, it's waterboarding, but if it's Obama giving the orders, it's nothing more than dunking someone while playing in a swimming pool.

I've been sent another story that I've posted a link to below. This one raises the question about the 3:00 a.m. phone call that Hillary Clinton mentioned during the campaign in 2008. 'Who would you want answering the phone at 3:00 in the morning?'

After months of planning, positioning, reasoning, Obama apparently couldn't or wouldn't make up his mind (3:00 am phone call). The decision seems to have been made by Leon Panetta, director the CIA with the blessing of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Daley, Petreus, and Gates (In Gates case, he was said to be very close to resigning because of the lack of decisiveness by the President.

When the mission was to begin, Obama was called in from the Golf Course. We have the worlds number one terrorist in our sights, and have had for months, and Obama is on the golf course? This reminds me of another time that we had Obama in our crosshairs and the quick call was made to President Clinton while he was watching a golf tournament on television to give the go ahead. He didn't want to be interrupted, so bin Laden got away.

This is the only place I've seen this story so far, although there have been questions about this picture being staged. But it is an interesting read into who is running things at the White House, if this story turns out be even half accurate. Read it and draw your own conclusions. I welcome your comments on the story.

Thank you Al, for sending this to me.

Brett

http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/#ixzz1LLRp2GTh

White House Under Fire, Answers

2011-04-27T09:03:00.003-04:00

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.

Brett

Is Chicago School Taking Kickbacks for School Lunches?

2011-04-11T11:28:00.003-04:00

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

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

2011-04-10T07:16:00.003-04:00

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.

Brett

Public Education Proving It's Lack of Value

2011-02-18T10:16:00.002-05:00

We've all heard that the teachers in Madison, Wisconsin have been calling in sick and marching on the Capitol to protest the Governors plan to balance the budget.

There are so many paths on this story that it's difficult to keep it all straight. Last November the people of Wisconsin turned out the Democrats in favor of the Republicans. Wisconsin was similar to the rest of the country as nearly the entire country turned out Democrats.

The new Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, proposed that public employees begin paying 12.6% of their health care expenses and to contribute more to their pensions.

Teachers began calling in sick. So many called in that the Madison school district closed the schools. It's now in it's third day. Some of the teachers have shown up at the rally with their students in tow. Many students that were interviewed on various networks didn't really know what they were protesting.

I looked up the code of ethics of the Wisconsin teachers. The first two on the list deal with teachers keeping their political beliefs to themselves and not involving the students in their personal beliefs.

I'm not sure why they would have a code of ethics. Is it ethical to call your employer, tell them you are sick and then march on the Capitol? I could understand them taking personal time, but calling in sick when you're not sick would be a lack of ethics. Unless it's now ethical to lie.

The school superintendent has said that he would be expecting a medical reason for the absences or the teachers would be docked pay for the days that they missed, which now total three days.

These teachers, claim their jobs are a "calling". They claim that the kids are the first priority. Yet, they call in sick leaving these kids without school. Apparently, teachers don't think that kids learn from this just as they should when they are in the classroom.

These teachers (can we really call them teachers if they aren't in the classroom teaching when they are supposed to be) seem to believe that their well-being is more important than the well being of the children that they are supposed to be teaching during the day.

This is only the beginning. It's starting to happen in Ohio as well. New York is rumbling about the same thing. This will be happening across the country as states try to get their budgets in line.

Our public education system is failing. We are no longer number one in the world in educating our children. In some areas, such as math and science, we're not even in the top ten. Yet, these teachers are whining about having to pay for their own health care. Not even all of their own health care, but less than 13% of the cost!

There is another aspect to this. If a student doesn't show up for school or cuts a class, they are punished. The punishment ranges from suspension to an appearance before a Truancy Court. I never understood the suspension for skipping school. On what planet does it make sense to throw a kid out of classes for three days as punishmet for cutting one day of classes? Aren't you just giving him three times as much as he originally took?

The teachers in Madison are really doing nothing more than cutting classes, AND they are being paid for cutting classes by the taxpayers. They aren't suspended, and they aren't put in front of a judge and they aren't suspended for three days.

Our public education system is out of control and Wisconsin just shows how much out of control they are.

Wisconsin, as well as many other states, are facing financial problems. They have choices. They can force their employees to pay more for their own benefits. They can freeze pay. They can raise taxes (which never works), or if none of those things can happen, then they must find the money elsewhere. That "elsewhere" will be jobs. Some of those teachers skipping school, if they are successful with their protests, will lose their jobs. They will have to be laid off. If they are laid off, they lose their health care. They lose their paycheck. It won't be a matter of them paying for their own health care, they won't have it to pay for.

The really ironic part of this is that these people being teachers should be smart enough to know this. After all, they are teaching the children. Shouldn't they be able to exert some common sense? Shouldn't they understand how a state budget works? Shouldn't they understand that if your employer only has $10 he can't pay you $20?

They are also marching with signs. The signs are calling the Governor Hitler. There are some with gun sights on them aimed at the Governor. You won't see it on the liberal media. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC aren't showing it. But Fox News did show some.

For the past two years, the liberals have been railing on Republicans for the vitriolic signs. You know, the ones that had Obama as a clown. Then following the shooting in Tucson, Arizona (which they originally attributed to right wing extremists and the Tea Party but we've since learned wasn't the case at all) they were talking about the violence of the Tea Party for daring to ask questions in Town Halls across the country and standing up when they were lied to by their representatives in the House and Senate. They complained that Sarah Palin had used gun sights as targets on pictures of Democrats running on their tax and spend record of the past two years. Yet, they are doing the same thing and worse, yet you don't see it on the mainstream media. If they are going to whine about when they accuse Republicans doing it, whether Republicans did or not, isn't it just as wrong when the liberals do it? If they really think they are better than Republicans shouldn't they refrain from such posters?

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

What Has America Become

2011-01-11T23:14:00.006-05:00

The following was sent to me by a friend. This was originally printed in the Iosco County News Herald on June 9, 2010. Thank you, Bev for sending it. Here's the letter:

"Dear Editor,

Has America become the land of the special interests and the home of the double standard?

Let's see: If we lie to the Congress it's a felony, and if the congress lies to us, it's politics; if we dislike a black person we're racists, but if a black person dislikes a white person it's their first amendment right; the government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals but almost nothing for the victims; in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK but you'd better not use the word God in the process; you can kill an unborn child but it's wrong to execute a mass murderer; we don't burn books in America, we rewrite them; we got rid of the communists and socialist threat by renaming them progressives; we are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea; if you protest against President Obama's policies you're a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or President Bush in effigy it was your first amendment right.

You can have pornography on your TV or the internet but you better not put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas; we have eliminated all criminals in America, we now call them sick people; we can use a human fetus for medical research but it's wrong to use an animal.

We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work; we all support the Constitution but only when it supports our political idealogy; we still have freedom of speech, but only if it's politically correct; parenting has been replaced by ritalin and video games; the land of opportunity is now the land of handouts; the similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither President did anything to help;

And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who is at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises taxes, tells us the problem is solved so they can get back to their re-election campaign.

What has happened to the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?"
-Ken Huber
Tawas City

You may agree or disagree with some or all of the writers points, but it does point out one thing. This country has some problems. Pundits, legislators, sheriffs, and other public officials complaining that the American people are out of hand really ought to consider another possibility. Maybe they are abusing their power leading a few people that may react in this manner.

This shooter in Arizona apparently has no political affiliation. Yet, liberals were quick to blame Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, talk radio in general, the tea party and any other group that doesn't walk in lockstep with them. They have already started calling for gun control (Representative Maloney of NY), and restrictions of freedom of speech (Representative Brady of PA) and another to use this shooting for fundraising (Senator Sanders of VT).

When this country began, the members of the Continental Congress continued to work on turning this land into it's own nation despite the King wanting them rounded up and hanged. Their lives were in danger for daring to stand up for this country in it's creation.

The politicians today shut down Congress, change plans on important issues, in the wake of a shooting of Congresswoman Giffords of AZ. They should be showing some backbone and honoring Congresswoman Giffords by continuing their work. It would tell terrorists of all kinds, foreign and domestic, that when America is attacked, we don't cower, we stand up to the attack. They can knock us down, but they can't keep us down.

When we were attacked on September 11, 2001, the American people rose up together and said we won't stand for this and we won't cower in fear. But now, following an attack on a 9 year old girl, elderly people, a judge and the congresswoman and her staff, our congress comes to a halt and they start talking about making laws to protect themselves.

During the attacks on September 11, 2001, government did not protect it's citizens on the planes, nor on the ground in the buildings that were hit. But, the American citizens (passengers) on flight 93, crashed their plane into a field in Pennsylvania to protect government leaders. The exact opposite of what should be happening, meaning the government is supposed to protect the people from foreign attacks.

The American people, once again, prove that they will stand together against our enemies, but our Congress shows they will cower in fear. America, meaning the people, come together. The leaders cower and hide.

What has America become? The same as we've always been. A nation of brave people. It's the leadership in America that seems to have become weaker. Thankfully, the people's strength can and will overcome the shortfalls of it's leaders and hopefully, we'll get more of that strength in our leaders during the coming elections by replacing the weak ones we now seem to have. Replacing them through the ballot box!

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Perception vs Reality

2010-12-28T18:24:00.004-05:00

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

Government Schools Continue to Fail Students

2010-12-18T11:06:00.003-05:00

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

Socialism Loses Twice More

2010-12-16T20:11:00.002-05:00

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

Congress Proves Elections Turned out Correct

2010-12-15T14:12:00.003-05:00

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

Deal? Or No Deal!

2010-12-10T11:14:00.002-05:00

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

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

2010-12-09T11:45:00.003-05:00

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

Obama Finally Agrees to a Stimulus Package that Works!

2010-12-06T10:19:00.004-05:00

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

1984 Is Here: 26 Years Later

2010-11-18T00:39:00.002-05:00

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

The Myth of the Liberals

2010-11-13T11:03:00.004-05:00

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

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

2010-11-07T22:43:00.003-05:00

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

Former Republican Presidents vs. Former and Present Democrat Presidents

2010-11-04T19:44:00.004-04:00

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

2010-11-04T09:41:00.003-04:00

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

Proper Attire for Election Day

2010-11-01T09:18:00.002-04:00

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

Charlie Crist Exposed by Bill Clinton Shenanigans

2010-10-29T09:30:00.003-04:00

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

There is Hope, There is Trouble Coming

2010-10-28T12:31:00.002-04:00

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

News Organization Shows Class

2010-10-22T23:32:00.002-04:00

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

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

2010-10-21T13:01:00.002-04:00

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

Obama Digging the Ditch Deeper

2010-10-19T10:15:00.005-04:00

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

Racist, Incompetent Obama on the Run

2010-10-17T23:04:00.004-04:00

There are many advantages to long drives that I take. I get to think about different things as well as hear different stories and viewpoints and of course, remember the recent past.

Coming up on the mid term elections, it's easy to get bogged down with all of the different ideas, worries and anticipation of things to come as well as to wonder what will happen with new things coming.

In the last 18 months, Obama and the Democrats have owned the government. At first, they didn't have a filibuster proof majority, but with the likes of Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe from Maine as well as Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania, he may as well have had the filibuster proof majority. In February, with the help of the three Republicans mentioned, they passed the stimulus package that nobody read. Shortly after, Specter switched to the Democrat party and gave them their filibuster proof majority until January of 2010.

Still, even with the super majority, they couldn't get the health care bill passed. At least not matched up with the House. But then, Scott Brown won in Massachussets of all places. So the Democrats in the House had to resort to passing the Senate bill, which they didn't want, to get it passed because Brown would have voted against it, killing the health care bill. So despite the American people being against this health care bill, it passed and the President signed it.

A recurring comment about the stimulus bill is that it saved us from going into the second great depression. There is no proof of this. In fact, it's pretty well established even by many liberals that the stimulus failed. This means that the free market system, despite the hindrance of this administration worked. The free market system, or what was left of it, worked enough to move the economy forward while the Democrats claim it was them that saved us from a second depression.

