The Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate for three weeks and the White House for just over a week. During that time, they have promised bi-partisanship and working with the Republicans. Then they immediately changed the rules in the House blocking out the Republicans.
Obama nominates a Secretary, who drops out before the nominating process begins due to a scandal in New Mexico that he's involved in. Obama nominates a man as Secretary of the Treasury, who owed back taxes and only paid them off a day before his nomination. This is not discovered until just prior to his confirmation hearing in spite of Obama's pledge to have an open government. After setting new rules for the White House regarding lobbyists, saying that if they were a lobbyist, they could not work where they lobbied, then it's discovered that the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury was a lobbyist in the area he'd be working. The Secretary of the Treasury was still nominated and confirmed, although 30 Senators voted against him.
There are also questions still lingering about Bill Clinton's donors, which becomes important because Hillary Clinton was nominated and confirmed as Secretary of State. Nothing new here. If a Clinton is attached to it, we all know that it's only a matter of time before there are more scandals.
Now we're finding out that former Senator and majority leader, Tom Daschle also has a tax problem. Again, he paid his taxes and penalties just days before his nomination as Secretary of HUD. This too was kept very private in this new "Open" government of Obama's.
As if this isn't enough, the stimulus package which is nothing more than a spending bill passes the House without any Republicans voting for it and with 11 Democrats voting against it. That puts the bi-partisan aspect of this bill on the side that is against the spending bill.
The bill now goes to the Senate. As it stands now, if the bill isn't dramatically changed, the Republicans won't support it. They don't have enough votes to vote it out, but they do have enough votes to stop the cloture vote on it. The question, once again, becomes, will John McCain, his puppet Lindsay Graham, and the two Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins remain with the Republicans or will they put the American economy in the dumper by joining the Democrats?
In two weeks time, we've had problems with four cabinet members or proposed cabinet members and one deputy, along with what can only be called a liberal spending bill, and promised openness in the White House which fell by the wayside within hours of being announced. It's reminding me of the Clinton years and their scandal a week ways.
Today, the story comes out that Obama's half brother has been arrested for drug abuse in Kenya. His brother George is the brother that was found in Kenya living on $12 per year income. Does this remind anyone else of Billy Carter? In forty years we've gone from Billy Beer to Georgie's Pot.
Inauguration day was an embarassment with the screwup of the Oath, the poor inauguration speech and the acting out of the music rather than really playing it. I hope it's not discovered that Aretha Franklin lip synched her singing. I've always liked Aretha Franklin and her music. Inauguration day was topped off by the new President being the first President to skip the ball of Medal of Honor winners.
In the first week, Obama showed us his cut and run policy in Iraq, has decided to close Guantanamo with no plans on what to do with the detainees, and he signed the executive orders placating liberals with their feel good issues. If things go bad in Afghanistan, I expect he'll cut and run from there as well.
In his second week, he wrote a letter to the President of Iran. You know, the guy that he first said he'd talk to, then backed down and said he'd begin low level talks but not talk directly with them after he was embarassed by the other candidates, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Now he goes back on his second position and actually does begin a dialogue by writing a personal letter to a terrorist.
This next week promises to be a fun one with the Senate taking up the spending bill that the Democrats and the liberal media continue to call the "stimulus" bill. I think that if they wrote a bill that said everyone was required to wear sneakers from now on, that they would call it a "stimulus" bill and demand that it be passed because they called it a stimulus bill.
At this rate, the Democrats will be in the minority in two years and in four years, the liberal media will be asking, "does voting out the first black president mean that America has become racist again?"
Brett
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Democrats Pass Huge Spending Bill
Today, the Democrats in the House passed the bill that spends nearly $900 Billion. Only the Democrats passed this bill. Not one Republican voted for it and 11 Democrats joined the Republicans in an attempt to defeat it.
Many call this a stimulus bill but it's not really a stimulus bill. 34% of the money doesn't even get used until after 2010. Daily we hear that the economy is the worst since the Depression. It's not true, but that's what the liberals and the liberal media pound into the American people's TV sets daily. The economy is in the worst shape since the late 70's and early 80's, but it's no where near the levels of the Depression. That really is bad. So if it's so bad and the American people need immediate relief and it's supposed to create jobs, why is it that much of the bill doesn't take effect for nearly two years? That is not immediate.
This country has gone through many recessions throughout it's history. Each time, the recessions have been ended by either tax cuts, or war or both. Never has a recession ever been ended by massive government spending.
The bill that passed today could be called an anti stimulus bill with the $335 Million to be spent on STD education. Not much can be considered stimulating about STD's.
This bill is loaded with government spending on liberals pet projects. I seem to remember that Barack Obama the candidate promised tax cuts for 95% of Americans. This bill doesn't approach that.
I'm amazed that the Republicans actually stood up against this bill. Not one of them voted for it. If this makes it through the Senate, the Democrats and Barack Obama will own the results. The economy will immediately become Obama's responsibility. That's not good for him because this bill will not do as the liberals keep promising. Never have we spent our way to prosperity. This is just another example of liberals saying 'it's never worked before, but we can make it work this time.'
The Democrats have complained about the deficit and how it hit record levels under President Bush and how the Bush administration doubled the debt. This bill will make the debt and deficit under Bush look like change laying in a fountain.
They conveniently forget that from 2002 through 2006 the economy in this country was performing better than it had in 25 years. It's also interesting that 34% of the spending explodes at the end of 2010. This is exactly when the Bush tax cuts expire. So when they increase spending, they also raise taxes on the American people. Either one of those things would drag the economy down. Both of them together will make what we're going through now look like prosperity.
Obama also claimed that there would be no pork in this bill. Yet, when you look at it, there is pork in there for the STD's as mentioned before, as well as money to attempt to move the nation towards Universal Health Care among other things.
The answer to the economic problem is to lower taxes and cut spending. Those lower taxes would generate more money for the Federal Government. The only problem with lowering taxes is that when the government does get more revenue, they won't be able to resist spending it. When they actually get control of themselves and lower taxes, and cut spending (not decrease the percentage of spending, but decrease the actual dollars in spending) we will then go into a period of prosperity like we've never seen before.
It's time for the government to quit asking the American people to sacrifice and to start implementing the sacrifice on the government by reducing their spending and eliminating their expenditures that are wasted. Save the health industry by stopping health care for illegal immigrants. Cut welfare when you cut spending and cut taxes. Jobs will be created. There's a myriad of things that could be done. Didn't we learn anything from the Republicans who spent like Democrats from 2000 to 2006? Didn't we learn anything from having a President that refused to veto spending bills that came from his own party?
I will give two examples: 1. Michigan has tried to spend their way out of the long recession here. It's failed for six years. Michigan just gets worse with each statewide economic report. 2. Louisiana was given billions of dollars since the Reagan years. That money was for the levy's. The Democrats received that money, but didn't use it for what it was meant for. The result. Hurricane Katrina came and the levy's gave way and over 1,000 people died.
Spending your way out of a recession never works. Cutting taxes and cutting spending always works.
Brett
Many call this a stimulus bill but it's not really a stimulus bill. 34% of the money doesn't even get used until after 2010. Daily we hear that the economy is the worst since the Depression. It's not true, but that's what the liberals and the liberal media pound into the American people's TV sets daily. The economy is in the worst shape since the late 70's and early 80's, but it's no where near the levels of the Depression. That really is bad. So if it's so bad and the American people need immediate relief and it's supposed to create jobs, why is it that much of the bill doesn't take effect for nearly two years? That is not immediate.
This country has gone through many recessions throughout it's history. Each time, the recessions have been ended by either tax cuts, or war or both. Never has a recession ever been ended by massive government spending.
The bill that passed today could be called an anti stimulus bill with the $335 Million to be spent on STD education. Not much can be considered stimulating about STD's.
This bill is loaded with government spending on liberals pet projects. I seem to remember that Barack Obama the candidate promised tax cuts for 95% of Americans. This bill doesn't approach that.
I'm amazed that the Republicans actually stood up against this bill. Not one of them voted for it. If this makes it through the Senate, the Democrats and Barack Obama will own the results. The economy will immediately become Obama's responsibility. That's not good for him because this bill will not do as the liberals keep promising. Never have we spent our way to prosperity. This is just another example of liberals saying 'it's never worked before, but we can make it work this time.'
The Democrats have complained about the deficit and how it hit record levels under President Bush and how the Bush administration doubled the debt. This bill will make the debt and deficit under Bush look like change laying in a fountain.
They conveniently forget that from 2002 through 2006 the economy in this country was performing better than it had in 25 years. It's also interesting that 34% of the spending explodes at the end of 2010. This is exactly when the Bush tax cuts expire. So when they increase spending, they also raise taxes on the American people. Either one of those things would drag the economy down. Both of them together will make what we're going through now look like prosperity.
Obama also claimed that there would be no pork in this bill. Yet, when you look at it, there is pork in there for the STD's as mentioned before, as well as money to attempt to move the nation towards Universal Health Care among other things.
The answer to the economic problem is to lower taxes and cut spending. Those lower taxes would generate more money for the Federal Government. The only problem with lowering taxes is that when the government does get more revenue, they won't be able to resist spending it. When they actually get control of themselves and lower taxes, and cut spending (not decrease the percentage of spending, but decrease the actual dollars in spending) we will then go into a period of prosperity like we've never seen before.
It's time for the government to quit asking the American people to sacrifice and to start implementing the sacrifice on the government by reducing their spending and eliminating their expenditures that are wasted. Save the health industry by stopping health care for illegal immigrants. Cut welfare when you cut spending and cut taxes. Jobs will be created. There's a myriad of things that could be done. Didn't we learn anything from the Republicans who spent like Democrats from 2000 to 2006? Didn't we learn anything from having a President that refused to veto spending bills that came from his own party?
I will give two examples: 1. Michigan has tried to spend their way out of the long recession here. It's failed for six years. Michigan just gets worse with each statewide economic report. 2. Louisiana was given billions of dollars since the Reagan years. That money was for the levy's. The Democrats received that money, but didn't use it for what it was meant for. The result. Hurricane Katrina came and the levy's gave way and over 1,000 people died.
Spending your way out of a recession never works. Cutting taxes and cutting spending always works.
Brett
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Five Days of Obama
We are now in the fifth day since the Coronation....errr inauguration. What have learned in this first week?
Obama's first act as President was to screw up the oath of office. He started out by interrupting Chief Justice John Roberts during the administering of the Oath. That set off a chain of events that had the Oath out of order on some of the words.
He followed the easiest part of the day by giving his inaugural speech. It was not a typical Obama speech. 2 million people showed up to hear the most boring and cynical Inaugural Address since Jimmy Carters Malaise speech in 1977.
Speaking of the 2 million people. Thousands of ticket holders were not allowed onto the mall. They traveled from as far away as California only to be told to go back. The 2 million that did make it in, left 130 tons of garbage to be picked up, including souveniers and small American flags. Garbage I expect, but to leave little American Flags tossed away just shows the lack of pride and love for country. It reminded me of the Convention in Denver where they had all of those American Flags just tossed around and into the garbage.
In the past 24 hours, it's been discovered that the group playing the music faked it. It reminds me of when Jan and Dean returned to concert again years after a devastating auto accident that nearly took a life. It was discovered that they were lip synching their old music. This was basically the same thing. They faked the cello, the violin, the piano, all of it. The music was instead piped in.
It's interesting that there were many complaints about the Pastor of Saddleback Church giving the Invocation, which was very good, but the Reverend Lowry gave a racist benediction.
During all of this, the so-called reporters were having a love-fest with Obama's historical moment, historical day. I hope we don't find out next that John Lewis, Jesse Jackson, Quincy Jones were all phony's too. Please tell me they weren't part of the Simpson's cartoon but were the real deal.
Even a past President got in on the pettiness of the day. Former President Jimmy Carter snubbed Former President Bill Clinton and wife Hillary. Later, Hillary got into a row with Senator John Cornyn because he dared to hold up her confirmation for a day due to some additional questions he had.
There was some dignity to the day however. President George W. Bush came out to the platform with Hail To The Chief playing. As he took his seat and new song started from the crowd near the platform. Angry liberals sitting nearby started singing nyah nyah nyah nyah, hey hey, goodbye. President Bush was very dignified and made no expression and no acknowledgement of the lack of taste of those angry liberals.
Obama made some very uncharitable references to the Bush years during his speech. However, both President Bush, (former President by that time) and former Vice President Cheney, sat their listening politely, without making any expression. They let Obama have his day as the new President.
The following day, Wednesday, Obama announced new guidelines for his staff. Ceilings on salary, and a new rule on lobbyists. If you were a lobbyist, you won't be permitted to work in an area that you lobbyed in the past. If you leave the administration, you won't be allowed back as a lobbyist until the Obama is administration is out of office. But then it was discovered that that rule is being broken because a Deputy Secretary was a lobbyist but is still going to be in his new position despite the new lobbying rules.
His Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, asked that the previous speakers names not be used by the press, instead to call them senior White House Staff, then he promptly used their names several times.
Obama was also administered the Oath of Office again, this time behind closed doors and no bible in his hand. They also couldn't or wouldn't answer whether there was a war on terror. Obama has announced that he's closing Guantanamo Bay with no idea on what they are going to do with the detainees currently there. This as we learned that 60 former detainees have been released and have returned to the middle east and again working with Al Queda including one who is the number two Al Queda man in Yemen. Yemen is where the USS Cole was attacked in October 2000.
Obama's first week in office was not uneventful. The events were embarassments however. This is the guy that's going to steer us out of a recession? Protect the country from terrorist attacks? So far, he's talked to the generals about getting out of Iraq, he's overturned an abortion policy, and broken his own lobbying rules. Then there is his Treasury Secretary that didn't pay taxes for a few years but quickly paid them just prior to his nomination as Treasury Secretary.
It's also now just coming out that the Bill Clinton foundation was given stock as a donation, the stock was sold for nearly $500,000 even though it was pretty much worthless which amounts to a donation but that the donor is being kept anonymous. Transparency?
So a weeks summary of the new Obama Administration gives us, a botched oath, a poor speech, fake music, a racist prayer, broken rules, a new oath, our first indication of the "cut and run" that everyone was worried about during the campaign, a completely lost Press Secretary, a Treasury Secretary that evaded paying taxes until a day or two before his appointment, a promise of transparency from behind a cloak, a secretary of state nominee who promised access to donors for her husband's foundation except for one (that we know of) and terrorists to be moved but nobody knows to where. Not bad for a week.
Maybe we can look to the New York Senate appointment and see if Caroline Kennedy gets a nice smooth move into the United States Senate. What's this headline? A nanny and tax problem for Kennedy? A problem with her marriage? Uh oh.
Well, there is one happy note. Today is my daughters birthday. She enters her teen years today. Happy Birthday, Rachel.
Brett
Obama's first act as President was to screw up the oath of office. He started out by interrupting Chief Justice John Roberts during the administering of the Oath. That set off a chain of events that had the Oath out of order on some of the words.
He followed the easiest part of the day by giving his inaugural speech. It was not a typical Obama speech. 2 million people showed up to hear the most boring and cynical Inaugural Address since Jimmy Carters Malaise speech in 1977.
Speaking of the 2 million people. Thousands of ticket holders were not allowed onto the mall. They traveled from as far away as California only to be told to go back. The 2 million that did make it in, left 130 tons of garbage to be picked up, including souveniers and small American flags. Garbage I expect, but to leave little American Flags tossed away just shows the lack of pride and love for country. It reminded me of the Convention in Denver where they had all of those American Flags just tossed around and into the garbage.
In the past 24 hours, it's been discovered that the group playing the music faked it. It reminds me of when Jan and Dean returned to concert again years after a devastating auto accident that nearly took a life. It was discovered that they were lip synching their old music. This was basically the same thing. They faked the cello, the violin, the piano, all of it. The music was instead piped in.
It's interesting that there were many complaints about the Pastor of Saddleback Church giving the Invocation, which was very good, but the Reverend Lowry gave a racist benediction.
During all of this, the so-called reporters were having a love-fest with Obama's historical moment, historical day. I hope we don't find out next that John Lewis, Jesse Jackson, Quincy Jones were all phony's too. Please tell me they weren't part of the Simpson's cartoon but were the real deal.
Even a past President got in on the pettiness of the day. Former President Jimmy Carter snubbed Former President Bill Clinton and wife Hillary. Later, Hillary got into a row with Senator John Cornyn because he dared to hold up her confirmation for a day due to some additional questions he had.
There was some dignity to the day however. President George W. Bush came out to the platform with Hail To The Chief playing. As he took his seat and new song started from the crowd near the platform. Angry liberals sitting nearby started singing nyah nyah nyah nyah, hey hey, goodbye. President Bush was very dignified and made no expression and no acknowledgement of the lack of taste of those angry liberals.
Obama made some very uncharitable references to the Bush years during his speech. However, both President Bush, (former President by that time) and former Vice President Cheney, sat their listening politely, without making any expression. They let Obama have his day as the new President.
The following day, Wednesday, Obama announced new guidelines for his staff. Ceilings on salary, and a new rule on lobbyists. If you were a lobbyist, you won't be permitted to work in an area that you lobbyed in the past. If you leave the administration, you won't be allowed back as a lobbyist until the Obama is administration is out of office. But then it was discovered that that rule is being broken because a Deputy Secretary was a lobbyist but is still going to be in his new position despite the new lobbying rules.
His Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, asked that the previous speakers names not be used by the press, instead to call them senior White House Staff, then he promptly used their names several times.
Obama was also administered the Oath of Office again, this time behind closed doors and no bible in his hand. They also couldn't or wouldn't answer whether there was a war on terror. Obama has announced that he's closing Guantanamo Bay with no idea on what they are going to do with the detainees currently there. This as we learned that 60 former detainees have been released and have returned to the middle east and again working with Al Queda including one who is the number two Al Queda man in Yemen. Yemen is where the USS Cole was attacked in October 2000.
Obama's first week in office was not uneventful. The events were embarassments however. This is the guy that's going to steer us out of a recession? Protect the country from terrorist attacks? So far, he's talked to the generals about getting out of Iraq, he's overturned an abortion policy, and broken his own lobbying rules. Then there is his Treasury Secretary that didn't pay taxes for a few years but quickly paid them just prior to his nomination as Treasury Secretary.
It's also now just coming out that the Bill Clinton foundation was given stock as a donation, the stock was sold for nearly $500,000 even though it was pretty much worthless which amounts to a donation but that the donor is being kept anonymous. Transparency?
So a weeks summary of the new Obama Administration gives us, a botched oath, a poor speech, fake music, a racist prayer, broken rules, a new oath, our first indication of the "cut and run" that everyone was worried about during the campaign, a completely lost Press Secretary, a Treasury Secretary that evaded paying taxes until a day or two before his appointment, a promise of transparency from behind a cloak, a secretary of state nominee who promised access to donors for her husband's foundation except for one (that we know of) and terrorists to be moved but nobody knows to where. Not bad for a week.
Maybe we can look to the New York Senate appointment and see if Caroline Kennedy gets a nice smooth move into the United States Senate. What's this headline? A nanny and tax problem for Kennedy? A problem with her marriage? Uh oh.
Well, there is one happy note. Today is my daughters birthday. She enters her teen years today. Happy Birthday, Rachel.
Brett
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Hyphenated Americans
The following speech was given by former President Teddy Roosevelt in 1915.
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.
For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.
Americanization
The foreign-born population of this country must be an Americanized population - no other kind can fight the battles of America either in war or peace. It must talk the language of its native-born fellow-citizens, it must possess American citizenship and American ideals. It must stand firm by its oath of allegiance in word and deed and must show that in very fact it has renounced allegiance to every prince, potentate, or foreign government. It must be maintained on an American standard of living so as to prevent labor disturbances in important plants and at critical times. None of these objects can be secured as long as we have immigrant colonies, ghettos, and immigrant sections, and above all they cannot be assured so long as we consider the immigrant only as an industrial asset. The immigrant must not be allowed to drift or to be put at the mercy of the exploiter. Our object is to not to imitate one of the older racial types, but to maintain a new American type and then to secure loyalty to this type. We cannot secure such loyalty unless we make this a country where men shall feel that they have justice and also where they shall feel that they are required to perform the duties imposed upon them. The policy of "Let alone" which we have hitherto pursued is thoroughly vicious from two stand-points. By this policy we have permitted the immigrants, and too often the native-born laborers as well, to suffer injustice. Moreover, by this policy we have failed to impress upon the immigrant and upon the native-born as well that they are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, that they are expected to be heartily and actively and single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by living under it.
We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford to leave American mines, munitions plants, and general resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to America and even likely to be made hostile to America by machinations such as have recently been provided in the case of the two foreign embassies in Washington. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time of war men working on our railways or working in our munition plants who would in the name of duty to their own foreign countries bring destruction to us. Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality?
One America
All of us, no matter from what land our parents came, no matter in what way we may severally worship our Creator, must stand shoulder to shoulder in a united America for the elimination of race and religious prejudice. We must stand for a reign of equal justice to both big and small. We must insist on the maintenance of the American standard of living. We must stand for an adequate national control which shall secure a better training of our young men in time of peace, both for the work of peace and for the work of war. We must direct every national resource, material and spiritual, to the task not of shirking difficulties, but of training our people to overcome difficulties. Our aim must be, not to make life easy and soft, not to soften soul and body, but to fit us in virile fashion to do a great work for all mankind. This great work can only be done by a mighty democracy, with these qualities of soul, guided by those qualities of mind, which will both make it refuse to do injustice to any other nation, and also enable it to hold its own against aggression by any other nation. In our relations with the outside world, we must abhor wrongdoing, and disdain to commit it, and we must no less disdain the baseness of spirit which lamely submits to wrongdoing. Finally and most important of all, we must strive for the establishment within our own borders of that stern and lofty standard of personal and public neutrality which shall guarantee to each man his rights, and which shall insist in return upon the full performance by each man of his duties both to his neighbor and to the great nation whose flag must symbolize in the future as it has symbolized in the past the highest hopes of all mankind."
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.
For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.
Americanization
The foreign-born population of this country must be an Americanized population - no other kind can fight the battles of America either in war or peace. It must talk the language of its native-born fellow-citizens, it must possess American citizenship and American ideals. It must stand firm by its oath of allegiance in word and deed and must show that in very fact it has renounced allegiance to every prince, potentate, or foreign government. It must be maintained on an American standard of living so as to prevent labor disturbances in important plants and at critical times. None of these objects can be secured as long as we have immigrant colonies, ghettos, and immigrant sections, and above all they cannot be assured so long as we consider the immigrant only as an industrial asset. The immigrant must not be allowed to drift or to be put at the mercy of the exploiter. Our object is to not to imitate one of the older racial types, but to maintain a new American type and then to secure loyalty to this type. We cannot secure such loyalty unless we make this a country where men shall feel that they have justice and also where they shall feel that they are required to perform the duties imposed upon them. The policy of "Let alone" which we have hitherto pursued is thoroughly vicious from two stand-points. By this policy we have permitted the immigrants, and too often the native-born laborers as well, to suffer injustice. Moreover, by this policy we have failed to impress upon the immigrant and upon the native-born as well that they are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, that they are expected to be heartily and actively and single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by living under it.
We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford to leave American mines, munitions plants, and general resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to America and even likely to be made hostile to America by machinations such as have recently been provided in the case of the two foreign embassies in Washington. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time of war men working on our railways or working in our munition plants who would in the name of duty to their own foreign countries bring destruction to us. Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality?
One America
All of us, no matter from what land our parents came, no matter in what way we may severally worship our Creator, must stand shoulder to shoulder in a united America for the elimination of race and religious prejudice. We must stand for a reign of equal justice to both big and small. We must insist on the maintenance of the American standard of living. We must stand for an adequate national control which shall secure a better training of our young men in time of peace, both for the work of peace and for the work of war. We must direct every national resource, material and spiritual, to the task not of shirking difficulties, but of training our people to overcome difficulties. Our aim must be, not to make life easy and soft, not to soften soul and body, but to fit us in virile fashion to do a great work for all mankind. This great work can only be done by a mighty democracy, with these qualities of soul, guided by those qualities of mind, which will both make it refuse to do injustice to any other nation, and also enable it to hold its own against aggression by any other nation. In our relations with the outside world, we must abhor wrongdoing, and disdain to commit it, and we must no less disdain the baseness of spirit which lamely submits to wrongdoing. Finally and most important of all, we must strive for the establishment within our own borders of that stern and lofty standard of personal and public neutrality which shall guarantee to each man his rights, and which shall insist in return upon the full performance by each man of his duties both to his neighbor and to the great nation whose flag must symbolize in the future as it has symbolized in the past the highest hopes of all mankind."
Headlines of the Day
The lack of Class displayed by the Democrats.
Rahm Emmanuel the White House Chief of Staff. Is this an adult in the White House?
Oy. It's a simple oath and he can't get it right.
Bush Mocked on Dais
This shows the lack of class of the Democrats. Regardless of how you feel about the incoming or outgoing President, they are the President and President elect, then at the end the Former President and the New President. For anyone to show disrespect for the office of the President is classless at best.
Carter Snub Clintons
More pettiness from Democrats.
Clinton and Cornyn wrangle in Rotunda; Confirmation delay
It is the responsibility of Congress to confirm the cabinet. If Cornyn has questions still, he is doing his job, following his responsibility. This again just shows that Clinton has no respect for anyone that disagrees with her.
We had childishness during the Clinton administration and even to the end of the Clinton Administration. From all appearances above, we're in for more of the same. This is the Unity that Obama spoke of?
Brett
An Inauspicious Beginning
A few minutes past noon today, President Barack Hussein Obama began his first obligation as President. The Oath of Office. In his first official act, he stumbled over the words.
Chief Justice, John Roberts administered the Oath of Office. The Chief Justice began and Obama interrupted him right after his name was stated and stopped as Chief Justice Roberts continued. Roberts began, “I Barack Hussein Obama do…” and President Obama began “I Barack Hu…..” and stopped as Roberts continued, then stopped.
I hope that in the coming days, we can laugh about this, and not have it as an omen of things to come.
I have no choice but to worry. In the past couple of days, Vice President Elect Biden said on Oprah that he had the choice between Secretary of State and Vice President. The Obama people immediately said “well, that’s not quite right”. Then we have the Oath of Office screwup.
Not an auspicious beginning.
Brett
Chief Justice, John Roberts administered the Oath of Office. The Chief Justice began and Obama interrupted him right after his name was stated and stopped as Chief Justice Roberts continued. Roberts began, “I Barack Hussein Obama do…” and President Obama began “I Barack Hu…..” and stopped as Roberts continued, then stopped.
I hope that in the coming days, we can laugh about this, and not have it as an omen of things to come.
I have no choice but to worry. In the past couple of days, Vice President Elect Biden said on Oprah that he had the choice between Secretary of State and Vice President. The Obama people immediately said “well, that’s not quite right”. Then we have the Oath of Office screwup.
Not an auspicious beginning.
Brett
Monday, January 19, 2009
President Bush Quietly Exits; Obama Praised but has Done Nothing
Today is the last full day of the George W. Bush Presidency. If you turn on the news, you wouldn’t hear much about that. Instead, what you hear is how Barack Hussein Obama is going to save the country. You hear about how he’s Abraham Lincoln reincarnated, or that his words from his inauguration speech are going to be etched in stone.
If we remember back to when George W. Bush was about to be inaugurated, we didn’t hear this praise heaped on a man that had not yet done anything as we do with Obama. What we heard was an end to an era now that Bill Clinton was going to be gone.
In Bush’s campaign of 2000, he promised to be a uniter and not a divider. He said he could and would bring bi-partisanship back to Washington DC. It was a noble idea, but it had one flaw. No man can bring a Congress together that is so set in party division. For President Bush to be that uniter, he needed the cooperation of the Democrats. He didn’t get that and we knew he wouldn’t. What we didn’t know was the extent of that lack of cooperation.
This lack of cooperation began almost immediately. The dispute was in Florida. Al Gore wanted a recount in a few select counties. The courts were brought in. The Florida Supreme Court was brought in and after all of the recounts, and another recount desired by the Gore team, the United States Supreme Court finally put a stop to the process being repeated over and over. In each recount, George W. Bush won. However, it took 35 days to settle it.
That 35 days delayed the transition process that is needed for a smooth transition to a new administration. Furthering those problems, when Bush was sworn in, and his team took the White House, they discovered many items stolen by the Clinton’s including the W’s taken from the keyboards.
Within 7 ½ months of the Bush administration, five years of planning by Al Queda came to fruition on September 11, 2001 with their attack on New York, and Washington. We had been attacked 8 times during the Clinton administration and he treated it as a criminal matter. However, Bush had one attack in his first 7 ½ months in office and he took the fight to the terrorists on October 7, 2001. Less than 30 days following the attacks he started bombing Afghanistan. We have not been attacked since.
Bush had his tax cuts go through which stimulated the economy to a growth rate that hadn’t been seen in 25 years. The people paid a lower tax rate, yet the government was taking in record amounts of revenue.
Unfortunately, Congress passed budgets with increased spending and to President Bush’s discredit, he didn’t veto any of them. In 2004 President Bush was re-elected garnering over 50% of the vote which was the first time an election was decided with over 50% of the vote for the first time since his father had won in 1988.
In 2004 and 2005 President Bush warned of a coming economic collapse if we didn’t get a handle on regulating and correcting the credit markets, particularly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In 2005 Hurricane Katrina was coming. President Bush declared the southeast, Louisiana in particular, a disaster area five days before the hurricane hit. On the Tuesday following the hurricane, the Democrat Governor of Louisiana said she needed 24 hours to decide whether she wanted the help that President Bush offered. The Democrat Mayor of New Orleans let 2,000 buses drown in the water rather than using them to save lives of those that couldn’t or wouldn’t get themselves out.
In 2006, the Democrats won the election and prepared to take over the Congress. In 2007 the economy began to collapse culminating in the emergency that happened in September 2008.
President Bush managed to unite the country at one point. Following the attacks on September 11, 2001 and it lasted until September 15, 2001. But then the Democrats returned to their old ways. The media decided it wasn’t a good idea (you decide the reason) to show the attacks that we saw on television.
There is no review of the past eight years by the media. They are all focused on Obama. President Bush hadn’t done anything yet prior to his election, yet people weren’t told that we had to give him a chance. In fact, the Democrats actually went to extremes the opposite way.