Slowly, we're learning about all of the new taxes in the health care bill. Rates are going up rather than coming down as promised. Doctors are announcing that they won't stay in business once the health care bill is in full effect.

In the past two weeks another lawyer from the Justice Department has testified that this administration has made it a policy to not go after minorities that commit fraud within the election process. This administration is the one that dropped the ball with respect to the New Black Panther party members that were standing outside of the polling area with billy clubs. One was sentenced to not being at a polling place for two years. Just in time for the next Presidential election. That's sort of like saying to a kid who screws up at basketball practice on Monday and you ground him until the next Sunday...just in time for next Monday's practice.

Of course, we really don't need to be reminded that this administration has filed suit against a state (Arizona) for daring to pass a law that will give them the responsibility of reining in illegal invaders, saying that it's the feds responsibility despite the feds not doing their job.

On top of all of that, Obama is out telling "black folks" that they must come out and vote to keep his agenda going. When was the last time you heard anyone tell "white folks" to vote. What do you think would be the story line if someone did say that?

People are excited about the upcoming election because of the promise to repeal the health care bill. There were two so-called experts I heard on my drive. One said that 97 House seats were in play and 92 of them were Democrat incumbents. The other said that 86 seats were in play and 80 of them are currently held by Democrats. If either of these were off by even 10%, this will be very close to breaking the record for changeovers set back in the 30's.

So, what happens when the elections are over and many of these tea party backed candidates get into office and they don't follow the party line of doing things as they've always been done? This could be another two year battle for the next election where the tea party grows even more and the tea parties continue leading up to the 2012 election.

It's really beginning to look like the next two years are going to be even louder than the past two. The good news is that Obama won't be able to run roughshod over the Republicans like he's done this past 18 months. The biggest question to be answered in the next two weeks is will the Senate go to the Republicans.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

South Fulton Tennessee: Shame and Embarrasment

2010-10-06T23:02:00.004-04:00

In South Fulton, Tennessee a man burning trash in a burn barrel had the grass catch fire. He grabbed his garden hose and tried to put the fire out in the grass but it got the better of him and spread. An hour later, it had spread to the house and the house started burning.

When the owner couldn't get control of the fire in the yard, he called the fire department. The fire department wouldn't respond. It's not because they couldn't respond. They WOULD NOT respond. Their reason was that the owner hadn't paid his $75.00 fee for the year.

The fire spread even more beyond the man's house to a field of his neighbors caught fire. Luckily for the neighbor, they had paid the annual fee of $75.00. So the fire department responded to that call. They put out the neighbors fire, but then watched as the first house burned down. They didn't just leave. They watched!

When asked, the Mayor of South Fulton said that they had to draw the line somewhere and decided that this was where they would draw that line.

What you may not know is that this is not the first time that this has happened. It happened several years ago, in the same city..or rural area.

Why wasn't the fee paid? The husband said he'd just forgotten about it. The wife said they just hadn't paid it yet. My question is, who cares? There was a simple solution. Put the fire out and then bill for the expense of doing so. Fight it out in the courts if you must, but you don't allow someone's house to burn down for any reason.

We have a long history in this country of neighbors helping neighbors. That help came in many forms. It could be a food basket for someone that is having a tough time financially. The better known is probably the barn raising. A man needed a barn and the neighbors would come over and put a barn up. The next guy that needed a barn would get the same help and it would spread.

I've read several of the stories written about this and watched the news report on the local television station. Each of them said that the firefighters weren't to blame because they were following the orders of the Mayor and the City Manager. I disagree with this. If a firefighter is there, the right thing for him to do is to help put the fire out despite the orders from "on high". At some point, morals have to come into play. Anyone that was there and didn't help or at least try to help to put the fire out was guilty.

The reports also say that the community is upset about the entire affair. But they were also upset a few years ago when it happened before, yet nothing was changed.

I'm beginning to think that we should get used to this. The health care plan recently passed will leave us with rationed care. Money was spent to create and save jobs, but you can't count how many jobs are saved and it certainly didn't create any jobs.

This event was on the local level and involved a fire. We are in for more stories like this if we don't change things and change them soon. This is a government, albeit local, that decided that this couples house had a worth of $75.00. Due to that $75.00 not being paid, they refused to put out a house fire. Suppose someone had been trapped inside. Would the fire department still in effect say "best of luck to you" instead of responding with a human life at stake? Are they really going to put a worth of a human life at $75.00? The answer is likely to be yes. After all, they didn't show up because of the lack of a small payment. Why would a human life cause unfeeling government officials to show up? I didn't see nor hear that question being asked of the Mayor or anyone else. Even if the question was asked, could we trust their answer?

I think we couldn't. In Bay City, Michigan last year, a man died from the cold because his electricity was shut off. So why should we expect South Fulton to do any different if a human life was at risk?

I hope that the people of South Fulton remove the Mayor from office. I hope they remove the City Manager from office. I hope that they replace the fire departments firefighters. Then, if they do, they need to change that law that was put in place in 1990.

Every person that was at that fire is guilty of inaction. They might as well have brought hot dogs and had a weinie roast for all the good they did standing around watching.

I certainly hope that the American people can see that government at all levels must be held accountable for their actions and inactions. This family was wrong for not paying their bill. But that is no excuse for allowing a home to burn to the ground, leaving this couple homeless.

In the military, a soldier must follow orders. However, if an order is illegal, the soldier is obligated to not follow those orders. The fire department, the fire fighters, all are obligated to not follow the orders that they were given.

I'd much rather defend myself against insubordination if I were a firefighter knowing that I helped save someone's home, than have to face this couple after my having not even lifted a finger when I could have. Even if these firefighters had not succeeded in saving the couples home, every attempt should have been made. It is not just their job, it's their responsibility. There is no excuse for what happened here.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Two Years of Trash

2010-10-05T09:31:00.006-04:00

In August, a rally was held in Washington DC. Nearly 500,000 people were in attendance. This rally was led by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin was a featured speaker.

Last week, another rally was held and this one was led by Steven Colbert and Jon Daily. There were nearly 100,000 people in attendance.

Two rallies. Two different perspectives. Two sides of the aisle. One liberal, one conservative, and it could be argued that the rally with Beck and Palin was not political, but nobody can really take politics out of it when Beck and Palin are the leaders or lead speakers.

Yes, there were less at the liberal rally last weekend. By a large amount. However, the liberals did leave a longer lasting impression. Not by their words, but by their trash. Fast food wrappers, water bottles, SEIU signs, pamphlets, food remnants. One of the cleanup crew called the Lincoln Memorial a landfill.

The WWII Memorial was filled with trash.

I don't think it's in dispute that the liberals, progressives, socialists, whatever you want to call them, are fanatics over global warming, or global climate change, if you prefer. That is their issue. They have passed cap and trade through the House. They want to move to electric cars, solar ceilings and end the use of oil. They've even gone so far as to say that anyone that doesn't believe in global warming should be prosecuted for disagreeing (see Robert Kennedy, Al Gore,etc.).

Yet, plastic wrappers, paper cups, cardboard signs, plastic bottles, candy bar wrappers, styrofoam cups, pamplets were all strewn about Washington DC following the rally this weekend.

If these liberals are so concerned about the environment, shouldn't they be the ones picking up after themselves? If the Conservatives are so uncaring about the environment, shouldn't they be the ones that are leaving the mountain of trash behind?

This is a repeat of the Obama inauguration. Remember the trash left behind that followed? This sounds an awful like the parent that tells his/her child "do as I say, not as I do."

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

********************CORRECTION***********************

In this posting, I made a mistake and said that the liberal rally was the Steven Colbert and Jon Daily rally when in fact it was the One Nation rally. The Colbert/Daily rally is later this month. Thank you Cindi O for pointing out my mistake.

Hopefully, we'll not have the same trash issue at the next liberal rally.

Brett

Trouble Brewing for Republicans and Country

2010-09-18T09:46:00.002-04:00

I fear the Republican leadership has not learned the lessons of their losses in 2006. In 1994, the Republicans ran on the Contract with America. They won, they followed through. Their ten bills were all voted on as promised. Not all passed, but they weren't promising passage. They were promising a vote on ten issues that the Democrats previously refused to bring to the floor.

Following completion of the Contract with America, the Republicans slowly grew into a well oiled machine. They also got fat and sassy. They started spending more and more. They were rejuvenated abit with the election of George Bush in 2000 and passed two tax cuts, but their well oiled machine was cracking as evidenced by their inability to make the tax cuts permanent. They then fell into the Washington trap of spending more than they had, despite record revenue coming into the Government and they wandered into the Sex, Drugs and money scandals. They were beat bad in 2006 and again in 2008.

These past two years, they did nothing to improve their position. There are two things that have brought them back. The Democrats gave them a gift that can never be repaid. They passed the stimulus package which enraged the American people. This brought about the Tea Parties. Not Republicans. All the Republicans did was vote no on it. They had no power to stop the Democrats. But the Tea Parties rose up around the country. Cap and Trade (or Cap and Tax) passed the House. Again, against the will of the people. Obamacare passed, again, against the will of the American people.

The Democrats, in effect, created the Tea Parties. As if that's not enough, at Town Hall meetings around the country, Tea Party people, and Americans not affiliated with the Tea Parties, showed up and expressed their displeasure with the Democrats passing these various laws. They were ignored. They were made fun of by the press and they were dismissed out of hand by the Democrats. Rather than listen to the American people and the Tea Parties, the Democrats closed their town hall meetings or stopped having them altogether. The beneficiaries of the Tea Party's? The Republican Party.

Tea Party candidates started cropping up all over the country. Those speaking with the tea parties were backing some candidates and not others. Bob Bennett for instance, was considered getting fat and sassy and arrogant and he was booted out. His replacement, backed by the tea party is likely to be the next Senator. Marco Rubio in Florida was beating Governor Charlie Crist so Crist left the Republican party and became an independent. He's now trailing by double digits.

The Republican Party backed a man in Kentucky. The Tea Party backed Rand Paul. Paul won decisively. And on it went. Senator Boxer is in trouble in California, Senator Murray in Washington, Senator Feingold in Wisconsin and so on.

But two recent events show that the Republicans are acting arrogantly or as elitists. Senator Lisa Murkowski was beaten by Joe Miller in Alaska. Miller is the Tea Party backed candidate. The worst event was in Delaware. Christine O'Donnell beat Mike Castle. As O'Donnell was giving her victory speech, the National Republican Senatorial Committee said they would not back her in the race for the Senate. They backed off the next day and gave her the maximum amount allowed under the law, but their initial reaction was childish at best. How dare the people of Delaware choose someone other than the Republican choice for Senate??

Karl Rove said on Hannity's television show that O'Donnell cannot win. Charles Krauthammer said on O'Reilly's show that she has a one in ten chance of winning and that it was wrong to choose the conservative over the moderate in the northeast.

When did the people become the lap dogs of the Republican party? The Republicans are taking the gift that the Democrats and the Tea Parties gave them and are trying to hand it back to the Democrats. The Republican Party exists because of the American people, not the other way around.

But they don't appear to understand that. Mike Castles goal should have been to defeat the Democrat nominee in Delaware. If the people chose his opponent to defeat the Democrat, then it is his responsibility to back O'Donnell or to leave the Republican Party or to just sit down, shut up and enjoy the retirement. Instead, Castle blamed his loss on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin. He also refuses to back O'Donnell. Refusing to back her is the same as endorsing the Democrat opponent. Does Mike Castle believe that O'Donnell is not a good enough Republican? Who cares? The people chose her. The people that would have backed him had she not run, decided she was the better choice to represent their interests against the Democrat. I wouldn't be surprised if Castle decides to run as an Independent or as a write in candidate.

Which brings up Alaska. Lisa Murkowski lost to Joe Miller in the Republican Primary. Yesterday, Murkowski decided to run as a write in candidate. She's not satisfied with the choice of the people of Alaska. So she's putting herself back into the race despite the people telling her they wanted Miller rather than her.