We don’t need to give Obama a chance. He’s gotten his chance by virtue of his election. Now it’s up to him to deliver. The press is heaping all of this praise on a man that has done nothing yet. With all of this praise for doing nothing, they have raised the bar for Obama. If he makes a mistake, it will be magnified to the American people. It won’t be to the press, they’ll make excuses for him. It will be seen by the American people however.
The Presidency is not about one man. It’s about an office and how it’s handled. No man is greater than what that office stands for. I am more worried about what the Democrats will do to the aura of the office of the President. We have a sizeable amount of the Clinton group coming back to the White House. We already know how the Clinton administration stripped the dignity from the Office of the President. It’s already begun with some of Obama’s choices. His Commerce Secretary had to withdraw due to a scandal in New Mexico. Hillary is the new Secretary of State and we’ll all be on pins and needles to see what sort of trouble she’ll be in or that her husband will cause. The treasury secretary has a tax problem which they (Obama and the press) are calling an “honest mistake”.
President George Bush leaves office making another great decision in Commuting the sentences of the two border guards. President-Elect Obama comes in, heaped in praise when the only thing he’s done so far is give us a peek that his administration will be scandal laden as was Clinton’s. I wonder why nobody has mentioned yet in the press that Sandy Berger has been working for Obama. Actually, I don’t have to wonder. The press doesn’t report any more. They have become part of the story.
If we remember back to when George W. Bush was about to be inaugurated, we didn’t hear this praise heaped on a man that had not yet done anything as we do with Obama. What we heard was an end to an era now that Bill Clinton was going to be gone.
In Bush’s campaign of 2000, he promised to be a uniter and not a divider. He said he could and would bring bi-partisanship back to Washington DC. It was a noble idea, but it had one flaw. No man can bring a Congress together that is so set in party division. For President Bush to be that uniter, he needed the cooperation of the Democrats. He didn’t get that and we knew he wouldn’t. What we didn’t know was the extent of that lack of cooperation.
This lack of cooperation began almost immediately. The dispute was in Florida. Al Gore wanted a recount in a few select counties. The courts were brought in. The Florida Supreme Court was brought in and after all of the recounts, and another recount desired by the Gore team, the United States Supreme Court finally put a stop to the process being repeated over and over. In each recount, George W. Bush won. However, it took 35 days to settle it.
That 35 days delayed the transition process that is needed for a smooth transition to a new administration. Furthering those problems, when Bush was sworn in, and his team took the White House, they discovered many items stolen by the Clinton’s including the W’s taken from the keyboards.
Within 7 ½ months of the Bush administration, five years of planning by Al Queda came to fruition on September 11, 2001 with their attack on New York, and Washington. We had been attacked 8 times during the Clinton administration and he treated it as a criminal matter. However, Bush had one attack in his first 7 ½ months in office and he took the fight to the terrorists on October 7, 2001. Less than 30 days following the attacks he started bombing Afghanistan. We have not been attacked since.
Bush had his tax cuts go through which stimulated the economy to a growth rate that hadn’t been seen in 25 years. The people paid a lower tax rate, yet the government was taking in record amounts of revenue.
Unfortunately, Congress passed budgets with increased spending and to President Bush’s discredit, he didn’t veto any of them. In 2004 President Bush was re-elected garnering over 50% of the vote which was the first time an election was decided with over 50% of the vote for the first time since his father had won in 1988.
In 2004 and 2005 President Bush warned of a coming economic collapse if we didn’t get a handle on regulating and correcting the credit markets, particularly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In 2005 Hurricane Katrina was coming. President Bush declared the southeast, Louisiana in particular, a disaster area five days before the hurricane hit. On the Tuesday following the hurricane, the Democrat Governor of Louisiana said she needed 24 hours to decide whether she wanted the help that President Bush offered. The Democrat Mayor of New Orleans let 2,000 buses drown in the water rather than using them to save lives of those that couldn’t or wouldn’t get themselves out.
In 2006, the Democrats won the election and prepared to take over the Congress. In 2007 the economy began to collapse culminating in the emergency that happened in September 2008.
President Bush managed to unite the country at one point. Following the attacks on September 11, 2001 and it lasted until September 15, 2001. But then the Democrats returned to their old ways. The media decided it wasn’t a good idea (you decide the reason) to show the attacks that we saw on television.
There is no review of the past eight years by the media. They are all focused on Obama. President Bush hadn’t done anything yet prior to his election, yet people weren’t told that we had to give him a chance. In fact, the Democrats actually went to extremes the opposite way.
We don’t need to give Obama a chance. He’s gotten his chance by virtue of his election. Now it’s up to him to deliver. The press is heaping all of this praise on a man that has done nothing yet. With all of this praise for doing nothing, they have raised the bar for Obama. If he makes a mistake, it will be magnified to the American people. It won’t be to the press, they’ll make excuses for him. It will be seen by the American people however.
The Presidency is not about one man. It’s about an office and how it’s handled. No man is greater than what that office stands for. I am more worried about what the Democrats will do to the aura of the office of the President. We have a sizeable amount of the Clinton group coming back to the White House. We already know how the Clinton administration stripped the dignity from the Office of the President. It’s already begun with some of Obama’s choices. His Commerce Secretary had to withdraw due to a scandal in New Mexico. Hillary is the new Secretary of State and we’ll all be on pins and needles to see what sort of trouble she’ll be in or that her husband will cause. The treasury secretary has a tax problem which they (Obama and the press) are calling an “honest mistake”.
President George Bush leaves office making another great decision in Commuting the sentences of the two border guards. President-Elect Obama comes in, heaped in praise when the only thing he’s done so far is give us a peek that his administration will be scandal laden as was Clinton’s. I wonder why nobody has mentioned yet in the press that Sandy Berger has been working for Obama. Actually, I don’t have to wonder. The press doesn’t report any more. They have become part of the story.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Pardon me?
In recent weeks, the press has been asking about the pardons that President George W. Bush will be meting out before he leaves office in January. Their questions have mainly been, will President Bush pardon his staff, his cabinet and his subordinates as well as himself prior to leaving office.
Prior to the election in 2006, the Democrats (or liberals, since they are the same) were saying they wouldn't try to impeach President Bush. Once they got the majority, that's exactly what Representative John Conyers (D-MI) started to do.
Leading up to the election in 2008, the liberals (or Democrats, since they are the same) said they weren't interested in prosecuting the White House staff, cabinet under Bush, nor President Bush himself. If the liberals don't intend to prosecute President Bush, nor his people, why is the press speculating on whether or not he will pardon his people or himself? Do they not trust the liberals taking office?
I have no idea if President Bush would pardon any of them. I believe he should give a full pardon to Scooter Libby, but even before that, I'd like to see him pardon the two border guards now in prison for shooting a drug smuggler and failing to report the discharge of a firearm. The two border agents are Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campeon. On February 17, 2005 they intercepted drug smugglers crossing from Mexico. The smugglers had 743 pounds of marijuana. The drug smuggler was shot in the buttocks but survived and ran to a waiting van across the border.
The Justice Department granted immunity to the drug smuggler if he'd come back and testify. The drug smuggler was treated for his injury by the United States, given immunity to testify against the agents and is now suing the United States Government for $5 million.
These two border agents, one of which was named Border agent of the year in 2005 and the other who was a former naval officer, are now serving 11 and 12 year sentences. These two agents should never have been prosecuted, and deserve a full pardon.
I would be surprised to see President Bush pardon terrorists as Bill Clinton did (FALN Terrorists), and I don't know that it's possible for President Bush to match the length of the list of Pardons that Bill Clinton produced before he left office.
It will be interesting though to see if President Bush does pardon his staff, Cabinet and himself. If he doesn't, it will also be interesting to see if the liberals hatred for President Bush is carried out in the form of charges and trials when he's out of office. I suspect that if he doesn't pardon his people and himself, that the liberals will be similar to the bitter ex wife and continue to whine, moan and complain as well as to bring charges. We already know here in Michigan that regardless of what happens there, that for the next four or (God Forbid) eight years, anything that doesn't go well will be blamed on President Bush. Governor Granholm has that speech down to a tee. She takes no blame for anything that's gone wrong in Michigan since she took office. She's constantly and consistantly blamed President Bush.
I hope that President Bush does pardon the two border patrol agents at the very least.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Prior to the election in 2006, the Democrats (or liberals, since they are the same) were saying they wouldn't try to impeach President Bush. Once they got the majority, that's exactly what Representative John Conyers (D-MI) started to do.
Leading up to the election in 2008, the liberals (or Democrats, since they are the same) said they weren't interested in prosecuting the White House staff, cabinet under Bush, nor President Bush himself. If the liberals don't intend to prosecute President Bush, nor his people, why is the press speculating on whether or not he will pardon his people or himself? Do they not trust the liberals taking office?
I have no idea if President Bush would pardon any of them. I believe he should give a full pardon to Scooter Libby, but even before that, I'd like to see him pardon the two border guards now in prison for shooting a drug smuggler and failing to report the discharge of a firearm. The two border agents are Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campeon. On February 17, 2005 they intercepted drug smugglers crossing from Mexico. The smugglers had 743 pounds of marijuana. The drug smuggler was shot in the buttocks but survived and ran to a waiting van across the border.
The Justice Department granted immunity to the drug smuggler if he'd come back and testify. The drug smuggler was treated for his injury by the United States, given immunity to testify against the agents and is now suing the United States Government for $5 million.
These two border agents, one of which was named Border agent of the year in 2005 and the other who was a former naval officer, are now serving 11 and 12 year sentences. These two agents should never have been prosecuted, and deserve a full pardon.
I would be surprised to see President Bush pardon terrorists as Bill Clinton did (FALN Terrorists), and I don't know that it's possible for President Bush to match the length of the list of Pardons that Bill Clinton produced before he left office.
It will be interesting though to see if President Bush does pardon his staff, Cabinet and himself. If he doesn't, it will also be interesting to see if the liberals hatred for President Bush is carried out in the form of charges and trials when he's out of office. I suspect that if he doesn't pardon his people and himself, that the liberals will be similar to the bitter ex wife and continue to whine, moan and complain as well as to bring charges. We already know here in Michigan that regardless of what happens there, that for the next four or (God Forbid) eight years, anything that doesn't go well will be blamed on President Bush. Governor Granholm has that speech down to a tee. She takes no blame for anything that's gone wrong in Michigan since she took office. She's constantly and consistantly blamed President Bush.
I hope that President Bush does pardon the two border patrol agents at the very least.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Friday, December 12, 2008
Talk Radio...Rant
Former General, Former Secretary of State, Former Head of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell said on Fareed Zakaria's interview that Republicans need to appeal more to minorities because the minorities will be in the majority in 20 years. He also asked if we really needed to listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Powell must really be upset that Limbaugh commented about Powell's endorsement of Barack Hussein Obama's candidacy a week before the election. Could this be the first salvo to the attacks on talk radio?
Personally, I like listening to Rush. He comments on the news. He shows what the politicians say in their own words and then points out their hypocrisy as well as their two faced comments and the double standards they have, using their own words against them.
Powell is wrong. He sets himself up on a fence. Claims to be a Republican to give himself credibility but then complains about the position he was put in at the United Nations in the lead up to the war in Iraq. If Powell was an honest man, he'd have stood up when he thought he was wrong, or the administration was wrong and refused to give that speech. He has no principles.
He played his game about whether or not he was a Republican or a Democrat prior to Bush being elected. Now he claims to be a Republican but is insisting that we must cater to minorities. It's big of him to say it's okay to be a Conservative. I'm so happy that I have his permission to believe as I believe. I didn't hear him say that he was for the Fairness Doctrine, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's leading up to that.
So let me be clear about what I think of talk radio. Rush is consistent and comments on the news. Sean Hannity is one that I don't like. He interrupts his guests, interrupts his callers and makes everything about him. I quit listening to him quite a while ago. I listen to and like a local radio program called Live with Renk. I like Laura Ingraham. These are all successful people. They give an outlet to conservatives. We aren't stuck with the liberal media on CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and even Fox half the time. Does CBS still exist? I haven't watched them since Dan Rather had the forged documents story to try and derail Bush in 2000.
Why aren't there more liberal talk radio programs? Because nobody listens. Radio stations lose money when they have liberal hosts. People don't listen to them. Advertisers don't want to pay for ads that aren't going to be heard.
Colin Powell has it wrong. Conservativism will appeal to the so-called minorities. They only need to hear what's being said. We need to get away from putting people into groups. The press did it with their polls saying blacks would vote in higher numbers for blacks, Jews would vote a certain way, Christians would vote another way, the south will vote this way, the northeast will vote that way, and so on. We are all Americans. For all of the talk about ending racism, the liberals and the press are playing a race card each time.
As a Conservative, I want all Americans to do better. I want for the entire country, black, white, hispanic, female, male, Jew, Gentile, left handed people, right handed people, southerners, northerners, westerners, midwesterners, easterners, the left coasters, the right coasters, EVERY American to take advantage of the opportunity for success. I believe that's best done by the individual working with other individuals without hindrance of government intrusions.
I'm sick of being told that one racial group is unfairly represented in prisons, courts, or that they are committing crimes in greater numbers against their own race, than other groups are. There is a solution to this. STOP COMMITTING THE CRIMES. Concentrate on improving your own life without stealing property, money or lives of others.
In other words, we're all Americans. My kids are all the same race as I am. I have one that has somewhat red hair, one that has blonde hair and one that has brown hair. I tan easily in the sun. My son doesn't. Does that make him better or me better? No. It makes us individuals. His interest for a career is different than mine. That doesn't make one of us better than the other. It means we each have our pursuits that contribute to this country.
That is the type of thing that talk radio advocates. Not separation from other groups, but combined as one group. AMERICANS. Liberals advocate fighting between the classes. Race, workers, income differences. White collar vs blue collar vs laborer. I believe we are one class. AMERICANS. Liberals advocate dividing people into groups. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, European Americans, and so on. If you're an American whether by birth or by choice, you're an American.
Talk radio does not divide the races and classes. Neither does Conservatism. Colin Powell does. The liberals do. The press does. Having said all of that, I guess I should admit to one group that I'm prejudiced against.....Lawyers. I'm working on it though.
I guess today was my day to rant.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Powell must really be upset that Limbaugh commented about Powell's endorsement of Barack Hussein Obama's candidacy a week before the election. Could this be the first salvo to the attacks on talk radio?
Personally, I like listening to Rush. He comments on the news. He shows what the politicians say in their own words and then points out their hypocrisy as well as their two faced comments and the double standards they have, using their own words against them.
Powell is wrong. He sets himself up on a fence. Claims to be a Republican to give himself credibility but then complains about the position he was put in at the United Nations in the lead up to the war in Iraq. If Powell was an honest man, he'd have stood up when he thought he was wrong, or the administration was wrong and refused to give that speech. He has no principles.
He played his game about whether or not he was a Republican or a Democrat prior to Bush being elected. Now he claims to be a Republican but is insisting that we must cater to minorities. It's big of him to say it's okay to be a Conservative. I'm so happy that I have his permission to believe as I believe. I didn't hear him say that he was for the Fairness Doctrine, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's leading up to that.
So let me be clear about what I think of talk radio. Rush is consistent and comments on the news. Sean Hannity is one that I don't like. He interrupts his guests, interrupts his callers and makes everything about him. I quit listening to him quite a while ago. I listen to and like a local radio program called Live with Renk. I like Laura Ingraham. These are all successful people. They give an outlet to conservatives. We aren't stuck with the liberal media on CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and even Fox half the time. Does CBS still exist? I haven't watched them since Dan Rather had the forged documents story to try and derail Bush in 2000.
Why aren't there more liberal talk radio programs? Because nobody listens. Radio stations lose money when they have liberal hosts. People don't listen to them. Advertisers don't want to pay for ads that aren't going to be heard.
Colin Powell has it wrong. Conservativism will appeal to the so-called minorities. They only need to hear what's being said. We need to get away from putting people into groups. The press did it with their polls saying blacks would vote in higher numbers for blacks, Jews would vote a certain way, Christians would vote another way, the south will vote this way, the northeast will vote that way, and so on. We are all Americans. For all of the talk about ending racism, the liberals and the press are playing a race card each time.
As a Conservative, I want all Americans to do better. I want for the entire country, black, white, hispanic, female, male, Jew, Gentile, left handed people, right handed people, southerners, northerners, westerners, midwesterners, easterners, the left coasters, the right coasters, EVERY American to take advantage of the opportunity for success. I believe that's best done by the individual working with other individuals without hindrance of government intrusions.
I'm sick of being told that one racial group is unfairly represented in prisons, courts, or that they are committing crimes in greater numbers against their own race, than other groups are. There is a solution to this. STOP COMMITTING THE CRIMES. Concentrate on improving your own life without stealing property, money or lives of others.
In other words, we're all Americans. My kids are all the same race as I am. I have one that has somewhat red hair, one that has blonde hair and one that has brown hair. I tan easily in the sun. My son doesn't. Does that make him better or me better? No. It makes us individuals. His interest for a career is different than mine. That doesn't make one of us better than the other. It means we each have our pursuits that contribute to this country.
That is the type of thing that talk radio advocates. Not separation from other groups, but combined as one group. AMERICANS. Liberals advocate fighting between the classes. Race, workers, income differences. White collar vs blue collar vs laborer. I believe we are one class. AMERICANS. Liberals advocate dividing people into groups. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, European Americans, and so on. If you're an American whether by birth or by choice, you're an American.
Talk radio does not divide the races and classes. Neither does Conservatism. Colin Powell does. The liberals do. The press does. Having said all of that, I guess I should admit to one group that I'm prejudiced against.....Lawyers. I'm working on it though.
I guess today was my day to rant.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Do You Remember....
Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook". Resigned
Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". Impeached.
And now we have Jesse Jackson Jr saying, " I reject and denounce pay-to-play politics and have no involvement whatsoever in any wrongdoing,"
When a politician speaks, you have to question his words. When a politican says they aren't guilty, there seems to be some guilt there.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". Impeached.
And now we have Jesse Jackson Jr saying, " I reject and denounce pay-to-play politics and have no involvement whatsoever in any wrongdoing,"
When a politician speaks, you have to question his words. When a politican says they aren't guilty, there seems to be some guilt there.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Unnecessary Lies
Following the breaking of the story about the Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, Senator Barack Hussein Obama made a brief statement saying that he had not been in contact with the Illinois Governor. However, on Fox News, Obama's spokesman, David Axelrod said that Obama had been in touch with Blagojevich (or "bag the riches) about who would fill his Senate seat. In addition, a reporter from Chicago reported that Obama was meeting with the Governor on November 5. The day following the election.
It would make perfect sense for the man elected to be the new President to make suggestions on his successor. I would see nothing wrong with giving his input. In fact, I would expect it to take place. So when I saw Axelrod say that Obama had been in touch, I thought nothing of it other than my belief that politicians should not be appointing politicians to replace politicians.
So why would Obama come out and say he hadn't spoken with the governor? 1. Either he didn't speak to the Governor which meant that Axelrod lied or 2. Obama did speak to the Governor and lied to the American people about it.
There are a couple of possible reasons why Obama would lie. For one, he might be just trying to distance himself from the governor. I can understand that, but you don't distance yourself by lying to the people of America. Another reason could be that Obama has been involved in Chicago politics (the Chicago way), and didn't want it known how involved he was or is.
Assuming that Obama is too busy to be involved in a play for pay scheme, there was no need for him to lie about his contact with the governor. Perhaps he really wasn't in touch with him, but had his surrogates in touch with the governor. This makes some sense because of the way Obama parsed his words when discussing it. He plainly changed his comment from "we" to "I" when he said there'd been no contact.
I don't believe it. I think he has spoken personally with the governor. I don't know that he's involved in this scandal, but I believe he's lying about not having spoken to the governor. This is a lie he didn't need to tell. It's also another example of how we're going to get more of the Clinton years. Remember, Clinton lied when it wasn't necessary for him to lie. Imagine if Clinton had admitted in his Grand Jury testimony that he did have a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He wouldn't have been impeached. He wouldn't have obstructed justice, and he never would have had to stand up in front of the American people and said "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."
Since Grand Jury testimony is private, Clinton's testimony would never have been made public. In fact, it's likely that Starr would have begun wrapping up his investigation saying that there would be no charges brought.
Senator Obama is stepping in it when he doesn't have to step in it. It would have been very simple for him to say 'yes, I've spoken to the governor about my successor in the Senate and made my suggestions.'
Unneccessary lies lead to more lies. That then leads to mistrust. Will we be able to depend on what Obama says after he becomes President? Not if he will lie about things that it's not necessary to lie about. We'll never be able to believe him when he needs to lie to us for national security reasons.
Some irony. Bill Clinton was 47 when he took over as President in 1993. Obama is 47. Bill Clinton told unnecessary lies. Obama seems to be following the same track. Unneccessary lies tainted the Clinton administration. We're now headed that way with Obama.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
It would make perfect sense for the man elected to be the new President to make suggestions on his successor. I would see nothing wrong with giving his input. In fact, I would expect it to take place. So when I saw Axelrod say that Obama had been in touch, I thought nothing of it other than my belief that politicians should not be appointing politicians to replace politicians.
So why would Obama come out and say he hadn't spoken with the governor? 1. Either he didn't speak to the Governor which meant that Axelrod lied or 2. Obama did speak to the Governor and lied to the American people about it.
There are a couple of possible reasons why Obama would lie. For one, he might be just trying to distance himself from the governor. I can understand that, but you don't distance yourself by lying to the people of America. Another reason could be that Obama has been involved in Chicago politics (the Chicago way), and didn't want it known how involved he was or is.
Assuming that Obama is too busy to be involved in a play for pay scheme, there was no need for him to lie about his contact with the governor. Perhaps he really wasn't in touch with him, but had his surrogates in touch with the governor. This makes some sense because of the way Obama parsed his words when discussing it. He plainly changed his comment from "we" to "I" when he said there'd been no contact.
I don't believe it. I think he has spoken personally with the governor. I don't know that he's involved in this scandal, but I believe he's lying about not having spoken to the governor. This is a lie he didn't need to tell. It's also another example of how we're going to get more of the Clinton years. Remember, Clinton lied when it wasn't necessary for him to lie. Imagine if Clinton had admitted in his Grand Jury testimony that he did have a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He wouldn't have been impeached. He wouldn't have obstructed justice, and he never would have had to stand up in front of the American people and said "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."
Since Grand Jury testimony is private, Clinton's testimony would never have been made public. In fact, it's likely that Starr would have begun wrapping up his investigation saying that there would be no charges brought.
Senator Obama is stepping in it when he doesn't have to step in it. It would have been very simple for him to say 'yes, I've spoken to the governor about my successor in the Senate and made my suggestions.'
Unneccessary lies lead to more lies. That then leads to mistrust. Will we be able to depend on what Obama says after he becomes President? Not if he will lie about things that it's not necessary to lie about. We'll never be able to believe him when he needs to lie to us for national security reasons.
Some irony. Bill Clinton was 47 when he took over as President in 1993. Obama is 47. Bill Clinton told unnecessary lies. Obama seems to be following the same track. Unneccessary lies tainted the Clinton administration. We're now headed that way with Obama.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Democrat in White House = CORRUPTION
Here we go again. In 1992, Bill Clinton was running for the Democrat nomination for President. Amid some obscure stories of a corrupt land deal, he was selected to run against President George H. W. Bush (Bush 41 for those unfamiliar). Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, draft dodging, and even reports of him fathering a child out of wedlock were mentioned but not seriously considered during the campaign.
During his first year in office, Whitewater became a household word. There was travelgate, then Vince Fosters suicide (?) possibly related to travelgate, whitewater or other things. Following his suicide(?) there were the reports that Hillary got the cold shoulder from Mrs. Foster because she was having an affair with Vince Foster.
We spent the next 8 years having to listen to the corruption of the Clintons. Travelgate, Arlingtongate, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, culminating in his being caught red-handed (or blue dressed) with Monica Lewinsky. There was a sitting governor indicted and convicted (Jim Guy Tucker). Mike Espy, Webb Hubbell, Ron Brown (died in plane crash), a woman found dead in the Commerce Department offices, blackmail by a foriegn country, then there was the married couple, Jim and Susan McDougal.
Here we are in 2008. The people of the United States have just elected a Democrat to the White House. Senator Barack Hussein Obama has been elected President. By the way, there is no such thing as the "office of the President Elect" and Senator Obama is not officially "President Elect" until after December 15 when the electors finally elect him President. So what do we have now?
Obama has not even taken the office yet and the corruption has started. We've heard again, short-lived reports of a shady land deal, how he forced out another candidate in his own party to get elected to the state Senate in Illinois, questions about his citizenship and even reports of another woman. Now we find out that the governor of Illinois was trying to sell the vacated Senate seat of Senator Obama (he resigned his seat on November 16). The sale portion was to put money into the hands of the governor, his wife, and his campaign for re-election.
Governor Rod Blagojevich, (pronounced bagoyovich) was arrested at his home at 6:15 am on Tuesday, December 9, 2008. There are numerous charges against him and his advisor (also arrested this morning), for bribery in trying to sell the vacated Senate seat of Senator Obama. He also wanted to get his wife appointed to a board which would give her a high paying job which they hoped would be in excess of $150,000 per year. He also wanted to be appointed to the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services. If he didn't get something, he considered appointing himself to the Senate to replace Obama.
In addition, the governor and his aide were allegedly conspiring to demand the firing of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune in exchange for help in selling Wrigley Field.
Again, if we refer back to the Clinton years, we go just a bit before the Clinton years. There was a senator named Bob Packwood who was charged with sexual harassment. The prosecutor in his case was Ken Starr. The Democrats loved Ken Starr because he managed to get rid of Bob Packwood. However, just a few short years later, Ken Starr was appointed to be the special prosecutor in the Whitewater investigation of Bill Clinton. We all know how Starr was vilified by the Democrats for his work on Bill Clinton's corruption.
Let's move ahead to the Bush 43 years. A special prosecutor was named to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. His name was Patrick Fitzgerald. The only thing he was able to accomplish was to get Scooter Libby indicted for lying to investigators during the investigation. Democrats loved him for getting the indictment, despite Libby not being indicted for outing Plame. Richard Armitage was actually the one that put her name out, and he was never indicted let alone convicted.
Now, Patrick Fitzgerald is the prosecutor in the case against Governor Blagojevich. Already the press is complaining because the governor was arrested at his home rather than being allowed to turn himself in. Patrick Fitzgerald is about to be the Ken Starr of the Obama administration.
In another bit of irony, a Grand Jury has issued subpoenas in the Rezko/Obama land deal.
Do you notice what's missing in all of this information? First thing that's missing is The people. Obama didn't finish his term in the Senate. The Governor of Illinois selects his replacement. Not the people. This is a perfect example of what's wrong with a sitting governor replacing a Senator or a Representative when they don't finish their terms. The way to solve this is not to leave this in the hands of elected officials, but rather to call a special election so the people may select their Representative or Senator to represent them. After all, the people proved they can do the righ thing. They voted out the corrupt and indicted William Jefferson from the House. The second thing missing in all of this is that the stories I read in the Chicago Tribune and the CBS websites don't even mention that Governor Blagojevich is a Democrat. It's not mentioned even once in either of those stories.
It appears we're in for another four years (hopefully not eight years) of investigations and corruption. I, for one, do not want to see another impeachment of a sitting President. I'm afraid though that we're headed that way. For you liberals reading this, fear not. You have 58 Senate seats, so he won't be removed from office.
We're about to have another Democrat in office and we've already got the scandals.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
During his first year in office, Whitewater became a household word. There was travelgate, then Vince Fosters suicide (?) possibly related to travelgate, whitewater or other things. Following his suicide(?) there were the reports that Hillary got the cold shoulder from Mrs. Foster because she was having an affair with Vince Foster.
We spent the next 8 years having to listen to the corruption of the Clintons. Travelgate, Arlingtongate, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, culminating in his being caught red-handed (or blue dressed) with Monica Lewinsky. There was a sitting governor indicted and convicted (Jim Guy Tucker). Mike Espy, Webb Hubbell, Ron Brown (died in plane crash), a woman found dead in the Commerce Department offices, blackmail by a foriegn country, then there was the married couple, Jim and Susan McDougal.
Here we are in 2008. The people of the United States have just elected a Democrat to the White House. Senator Barack Hussein Obama has been elected President. By the way, there is no such thing as the "office of the President Elect" and Senator Obama is not officially "President Elect" until after December 15 when the electors finally elect him President. So what do we have now?
Obama has not even taken the office yet and the corruption has started. We've heard again, short-lived reports of a shady land deal, how he forced out another candidate in his own party to get elected to the state Senate in Illinois, questions about his citizenship and even reports of another woman. Now we find out that the governor of Illinois was trying to sell the vacated Senate seat of Senator Obama (he resigned his seat on November 16). The sale portion was to put money into the hands of the governor, his wife, and his campaign for re-election.
Governor Rod Blagojevich, (pronounced bagoyovich) was arrested at his home at 6:15 am on Tuesday, December 9, 2008. There are numerous charges against him and his advisor (also arrested this morning), for bribery in trying to sell the vacated Senate seat of Senator Obama. He also wanted to get his wife appointed to a board which would give her a high paying job which they hoped would be in excess of $150,000 per year. He also wanted to be appointed to the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services. If he didn't get something, he considered appointing himself to the Senate to replace Obama.
In addition, the governor and his aide were allegedly conspiring to demand the firing of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune in exchange for help in selling Wrigley Field.
Again, if we refer back to the Clinton years, we go just a bit before the Clinton years. There was a senator named Bob Packwood who was charged with sexual harassment. The prosecutor in his case was Ken Starr. The Democrats loved Ken Starr because he managed to get rid of Bob Packwood. However, just a few short years later, Ken Starr was appointed to be the special prosecutor in the Whitewater investigation of Bill Clinton. We all know how Starr was vilified by the Democrats for his work on Bill Clinton's corruption.
Let's move ahead to the Bush 43 years. A special prosecutor was named to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. His name was Patrick Fitzgerald. The only thing he was able to accomplish was to get Scooter Libby indicted for lying to investigators during the investigation. Democrats loved him for getting the indictment, despite Libby not being indicted for outing Plame. Richard Armitage was actually the one that put her name out, and he was never indicted let alone convicted.
Now, Patrick Fitzgerald is the prosecutor in the case against Governor Blagojevich. Already the press is complaining because the governor was arrested at his home rather than being allowed to turn himself in. Patrick Fitzgerald is about to be the Ken Starr of the Obama administration.