Bob Bennett was bitter and let it be known when he was ousted. Castle is bitter and refused to show any class by congratulating the person that beat him out by the will of the people. Murkowski is doing the same thing in Alaska.

Bennett had moved to the left in his Senate career and the people he represented didn't like it. Castle has always been moderate to liberal. Crist is a moderate who actually hugged Obama during the stimulus passing, and Murkowski is a moderate who was not put into the Senate by the people. She was appointed by her daddy and she won an election during the Bush years. Now that her dad is out and Bush is gone, she can't make it on her own, within her own party, so she's trying to force her way in.

The people are choosing more conservative candidates to replace the moderate and liberal people that have been there or in other positions. But the moderates and/or liberals can't face this. The Republican Party is not reveling in the more conservative candidates, they are retreating from them. They are retreating from the people that put them there. They are showing that they believe that they need to fool the American people, then once in office govern the way they want and not the way their voters want them to govern.

If these Tea Party candidates win, and a sizeable amount of them probably will, we could be seeing a battle within the Republican Party over what direction the Republicans take the country. Will the new Tea Party victors have to buckle under to the Republican establishment or will they change the direction that Republicans go and pretty much reinvent how Washington works?

If the establishment portion of the party controls, the Republican victories in November will not last. If the Tea Party Senators and Representatives hold their ground and aren't afraid to stand up to the establishment, we could see many more Tea Party candidates in 2012 and watch the party go more conservative.

If this battle becomes a messy battle that goes on for two years, the Democrats could take over once again and we'll be back to all of the same problems we have today with Democrats running roughshod over the people and the people not being able to do anything about it and the Democrats not even attempting town hall meetings, let alone canceling them.

The Republicans, both the establishment and the Tea Party Senators and Representatives, have an opportunity to set the direction of this country into very prosperous times, both financially and through national security or they can have a playpen fight that leads this country into extremely tough and dangerous times.

Nobody likes to lose, but if you must lose, lose graciously when you've lost. Everybody likes to win, but win with humility when you win. If you lose without the dignity and class, such as Mike Castle, Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist, and others you run the risk of destroying more than just your reputation.

Mike Castle didn't accomplish making a point about how good or bad O'Donnell is or isn't. He only proved that he has no respect for the people that he depended on for that victory. He's proven that the best man for the job in Delaware was actually a woman. Christine O'Donnell. Murkowski proved that in Alaska, the best man for the job was a man.

These candidates are supposed to be running to represent the people. Those losing candidates only proved that they were in the race to represent themselves and didn't give a rip about the people.

The Republican Party had best learn that they too are there to represent the people. If they choose to only give lip service to the people until they get in power then represent themselves, they'll only prove that they aren't worthy of holding any decision making positions.

I really like Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer, but the things they said following O'Donnells victory were not only wrong, but stupid. Do they think that Chris Christie, the new Governor of New Jersey is a mistake because he's more conservative? You don't improve an area by replacing liberals and moderates with liberals and moderates. Apparently, the people of Delaware understand it. Why can't Rove and Krauthammer?

If Mike Castle was a shoo in to win in the general election, but he's beat by who the people consider a better candidate, then why isn't O'Donnell considered a shoo in?

I wonder if the Yankees make it through the playoffs and are expected to win handily in the World Series but get beat will Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer then say that it's a mistake?

The Republican Establishment had better grow up quickly and understand the will of the people or they will find they no longer exist. Then God help the country.

The Democrats provided a gift to the Republicans and the American people. If the Republicans really want to give a gift in return, I'd suggest that they take a page from Obama's list of gift giving. Send them a DVD set of classic movies as Obama did for the Prime Minister of Britain. Or maybe a recording of their speeches as Obama gave to the Queen of England. But don't give them the country.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Democrats See The Light or Running in Fear?

2010-09-16T09:20:00.002-04:00

For the past eight years, all we've heard out of the Democrats is how President Bush passed tax cuts for only the rich. When they are shown charts of what people paid in taxes prior to the tax cuts and following the tax cuts showing the savings those tax cuts did for EVERYONE, they claimed it wasn't true and that only the rich got the tax cuts.

But they are now in danger of joining the ranks of the unemployed. So they have changed their minds, seen the light or admitted their false talking points were false. They are now saying that they want to extend the "tax cuts" for the middle class and only raise the taxes on the rich, although there are now 32 Democrats that are saying they don't want any tax increases on anyone during a recession.

How can you extend tax cuts for those that didn't receive a tax cut in 2001 and 2003? Answer, you can't. Why isn't the press asking them how they could say this after so many years of denying there were any tax cuts except on the rich?

A couple of days ago, I mentioned in the midst of another posting on here that we had $823,000 from the stimulus being used to teach African men how to clean their genitals following sexual activity.

Here in Michigan, we have a Representative named Mark Schauer. He was the only person in the country that claimed to have read the stimulus bill before voting on it. Everyone in the country knew that he was not telling the truth, but he continued to say that he'd read the entire bill before voting on it. Of course, he's a liberal Democrat. If you look at Nancy Pelosi, you're seeing Mark Schauer in drag.

Well, I have a question for Mark Schauer. If you read the entire bill, then you knew that the stimulus bill would pay to teach African men, in Africa, how to clean their genitals. How could you vote for something like this?

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Time for the NRSC to go

2010-09-14T22:35:00.003-04:00

The Republicans in Delaware spoke loudly and clearly tonight. They chose Christine O'Donnell over Congressman Mike Castle.

As she was taking the stage for her victory speech, the National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC) announced that they would not give her any financial assistance at all. Not one dollar. This was broken by Bret Baier on Fox at about 10:30 pm.

Do these people in the NRSC not understand what's happening out here where the real people live? The Tea Party Candidates are not just giving a good showing for themselves, they are winning! Maybe someone needs to explain to the NRSC what is happening.

The people (remember the people? We are the ones that Congress is supposed to represent) have finally gotten fed up with the Washington Elites. We're not just fed up with Democrats. We're fed up with all POLITICIANS!

For years, a person has been elected to Congress making great claims that sound good when standing on a stage at a town hall meeting or while standing in your driveway asking for you vote, then they get to Washington and feel that they are above it all know better what's best for people than the people do.

This is what gave us taxes many years ago. This is what gave us housing for those that aren't responsible enough to qualify for loans. This is what gave us government interference in all aspects of our lives.

The people have always asked "what can you do? We elect them based on their promises, then they break their promises and serve themselves rather than those they represent and we can't get them out." Then we got the Democrats in the House, the Senate and the White House. Nobody could stop them doing anything. The votes weren't there. The Democrats either had a filibuster proof majority or the Republicans had a couple of Republicans in name only such as Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter. Now, I guess we can add Senator Voinovich from Ohio to that list.

Because of the Democrats and the "Rino's", we have a stimulus package that failed. We have Cap and Tax passed in the House. We have the federal takeover of the health care system which the Democrats don't even talk about during this campaign because they know they screwed the people.

These things have caused the American people to wake up and march in good weather and bad. To hold "Tea Parties" all across the nation. To have Americans that aren't professional politicians to run for office. Not only did it work, but it continued.

Senator Bennett from Colorado is gone. Joe Miller is now the Senate nominee for the Republicans in Alaska. Scott Brown (even though he's likely a Rino) is now the Republican from Massachussets. Gone are the likes of Murkowski, and now Mike Castle.

A perfect example of waste by the Democrats was just put out today. $823,000 was spent from the stimulus package to teach Africans, not Americans, but citizens of Africa IN Africa how to clean their genitals following sex. How in the heck does that stimulate OUR economy? I can see how it could stimulate Africans, although it's not likely their economy that's being stimulated, but how does it stimulate the American economy?

This is what the people have stood up against the past two years. Waste in government. Moronic performance by those in government.

NRSC stands for National "Republican" Senatorial Committee. Whomever is in charge of that committee needs to take a good look at the title for Christine O'Donnell. She is now the "Republican" nominee for the United States Senate representing the state of Delaware.

If you can't do what your title suggests, you might want to consider a new career. I was at a Speedway gas station earlier today. I saw a "help wanted" sign. While I hesitate to suggest any position that means you handle money, it may be your only hope of taking on an honest career because you're certainly failing at the current job.

I don't know much about Christine O'Donnell. I understand she's had some problems in the past with finances and schooling. What that tells me though is that she is an American Citizen that is fed up with Washington as usual. Apparently, the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats at understanding who they are supposed to represent. The PEOPLE.

The PEOPLE elected O'Donnell. If the NRSC financially backed Mike Castle during this primary, then guess what. The scorecard is now, O'Donnell one, NRSC ZERO. If O'Donnell wins in November, her record will be Two to ZERO. If she loses, her record will be 1 win, 1 loss. But the NRSC's record will be ZERO wins, 2 losses.

If that's too difficult for you at the NRSC, I'd recommend that you take a math class. First grade level ought to be good enough, but I'd avoid government schools if I were you. It may take you two years to understand simple math.

Whatever O'Donnells' personal life miscues were, I hope she beats the Democrat nominee without the NRSC and not just by the skin of her teeth, but by an overwhelming margin. If the NRSC hasn't figured out by then that they are irrelevent, they ought to get it after a victory like that.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

2010-09-11T00:29:00.000-04:00

Idiots and Cowards

2010-09-10T09:42:00.003-04:00

A Pastor of a chuch in Florida had planned to burn the Koran on Saturday, September 11 as their statement regarding the attacks on September 11, 2001 and apparently included the recent events of the mosque being started near ground zero, the site where the World Trade Center Towers once stood.

Yesterday, he announced that he was stopping the burning ceremony because a local Imam had negotiated a deal to allow this Pastor to fly to New York and discuss moving the mosque with the Imam in New York. He said he had witnesses that the local Imam had said the mosque would be moved.

Within literally minutes of his press conference, the story started falling apart. The deal was less than announced, then it was reported that the Imam in New York knew nothing about it. Then Donald Trump had made an offer to buy out one of the parties that own the building, and so on.

The press then began calling the Pastor, Terry Jones, a crackpot, nutcase, publicity hound, and a few other names. This was CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. They were all calling this guy a clown that was seeking to get publicity for himself.

Are they right? Could be. But who gave him this publicity? This is a simple answer. The Press. The very people complaining that this guy is an idiot seeking to make a name in the press are the ones that gave him the platform. They turned this coming event from a small church, to a local story, to a national platform, to an international event.

This event, that has not yet taken place, then was picked up by the Muslims around the world. Imagine that, the press reports on someone they now call a crackpot and are amazed that the Muslims around the world are now burning the American Flag and threatening to kill Americans around the world, including here at home.

Don't get the idea that this is just about the idiocy of the press. They were just the beginning. As we moved closer to the anniversary of the attack on this country, the State Department put their embassies around the world on alert.

General Petraeus said that if this burning took place, it would put American soldiers at risk. Hillary Clinton came out and said the same thing. Then President Obama said the same thing.

As if that wasn't enough, the Pastor, according to the press, said that he would consider dropping the plan if someone from the White House or the Pentagon would call him and talk to him. But the idiocy didn't stop there. Defense Secretary Gates actually did call him apparently at the behest of the Obama Administration.

The burning of the Koran was ill-conceived. Like the placing of the mosque near ground zero, it's perfectly legal to do this, but it is not a wise idea. Consider this. You're driving along and you come to a railroad crossing. There are no gates to stop you. The flashing lights are going signifying that a train is coming, but there are no gates for you to drive around. You're expected to do the safe thing and stop when you see the lights. You take a look and think you can still get across those tracks safely before the train gets there. So you speed up to beat the train to the crossing. If you make it, you were right. You had the time. But if you don't make it and you end up hit by the train or you hit the train, now it becomes a matter of you not driving safely and causing an accident.

Putting that mosque up is legal. But it's not sensitive. Burning the Koran is legal. But it's not sensitive. If you want sensitivity from one group, you must be prepared to display sensitivity when you come to that crossroad.

Yet again, the idiocy doesn't stop there. Why is the administration getting involved in this? Like the incident in Cambridge, Massachussets when Obama called the police stupid, without knowing the facts, resulting in the "beer summit" on the White House lawn the administration had no business getting involved.

These radical muslims want to kill Americans. They don't care where, they only care that they kill us. To think that stopping this Koran burning is going to save American lives is not even reasonable. Granted, this story has fired up the muslim radicals and maybe they'd have not been ready to kill on Saturday where now they are more dedicated to the idea, but make no mistake, given any opportunity, their goal is to kill Americans.

With Obama getting involved in this, he's only made it even more of a news story than it was before. Obama showed his cowardice by getting involved in this story. Did he really think that he could stop radical islamists, TERRORISTS, from killing Americans by begging a Pastor of a chuch with 50 members to not burn a Koran?

Usama bin Laden had it right when he said that America wouldn't have the stomach for a long war. We're bombarded daily with reports that Americans are tired of the war. Obama has even set deadlines for leaving Iraq (since past and as predicted the fighting has increased), and for Afghanistan.

The terrorists, whether they realize it or not, have just won a small victory over the American people, the press and Obama. Terror doesn't have to come from an attack where people die. To be successful, they only need to change our reactions, what we do and instill fear in the American people, be it for a long period or a short period. This event has accomplished that very thing.

The administration is now walking on egg shells. They are sitting in fear that something will happen on Saturday. With their record of four attacks (Arkansas, Fort Hood, Detroit and New York) in their first 13 months, they should be walking on eggshells.

This country, the greatest nation in history, is being run by a bunch of cowards. The events in this country are being reported and commented on by a bunch of idiots. As for the people of this country, we have over 350 million people. You're going to have a small percentage of nutballs out there. Maybe this Pastor is one of them. Now we have another in Witchita, Kansas who says he will have a Koran burning, and a Baptist church that protests at soldiers funerals planning the same thing. Another guy in Wyoming who says he'll burn a Koran on the Capitol steps.

The President and his administration, the Pastor in Florida, and the press have turned this into an incident that has the terrorists fired up. Maybe it's good. Maybe it will bring some of these cowardly terrorists out in the open where we can get them. But when we have an administration that is looking to appease the enemy rather than eradicate them, I can't see much good coming from this. Time will tell. Unfortunately, those doing the telling in the press are just as big of idiots as those giving credibility to people they consider publicity seekers. Don't look to Washington for any solutions. The great appeaser will only apologize again for this country.

Obama, the press and these book burners, have caused me to have to warn those I care about, the same warning I gave immediately following the attacks nine years ago on September 11, 2001. Be aware of your surroundings. You should always be aware, but we'll all have to heighten our awareness.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Democrats Proposing Tax Cuts? Must be an Election Coming

2010-09-04T10:10:00.003-04:00

In December 2008, Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas, a Republican proposed a payroll tax holiday. The economy was falling apart. The election had just passed and in one month, Washington would be in the hands of the Democrats in the House, Democrats in the Senate and the head liberal Democrat in the White House, Barack Obama.

At that point, there was nothing the Republicans could do in the House. In the Senate, they could only filibuster because they had one vote to stop a filibuster. Of course, they had RINO's (Republican in Name Only) Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine and Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania who were always a danger to cross over and stop any filibusters.

The Democrats proposed a stimulus package. They claimed that we were losing 22,000 jobs a day and the stimulus would stop it. Obama wanted it on his desk by Presidents Day. Without reading the bill, it passed the House, then the Senate. Collins, Snowe and Specter crossed over and the Senate passed the bill.

Gohmerts proposal? It never saw the light of day, despite the idea that it would create 6.2 million jobs.

It's now September. A year and a half following the stimulus. The stimulus hasn't worked. Jobs have continued to disappear. The Tea Party sprang up and have been going on all over the country for nearly two years. Democrats are in deep trouble this election. Even they are admitting that they are about to lose the House and they are even thinking that they may lose the Senate. The "experts" and pundits are saying the Republicans could gain 47-49 seats. Personally, I'll be disappointed if they only take 70 seats away in November.

Now it appears that some Democrats have gotten "religion". This week, Obama is going to speak on the economy. It's been reported that he's going to propose a payroll tax holiday. Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, in the very first paragraph I mentioned Louie Gohmerts plan. A payroll tax holiday.

Will this work? Yes, for a time. But that question can apply in so many ways. The payroll tax holiday, as Gohmert proposed it, will work for a time. It will stimulate the economy. It will create jobs. It will spur the economy on and it will put money back into the markets which is now sitting on the sidelines because businesses aren't putting money in the economy fearing the coming increase in taxes in January.

But there are questions that go along with this proposal. Will they include with this payroll tax holiday, extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone? If not, then it won't work for more than a short term fix. The length of that term is based on how long they put the holiday in for. If it's just three months, it won't do much because people will know that their taxes will go up three months later.

Supposing for a moment that they extend the Bush tax cuts, or even (be still my heart) make the Bush tax cuts permanent, the payroll tax holiday will work, but again, only to a point. It will not be a long term fix unless Congress also cuts spending. If they continue to spend as they are, the tax holiday will eventually dry up. Likely it will be after the holiday is over.

Increasing taxes does not raise revenue for the government. It only stops people from spending money, which reduces economic activity, which means less money being earned by taxpayers, which means less money coming in to the government.

Tax cuts ALWAYS work. President Reagan lowered taxes. That created the longest period of economic growth in history. It also nearly doubled revenue coming into the government. President Bush cut taxes, twice. Those tax cuts generated more revenue to the government and in several quarters, the government took in record amounts of revenue. A record which still stands.

Alas, all good things come to an end. When you cut taxes and generate more revenue, Congress gets excited. They see more money at the ready and they are ready to spend it. We all know that they are very good at spending money. Eventually, those expenditures wipe out the benefits of the tax cuts. We are then left with fighting over how best to spur on the economy. So again, tax cuts are considered, but nobody is talking about what spending they can cut.

If we get these tax cuts, the payroll tax holiday and the Bush tax cuts either being extended or made permanent, the spending will increase and we'll be back in this position again within a couple of years.

There is another aspect to whether the tax cuts, payroll tax holiday or extension of the Bush tax cuts will work. The only reason that this is being proposed is because Democrats are in serious trouble. This is a last gasp attempt to hold on to their seats. It's probably too late, but the Democrats will say that they are showing that they are flexible by putting the final touches on the stimulus in an effort to spur the economy. The plan likely won't be felt until after the first of the year (depending on when the "holiday" starts). However, it will be a selling point for the Democrats in their campaigns to be able to say that they passed the tax cuts.

They may save a few seats, but it's so late in the campaign, that too is unlikely.

The Democrats have proven one thing that we've all known, though. The best chance the people have at getting good government is to survive until two months before the next election. After two years of ignoring the people's desires, they now must depend on those people that they ignored to keep their jobs. If it's campaign season, the hot topic is lowering taxes. I wonder how desperate the Democrats have to get to start proposing a "fair tax".

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

CNN's Obama/Mosque Strategy Plays Out

2010-08-17T09:18:00.002-04:00

On Monday, I did something I almost never do. I watched CNN. First was the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. I only flipped it by there in passing but found something very interesting.

Wolf had a female on who walked the streets of New York. They still call them reporters, but you'll have to decide if they are still reporters. I don't think they are. I don't know the woman's name.

This woman, on camera, walked the two blocks between Ground Zero and the proposed Mosque site. She showed some businesses between the two places. Most of the businesses she pointed out were bars, clubs, and strip joints. The implication was what's wrong with a mosque when they have these types of businesses there. She also pointed out a Catholic church.

There were many scenes of tall buildings where you couldn't see ground zero. At least twice they pointed the camera down a street and said that ground zero was down the road and to the right. She even walked behind a block and showed how you can't see ground zero from there, even though she had not yet reached the site of the coming mosque.

Later, I turned on John King USA. Again, the discussion turned to the mosque. This time, King turned to the big screen television on the wall that he likes to play with. He put a graphic on the screen showing a circle of the area around ground zero. He had color charts to show where and how many bars are in that circle. Strip clubs. Even churches. Then he widened the circle to include more bars. Again, the implication being that there were these businesses and even said businesses such as this, but then backtracked on his statement abit saying 'unless you like bars'.

Later King had a guy named Cornell on his panel. He's a regular on the program and a Democrat strategist. Cornell began saying that the Republicans were injecting race into this because we're not at war with Muslims, but with radical Islam.

King also had another man on his panel who was Muslim and backing the mosque. This turned into a debate about race and racism.

Still later on another program I flipped it by CNN again and this time saw James Carville and his message was that Americans outside of New York were not interested in the mosque going up two blocks from ground zero and again, the discussion about bars and strip clubs in the area.

CNN seems to have developed a strategy to back Obama's words this past weekend which seem to have Obama in hot water, by showing that the Mosque is a church and why shouldn't it be permitted there when there are some businesses that involve drinking and girls stripping.

Ed Rendell, Gerald Nadler, James Carville and others all seem to think that the attack on New York didn't affect the rest of the country. They are saying they are in disbelief that Americans in the heartland would vote this fall with any thought of the mosque.

If you'd like to know how MSNBC is handling this story, you'll have to check it out for yourself. I've gone as far as I'm going to go watching CNN. One spoiled evening is all I can take even if it is fun watching these liberals on CNN going through all sorts of contortions to justify Obama's stupid remarks.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Is It Difficult Being Conservative?

2010-08-11T09:44:00.008-04:00

Many have claimed that politics has been very polarizing. The claim by many is that this has worsened over the past twenty years to the point that if one side says that it's Monday the other side will say it's Tuesday.

It is true that politics is all about "gotcha". But has it really gotten worse in the past twenty years? Has one side cornered the market on the truth? Several stories have come to light or come to a head in the past few weeks that have brought these thoughts more into focus.

The overall big news of the day recently has been the coming tax increase on January 1, 2011. The Bush tax cuts expire on the final day of 2010. The question becomes, does government extend the cuts, make them permanent or do nothing and let them increase?

With the elections coming, they are now talking about extending the tax cuts. If they don't vote on this before the election, do you really think they will extend them after the election? It boils down to them making their decisions based on their need to get re-elected. Naturally, if the Democrats maintain their majority, the liklihood of those tax cuts in any form will take place. If the Republicans take over the tax cuts will likely be passed, but then it must go to the President for signature. Will he become the new "party of no" and veto it?

Yesterday, the Congress was called back for a special session to vote on a $26 Billion bill to save teachers jobs. Much of this money is going to unions. This was nothing more than a campaign fundraiser disguised as saving jobs for teachers. That money will now end up in the coffers of many Democrats.

The Republicans got fat and sassy leading up to the elections in 2006. They spent money as if there was no tomorrow. They lost.

One topic has brought this all into focus for me recently. The mosque in New York near ground zero. I've listened to Sean Hannity for several nights. He believes that this mosque shouldn't be allowed because of what happened on September 11, 2001. There's just one problem with this. In our Constitution there is a line that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:"

We must follow the Constitution. If we don't, the Constitution becomes nothing more than a worthless piece of paper. Yes, it's wrong for them to put this mosque there. But it's not Constitutionally wrong. It's not illegal. It is morally wrong, but not legally wrong. If the rule of law means anything, it must mean something even when it works against our beliefs or even offends us.

Doing the right thing means doing it even when nobody is looking. It's wrong for this Imam to start a mosque at that site. It's also wrong for Hannity to rail against them doing this and wanting to find a lawmaker that will prevent it by some legal means from going in there. Putting this mosque there is the wrong thing to do though. But that's a moral choice, not a legal choice.

I believe that our politics has been more polarizing the past twenty years than it has prior to that. However, there were other times when it was just as bad and possibly even worse in our history. For instance John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jacksons campaigns. John Quincy Adams won the first time in a back room deal. The next election Jackson came back hard and the two of them participated in one of the most contentious elections in our history.