In another bit of irony, a Grand Jury has issued subpoenas in the Rezko/Obama land deal.
Do you notice what's missing in all of this information? First thing that's missing is The people. Obama didn't finish his term in the Senate. The Governor of Illinois selects his replacement. Not the people. This is a perfect example of what's wrong with a sitting governor replacing a Senator or a Representative when they don't finish their terms. The way to solve this is not to leave this in the hands of elected officials, but rather to call a special election so the people may select their Representative or Senator to represent them. After all, the people proved they can do the righ thing. They voted out the corrupt and indicted William Jefferson from the House. The second thing missing in all of this is that the stories I read in the Chicago Tribune and the CBS websites don't even mention that Governor Blagojevich is a Democrat. It's not mentioned even once in either of those stories.
It appears we're in for another four years (hopefully not eight years) of investigations and corruption. I, for one, do not want to see another impeachment of a sitting President. I'm afraid though that we're headed that way. For you liberals reading this, fear not. You have 58 Senate seats, so he won't be removed from office.
We're about to have another Democrat in office and we've already got the scandals.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Monday, December 1, 2008
Zogby Results on Obama Election
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
Not only does this tell us how poor the news media in this country is, but it also tells us that liberals don't think or apply reason.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
Not only does this tell us how poor the news media in this country is, but it also tells us that liberals don't think or apply reason.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Four Financial Institutions Paid Clinton $2.1 Million
Citigroup paid Bill Clinton $700,000; Goldman Sachs paid $550,000; Lehman Brothers paid $300,000 and Merrill Lynch paid $175,000 to the former president for speeches during that time period. Sen. Clinton’s 2008 financial disclosure reports are not yet available.
I really have to wonder about these institutions that are taking bailout money or disappearing altogether, then sending their people off to party in other parts of the country, and those that pay out big bucks for speeches. If these companies didn't know that they were heading into financial problems, then I also have to wonder about the quality of management of these companies.
I have always thought that there was nothing wrong with a CEO getting a big bonus in his contract for leaving. Let me rephrase that. Nothing illegal. I can understand giving certain perks to have a certain CEO that you want to come and run your company. However, these CEO's should know the status of their company once they are in that position and they should know that paying out huge dollars just to have a guy speak is not affordable. If they didn't know that they were about to enter lean times, then the question becomes 'what was so enticing about this guy that we signed the guy with a big payout when he leaves'?
We all know that Bill Clinton is a political animal. So why was he invited to speak at financial institutions? This seems inappropriate at best. There really is no difference between a union spending union dues to endorse certain candidates than for a major financial institution to bring in political figures to speak. I cannot think of one thing that Bill Clinton could contribute to a financial institution. He's a former lawyer who lost his license. He's a former President who was impeached (one of only two in history).
What could Bill Clinton have contributed to financial institutions? I'm admittedly biased because I don't care for the former President at all. The only thing that I can think that he would contribute to them is advice on how to destroy the blue dress before you return home to the wife and kids.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
I really have to wonder about these institutions that are taking bailout money or disappearing altogether, then sending their people off to party in other parts of the country, and those that pay out big bucks for speeches. If these companies didn't know that they were heading into financial problems, then I also have to wonder about the quality of management of these companies.
I have always thought that there was nothing wrong with a CEO getting a big bonus in his contract for leaving. Let me rephrase that. Nothing illegal. I can understand giving certain perks to have a certain CEO that you want to come and run your company. However, these CEO's should know the status of their company once they are in that position and they should know that paying out huge dollars just to have a guy speak is not affordable. If they didn't know that they were about to enter lean times, then the question becomes 'what was so enticing about this guy that we signed the guy with a big payout when he leaves'?
We all know that Bill Clinton is a political animal. So why was he invited to speak at financial institutions? This seems inappropriate at best. There really is no difference between a union spending union dues to endorse certain candidates than for a major financial institution to bring in political figures to speak. I cannot think of one thing that Bill Clinton could contribute to a financial institution. He's a former lawyer who lost his license. He's a former President who was impeached (one of only two in history).
What could Bill Clinton have contributed to financial institutions? I'm admittedly biased because I don't care for the former President at all. The only thing that I can think that he would contribute to them is advice on how to destroy the blue dress before you return home to the wife and kids.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Friday, November 21, 2008
The True Story of Thanksgiving
The following story is about Thanksgiving. You’ll notice it’s a bit different from what’s taught in the government school system, not that that should surprise anyone. The source for this story is Governor William Bradford himself.
On August 1, 1620, a ship called the Mayflower set sail for the New World. There were 102 passengers aboard of which 40 were the pilgrims. In November, they arrived in New England and found a barren and desolate wilderness. During that first winter, nearly half of them died, including Governor William Bradford’s wife.
When spring arrived, the Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish, and skin beavers for coats. Life did get better for the pilgrims, but they didn’t prosper. In the fall of that year, they celebrated Thanksgiving, which for the Pilgrims meant a day of fasting and prayer, then the three days of feasting.
Edward Winslow gave this account of that Thanksgiving. "Our harvest being gotten in, our Governour sent foure men on fowling, that so we might after a more speciall manner rejoyce together, after we had gathered the fruit of our labours; they foure in one day killed as much fowle, as with a little helpe beside, served the Company almost a weeke, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Armes, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest King Massasoyt, with some nintie men, whom for three dayes we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed dive Deere, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captaine, and others. And although it be not alwayes so plentifull, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodnesse of God, we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie."
The original contract that they pilgrims agreed to with their merchant-sponsors in London called for all that they produced to be placed in a common store and each family was entitled to one common share of that store. The land they cleared and the houses they built all belonged to the community. There was no incentive to work their lands any more than their neighbors. There was no motivation to improve.
William Bradford, who had become the Governor decided to take action to improve the lives of the pilgrims. He assigned a plot of land to each family. What they produced on their land they were free to sell to others. They would no longer be expected to contribute to a community store for all to share. Governor Bradford wrote, “ The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years…that by taking wealth, would make them happy and flourishing, as if they were wiser than God. For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense…that was thought injustice.”
They found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So they turned loose the capitalism. Free enterprise. Bradford wrote,” This has very good success for it made all handsd industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”
In short order, the pilgrims had more food than they could eat themselves. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London and their success attracted more and more Europeans and began what came to be known as as the Great Puritan Migration.
It is sad that this is not taught in the government schools.
This Thanksgiving, I'll be giving Thanks for my children, for the chance to live in a free society where I am free to worship as I choose, and that I can hope and work for that free society to continue even in trying times which we are likely to be headed.
Sources for this: http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/nov2796.html http://www.latimes.com/features/kids/readingroom/la-et-story23-2008nov23,0,7094177.story, http://www.rushimbaugh.com/
Brett
On August 1, 1620, a ship called the Mayflower set sail for the New World. There were 102 passengers aboard of which 40 were the pilgrims. In November, they arrived in New England and found a barren and desolate wilderness. During that first winter, nearly half of them died, including Governor William Bradford’s wife.
When spring arrived, the Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish, and skin beavers for coats. Life did get better for the pilgrims, but they didn’t prosper. In the fall of that year, they celebrated Thanksgiving, which for the Pilgrims meant a day of fasting and prayer, then the three days of feasting.
Edward Winslow gave this account of that Thanksgiving. "Our harvest being gotten in, our Governour sent foure men on fowling, that so we might after a more speciall manner rejoyce together, after we had gathered the fruit of our labours; they foure in one day killed as much fowle, as with a little helpe beside, served the Company almost a weeke, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Armes, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest King Massasoyt, with some nintie men, whom for three dayes we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed dive Deere, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captaine, and others. And although it be not alwayes so plentifull, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodnesse of God, we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie."
The original contract that they pilgrims agreed to with their merchant-sponsors in London called for all that they produced to be placed in a common store and each family was entitled to one common share of that store. The land they cleared and the houses they built all belonged to the community. There was no incentive to work their lands any more than their neighbors. There was no motivation to improve.
William Bradford, who had become the Governor decided to take action to improve the lives of the pilgrims. He assigned a plot of land to each family. What they produced on their land they were free to sell to others. They would no longer be expected to contribute to a community store for all to share. Governor Bradford wrote, “ The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years…that by taking wealth, would make them happy and flourishing, as if they were wiser than God. For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense…that was thought injustice.”
They found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So they turned loose the capitalism. Free enterprise. Bradford wrote,” This has very good success for it made all handsd industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”
In short order, the pilgrims had more food than they could eat themselves. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London and their success attracted more and more Europeans and began what came to be known as as the Great Puritan Migration.
It is sad that this is not taught in the government schools.
This Thanksgiving, I'll be giving Thanks for my children, for the chance to live in a free society where I am free to worship as I choose, and that I can hope and work for that free society to continue even in trying times which we are likely to be headed.
Sources for this: http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/nov2796.html http://www.latimes.com/features/kids/readingroom/la-et-story23-2008nov23,0,7094177.story, http://www.rushimbaugh.com/
Brett
Friday, November 14, 2008
What is Wrong with the Republicans?
There is a simple answer to the question of what is wrong with the Republicans. The answer is that they moved away from their conservative roots and tried to join the mainstream media and to get along with the Democrats.
Most of the people that read this blog already know this, but for you liberals and Democrats that have this read to you, here’s a little newsflash for you. John McCain is not Conservative. I don’t care how many times he claimed to be, he is not a Conservative. There is only one thing that saved him from being beaten into oblivion in this past election. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. She is a Conservative.
When the head of a ticket is a Conservative, they don’t lose. Ronald Reagan won in two landslides. He also carried George H. W. Bush to the Presidency in 1987. President Bush, however, raised taxes (not a conservative thing to do). That caused a short recession. He lost his next election. He probably wouldn’t have lost had it not been for Ross Perot, but Perot wouldn’t have been a factor had Bush stuck to Conservatism.
Bob Dole was not Conservative. He was a moderate. He lost. George W. Bush ran as a Conservative and he won. That’s about when Conservatism went into hiding. In 1994 Republicans nationalized the election and ran on the Contract With America. They promised open debate and votes on ten items within their first 100 days. They won the majority on that promise. They followed through on their promise and voted on all ten in less than 100 days. Not all passed, but they held to their promise and had open debates and votes on all ten items. One was vetoed by President Clinton and they overrode his veto.
After George W. Bush was elected, the Republicans had the House, the Senate and the White House. That’s when Conservatism disappeared. There were a few, but for the most part, the Republicans started buddying up to the press (who hate them) and they started spending like Democrats. I will give them credit for one thing. They did do better than Democrats. Not only did they spend like Democrats, they spent better than Democrats.
The Republicans have an opportunity here. Now that the House, Senate and White House is all Democrat, we know they will do more to take away rights and impose taxes on the American people. However, they should be going after all with another nationalized election in 2010 and beyond. No more of keeping one or two Democrats around to remind us. We can win again and will win again, if we put forth Conservative ideas and promises and follow through on those promises.
First of all, the Republicans should not go on any political programs, such as the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, nor any of the repeated versions following that like Campbell Brown’s “all bull all the time” nor on Larry King, nor on Anderson Cooper. They also shouldn’t go on programs on Fox like Hannity and Colmes or Bill O’Reilly or any of the others they have on.
If a Republican is going to be on television, it should only be in the form of a press conference. Tell the press what they are looking at, what they plan to do, why the Democrats are wrong and then leave. The Press is not the friend of the Republicans.
The Republicans also need to start putting together their conservative principles into the form of an agenda for the next election. I believe they should start with these, although it’s not an entire list.
1. National Security: Protect our borders and invoke the Bush doctrine again. If you sponsor terrorism, you’re a terrorist. If you harbor terrorists, you’re a terrorist.
2. Free Market. No more bailouts. If a company fails, it fails. No more of the government buying stock in companies.
3. Illegal Immigration: If you are in this country illegally, leave. You have one year to leave on your own. You’re welcome to come back as long as you do it legally. We will put you on a list and welcome you back quickly if you’re legal. If we catch you here illegally and you haven’t taken advantage of the one year chance to leave on your own, you will be deported and will not be allowed back.
4. Taxes: Debate the Fair tax and other tax plans to revamp the tax code. What we have is not working. People are not paying their fair share. I’m speaking mainly of the poor.
5. Cut spending: Line by line through the budget and eliminate the ones that aren’t working. This could take some time because there are a lot of things that are not working.
6. Social Security/Medicare: This needs to be fixed. It could be fixed with an implementation of the Fair Tax, but I still prefer privatization. Not the way the liberals describe privatization, but the truth and the facts.
7. Reduce the size of government: Eliminate the redundant and the dead weight.
8. Revamp the voter registration: There are simple ways to count the vote. Purge all voter registrations nationwide. Make the registration process uniform through each state.
9. End Earmarks.
I’m sure there are more things that I’m forgetting or not thinking of right at the moment that can be added to this list, and I’m open to hearing them from anyone.
Power is lent to the government by the people. In our day and age, it seems to me that the people are allowing the government to take the power away from the people and claim it as their own. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.
It’s time that the people got tough with our elected officials and told them what we want or that we’ll get rid of them. Conservatism is the only way for Americans to maintain the power to lend to the government. If the Republicans don't get back to being Conservate, we'll all be asking the government for our daily needs.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Most of the people that read this blog already know this, but for you liberals and Democrats that have this read to you, here’s a little newsflash for you. John McCain is not Conservative. I don’t care how many times he claimed to be, he is not a Conservative. There is only one thing that saved him from being beaten into oblivion in this past election. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. She is a Conservative.
When the head of a ticket is a Conservative, they don’t lose. Ronald Reagan won in two landslides. He also carried George H. W. Bush to the Presidency in 1987. President Bush, however, raised taxes (not a conservative thing to do). That caused a short recession. He lost his next election. He probably wouldn’t have lost had it not been for Ross Perot, but Perot wouldn’t have been a factor had Bush stuck to Conservatism.
Bob Dole was not Conservative. He was a moderate. He lost. George W. Bush ran as a Conservative and he won. That’s about when Conservatism went into hiding. In 1994 Republicans nationalized the election and ran on the Contract With America. They promised open debate and votes on ten items within their first 100 days. They won the majority on that promise. They followed through on their promise and voted on all ten in less than 100 days. Not all passed, but they held to their promise and had open debates and votes on all ten items. One was vetoed by President Clinton and they overrode his veto.
After George W. Bush was elected, the Republicans had the House, the Senate and the White House. That’s when Conservatism disappeared. There were a few, but for the most part, the Republicans started buddying up to the press (who hate them) and they started spending like Democrats. I will give them credit for one thing. They did do better than Democrats. Not only did they spend like Democrats, they spent better than Democrats.
The Republicans have an opportunity here. Now that the House, Senate and White House is all Democrat, we know they will do more to take away rights and impose taxes on the American people. However, they should be going after all with another nationalized election in 2010 and beyond. No more of keeping one or two Democrats around to remind us. We can win again and will win again, if we put forth Conservative ideas and promises and follow through on those promises.
First of all, the Republicans should not go on any political programs, such as the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, nor any of the repeated versions following that like Campbell Brown’s “all bull all the time” nor on Larry King, nor on Anderson Cooper. They also shouldn’t go on programs on Fox like Hannity and Colmes or Bill O’Reilly or any of the others they have on.