I believe it is difficult being Conservative and more difficult than being a liberal. It's easy to spend other people's money. It's difficult to resist spending that money. It's easy to see someone suffering and give them a handout. It's difficult to look for other means of help for them without forcing expenditures of the people's money. It's easy to take over people's freedom and use confiscation (taxes and tax increases) or eminent domain to give people what you think they need. It's more difficult to give a minimum to help them to their feet and watch as they try to build on that assistance and make a better life for themselves so that they too can help someone out with a hand up.

Republicans are not good at pointing this out. It's not sexy. It's not as heartwarming as giving someone something for nothing. In the Declaration of Independence it says we have the right t0 "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It doesn't say we have the right to happiness. We have the right to PURSUE happiness.

The people have tried to point this out to the poltiicians through the tea parties. The people got fed up and are in effect saying that Washington is not representing the American people. The stimulus bill was passed without being read, and against the wishes of the American people. The health care plan was passed without being read, and against the wishes of the American people. Arizona has passed a law that the people agreed with and the government is challenging that law in the courts, against the wishes of the people.

The politicians answer to the tea parties? Some are jumping on the bandwagon. Some are serious. They are taking what the people are articulating, that the politicians couldn't articulate, and they are working with the tea parties. Others are bad mouthing the tea parties (the people) because it goes against what they have had as a vision for this country. Still others are creating fake tea party candidates that are really liberals trying to divide the vote on the right because they know they are in trouble. This has been shown in Pennsylvania and Michigan and was exposed with one guy over the past weekend who showed up with a racist sign at a tea party rally and then later was at a Democrats event without the racist sign.

Any parent can tell you that it's difficult to see a child make a poor decision or choice and have to assist them in correcting that mistake whether financially or by example. Yet we all make choices in our daily lives. Some correct, some incorrect. We either correct our mistakes, hide from them or make excuses and look for someone to get us out of it so that we don't have to deal with it ourselves.

I keep coming back to always trying to do the right thing even when nobody is watching. It's a tough standard to live up to, and we're all going to fail at it. But we'll fail much less than we succeed if we continue to live by that standard.

As I've been writing this, it's been reported that a Democrat in New Hampshire has said that he "wished" Sarah Palin had been on the plane that crashed killing former Senator Ted Stevens in Alaska on Monday.

Politicians, once elected, hold the trust of those that they represent. They are there to work for the people of their district, state and country. They are not supposed to be there to satisfy their own personal desires. Unfortunately, the majority of them seem to be there to get their names on schools, bridges, libraries, roads and anything else they can have their names seen for years long after they are gone. To do this, they have to spend money and donate or assign it to those entities. They are using the peoples money to put their names out there.

Again, they are in it for personal gain and not doing what needs to be done for those that they represent. We need new people in there and then hold their feet to the fire so that they don't fall into the usual trap of self aggrandizement. If they fall into that trap, they must go in the next election and we need to try again. Not by party, but by person and their stated goals for when they are elected.

It is tough being Conservative. We must have standards. We must have the courage of our convictions and not be afraid to make mistakes and then correcting those mistakes. We must not turn our lives over to others to control. We must not try to control the lives of others that we have responsibility for, but rather be partners or guides (in the case of children). The best leaders have always led by example.

The mosque does not belong in New York across the street from where the World Trade Center towers once stood. But we also have to realize that in this country, we have a constitution that says we won't make laws regarding the creation nor prohibition of religion. There is another way to solve this problem. I don't know what it is, but we have alot of ingenius people in this country. The American people can figure out a way to get us out of this economic mess better than the government can. The American people can also figure out a way to deal with the matter of the mosque. All we need is for government to get out of the way and allow the American people to do what we've always done best.

Final set of examples. We had four attacks on September 11. Two flew into the World Trade Center. One into the Pentagon. The government didn't stop them. One crashed into a field in Pennsylvania saving many lives in Washington DC. That one was stopped by passengers. Americans. Heroes.

The underwear bomber on Christmas last year wasn't stopped by the government. He was stopped and held by passengers and flight attendants. The Times Square bomber wasn't stopped by government. It was discovered by a t-shirt vendor. A citizen. The government didn't prevent the shooter at Ft. Hood from killing and wounding 33 people.

The more we turn our lives and our freedoms over to the government, the less we follow "doing the right thing even when nobody is looking". Can we really trust the government to do the right thing even when nobody is looking? Let's ask Charlie Rangle. Maxine Waters. Mark Souter. Mark Foley. Bill Clinton. Richard Nixon. William Jefferson. Let's ask those that have raided Social Security and left behind an IOU that will never be paid back. Let's ask those that tell us we need to pass health care so that we can find out what's in the bill rather than looking at it to see if it's worthy of being passed in this country.

It's always easy to have power over someone else and tell them what to do, how to spend their money, or how to live their lives. It's more difficult to guide kids so that they do what's right on their own or to not interfere with those you're responsible for. To watch them be a partner and enjoy that partnership rather than hold whatever power you have or may have over their heads. Government fails at this partnership and abuses the power they have. Yes, some people abuse it as well. People can be left behind. Unfortunately, government can't be left behind. But it can be changed to the way the founding fathers intended and the Constitution states.

So from my point of view, being a liberal is easy. Control others. Take from others. But Conservativism is difficult. Standards, I believe, are higher and it's always harder to live up to standards than it is to live with no standards.

I'd rather have it be tougher where I can succeed and be happy or fail and make amends and earn the forgiveness of those that I care about and again, be happy, than to take the easy way out and not have to do anything and let some stranger(s) in Washington DC guide my life and freedoms.

Ok, off my moral high horse for today.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Michigan/Ohio Primary: August 3rd

2010-08-02T09:25:00.004-04:00

On Tuesday, August 3, Michigan voters have the opportunity to select their candidates for this years election in the fall.

The current Governor, Jennifer Granholm, is term limited, so she will not be on any ballots this year. Michigan was in a recession prior to the nation being in a recession. While the rest of the nation was going through the best economic period in 25 years from 2002 through 2006, Michigan suffered, and still is suffering, through it's own recession. The unemployment rate nationwide was at 5% or less during that time but Michigan was languishing under Granholm and the unemployment rate grew from 3% when John Engler left office to over 14%!

Today, liberals favorite line is to talk about the national recession being President Bush's fault. This is right out of the Granholm playbook. She has been blaming Engler from start to finish. Even as recently as this past weekend in an interview on CNN. In the meantime, Governor Granholm is one of the two least liked Governors in the country according to recent polls.

The Democrats have two contenders. Virg Bernero, the current Mayor of Lansing who announced his candidacy within days of being re-elected to Mayor and Andy Dillon, the current Speaker of the House in Michigan.

The Republicans have several candidates. Congressman Pete Hoekstra and attorney General Mike Cox, along with businessman Rick Snyder, Sheriff Mike Bouchard, and state Senator Tom George. Recent polls show the moderate Snyder with a slight lead over Hoekstra and Cox. George is buried at the bottom.

Mike Cox has a history of not being able to control his anger and has some baggage with possible infidelity. In addition, there are stories that he may have been involved wth a cover up of a party where the death of a young girl took place at the manoogian mansion, residence of the Mayor of Detroit, at the time Kwame Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick, son of Congresswoman Kilpatrick is now serving a prison sentence, although not for that event.

Pete Hoekstra and Mike Bouchard are the two Conservatives. Pete Hoekstra seems to have the western part of the state locked up, while Bouchard is very popular on the east side of the state with a large population. Bouchard ran unsuccessfully for Senator a few years ago.

The personal choice here is for Pete Hoekstra.

In District 1, which covers a large part of Northern Michigan, there is a bit of a controversy. Bart Stupak (D) is currently the Representative there. Many even outside of Michigan will remember that it was Stupak that held out on the health care vote until he could get a commitment on abortion not being funded by the Federal Government under the health care plan. When he got the commitment and an executive order, he agreed to vote for health care, pushing it over the top. In the six months since that vote, abortion is once again going to be funded by the Federal government in certain areas.

The controversy in that area, as well as some other districts and for Governor, is regarding the recent entry of a group calling itself the Tea Party. They are now a registered party in Michigan. However, there is more and more information coming to light that indicates the Michigan Democrat Party, Mark Brewer in particular, are behind this to try to split the vote of Republicans in Michigan.

The Democrats in that district have been fighting over abortion and the pro-life candidate apparently has dropped out because the Democrat Party in the area wouldn't back her, wanting a pro-abortion candidate.

District 7 which covers southern Michigan from the Dexter area, through Jackson to Kalamazoo and includes parts of Lansing currently has their Representative, Mark Schauer. Schauer has been controversial in the area. Early on, he held a series of town hall meetings pushing for the bailout. He is the only representative in the country that has claimed to read the entire bill before voting on it despite everyone in the country knowing differently.

He has refused to hold open town hall meetings following that series because the Tea Parties began popping up. His "town hall" meetings from then on, were targeted at select groups, such as seniors, medical personnel and one town hall meeting over the phone where everyone was screened. Schauer is running unopposed on the Democrat side.

On the Republican side, there are three that are running. Tim Walberg, a conservative and former Representative who was beaten by Schauer in the 08 election. Brian Rooney, who moved to the area prior to the filing for his candidacy, and the son of the owner of the Pittsburg Steelers and brother of a Congressman from Florida. Marvin Carlson, a businessman from Ann Arbor.

This is really a race between Walberg and Rooney. Carlson has done little advertising and received little coverage. Rooney has said that he intends to continue the earmarks because the rest of the congress will continue with earmarks. Rooney claims to stand up on principle, but then backs down when it comes to earmarks. For this and because Rooney moved to the district for the election, the choice here is Tim Walberg.

Unfortunately, our two Unites States Senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, are not up for election this time around.

I urge you to look into your candidate in your area and choose carefully. As a Tea Party attendee to several of the tea parties in the area, my choice is to go with the Conservative in each office, however, this doesn't mean that if my choices are successful that I'm going to trust them. If they turn into the Washington DC politician, I'll be looking for a replacement for them when the next election rolls around. In the 7th District, this seems to be the way it's gone. No incumbent has been re-elected in that district since Nick Smith left the House.

Primary day is Tuesday, August 3, 2010. Don't forget to go and vote. If you shirk your duty to choose who is going to represent you, you could end up with a government auto company or a government health care plan, or loss or reduction of your medicare, or more bailouts. VOTE!!

If you'd like to talk about your Representative choices in your area, please feel free to add it here.

Your comments are welcome.

Brett

Obama Admits that he can't do the Job

2010-07-02T10:59:00.002-04:00

President Obama, in a speech to Immigration rights advocates at American University, admitted that he's not up to the job. He said that "our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won't work."

This issue has been brought to the forefront with the passage of SB1070 in Arizona that starts on July 29 of this year. Arizona is doing something about the invasion of illegal aliens by passing their law that will require law enforcement to check on the legal status of anyone they come in contact with while doing their duties where there is a reasonable suspicion they may be illegal aliens.

The Presidents words received a warm reception in front of the crowd that heard what they wanted to hear at American University. This is Obama's forte'. He will give speeches in front of vetted crowds to avoid any disagreement being heard by the microphones.

Obama turned his speech into a partisan speech saying that he was ready to take this on. Democrats are ready to take this on and some Republicans but that he needs Republicans to back it or it won't fly. Again, he takes words, and twists them to blame the Republicans even while giving a sideways compliment to former President Bush. He even said that he "believes" Americans want comprehensive immigration reform.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform is nothing more than code words for amnesty. This was done in 1986. If it was to be done once and for all, then, why are we dealing with it now? It was tried again in 2007 and nearly passed. It was on its' way to passage when the American people stood up, called, faxed, E-mailed their members in government and told them that's not what they wanted. It died at that point with even a dozen Democrats joining the filibuster.

The American people want the borders secure. The polls show this in overwhelming numbers. They don't want amnesty, again, by overwhelming numbers. But Obama says that securing the borders won't work.

We've had two events that happened with illegal aliens. I've spoken about both on here in the past. In 1954, President Eisenhower directed that the border patrol begin rounding up illegal aliens, putting them on trains and boats and sending them deep into Mexico. This caused the numbers of illegal aliens in this country to drop dramatically. Not because they rounded them all up, but because they rounded up enough and kept rounding them up that those not yet caught left on their own. This same thing is happening in Arizona before the law takes effect. There have been reports that many are leaving Arizona and headed to California, Texas and even as far away as New York.

The second event was in 1986 under President Reagan when amnesty was granted to approximately 3 million illegal aliens. Now we have anywhere from 11 million to 20 million illegal alien invaders in this country.

Obama claims that securing the border won't work. Yet he gave the border states 1,200 national guard....or he's going to give them that many sometime in the next few weeks. Why send the national guard if it's not going to work?

But even beyond the logical question of why is he sending them if he doesn't think it will work, he chose to give this speech on July 1. Four days before Independence Day. This makes me think back. The American Revolution. There were battles in the Continental Congress about what to do about King George and his excessive taxes without us having any representation. It was decided that we'd fight for independence. We were losing the war. It would have been easy for the Patriots to fold their tents and go home.

Soldiers were serving without pay, without proper arms, clothing, and ammunition. The signers of the Declaration of Independence gave up their wealth for the cause. They didn't quit. They didn't say it wouldn't work and hide. They fought and they eventually won!

I think about the settlers that moved west in wagons across the Rocky Mountains to Oregon. They gave up their homes and lives for a better life in a new territory. They didn't give up. To give up meant to die.

I think about my own lifetime in the 1960's when President Kennedy said that we will put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. Man was just exploring space for the first time and he's talking about putting a man on the moon in less than ten years. We didn't say that we couldn't, but instead we worked towards that goal and in July 1969, Neil Armstrong took that first step on the moon.

But now we have a President that says that we can't protect our own borders. A rancher is shot and killed in Arizona and Obama runs for cover. A police officer is killed by an illegal alien in Texas because the head cop wouldn't enforce the laws regarding illegal aliens. That head cop was just last week appointed to deal with illegal aliens by Obama.

Throughout our history, we've had great men and women do things that people didn't dream could be done. They didn't say "I can't" or "we can't" or "it won't work" or the problem is just too big to handle so we can't do it. They found a way and they did it.

Independence Day is about accomplishing the impossible by defeating the most powerful nation in the world for our own independence. Our own protection. Our freedoms. Yet, Obama says "it won't work" when it comes to dealing with illegal immigration. If our founding fathers had this defeatist attitude we might still be subjects of the "crown" in England.

Obama has admitted that he can't do his job. It is, after all, his responsibility to protect the borders of this country. Not to give a haven to drug runners and post signs warning people that they are entering a dangerous part of the country.

We don't need immigration reform. We need the laws enforced. The first act of an illegal alien coming to this country is to break our laws. If we give them amnesty for breaking our laws when they first come here, why should we expect them to follow our laws once here?

Obama wants punishment on the employers that hire illegal aliens, but he wants to give amnesty to those being hired. If he stopped the invasion of the illegal aliens the employers, American citizens, wouldn't be hiring illegals. You can't hire what's not there. Why is he so anxious to put employers in jail, but allow those that have already committed a crime to get away free?

It's very disappointing that we have a President with a defeatist attitude about this country. Unfortunately, the Republicans, Senator John McCain in particular add to this problem by saying secure the borders FIRST. This too is wrong. It should be secure the borders, period. We don't need a comprehensive immigration reform bill. We need leaders that will actually do their job and enforce the laws that they have passed. Unfortunately, we have a President who is more interested in capitulation than he is in following and enforcing the laws of this country. He's admitted that he can't handle the job, so it's time he just locked himself in the oval office and not come out until January 2013. Or to park himself on the golf course. Without him and his defeatist attitude, we can get more accomplished in this country.

Obama admits he can't do the job. So hand him his golf clubs and tell him we'll pick him up in 2012 and help him pack his bags and move him out and get someone in there that can and will do the job.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

I Can't Be Out of Money, I Still Have Checks Left

2010-06-30T08:17:00.002-04:00

Congress is working on appropriating $30 billion for the Afghanistan War to pay for the coming surge. The hold up is that Democrats are pushing for billions of dollars to give to school boards around the country to save teachers jobs while the Republicans are saying they want a clean bill for strictly the war.

This administration and this congress have thrown money everywhere. They've bailed out banks, financial institutions, car companies, fannie mae and freddie mac (which needs another $1 Trillion), as well as giving money to massage parlors, strip clubs, prison inmates and more. They haven't worried about it because they have control of the printing presses and can make more money. Not earn, but make.

But the Democrats aren't worried. After all, the Bush tax cuts, which produced the largest growth in the economy in 25 years, are about to expire on December 31, 2010. So beginning January 1, 2011 everyone's taxes will increase. They think that they'll collect more money because of those tax increases. What they will do instead is plunge us into another recession, the so-called "double dip" recession. Tax revenues, which set records for income following the tax cuts, will decrease. Unemployment will increase. Bankruptcies will increase over the record levels they are setting this year. The need for people to be dependent on welfare will increase.

We can no longer afford the spending that this Congress and this President are doing. Democrats seem to think that as long as they can print money and still have checks in the checkbook, that they can continue to spend.

If you think people are suffering now, hang on. The suffering hasn't even begun to start yet. It's about to get much much worse. There are solutions, but this Congress and this President either don't believe it, or don't care and are looking for the destruction of the free market system.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Obama and the "F" Word

2010-06-22T19:03:00.004-04:00

General Stanley McChrystal was the subject of a story in Rolling Stone magazine written over a period of time. His top advisors and aides were also quoted and those quotes are embarrassing for General McChrystal and President Obama. However true it may be, General McChrystal should not be calling the Commander in Chief and his staff "wimps" or calling Vice President Biden "Bite me".

McChrystal was wrong to make the comments because his commanding officer is President Obama. Imagine a private saying something about General McChrystal in the press along the same lines. It is inappropriate and undermines the authority of General McChrystal just as McChrystals comments were inappropriate and undermines the authority of Obama. Like it or not, Obama is the Commander in Chief. The position he holds is to be respected even if the man himself is not respected.

Having said that, Obama spoke for a few minutes today and at one point said "...whatever decision I make.....". He's just let the cat out of the bag. If he's thinking about a decision and saying that it's a possibility, it's going to happen. McChrystal will be fired.

Apparently, McChrystal has apologized to everyone but the President. I suspect he intends to voice his apology in person with Obama tomorrow. At the same time, McChrystal should resign his position and I think he will. From all I've read, McChrystal is an honorable man and has been a heroic soldier over the years. This tells me that he knows he was wrong in saying what he said and the honorable thing for him to do is to resign his position.

This is where Obama is likely to fail. It wouldn't surprise me abit if Obama comes out and says he's relieved McChrystal of his command even if McChrystal resigns. Where Obama has already failed is that he has no control over his military. He doesn't command respect and he's not getting that respect. It's a shame for McChrystal but he must resign.

This is just the latest in a series of failures by this President. Staying with McChrystal for a moment, President Karzai of Afghanistan is reported to have to called Obama and asked him to keep McChrystal on because he cannot get along with the U.S. Ambassador. Why does Obama keep an ambassador that can't get along with the leader of the country that we're trying to get on our side in defeating al queda?

Of course, there is the failure in the gulf. It's now been discovered that THIRTEEN countries offer the United States assistance in the oil leak and they were turned down. Even half of those countries offering different ways to gather the oil may have prevented the oil from reaching the shores of the United States. Obama failed when it came to getting all of the help he could to protect the beaches, the estuaries, the bayou. He also failed in getting the booms out there. He left a company in Maine holding all of these booms that could have helped with the oil heading to our shores. Obama failed.

Then there is the failure to protect the borders. Obama has done nothing to enforce the borders. Two and a half weeks ago, he met with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. He promised to get in touch with her (through his staff) on his decisions regarding the border. That two weeks came and went, however, on the day that he was supposed to get in touch with Brewer, the interview turned up of Hillary in Ecuador saying that the Obama administration was going to go to court to try to shut down the new Arizona law. Obama failed to follow through on his word to be in touch with Governor Brewer and had one of his lackies (Clinton), announce it.

Obama also failed in sending troops to Arizona. He met with the Republicans and Senator Kyl and Senator McCain both told him that they needed 6,000 troops on the border. Obama said nothing. But once the meeting was over, it was announced that he was sending 1,200 troops to the border. That was a month ago. Still no troops and it's said that even if they do show up, they'll be desk jobs. Not actually working on the border.

Obama failed with the stimulus plan. It's not worked. So he blamed former President Bush. Obama failed with Health care. Oh yeah, he got it passed after the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback and the perks for Connecticut and others, but he failed to listen to the American people who clearly said they didn't want Obamacare. But that's exactly what we've got.

Obama failed last year with the troop surge in Afghanistan. The military requested more troops in August last year. In December, Obama finally decided to send more troops, but only 30,000. Military casualties have increased.

Last, but not least is the four terrorist attacks on our soil since Obama has become President. One in Arkansas where one soldier was wounded and one died. Two is Fort Hood where 13 died and 33 were wounded. Third is the underwear bomber on Christmas Eve and the fourth was the Times Square bomber in May. These are all going to be tried in criminal courts as is Khalid Sheik Muhammed, the one behind the September 11, 2001 attack on this country. The Times Square Bomber is the only one that is a citizen of this country and as such is entitled to a criminal trial, although because he's claimed the attack was part of the war, an argument could be made that he should be in Guantanamo Bay (another failure of Obama who said it was close in one year which expired January 22, of this year).

Obama's "F" word isn't the one that VP Biden said into an open mike at the time of the health care signing. Obama's "F" word is FAILURE.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

It's Time For Obama to Man-up

2010-06-15T11:50:00.004-04:00

It is time for President Obama to man up. Actually, it's past time, but we can't get a person to do something in the past. We can only move forward, so it's time for the President to act like a man rather than a little kid.

The explosion in the gulf has turned loose massive amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Three days following the explosion the Dutch offered the United States some skimmers to help clean up the oil. They were told no thank you.

Two weeks following the explosion, the Governor of Lousiana, Bobby Jindal sent a request to the Federal Government to allow him to start building berms to protect the shoreline from the oncoming oil. It took until late May for the Feds to say "you can have six" but not 30.

The only thing we've heard the President say during this time is that BP is at fault. BP will be held accountable. This is going to be a major environmental disaster and we need to pass Cap and Tax. We need climate change legislation.

The President is acting like a little kid saying "Johnny threw the ball through the window, spank him mommy." In most families, the first thing that gets done is the window gets replaced, then the punishment is meted out. But not with this President. He spends his time blaming BP. Meanwhile the oil is still flowing in the gulf.

Mr. President. BP will still be at fault six months from now. They will still be at fault a year from now. PLUG THE DAMN HOLE. Then worry about meting out punishment. After all, that's what our court system is for. The only thing you've accomplished is driving BP's stock down. Tell me something. How will BP pay if they go bankrupt before this hole is plugged?

The priority is to plug the hole. BP has been working on it. The government should be putting someone there to oversee the work being done. That person should have an idea of whether the work being done has a legitimate chance. He should be making sure that BP is doing as they say and verify all of their actions. If BP is not doing the job, then the President has the power to shut BP down. All he has to do is gather some experts, from other companies if necessary, and when he's dissatisfied with BP, shut them down and immediately move in the experts and let them take it over and plug the hole.

He should also be waiving any restrictive laws that hinder any help we can get in cleaning up this mess, such as the Jones Act. He should be inviting any and all help to clean up the oil. We are the first to go to the aid of other nations when they have a disaster. We were there for Haiti. We were there in South America after the earthquake there. We were there when they had the tsunami a few years back. Why are we being so arrogant to refuse help when offered during our disasters?

Again, it's a simple process. He can designate someone to handle the cleanup. Gather the offers of help and remove any hindrances in our laws that would hinder this. He doesn't have to do this personally, he should have someone appointed to do this. These press people keep trying to compare Obama to Reagan as a communicator. They could have added another comparison by claiming that Obama was great at delegating authority and having them report to him.