If a Republican is going to be on television, it should only be in the form of a press conference. Tell the press what they are looking at, what they plan to do, why the Democrats are wrong and then leave. The Press is not the friend of the Republicans.
The Republicans also need to start putting together their conservative principles into the form of an agenda for the next election. I believe they should start with these, although it’s not an entire list.
1. National Security: Protect our borders and invoke the Bush doctrine again. If you sponsor terrorism, you’re a terrorist. If you harbor terrorists, you’re a terrorist.
2. Free Market. No more bailouts. If a company fails, it fails. No more of the government buying stock in companies.
3. Illegal Immigration: If you are in this country illegally, leave. You have one year to leave on your own. You’re welcome to come back as long as you do it legally. We will put you on a list and welcome you back quickly if you’re legal. If we catch you here illegally and you haven’t taken advantage of the one year chance to leave on your own, you will be deported and will not be allowed back.
4. Taxes: Debate the Fair tax and other tax plans to revamp the tax code. What we have is not working. People are not paying their fair share. I’m speaking mainly of the poor.
5. Cut spending: Line by line through the budget and eliminate the ones that aren’t working. This could take some time because there are a lot of things that are not working.
6. Social Security/Medicare: This needs to be fixed. It could be fixed with an implementation of the Fair Tax, but I still prefer privatization. Not the way the liberals describe privatization, but the truth and the facts.
7. Reduce the size of government: Eliminate the redundant and the dead weight.
8. Revamp the voter registration: There are simple ways to count the vote. Purge all voter registrations nationwide. Make the registration process uniform through each state.
9. End Earmarks.
I’m sure there are more things that I’m forgetting or not thinking of right at the moment that can be added to this list, and I’m open to hearing them from anyone.
Power is lent to the government by the people. In our day and age, it seems to me that the people are allowing the government to take the power away from the people and claim it as their own. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.
It’s time that the people got tough with our elected officials and told them what we want or that we’ll get rid of them. Conservatism is the only way for Americans to maintain the power to lend to the government. If the Republicans don't get back to being Conservate, we'll all be asking the government for our daily needs.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Monday, November 10, 2008
Next Step: The Transition
On January 20, 2009 President George W. Bush will watch as President Elect Barack Hussein Obama is sworn in as 44th President of the United States. Between now and then there will be a transition. Obama will have to be brought up to speed on National Security first as well as all other aspects of governing that goes beyond the partisan politics.
While I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall as Obama learned things he didn't know before regarding our National Security, it would be purely out of curiosity if a light would come on over his head when he learns about the very real threats facing our nation that he didn't deal with during the campaign.
So instead, I'm looking forward to a very smooth transition from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. I remember all too well the reports of the transition from Clinton to Bush. Items were taken by the Clintons from the White House that shouldn't have been. Carpets were torn. Walls were scuffed, and most childishly, the "W's" were removed from computer keyboards.
From all accounts that I've read and heard about thus far, President and Mrs. Bush have been extremely gracious to the Obama's and various departments are bending over backwards to help the Obama transition team have a smooth move. Not only is this classy, it's necessary for the country. Imagine if the Bush people were bitter and angry about the outcome of the election and left graffiti on the walls, or stole various items from the people's house. The new administration might have every road block thrown in front of them that's conceivable and taking their eyes off, even briefly, the safety of the borders and the American people.....oh wait. We don't have to imagine. Bush came in at a disadvantage with his transition process because of the election that lasted 35 days, then the petty vandalism committed by the Clinton Administration. Less than 8 months later, we were attacked by terrorists.
The new President deserves, by virtue of the election, to have every advantage and no hindrances placed before him. I'm all for kicking his butt around (not literally) when he proposes the silly policies and laws he wants enacted that will be bad for the country. However, the transition from one administration to another is not the time for partisanship. It IS the time for America to shine in it's transfer of one person for another to hold the highest office in the land.
I am worried that a President Obama will be the socialist he portrayed himself to be during the campaign and that he has the Congress all in agreement with him because they are all liberal. For now though, I'm happy to see that the Bush Administration is working hard and seems prepared for any attempts at attacks on the American people on American soil during the time of transition.
Finally, I hope that Obama learns from the Bush Administration on how to transition to the next administration. I'm hoping he gets to put it into practice in four years, but whenever it is, I do hope that Obama puts (to quote John McCain) Country First over his own ego, or disappointment when he leaves and the Republicans take back the White House, whether in four years or eight years.
President Bush may not be popular at this time, but he is a class act and showing how to make the transition without the bitterness of the past administration.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
While I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall as Obama learned things he didn't know before regarding our National Security, it would be purely out of curiosity if a light would come on over his head when he learns about the very real threats facing our nation that he didn't deal with during the campaign.
So instead, I'm looking forward to a very smooth transition from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. I remember all too well the reports of the transition from Clinton to Bush. Items were taken by the Clintons from the White House that shouldn't have been. Carpets were torn. Walls were scuffed, and most childishly, the "W's" were removed from computer keyboards.
From all accounts that I've read and heard about thus far, President and Mrs. Bush have been extremely gracious to the Obama's and various departments are bending over backwards to help the Obama transition team have a smooth move. Not only is this classy, it's necessary for the country. Imagine if the Bush people were bitter and angry about the outcome of the election and left graffiti on the walls, or stole various items from the people's house. The new administration might have every road block thrown in front of them that's conceivable and taking their eyes off, even briefly, the safety of the borders and the American people.....oh wait. We don't have to imagine. Bush came in at a disadvantage with his transition process because of the election that lasted 35 days, then the petty vandalism committed by the Clinton Administration. Less than 8 months later, we were attacked by terrorists.
The new President deserves, by virtue of the election, to have every advantage and no hindrances placed before him. I'm all for kicking his butt around (not literally) when he proposes the silly policies and laws he wants enacted that will be bad for the country. However, the transition from one administration to another is not the time for partisanship. It IS the time for America to shine in it's transfer of one person for another to hold the highest office in the land.
I am worried that a President Obama will be the socialist he portrayed himself to be during the campaign and that he has the Congress all in agreement with him because they are all liberal. For now though, I'm happy to see that the Bush Administration is working hard and seems prepared for any attempts at attacks on the American people on American soil during the time of transition.
Finally, I hope that Obama learns from the Bush Administration on how to transition to the next administration. I'm hoping he gets to put it into practice in four years, but whenever it is, I do hope that Obama puts (to quote John McCain) Country First over his own ego, or disappointment when he leaves and the Republicans take back the White House, whether in four years or eight years.
President Bush may not be popular at this time, but he is a class act and showing how to make the transition without the bitterness of the past administration.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
The Election: Interesting and Dangerous Times Ahead
I have been asked why I haven’t written anything about the recent election. There are several reasons. Some personal, such as very busy with work, and some repairs that were needed due to a summer storm but the main reason is that I didn’t want to be a reactionary or defeatist about the election and what it meant and what it means.
First, Barack Hussein Obama won the election. He is to be congratulated. He’s won the largest victory margin of any Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson. Bill Clinton never reached 50% in his two elections. Jimmy Carter barely beat Gerald Ford in 1976. So this was a clear victory for Obama.
Republicans were generally wiped out across the country, but not with the same difference in spread as the Obama win over McCain. For instance, in my own district, Tim Walberg lost to Mark Schauer by a very small margin. I went to bed on election night with Walberg winning, but when I woke up in the morning, Schauer had won. It’s this way across the country, with a few exceptions. I give the credit for that to Obama. Had the election been similar to the Clinton elections, I believe that Republicans wouldn’t have lost as many seats. The margin would still have been close, but many would have been reversed with the Republicans maintaining their seats. You may feel differently, and that’s fine. It’s just my opinion that Obama brought the Democrats over the finish line with his wider than expected margin of victory.
Obama should have won this election handily. In that, I think he failed. John McCain is not a conservative. I’ve been saying this since the Michigan primary back in January. It still holds true. John McCain is a moderate. Remember, this is a man that was tempted to leave the Republican Party in 2000. He was also considering running as John Kerry’s Vice Presidential candidate in 2004. He’s been a co-sponsor on campaign finance reform (those limits proved successful, eh?), immigration reform and others. Remember McCain/Feingold? McCain/Kennedy? McCain/Lieberman?
It amazes me that the Republicans chose McCain as their candidate after his complete failure in immigration reform. He wanted amnesty and the people of this country rose up and defeated it. If the people hadn’t spoken by their own choice when writing, faxing and calling their elected officials in opposition to the immigration reform package, we’d be operating under a completely different system.
Does all of this mean that I voted for Obama? Absolutely not! The decision I made prior to the Republican National Convention was that I would hold my nose and vote for McCain because Obama would be (and now will be) worse for this country than McCain. But something changed. At the Convention, McCain chose Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.
My vote then became a vote for Palin and McCain just happened to be on the ticket as well.
We’re in for some fun, as well as dangerous times for this country in the next four years, but one thing is certain. This will be an interesting four years.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
First, Barack Hussein Obama won the election. He is to be congratulated. He’s won the largest victory margin of any Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson. Bill Clinton never reached 50% in his two elections. Jimmy Carter barely beat Gerald Ford in 1976. So this was a clear victory for Obama.
Republicans were generally wiped out across the country, but not with the same difference in spread as the Obama win over McCain. For instance, in my own district, Tim Walberg lost to Mark Schauer by a very small margin. I went to bed on election night with Walberg winning, but when I woke up in the morning, Schauer had won. It’s this way across the country, with a few exceptions. I give the credit for that to Obama. Had the election been similar to the Clinton elections, I believe that Republicans wouldn’t have lost as many seats. The margin would still have been close, but many would have been reversed with the Republicans maintaining their seats. You may feel differently, and that’s fine. It’s just my opinion that Obama brought the Democrats over the finish line with his wider than expected margin of victory.
Obama should have won this election handily. In that, I think he failed. John McCain is not a conservative. I’ve been saying this since the Michigan primary back in January. It still holds true. John McCain is a moderate. Remember, this is a man that was tempted to leave the Republican Party in 2000. He was also considering running as John Kerry’s Vice Presidential candidate in 2004. He’s been a co-sponsor on campaign finance reform (those limits proved successful, eh?), immigration reform and others. Remember McCain/Feingold? McCain/Kennedy? McCain/Lieberman?
It amazes me that the Republicans chose McCain as their candidate after his complete failure in immigration reform. He wanted amnesty and the people of this country rose up and defeated it. If the people hadn’t spoken by their own choice when writing, faxing and calling their elected officials in opposition to the immigration reform package, we’d be operating under a completely different system.
Does all of this mean that I voted for Obama? Absolutely not! The decision I made prior to the Republican National Convention was that I would hold my nose and vote for McCain because Obama would be (and now will be) worse for this country than McCain. But something changed. At the Convention, McCain chose Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.
My vote then became a vote for Palin and McCain just happened to be on the ticket as well.
We’re in for some fun, as well as dangerous times for this country in the next four years, but one thing is certain. This will be an interesting four years.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Governor Sarah Palin Cleared in Troopergate
An Independent counsel has cleared Governor and Republican Vice Presidential Candidate, Sarah Palin, of any and all ethics violations in the troopergate matter.
But then, we all knew she would be cleared.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
But then, we all knew she would be cleared.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Friday, October 31, 2008
Obama's Girlfriend?
It's being reported that Barack Hussien Obama has had a girlfriend. Vera Baker, who was on his staff (but didn't seem to do much that others in the office could see) was originally sent to New York when Michelle Obama got angry about her, but was later sent to exiled to the Carribean.
One can only wonder if Michelle throws her ash trays as fast and hard as Hillary throws hers.
This country doesn't need another Clinton, stained blue dresses, and the subsequent scandals. Thankfully, the polls are showing McCain/Palin rising fast in the polls while Obama drops like a rock.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
One can only wonder if Michelle throws her ash trays as fast and hard as Hillary throws hers.
This country doesn't need another Clinton, stained blue dresses, and the subsequent scandals. Thankfully, the polls are showing McCain/Palin rising fast in the polls while Obama drops like a rock.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Obama's Racism Now On Display
Senator Barack Hussein Obama has kicked off three newspapers from his plane that have endorsed Senator John Sydney McCain for President. The Washington Times, Dallas Morning News and New York Post all have endorsed McCain for President. Obama has told them they are no longer welcome on his plane. He plans to replace them with a couple of black media organizations.
Every instance of racism in this election has been perpetrated by the Democrats beginning with Bill Clinton in South Carolina and other events and comments, leading now to the expulsion of three news outlets and the replacement with BET Television and others.
In other news, a man in California hung an effigy of Governor Sarah Palin. However, two young men hung an effigy of Obama in Kentucky and have been arrested. The California man has not been arrested. In Indiana a woman was not arrested for doing the same thing.
These types of things are what we're in for during the next four years if Obama is elected.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Every instance of racism in this election has been perpetrated by the Democrats beginning with Bill Clinton in South Carolina and other events and comments, leading now to the expulsion of three news outlets and the replacement with BET Television and others.
In other news, a man in California hung an effigy of Governor Sarah Palin. However, two young men hung an effigy of Obama in Kentucky and have been arrested. The California man has not been arrested. In Indiana a woman was not arrested for doing the same thing.
These types of things are what we're in for during the next four years if Obama is elected.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Monday, October 27, 2008
What Does Obama Bring to us?
It's been an interesting couple of days.
1. The owner of the Miami Dolphins says he's going to sell the NFL team because he'd rather give money to charity than to give it to Obama if Obama wins the election. Obama plans to raise the capital gains tax from the current level of 15% to 20%. Of course, the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 are due to expire on December 31, 2010, which is another tax increase on the capital gains, in addition to income taxes increasing, estate tax increase, dividend tax increase and others. Obama has said he wants them to expire, so he'll have raised taxes twice if he wins and gets his increase and doesn't stop the automatic increase.
2. In Indiana, the Attorney General said that ACORN had turned in many fraudulent voter registrations. Charges will be pursued soon. They found thousands of fraudulent registrations in Illinois as well, including one former State Senator who died five years before he registered.
3. Joe Biden was interviewed by an Orlando television station and was asked about Obama's "spread the wealth" comment and if he was a Marxist, among other things. The TV station has been notified that they are banned from the Obama campaign. Now today, a Philadelphia television station asked some of the same questions and today, they too were banned from being allowed to interview the Obama campaign.
4. In West Hollywood, someone had a mannequin dressed like Governor Sarah Palin, and another mannequin of Senator McCain coming out of a burning chimney. This just displays that lack of good taste on the part of the Obama followers.
5. In Ohio, the attorney general announced that they are investigating the illegal use of government resources to gather information on Joe the Plumber. You'll remember that after Senator Barack Hussein Obama dropped by Joe the Plumbers house uninvited, and interrupted him playing catch with his son, Joe asked about the Senators tax plan and said it sounds like socialism to him. He instantly became national news. Then Senators Obama and Biden started berating and mocking Joe the Plumber in their speeches. All of a sudden the news media had information on Joe the Plumber that apparently came from whomever was illegally using government resources to gather this information on Joe the Plumber.