Obama also has a Justice Department with an investigative service. They could investigate this quietly and arrange for any prosecution, quietly, and filed their charges, which there is likely to be, when the other priorities are done. There is no need for him to threaten BP. They are still working on this. Why keep harping on how you're going to hold them responsible and that they will pay without due process? He gives terrorists access to the court system, why not shut up and let the court system handle BP when it's over?

We are now 57 days into this and NOTHING has been accomplished. Oil is still leaking. Oil is now on land more coming. For the past couple of weeks, the press has been asking 'Is this Obama's Katrina?' The only thing that accomplished is to get Obama down to the gulf for some photo ops.

Now, in an effort to get the Katrian correlation dropped, he's trying to compare this to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This doesn't compare in any way to the terrorist attacks, unless terrorists blew up the oil well. If terrorists did blow up the oil well, then Obama is extremely slow in getting to the bottom of it and making them pay for their actions.

Remember what happened on September 11, 2001. Four airplanes were hijacked and three of them flew into buildings. It was an attack by terrorists. President Bush knew within hours that it was Usama bin Laden that carried out the attack. In less than a month, Bush started bombing Afghanistan. October 7, 2001.

In the past 57 days, the closest Obama has gotten to anything with the gulf other than photo ops, is to play golf. If this was really like "9/11" why is he playing golf? Why is he taking two vacations during the first month the oil spill was going on? This is reminding of the comments liberals made following 9/11. They wished that Clinton was still President so that he could get all of the accolades that Bush was getting. If that's what Obama wants, then there is no hope he'll get his priorities straight. The attacks on September 11, 2001 were planned in advance. The oil spill was apparently due to shortcuts to save money.

Obama should quit worrying about how he looks and start caring more about how the beaches are going to look beause he didn't hop on this as quick as it happened.

Many of the liberals are now saying that it's wrong for Conservatives, Republicans and Independents to complain about Obama not doing what needed to be done because we are supposedly against big government. There is something that you liberals should learn right now before another disaster happens and this President sits on his hands. Government has its place. Protecting our borders. Protecting our country.

This oil spill is out in the gulf. The gulf is not a state, it's part of the area controlled by the government. This oil spill is affecting so far, three states and is about to move to a fourth. One governor cannot deal with the spill because he can't make decisions for his neighboring states. Alabama has to decide what's right for them. Bobby Jindal hopped right on this and said he needed berms to keep the oil away from the land. Will it work? We don't know for certain, but he decided it was his best option and nobody has presented a better solution, so for him to decide to do it to protect his state is exactly right. If he fails, it's not going to be because he was sitting on a golf course, working to keep the press out so they can't see his scores. If he wants to go into a partnership with Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi, he has that ability.

But the President is responsible for all five states that border the gulf. His job is to not just look out for one state, but the country. The governors only take care of their own states.

Tonight, the president is going to address the nation from the oval office. I'll bet that he uses this speech to tell America how it's necessary to end our need for fossil fuels and move to "green" technology. Great idea if it will work. But the problem is that the technology is not there yet. Our immediate problem is that we need oil for our everyday lives now.

I'll bet that he also uses tonights speech to push for Cap and Tax legislation. It's not needed. We don't need our rates going up with higher taxes on energy companies that will be passed on to the consumer.

Whatever he comes up with, you can be sure that it will be nothing but blame. He'll blame BP and threaten them. He'll mock the Republicans somehow and he may even blame President George Bush. But in the end, you can bet that it will involve more regulations denying freedoms, shuffling government agencies and it will cost us more in taxes.

The way this president has performed for the past 57 days, I'd just as soon have him use his speech tonight to resign. The only thing that worries me about that is that Joe Biden would be an even worse president than we're getting right now.

This speech should be used to build up the American spirit. Asking the public to come up with ways to move us away from oil and on to whatever else will power us. Wind, solar, hamburgers, it doesn't matter. We have innovative people in this country that could and someday likely will come up with solutions to our dependence on fossil fuels. But, it's not there today.

Man up Mr. Obama. Take responsibility for your inaction in preventing or at least trying to prevent the oil from reaching our shores. Get your priorities straight and quit whining about how terrible BP is. Everyone has been blamed except for Obama. Even George Bush has been blamed for this oil leak.

There is one bit of good news if there can be anything good about a disaster. Come November, Obama is going to be a lonely man. He's going to get up the morning after the election and find out that there aren't any liberals left in Washington DC....except for him.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

ARIZONA SUCCESS!!!

2010-06-14T11:47:00.003-04:00

The new Arizona law seems to have caused a mass exodus from Arizona and the law hasn't even taken affect yet. Those that are leaving Arizona are illegal invaders as well as some Americans with Hispanic descent.

The Arizona law doesn't take affect until July 29, 2010 but schools are reporting a huge decrease in students being enrolled. The areas in which the illegal invaders do most of their business has reported a marked drop off in business.

The Department of Homeland Security estimated that illegal invaders reached a peak in 2008 at 560,000. That dropped off to an estimated 460,000 in 2009. The report from schools and from businesses, is not official, but is a good barometer of what's happening in Arizona.

The question is, where are they going? It's not believed that they are returning to their homeland. Not in the numbers that are leaving Arizona. There have been reports that they are moving to California, New Mexico, Texas and even New York.

This began happening shortly after the law was passed. The law makes it illegal to be in the United States and requires all Arizona police officers to request legal status of those they come in contact with due to some other legal contact, such as speeding or a traffic accident, when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person may be an illegal invader.

This is similar to what happened in the 1950's when President Eisenhower ordered that all illegal invaders be rounded up and put on trains with a destination deep into Mexico making it very difficult to get enough money to return to the border, let alone cross it. When that was put in place and started to be implemented, the illegal invaders left on their own rather than be shipped to the deepest part of Mexico.

The Arizona law isn't as tough as the policy implemented in the 50's. Arizona will be required to get in touch with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for processing the illegals to ship them back home. Once this law goes into effect, we'll then have to see what ICE does as they have threatened to not enforce the law. It should also be stated that the Federal law regarding illegal invaders is much more stringent than Arizona's soon to be law. But the Federal Government hasn't enforced it. In addition our Federal law isn't anywhere near as stringent as Mexican law if you or I were to just visit there, let alone go there without permission and break their laws.

While the Arizona law will greatly enhance Arizonan's safety and security, the unfortunate aspect of this is that to avoid being caught, the illegal invaders are leaving for other states for the most part. They are doing it before the law is enforceable. In a strange way, this is abit confusing. An illegal invaders first act upon entering this country is to violate our laws. Yet, they are now leaving to avoid being caught violating a new law in one state.

On the other hand, California is now going to get a good portion of those illegal invaders. This is somewhat fitting because some California cities, most notably San Francisco and Los Angeles are boycotting Arizona for passing this law. Now they'll get a good portion of the illegal invaders.

I wonder how long before California decides that they must find a way to get them out of California. After all, the children of these illegal invaders will be enrolled in California schools. More state tax money spent on the increased number of children. These illegal invaders will be using hospitals that must take them, again, requiring more money from the taxpayers. How long before California, now in the top three as far as budget shortfall and unemployment rate, will have to come up with a similar to law to get them out of California?

Arizona is to be congratulated on their success with their new law that does not even begin until July 29. Attorney General Eric Holder better hurry up and read the law and sue the state before the rest of the states must follow Arizona's lead to save their economies, and citizens from harm.

If the illegal invaders return the same way they came, maybe they can pick up the garbage on the way back that they left on their way here.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Politicians Injecting Themselves into Sports

2010-06-04T11:36:00.004-04:00

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm along with Representative John Dingel and Senator Debbie Stabenow have interjected themselves into the sports world.

Unless you were just born in the past two days, you've likely seen, heard and read about the perfect game that was pitched by the Detroit Tigers pitcher, Armando Galarraga on Wednesday. With two outs in the ninth inning, facing the last batter the umpire called the runner safe when it's clear to even blind men that he was out by a step. This is not even in dispute any longer , not even by the umpire that made the errant call.

There are three parts to this story. Politics, sports and government controlled business politics. So if you don't like to read, this may be a good time to close out this blog post. It's bound to be fairly long.

I'll start with sports since this is what led to the creation of government interference. I have been a baseball fan since I was about 10 years old. Not just the performance but the records, the rarity of events, and the uniqueness of the game itself.

Baseball is a game where if you're a hitter, success is defined by failing 7 out of 10 times. It's the only game where one of the defensive players plays outside the lines of play (in other words, out of bounds). It's also the only game where causing the ball to land in the stands is rewarded. It's the only game where the coaches dress in players uniforms.

Early on in baseball, gambling was rampant. Baseball put a stop to it by appointing a commissioner who said that if you gambled on the game, you would be banned. If you know of players that are gambling and don't say something, you will be banned. The commissioner's position is that of protecting the integrity of the game. Keeping it pure from corruption both illegal corruption and the game itself being corrupted.

You can argue that they have failed in the past. Sure, they banned the 1919 Chicago White Sox for gambling and created the name Black Sox Scandal. That caused the Commissioners position to be created. Players that gambled were banned from baseball. But in the 60's and 70's and even the 80's they had problems with substance abuse. First alcohol, then drugs. Players were suspended, fined but not banned. In the 80's and 90's and even to today, the main concern is performance enhancing drugs. From my point of view, this remains a problem.

As for the game itself, we could argue all day about the Designated Hitter Rule and we'd both have good arguments on it. The same thing with how the All-Star players are selected.

But when it comes to the actual playing there are some things that are rarities. For instance, nobody has hit over .400 since Ted Williams in 40's. That's failing 6 out of 10 times. The Home Run record was 714 in a career and it was accomplished by a fat man that didn't look anything like an athlete, in Babe Ruth. That was finally broken by Hank Aaron. Babe also held the record for Home Runs in a season at 60 until 1961 when Roger Maris hit 61. But the Commissioner put an asterisk next to the record because Maris hit his in a 162 game season where Ruth hit his in a 154 game season.

There are statistics on everything in baseball. Highest batting average. Oldest player to win the batting title. Youngest to win the batting title. Most consecutive games a player has gotten a hit. Most errors committed at each position and most errorless games played at each position. Who hits best with two strikes on him and who hits into the most double plays.

Pitching also has its' uniqueness to it. A man stands above everyone else on a mound and throws a ball between 90 and 100 mph at a guy holding a stick 60 feet six inches away. You would think that the odds were in his favor and you'd be right. Remember, a successful hitter fails 7 out of 10 times. But one of the most difficult things for a pitcher to do is pitch a complete game and not allow any hits. What's even more difficult for a pitcher is to pitch a complete game, and have his teammates not commit an error and for him not to give up a walk to even one batter. That means the pitcher faces 27 batters in a game and only 27 batters and gets each one of them out by either striking them out or them hitting the ball to one of his teammates and they get him out. Just to give you an idea, to date, there have been 266 no hitters since 1875. 21 of those have been perfect games, meaning 27 batters up, 27 batters out and there were only two years that two of them were done in the same year. The first time was 1880 and the second time it was this year. The first time it was done, they both took place in JUne about a week apart. The second time was this year, both in May. This would have been the first time that three were done in the same year and all three would have taken place in one months time. Another record for the books.

One thing that seems to happen in every no-hitter, is that at some point during the game a player makes a great play that preserves the no hitter for the pitcher. It's one thing to throw a no-hitter, but you must have help from your teammates and there seems to always be at least one great play, or something lucky that keeps the no-hitter going.

On Wednesday, Armando Galarraga pitched for the Tigers against Cleveland. Each batter he faced failed to reach base. At one point, a ball was hit off of his foot and went straight to the third baseman who threw the runner out. There's the luck that happens.

In the ninth inning, the first batter hit the ball deep to left centerfield and the centerfield ran after it and made a great over the shoulder catch. There's the great play. The final batter is the one we've all seen. Called safe despite getting there a step after the ball for the 27th out. But the umpire called him safe.

As far as I'm concerned, Galarraga pitched a perfect game. Hopefully, this long dissertation helps you understand, if you don't pay attention to baseball, how difficult, rare and special this game was for this pitcher.

The umpire admitted that he blew it. He even said "I ruined that kids perfect game". In the two days since that game, I have not heard one person on radio, tv or in person say that the runner had beaten it out for a hit. Even GM gave Galarraga a brand new car for his perfect game.

There is only one way to overturn an umpire's ruling. The Commissioner of Baseball could do it. Bud Selig is the Commissioner and he has decided against overturning the umpire. If he did, it wouldn't affect the outcome of the game. The only things it would affect is the batter would not be credited with a hit. The following batter would not be credited with an at bat, and Galarraga would be given credit for the perfect game, which he did pitch.

Now the politicians. Today, Governor Granholm declared that Galarraga pitched a perfect game. Senator Stabenow and Representative Dingel are saying that they will introduce resolutions saying that he pitched a perfect game. To top it off, yesterday, Robert Gibbs said during his press briefing that he hopes the Commissioner will overturn it. When he was informed that Selig had just decided not to overturn it, Gibbs quipped that he'd have to see that an executive order was created to get it done.

Their hope is that the Governors proclaimation and the Congresspeoples resolutions would entice the Commissioner to overturn the umpire's call. This is meant to apply pressure to the Commissioner.

This is not governments place. First of all, Major League Baseball is a private business. It's not a government run business. This seems to be a lot of arrogance on the government's part to not just think but force a private business to do something based on their beliefs even if against the private businesses opinion and rules. Do we really want government applying pressure to business for governments benefit?

I believe that Commissioner Selig should award Galarraga the perfect game. Whether he does or not, I will always see it as a perfect game. But, if government applies pressure and then baseball follows through, what will the government apply pressure to next and in what business? They've already taken over General Motors. Again, not the governments place to take over a private business. While I may agree with the Governor, the Representative and the Senator that this was a perfect game, it's wrong for government to proclaim it and force baseball, by either proclaimation or embarrassing them into it to decide for it.

The next time Government wants private business to do something, and issues a proclaimation, resolution or executive order, what's to stop them?

Lastly, there is GM. They gave a car to Galarraga for his gem. If they do this for perfect games all of the time, that's fine. I have n0 problem with someone being rewarded for something they've done well and in baseball, this is perfection. But there's a line here. GM is now owned by the citizens of the United States. Is it proper for a government run company to be giving away cars that are now owned by the American people?

I don't care if Galarraga is paid a couple of million dollars a year. He excelled in his profession and if someone wants to reward him for it, I'm all for it. But, it's not the governments place to use taxpayer money to reward anyone. Since GM is owned by the taxpayer, I fall on the side of not awarding him a car. Now if it was Ford or Toyota, a private company, that rewarded him with a new car, that would be proper.

What makes baseball the perfect game to me is the imperfection of the human element and still players overcome the odds and perform. The imperfections of an intricate game is what makes baseball what it's been. Armando Galarraga should and is holding his head high for his achievement. He pitched a perfect game. He doesn't or shouldn't need government to tell him. It would be great to be recognized by Baseball for his achievement, but deep down, what really matters is that he knows it and he knows the rest of the world knows that he pitched a perfect game. If you really want to be technical, he pitched more than a perfect game. In a game where 27 outs are needed in 27 at bats, Galarraga got 28 batters out in 28 at bats. Another record. Government interference is not needed, nor is it their place.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Can Obama Avoid the "Obama's Katrina" Title?

2010-05-27T10:46:00.003-04:00

Since the explosion in the Gulf of Mexico on the oil rig which killed 11 of the workers, much has been said about the lack of activity by the White House in the region.

It took ten days for the administration to get down there for even a visit. Since then, Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano and Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar claim they have been there four times. Everyone speaking on this topic in the White House and the liberal media have claimed that the White House has been engaged since "day one". They haven't said it in a roundabout way, they have said exactly "day one".

It is looking as though the leak may be stopped today. However, yesterday, alot happened. James Carville, a Democrat activist and his wife, Mary Matalin rode with Governor Bobby Jindahl and returned extremely upset. They were saying that the government has not been doing it's job. Carville has actually been saying it for a couple of days. The part that caught my eye was that they all said, to a man, that while they were out in their boat looking at the damage from the oil in the marshlands was that they all said that they didn't see any boats. None. Where is the clean up? Where is the work being done to protect the shoreline?

Now granted, there is nothing that Obama, Napolitano nor Salazar can do to stop the leak. Their presence actually just interferes with the work that needs to be done. They also are not going to get their hands dirty by doing actual cleanup work. But there are things that could have been done.

First, there is the leak. It is right that BP continue to work to close the leak. They are the experts and have the know-how or at least the best ideas on how to close the leak. It's also right that BP work to clean up the oil that has already spewed out and spread across the gulf. If they don't get directly involved, they should be having someone on sight to see what's being done because they are going to have to pay for it.

Obama cannot be blamed for the leak. He didn't cause the explosion. However, he does have a role to play. In fact, he's required by law to play a role. It's his responsibility to act on this disaster that affects the citizens of this country. Yes, it does have an effect on the American people. There are the businesses that are affected by this. American businesses. Then there is oil itself. The oil from the gulf helps keep us from depending on foriegn oil in even larger quantities.

So what should have Obama done? First of all, from the minute that he first learned of the explosion, the first question is "was anyone hurt?" The second question is, "what is the damage?".

There are only two reasons to delay a response. First, if he found out late at night, he should wait until morning and see what's progressing with the coast guard. His first responsibility was to get information from the coast guard on the status of the situation. Upon learning that oil is spewing he should have appointed someone to go to the area for onsight management. That person should be giving updates periodically, at least once per day, although likely more the first couple of days. He should also have been in touch with the Governors of Texas, Lousiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida and asking them for their ideas on how to protect their shorelines. In other words, how can the Federal government assist the states?

Once it was known that the problem was going to be an ongoing problem for awhile, he needed to get the government assets at the ready. They did start getting the booms out there to protect the area, but as early as one week following the blast, Governor Jindahl asked for approval for different things needed. They have gone unanswered even to this day. Some are being studied. In other words, tied up in bureacracy.

Obama should then have gone to the gulf, seen for himself the devastation approaching and remember, they could see the oil coming. He could then have been the hero by looking at it, listening to the governors and then prioritizing the response. He could have stood up and said "I'm waiving the approval process. We need to get this done to protect our shores." Remember, he's the President. They are his shores as much as they are Jindahls and the people of Louisiana.

He could easily have stood up with his appointee and said "so and so is my eyes and ears and he's been directed to oversee the events taking place here and to keep me informed on a daily basis."

He could have gathered the top people in their field of oil drilling in deep water and had them all put their minds together to find a way to stop the leak or capture the oil or both. Even if he'd said he was appointing someone to sit in on all strategy session for stopping the leak, it would have at least kept him abreast of what was going on.

Would this process have plugged the leak faster? We'll never know. Could there have been other mistakes made and dragged it out longer than today? Maybe, but we'll never know. One thing we do know for certain is that he'd have displayed leadership and actually been involved even if not with his own two hands.

He should have also had someone appointed to oversee the cleanup of the oil that had already leaked out and was headed for the shorelines.

There is one more thing he could have done that would have shown real leadership. He should not have pointed the finger at BP. Stating the obvious is ridiculous and did nothing to solve the problem at hand. It's also premature. What don't they know? They don't know, even today, if this is all BP's fault. In fact, I'm willing to bet that it's not just based on the information that has been gathered thus far.

While Obama and every Democrat that's spoken on the subject has pointed fingers at BP, they have not come up with any ideas or done any work. It's as if they want this oil to reach the shores, damage the eco system to great extent and then use that to vilify BP Oil.

The only thing he's accomplished is to have it brought out earlier that he was the biggest recipient of donations from the oil companies including BP. This is just like Goldman Sachs. Once it was decided to blame them and prosecute them, it was revealed that he was the biggest recipient of donations from Goldman Sachs.

Now we know that there was shoddy work done on the oil rig by BP, but we also know that some of it was gotten away with because the government oversight didn't do the proper inspections. Apparently, they have been spending too much time surfing porn on the internet and not doing their job with their government inspections that may have prevented this disaster.

Obama should call for an immediate investigation into BP Oil, the government oversight agencies that gave the permits without the inspections, and the companies that are involved with BP Oil on this. Yes, that include Haliburton and transocean.

The only government person that has stood up and offered solutions or possible solutions is Bobby Jindahl. He did the job correctly and was only stopped by the Federal Government in his ideas.

Obama had at his disposal the wherewithall to work on this. He's a "community organizer". Why didn't he apply his "organizational" skills to set up a way to manage this?

Even if it didn't work, he'd have at least been hands on with an idea and an attempt. People can respect someone who does something, even if there are mistakes made. But they don't tolerate sitting on your hands and doing nothing other than pointing your finger at others.

Obama has failed. Anything he does now, is too little too late. This is not Obama's Katrina. This is much worse than Katrina was. Sure, the loss of life is way less than the hurricane, but the damage done to the shores that could have been lessened, if not stopped, is worse than anything that Katrina was. Obama was elected to be a leader. Not to be the little boy who said "it wasn't me, it was them."

BP Oil needs to be held accountable for their part in this disaster. But then so do the inspectors that didn't do their job. So does anyone else that didn't do their job in this matter. We're looking at years of lawsuits and legal actions between BP, Haliburton, Transocean, the states affected and the federal government. Not to mention the environmentalists that will get involved and of course, the families of the 11 dead workers on the rig.

Obama is starting to remind me of Midas. Everything he touches turns to disaster. The environment, the borders, the terrorist attacks, the treatment of the Prime Minister of Israel, the economy, health care. How can this man talk about Cap and Trade with a straight face?

Just a little bit of leadership would have been good. At every turn, Obama proves that he is incapable of leading. But he's great at pointing fingers. He's even pointing his finger at Bush, blaming him for this. Senator Christopher Dodd blamed Bush on Don Imus' program.

Remember the old poster of Uncle Sam pointing his finger saying "I want you"? Now it's Obama pointing the finger saying "I blame you".

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Census Creates New Inflation

2010-05-26T10:16:00.003-04:00

More whistleblowers are popping up about the hiring practices of the Census Bureau. It's been reported that the Census Bureau is hiring workers. They are paying them $18.75 per hour to count people. Before doing any counting, they spend a week in training.

Now, some workers hired and trained are saying that they have been fired, then rehired. This counts as another hire, but they don't count the firing as a job lost.

One of the whistleblowers said she's been fired four times and rehired. Another says he checks on the information that census workers turn in and his checking of the worker is checked again by another.

In another turn of events, whistleblowers are saying that number of people living in a house are being inflated. With the advertising going on telling people to fill in their census forms and to speak to census workers so that their community can get more money, it's not a surprise that some would inflate the number of people they have living in their house.

The census is a constitutional requirement with the purpose of apportioning representation in government. It is now being used as a way to make job creation look better under this administration.

Remember that Senator Judd Gregg was originally chosen to be the Commerce Secretary, after others who were chosen that owed back taxes or had other scandals brewing. But Senator Gregg decided not to accept the position after all, because the Census was being put under the control of the White House and taken away from the Commerce Department.

If this is being done by the Census Bureau, why shouldn't we think it's being done by other departments of this administration? If the Census Bureau says that they were hiring 1.2 million workers as they said in January, one has to wonder; does that figure include the firing and rehiring of the same people or will they say 'we hired 1.5 million workers, more than we anticipated.' ?

One thing is becoming more and more apparent. Obama claimed to want to change the way Washington works when he was elected. I'm not sure that he's changed the way it works, but he's certainly being more inventive in how he's corrupting the government.

Soon, they'll likely correct the problem, then get more inventive. They'll hire someone, fire them at the end of the day and rehire them the next day and waive the training requirement for past employees. They can really get the employment numbers way up that way. The Revolving Door policy?

You're welcome to comment.

Brett