6. It still amazes me that John McCain is so close in this race. With President Bush's high unpopularity, this should be a cakewalk for Obama. McCain fell in his lead after the credit markets had their blow up. Yet he's still in this race. The news media focuses on Joe the Plumbers past, Sarah Palin's clothes and they are constantly asking if Palin is a drag on the ticket, yet they don't report for more than one day about Biden's comments about Obama being tested within six months. Nor do they talk about the two television stations being banished by the Obama campaign for daring to ask questions. Nor do they talk about Biden saying that FDR went on television after the market crash in 1929 (by the way, Herbert Hoover was President, not FDR, and there were no televisions in those days).
It really is a wonder how McCain can be in striking distance with the media bias and their lack of reporting on the Obama side, and all of the negative reporting of McCain and Palin on non stories.
It's going to be a fun final week. Then we get to hear about all of the voter fraud on election day. These liberals still don't know how to count past twenty. If they have someone missing a toe or a finger, they may not even make it to twenty.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Campaign 2008 Issue No. 2. The Economy
The second priority this election season, and the most pressing, is the economy. We have two candidates that are diametrically opposed to one another.
Unfortunately, neither one of them can lay claim to being good at the economy. So our hope must be that they’ll choose some very good advisors in the matter of the economy.So far, both have made mistakes in dealing with the credit market breakdown.
McCain suspended his campaign for a couple of days and returned to Washington when this crisis erupted. It would have been much better if he had actually publicly accomplished something. If it was a grandstand political ploy, the Democrats political grandstand got the better of it because they came out en masse to berate him for coming back and saying that he’d only clog up the works. We didn’t find out until a couple of days later that he actually did help John Boehner and the House members with this problem.
However, he compounded his problem by voting for the final bailout package because it had so much pork in it. In fact, even if it only had one pork item in it, he’d not have been successful. The only thing that saved him is that Barack Hussein Obama also showed up in Washington and then started grandstanding at the White House meeting.
McCain should have voted against the bailout, then gone out and told the world that he voted against it because it had pork. A bonus would have been if he could have identified the ones that added the pork, but that seems to be a matter of national security to find out who added the pork.
Now the talk has turned to taxes to help the economy. We know the Democrats plan. Tax and spend our way out of the problem. It never works. Obama has a spending program for every item that is talked about. Yet he’s sticking to his claim that he’ll cut taxes for 95% of the people and only add taxes on those making over $250,000 per year. This is class warfare and if he’s elected, along with a Democrat House and Senate, he’ll get what he wants, although the 95% will not see a tax cut.
Obama will pull a Clinton. If you remember, Clinton ran on a middle class tax cut in 1992. One month after his election, he went on national television and told the world that he’d never worked so hard in his life, but he just couldn’t honor the middle class tax cut.
Our taxes are going to be increased when the Bush tax cuts expire. If Obama wins and the Democrats win Congress, they’ll likely end the Bush tax cuts quickly, raising our taxes sooner (and possibly even retroactively to January 1) and plunge us deeper into a recession. Raising taxes in a bad economy is never good. Raising taxes in a good economy slows the growth.
The Democrats claim to be the champions of the working man, yet when Obama was called on his tax plan as he walked from door to door in Ohio, he met Joe the Plumber. When answering Joe’s question about taxes, he said that he wanted to spread the wealth as Joe made more money. In other words, punish Joe’s hard work by taking some of his earnings and giving it to others that didn’t work as hard, if at all. Obama and Biden then set out to berate Joe the Plumber.
That news prompted McCain and Palin to call Obama out on his socialist views. Even after this, Obama has been trying to explain why McCain calls him a socialist and can’t get that correct.
In Michigan, we know first hand , and recently, that increasing taxes in a bad economy does not work. We have been in a one state recession here for five years. After taxes were increased unemployment jumped from 7.5% to 8.9%.McCain has the right idea. Lower taxes, cut spending. At the very least, leave the taxes where they are and cut spending. But lower taxes would help even more. It would cut the deficit, raise revenue and put the economy back into the growth mode again.McCain has the right idea. Obama will only prolong the pain.
I welcome your comments.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
2008 Presidential Campaign Issue Number One: National Security
Yes, I know. CNN claims that issue number one is the economy. What can I say? They are wrong. The top issue is ALWAYS national security. If we’re attacked over and over again, what difference does the economy make? However, with our safety intact, we can then go to the next issue, which right now is the economy.
So what’s the difference between Barack Hussein Obama and John Sydney McCain on National Security? Well, we already know that Obama will be happy to sit down with our enemies without pre-conditions. What will he say? Will he beg Iran to not take over Iraq when he pulls our troops out? If they go along with him and say they won’t, what happens when Obama pulls them out and Iran does move in? Will he admit that he should not have gotten an agreement from Iran? Will he then move troops back into Iraq to free them from Iran? Or will he again sit down with the Iranian leadership and try to negotiate?
We know what McCain will do. He won’t leave Iraq until we’ve won and the Iraqi’s are able to protect themselves. He will not sit down with Iran until they come to us and ask to speak to us and even then, he won’t talk with them until Iran has made the rounds through the lower levels and already agreed to end their nuclear ambitions, and demonstrate it openly.
What about Hugo Chavez? Obama has said he’d speak to him as well. Can we trust his experience as a community organizer to solve the problems with Venezuela? What about when Chavez wants to move into Cuba. Will Obama chase him out or will he try to negotiate?
We know what McCain would do. He doesn’t even have to say it. He’d keep Chavez out of Cuba.
How do we know this? Obama has said he’d talk to our enemies withour pre-conditions. We saw and heard his wishy washy response during the Georgian crisis. We’ve also heard from Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrat Party, Joe Biden. He had “guaranteed” that if Obama is elected that Obama will be tested. Russia or the middle east, Al Queda (now in charge in the hills between Pakistan and Afghanistan according to Biden) will test Obama. The problem here is that if someone does test Obama, they are killing American citizens to give that test to Obama.
What it boils down to is that Biden is guaranteeing another attack in the United States within six months of Obama becoming President. Which group of us is Obama willing to sacrifice for that test? Another attack on New York? Maybe one in California. Is he really willing to allow a nuclear bomb or some other attack in Los Angeles, Houston, New York, Miami? Does he really consider that some Americans are worthy of sacrificing to prove he can lead?
I’m also curious why they would think we would be attacked. They’ve been saying for a year now that an Obama Presidency would bring the world back to respecting us. Why do they guarantee that we’ll be attacked if Obama will bring respect back to the US around the world?
We’ve been tested. During the 90’s we were attacked at least 8 times beginning with the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and ending with the USS Cole in 2000. Bill Clinton failed with each test. How do you know he failed? Because were attacked again and again.
We were also tested on September 11, 2001. President George Bush passed that test. Remember, he’d only been in office for less than 8 months. Yet, once we were attacked, it took him less than 30 days to respond. On October 7, 2001 he started bombing in Afghanistan. More importantly, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED SINCE. That is the best form of respect that we’re getting from around the world. They haven’t attacked us since. They’ve tried, but they’ve failed each time.
To change to Obama and the Democrats, with them guaranteeing that we’ll face a crisis seems silly to me. Which one of your children are you willing to sacrifice to a dirty bomb? Which one of your family members are you willing to watch die while Obama tries to figure out which country he should enter into discussions with? Which one of your friends are you willing to not have around any longer?
We don’t have that worry with McCain. The military understands this. In the Military Times Poll, they have published that the military is voting for McCain by 68% to 23%. If those that are in the know, that are on the front lines to protect this country aren’t willing to take a chance on Obama, then why should we?
Joe Biden put foreign policy back on top in this campaign. That is John McCain’s milieu. He did this by making stupid remarks to a group of supporters at a fund raiser.
McCain is the answer when it comes to protecting the country. If you want National Security, which is always issue number one, there is no choice. McCain must become President.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
So what’s the difference between Barack Hussein Obama and John Sydney McCain on National Security? Well, we already know that Obama will be happy to sit down with our enemies without pre-conditions. What will he say? Will he beg Iran to not take over Iraq when he pulls our troops out? If they go along with him and say they won’t, what happens when Obama pulls them out and Iran does move in? Will he admit that he should not have gotten an agreement from Iran? Will he then move troops back into Iraq to free them from Iran? Or will he again sit down with the Iranian leadership and try to negotiate?
We know what McCain will do. He won’t leave Iraq until we’ve won and the Iraqi’s are able to protect themselves. He will not sit down with Iran until they come to us and ask to speak to us and even then, he won’t talk with them until Iran has made the rounds through the lower levels and already agreed to end their nuclear ambitions, and demonstrate it openly.
What about Hugo Chavez? Obama has said he’d speak to him as well. Can we trust his experience as a community organizer to solve the problems with Venezuela? What about when Chavez wants to move into Cuba. Will Obama chase him out or will he try to negotiate?
We know what McCain would do. He doesn’t even have to say it. He’d keep Chavez out of Cuba.
How do we know this? Obama has said he’d talk to our enemies withour pre-conditions. We saw and heard his wishy washy response during the Georgian crisis. We’ve also heard from Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrat Party, Joe Biden. He had “guaranteed” that if Obama is elected that Obama will be tested. Russia or the middle east, Al Queda (now in charge in the hills between Pakistan and Afghanistan according to Biden) will test Obama. The problem here is that if someone does test Obama, they are killing American citizens to give that test to Obama.
What it boils down to is that Biden is guaranteeing another attack in the United States within six months of Obama becoming President. Which group of us is Obama willing to sacrifice for that test? Another attack on New York? Maybe one in California. Is he really willing to allow a nuclear bomb or some other attack in Los Angeles, Houston, New York, Miami? Does he really consider that some Americans are worthy of sacrificing to prove he can lead?
I’m also curious why they would think we would be attacked. They’ve been saying for a year now that an Obama Presidency would bring the world back to respecting us. Why do they guarantee that we’ll be attacked if Obama will bring respect back to the US around the world?
We’ve been tested. During the 90’s we were attacked at least 8 times beginning with the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and ending with the USS Cole in 2000. Bill Clinton failed with each test. How do you know he failed? Because were attacked again and again.
We were also tested on September 11, 2001. President George Bush passed that test. Remember, he’d only been in office for less than 8 months. Yet, once we were attacked, it took him less than 30 days to respond. On October 7, 2001 he started bombing in Afghanistan. More importantly, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED SINCE. That is the best form of respect that we’re getting from around the world. They haven’t attacked us since. They’ve tried, but they’ve failed each time.
To change to Obama and the Democrats, with them guaranteeing that we’ll face a crisis seems silly to me. Which one of your children are you willing to sacrifice to a dirty bomb? Which one of your family members are you willing to watch die while Obama tries to figure out which country he should enter into discussions with? Which one of your friends are you willing to not have around any longer?
We don’t have that worry with McCain. The military understands this. In the Military Times Poll, they have published that the military is voting for McCain by 68% to 23%. If those that are in the know, that are on the front lines to protect this country aren’t willing to take a chance on Obama, then why should we?
Joe Biden put foreign policy back on top in this campaign. That is John McCain’s milieu. He did this by making stupid remarks to a group of supporters at a fund raiser.
McCain is the answer when it comes to protecting the country. If you want National Security, which is always issue number one, there is no choice. McCain must become President.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Monday, October 20, 2008
Walberg asks Paulson, Bernanki to Examine recent AIG spending sprees
WASHINGTON D.C. — Recent news reports have surfaced that executives from AIG recklessly spent money shortly after the federal government bailed the giant insurance company out, including “a $400,000 retreat at a posh California resort.”Congressman Tim Walberg, who opposed taxpayer bailouts of the financial sector, joined a delegation of members concerned about AIG’s reckless spending and sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asking the two leaders to ensure taxpayer dollars were not used by AIG on these spending sprees. Full text of the letter is below:Dear Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke:We write to express strong concerns about AIG’s possible misuse of federal taxpayer funds.It has come to our attention that, after the Federal Government provided a loan of $85 billion to AIG, the AIG executives hosted a lavish $440,000 retreat at the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California. Even more troubling, the day after this was revealed to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the New York branch of the Federal Reserve announced it will borrow $37.8 billion in investment-grade securities from AIG in exchange for cash.At a time when many of our constituents have serious concerns about their own financial security, we demand that you ensure that no taxpayer funds were used by AIG to host this retreat. If taxpayer funds were used, we demand that AIG repay the American people in full. It is crucial that the American people be able to trust the actions of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury.
Biden Admits Defeat and Predicts Major Crisis within Six Months of Election
Democrat Vice Presidential Candidate predicted in Seattle that there would be a major crisis with World Wide implications within six months of the election if Barack Hussein Obama is elected.
While he was being vague in his predictions, he did say that it could come from the middle east or Russia. He also mentioned that Al Queda was very powerful in the Pakistan Afghanistan hills area and that we can't defeat them claiming that our "kids" (meaning our military) cannot compete with them and talking about nuclear weapons. Isn't this exactly what President Bush warned us about?
Biden implied that the polls would drop very low and was asking his followers to trust them and stand behind them. He also said that he'd forgotten most about foreign policy than his colleagues knew now.
There is an answer. Rather than elect the defeatist attitude of Obama/Biden, vote instead for known military man, John McCain.
It is unbelievable to me that a candidate for VP of the US would even entertain the thought that we'd lose before the fight has even started.
I do agree with Biden on one count. I believe that if Obama is elected the terrorists will test him and us, quickly. We know that if an attack came with McCain as President, that he'd go after them immediately. I suspect that Obama will send us all to conflict resolution therapy if we're attacked.
I don't like much about McCain, but of the two, I can't vote for anyone else. Biden makes that even easier with his comments.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
While he was being vague in his predictions, he did say that it could come from the middle east or Russia. He also mentioned that Al Queda was very powerful in the Pakistan Afghanistan hills area and that we can't defeat them claiming that our "kids" (meaning our military) cannot compete with them and talking about nuclear weapons. Isn't this exactly what President Bush warned us about?
Biden implied that the polls would drop very low and was asking his followers to trust them and stand behind them. He also said that he'd forgotten most about foreign policy than his colleagues knew now.
There is an answer. Rather than elect the defeatist attitude of Obama/Biden, vote instead for known military man, John McCain.
It is unbelievable to me that a candidate for VP of the US would even entertain the thought that we'd lose before the fight has even started.
I do agree with Biden on one count. I believe that if Obama is elected the terrorists will test him and us, quickly. We know that if an attack came with McCain as President, that he'd go after them immediately. I suspect that Obama will send us all to conflict resolution therapy if we're attacked.
I don't like much about McCain, but of the two, I can't vote for anyone else. Biden makes that even easier with his comments.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Where's the media?
Joe Biden said the other day that this election is about a three letter word: JOBS. I'm abit confused about this new math. Four letters equals a three letter word?
20 years ago, Vice President, Dan Quayle was in a classroom monitoring spelling. A child spelled potato correctly, and Quayle asked if there wasn't supposed to be an "E" on the end. The media made him look even more like a fool than his comment made him out to be. Yet, the media hasn't touched Biden's three letter word: JOBS.
I guess the media is too fixated on giving the anal exam to Joe the Plumber.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
20 years ago, Vice President, Dan Quayle was in a classroom monitoring spelling. A child spelled potato correctly, and Quayle asked if there wasn't supposed to be an "E" on the end. The media made him look even more like a fool than his comment made him out to be. Yet, the media hasn't touched Biden's three letter word: JOBS.
I guess the media is too fixated on giving the anal exam to Joe the Plumber.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Joe the Plumber Takes Obama Down
Barack Hussein Obama has claimed that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut if he becomes President. Can we trust him? I don’t think so.
First, he went to Joe the Plumber the other day and was told by Joe that he hopes to buy his bosses business. Obama said that he’d only be taxed if his business produced an income of $250,000 year. At some point, Obama then said that he’d like to spread the wealth.
Obama wants to tax the profits and give that money to people that haven’t earned it. This is socialism. This opened the door for McCain to tell Joe the Plumber that he wouldn’t get a tax increase if McCain became President. He repeated this at the debate.
That set the news media off. They immediately went after Joe the Plumber. He’s not licensed. He’s behind in his taxes. Never mind that he’s not required to be licensed where he lives. Naturally, he’s concerned about taxes if he can’t keep up with the tax burden he already has. The media was camped out in front of Joe the Plumbers house with their satellites and reporters. Joe obliged by granting interviews. David Gergen said on CNN that McCain made a mistake and should have vetted Joe the Plumber.
Later, on the campaign trail, Obama and Biden tried to belittle Joe the Plumber. Biden said that he didn’t know of any plumbers in his neighborhood that made $250,000 per year. Obama went a step further and said “this is who McCain is targeting for his votes? How many plumbers do you know that make a quarter of a million dollars a year?”
The second point regarding Obama promising a tax cut to the middle class. We were told this before. In 1992, Bill Clinton was running for President. He too promised a middle class tax cut. But then, less than a month after his inauguration, he appeared on national television and said that he’d never worked harder in his life, but he just couldn’t find a way to provide that middle class tax cut he’d promised.
Naturally, he claimed it was Bush’s (President George H.W. Bush) that he couldn’t give the tax cut. Does this sound familiar? In Michigan, President Bush (the present President) has been blamed for the one state recession by Governor Granholm who has presided over this one state recession for six years.
In the meantime, at the Alfred Smith Charity dinner, Michelle Obama ordered Lobster and caviar from room service showing that they are the Washington elite as has been stated over and over by Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin.
Obama won’t be giving a tax cut to anyone. He’s only using the Democrat Party playbook by playing the class warfare card. This is standard procedure for Democrats. Now he’s claiming that McCain will take away social security, and cut medicare and Medicaid. None of which is true if you read McCain’s website.
There are certain things we can count on from Democrats. They will always shoot themselves in the foot before the election when their true beliefs are shown. Obama has joined that crowd by showing his desire for socialism.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
First, he went to Joe the Plumber the other day and was told by Joe that he hopes to buy his bosses business. Obama said that he’d only be taxed if his business produced an income of $250,000 year. At some point, Obama then said that he’d like to spread the wealth.
Obama wants to tax the profits and give that money to people that haven’t earned it. This is socialism. This opened the door for McCain to tell Joe the Plumber that he wouldn’t get a tax increase if McCain became President. He repeated this at the debate.
That set the news media off. They immediately went after Joe the Plumber. He’s not licensed. He’s behind in his taxes. Never mind that he’s not required to be licensed where he lives. Naturally, he’s concerned about taxes if he can’t keep up with the tax burden he already has. The media was camped out in front of Joe the Plumbers house with their satellites and reporters. Joe obliged by granting interviews. David Gergen said on CNN that McCain made a mistake and should have vetted Joe the Plumber.
Later, on the campaign trail, Obama and Biden tried to belittle Joe the Plumber. Biden said that he didn’t know of any plumbers in his neighborhood that made $250,000 per year. Obama went a step further and said “this is who McCain is targeting for his votes? How many plumbers do you know that make a quarter of a million dollars a year?”
The second point regarding Obama promising a tax cut to the middle class. We were told this before. In 1992, Bill Clinton was running for President. He too promised a middle class tax cut. But then, less than a month after his inauguration, he appeared on national television and said that he’d never worked harder in his life, but he just couldn’t find a way to provide that middle class tax cut he’d promised.
Naturally, he claimed it was Bush’s (President George H.W. Bush) that he couldn’t give the tax cut. Does this sound familiar? In Michigan, President Bush (the present President) has been blamed for the one state recession by Governor Granholm who has presided over this one state recession for six years.
In the meantime, at the Alfred Smith Charity dinner, Michelle Obama ordered Lobster and caviar from room service showing that they are the Washington elite as has been stated over and over by Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin.
Obama won’t be giving a tax cut to anyone. He’s only using the Democrat Party playbook by playing the class warfare card. This is standard procedure for Democrats. Now he’s claiming that McCain will take away social security, and cut medicare and Medicaid. None of which is true if you read McCain’s website.
There are certain things we can count on from Democrats. They will always shoot themselves in the foot before the election when their true beliefs are shown. Obama has joined that crowd by showing his desire for socialism.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The Precious Right To Vote
In Ohio, a 19 year old was paid with cash and cigarettes to register more than 70 times to vote. In Nevada, the Dallas Cowboys, an NFL football team in Texas, have been registered to vote.
This discovered fraud has been expanded to more than 15 states with the biggest culprit seeming to be a community organization called A.C.O.R.N. Their offices have been raided in various parts of the country. People are coming out saying they’ve been paid to register.
Over 4,000 dead people have been discovered to be registered voters in Houston, Texas. Now, again in Ohio, it’s been discovered that the secretary of state has been holding over 200,000 registration cards that are questionable.
Also in Ohio, they decided that people could register to vote and turn around and vote on the same day. This is being challenged in the courts and seems to be going down.
There are laws against this. One is Voter Registration Fraud. If you’ve registered illegally to vote, you’re guilty of Voter Registration Fraud. If you vote with that fraudulent registration, you’re then guilty of Voter Fraud, which is a felony, as I understand it.
The election of 2000 was a small contributor to this, in my opinion. The big problem as I see it, is allowing anyone to sign up others to vote. Specifically, community organizers.
There are solutions. First, voting is not a requirement. It’s your choice. If you want to vote, you should have to register in one of several places. Your county offices, the secretary of state or DMV.
Second, you should have to do this no later than 30 days prior to any election. If you haven’t, you may still register, but you may not participate until you’ve been on the voter rolls for 30 days. When you do register, it must be in person and with a valid photo ID from either a passport or a drivers license. If you can’t prove that you’re a citizen and that you are who you say you are, you should not be allowed to register.
When you arrive to cast your vote, you should be required to produce a photo id of yourself. You must be 18 years of age or older on the day of the election to vote.
If you are not a citizen of this country, you should not be permitted to vote. If you’re not and you want to participate in electing representatives in this country, become a citizen.
Counting the ballots. There seems to be all sorts of people that are complaining that their votes aren’t being counted, or that machines aren’t working, or that the machines are tearing up cards, or chads are hanging or pregnant or dimpled. It is obvious that we cannot trust the machines, nor can we trust the elected officials reviewing the ballots when there is a question.
So here is a very simple solution to that problem. Each county should have ballots printed up. The ballots should be 8x10 sheets of paper, and be numbered.
A black ink pen will be provided to each voter. Each person, and proposal on the ballot will have a square in it. The voter will come in, step into one of those plastic booths on legs with three walls surrounding it and a little table in front of it. That voter, after proving he/she is who he/she says she is, will then put a check mark next to the candidate of their choice.
They will then step up to the copy machine. Run a copy of their ballot. Deposit the original in a locked container and take their copy as their receipt. Any ballots with incorrect check marks makes the entire ballot void.
When the polls close that night, the election workers will then open the boxes. There will be two people counting each ballot. One person from one party, one from the other. Any worker that gets stumped when they run out of fingers and toes to count on, should be fired immediately.
Once they are tallied up, that count is then recorded and the ballots placed in another sealed container where they will be saved for a period of six years.
It’s a simple process. Prove who you are so you can vote. Get a receipt for your vote. Count the votes one at a time and stop trusting the machines that everyone complains about and declare a winner within 48 hours following the election.
Oh yeah, and arrest, convict and incarcerate those that perpetrate voter fraud and remove their right to vote from them for the rest of their lives.
One of our most precious rights is now protected, provable in case of a contest of the vote and no voter can say that he/she didn’t get to vote because they have their receipt. Most importantly, we only have to make sure that our election officers have a third grade education where they have learned to count by ones properly. This ought to shut the liberals up and stop them from registering Mickey Mouse to vote.
I see just one problem with this plan. Finding a politician that has enough common sense to do what's right for the people and actually simplify the rules for registering to vote and putting it to paper. If we did actually have a politician that is capable of this, then the problem is getting 534 other politicians to understand it, sign on to it and avoid the urge to add billions of dollars of pork to it.
I'm going to add one more thing. People should show up to vote wearing blue windbreakers with gold lettering on the back of those jackets that says INS. That should solve the problem of illegal aliens even coming outside on election day, let alone going to the polls.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
This discovered fraud has been expanded to more than 15 states with the biggest culprit seeming to be a community organization called A.C.O.R.N. Their offices have been raided in various parts of the country. People are coming out saying they’ve been paid to register.
Over 4,000 dead people have been discovered to be registered voters in Houston, Texas. Now, again in Ohio, it’s been discovered that the secretary of state has been holding over 200,000 registration cards that are questionable.
Also in Ohio, they decided that people could register to vote and turn around and vote on the same day. This is being challenged in the courts and seems to be going down.
There are laws against this. One is Voter Registration Fraud. If you’ve registered illegally to vote, you’re guilty of Voter Registration Fraud. If you vote with that fraudulent registration, you’re then guilty of Voter Fraud, which is a felony, as I understand it.
The election of 2000 was a small contributor to this, in my opinion. The big problem as I see it, is allowing anyone to sign up others to vote. Specifically, community organizers.
There are solutions. First, voting is not a requirement. It’s your choice. If you want to vote, you should have to register in one of several places. Your county offices, the secretary of state or DMV.
Second, you should have to do this no later than 30 days prior to any election. If you haven’t, you may still register, but you may not participate until you’ve been on the voter rolls for 30 days. When you do register, it must be in person and with a valid photo ID from either a passport or a drivers license. If you can’t prove that you’re a citizen and that you are who you say you are, you should not be allowed to register.
When you arrive to cast your vote, you should be required to produce a photo id of yourself. You must be 18 years of age or older on the day of the election to vote.
If you are not a citizen of this country, you should not be permitted to vote. If you’re not and you want to participate in electing representatives in this country, become a citizen.
Counting the ballots. There seems to be all sorts of people that are complaining that their votes aren’t being counted, or that machines aren’t working, or that the machines are tearing up cards, or chads are hanging or pregnant or dimpled. It is obvious that we cannot trust the machines, nor can we trust the elected officials reviewing the ballots when there is a question.
So here is a very simple solution to that problem. Each county should have ballots printed up. The ballots should be 8x10 sheets of paper, and be numbered.
A black ink pen will be provided to each voter. Each person, and proposal on the ballot will have a square in it. The voter will come in, step into one of those plastic booths on legs with three walls surrounding it and a little table in front of it. That voter, after proving he/she is who he/she says she is, will then put a check mark next to the candidate of their choice.
They will then step up to the copy machine. Run a copy of their ballot. Deposit the original in a locked container and take their copy as their receipt. Any ballots with incorrect check marks makes the entire ballot void.
When the polls close that night, the election workers will then open the boxes. There will be two people counting each ballot. One person from one party, one from the other. Any worker that gets stumped when they run out of fingers and toes to count on, should be fired immediately.
Once they are tallied up, that count is then recorded and the ballots placed in another sealed container where they will be saved for a period of six years.
It’s a simple process. Prove who you are so you can vote. Get a receipt for your vote. Count the votes one at a time and stop trusting the machines that everyone complains about and declare a winner within 48 hours following the election.
Oh yeah, and arrest, convict and incarcerate those that perpetrate voter fraud and remove their right to vote from them for the rest of their lives.
One of our most precious rights is now protected, provable in case of a contest of the vote and no voter can say that he/she didn’t get to vote because they have their receipt. Most importantly, we only have to make sure that our election officers have a third grade education where they have learned to count by ones properly. This ought to shut the liberals up and stop them from registering Mickey Mouse to vote.
I see just one problem with this plan. Finding a politician that has enough common sense to do what's right for the people and actually simplify the rules for registering to vote and putting it to paper. If we did actually have a politician that is capable of this, then the problem is getting 534 other politicians to understand it, sign on to it and avoid the urge to add billions of dollars of pork to it.
I'm going to add one more thing. People should show up to vote wearing blue windbreakers with gold lettering on the back of those jackets that says INS. That should solve the problem of illegal aliens even coming outside on election day, let alone going to the polls.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Another Freedom Lost
Tonight, the first step in the nationalization of the American Financial System has taken place. This has happened despite the will of the people. The House and the Senate has been inundated with phone calls from Americans telling them not to pass this bailout. The Senate has now thumbed their noses at the American people.
There are no repercussions included in the bill passed by the Senate for those that helped cause this problem on Wall St. Barney Frank will still be in the House and Christopher Dodd will still be in the Senate.
There is still hope. The House Republicans did not go along with this on Monday when they voted on it. 95 Democrats also voted against it. This made House Speaker Nancy Pelosi look like a fool. But then there have been enough fools running around this debate for two weeks now that you’d need a roll of paper to list them all.
Congress has the lowest approval ratings in history. People don’t trust them. I’m hoping for the people to stand up on election day and eliminate anyone that voted for this bailout.
The markets work, but those in government don’t have what it takes to let the market work. This isn’t a solution to the problem. This is a new problem to be added to the existing problem. Among those problems are corrupt politicians, over regulations in some areas, under regulation in other areas. Loans to people that wouldn’t otherwise qualify for loans if the lending institutions weren’t forced by Congress to give those loans.
Investors wouldn’t buy a bad investment, so Congress stepped up and took our tax money and bought the bad investment for us. They aren’t at risk. OUR money is now at risk. Today we lost a freedom. The freedom for us to decide what is done with our money.
Now, the only thing that I can hope for is that I’m wrong and the idiots that nobody likes in Washington were right. I keep remembering the old line that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Hopefully, this sad excuse for a Congress doesn’t make it worse when this doesn’t work.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
There are no repercussions included in the bill passed by the Senate for those that helped cause this problem on Wall St. Barney Frank will still be in the House and Christopher Dodd will still be in the Senate.
There is still hope. The House Republicans did not go along with this on Monday when they voted on it. 95 Democrats also voted against it. This made House Speaker Nancy Pelosi look like a fool. But then there have been enough fools running around this debate for two weeks now that you’d need a roll of paper to list them all.
Congress has the lowest approval ratings in history. People don’t trust them. I’m hoping for the people to stand up on election day and eliminate anyone that voted for this bailout.
The markets work, but those in government don’t have what it takes to let the market work. This isn’t a solution to the problem. This is a new problem to be added to the existing problem. Among those problems are corrupt politicians, over regulations in some areas, under regulation in other areas. Loans to people that wouldn’t otherwise qualify for loans if the lending institutions weren’t forced by Congress to give those loans.
Investors wouldn’t buy a bad investment, so Congress stepped up and took our tax money and bought the bad investment for us. They aren’t at risk. OUR money is now at risk. Today we lost a freedom. The freedom for us to decide what is done with our money.
Now, the only thing that I can hope for is that I’m wrong and the idiots that nobody likes in Washington were right. I keep remembering the old line that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Hopefully, this sad excuse for a Congress doesn’t make it worse when this doesn’t work.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)