Racist Obama; Dr. Obama; Hillary the Schoolgirl

OBAMA ATTACKS POLICE AS STUPID

Police were called to the home of Henry Louis Gates Jr. in Cambridge, MA. A witness saw two people that appeared to be breaking into a home. She didn't call because it was a black man. She called because she saw two men putting their shoulders to the door trying to force open the door. The police showed up and spoke with the woman witness out in front of the home.

Sgt. Crowley, then approached the home and asked the man that he could see inside, if he would step out on the porch. The man asked him to identify himself and when the officer did, he opened the door. Crowley told the man, Henry Louis Gates Jr., that he was investigating a report of a break in at that address and asked if he could produce some identification. Gates first said that he would not produce an identification then asked "why, because I'm black in America?"

This could have ended right here with one simple little move on the part of Gates. He could have said "that was me trying to force my way in because my door was jammed", provided proof that he actually lived there and thanked the officer for checking it out. But Gates preferred to be beligerant.

By the time that all was settled and the police were satisfied that he was in fact the resident of the home, the officer, in uniform by the way, started to leave. Gates followed him out continuing to shout about how this wouldn't happen if he weren't black. Finally, outside and after a couple of more comments by Gates, Crowley turned and said he was being disorderly and that Gates should stop. He gave him a second warning and still Gates persisted, in front of witnesses, both civilian and other police that had arrived by this time. Crowley then turned and told Gates he was under arrest and put cuffs on him. You can read the police report at www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html

During his press conference, Obama, despite saying he didn't have all of the facts, said the police acted stupidly and talked about how blacks and latino's had been treated unfairly. Later, his press secretary said that Obama wasn't referring to the particular officer. Since Sgt. Crowley is the only one that took any action, how could Obama be talking about any other officer? Once again, as in the campaign of 2008, it's the Democrats, and Obama that are creating more of a race problem. Oh, and by the way, Sgt. Crowley, it turns out, is an expert at the issue of racial profiling and has taught a class at the academy on racial profiling at the recommendation of a commissioner, who is black. Obama is looking like a fool on this one.

OBAMA ATTACKS DOCTORS

In his press conference, Obama claims that doctors are forced to make a choice for care based on how much money they make. Saying that they choose to remove tonsils at times due to income rather than need is wrong. Yes, it would be wrong. But what proof does Obama have that this practice goes on often enough for a President to address it in a national news conference while pushing his health care reform agenda?

While the liberals contend that this new health care takeover will not have government officials deciding on treatment and who is eligible, but that that doctors would still be making the choices for their patients, he is demonstrating with his words that he doesn't think Doctors can make proper choices. He's attacked the insurance companies saying they make decisions on proper care and not the Doctors, now he's attacking Doctors for making decisions on care based on their own income needs.

So if we need health care reform because Insurance companies are deciding which is wrong, and now we need health care reform because doctors are choosing based on their incomes rather than needs of the patients, who's left to make the decisions? It comes down to the patient and the government. How long before he says that patients are incapable of deciding their own care? Obama is looking like a fool on this one.

You can see the video at www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/22/obama_doctors_taking_tonsils_out_for_money_instead_of_diagnosing_it_as_allergies.html

HILLARY THE SCHOOLGIRL

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the N.Koreans had no friends left in the world and said they were an unruly child.

Clinton was late, "as usual" according the Washington Post, for a press conference. The N. Koreans in response to her comments about them, said they could only regard her "as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric, unaware of the elementary etiquette in the international community. " And that "she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping."

N. Korea has ended the six party talks through spitting contest going on between Hillary and themselves.

You can find this in the Washington Post on 07-23-09.

This administration is falling apart. N. Korea is testing missiles and Hillary wants to throw name calling into the mix and now the N. Koreans have responded. The United States was on sound footing regarding the testing of these missiles yet, Hillary Clinton has chosen to get into a namecalling match with the N. Koreans.

Obama and Hillary are looking like fools on this. Can we please have some adult supervision in Washington D.C.??

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Space: Roughing it in the Final Frontier

Depending on your age, you'll remember things that you consider "roughing it". Today, getting stranded somewhere when your car breaks down, pulling out your cell phone and calling for a tow truck is "roughing it". 30 years ago, if your car broke down (we called it conking out), we had to walk to the nearest house and ask to use their phone, or walk to a phone booth, shove in a dime and call someone to help. If you didn't have a dime, there was no calling someone. The phone wouldn't work until it was paid for.

When I was a child, my grandparents had a cottage in a little place called Roscommon, Michigan. They had no running water, no bathroom. They had an outhouse. You had to walk outside, go to the outhouse and do your business. In the winter, that meant dressing up to go do your business. Being only 5 or 6 years old at the time, I had to use that outhouse in the middle of the night. As I remember it, there was one little light bulb that you had to pull the string on to get it to turn on. The outhouse was about 100 feet behind the house and nothing but woods behind it. At age 5, in the night, in the dark, with the woods behind it, you can imagine all of the monsters that were out there. But duty called and I had no choice. Unfortunately, the light was burnt out that night.

Now the seat wasn't really a seat. It was a hole cut in plywood with a piece of plywood covering the hole. Thinking that I had moved the plywood, I did my business, in the dark, and walked back to the house, stopping at the well pump to pump water on my hands. Again, "roughing it". There was no running water in the house. I got back in the house and crawled back into bed.

The next morning, I was awakened by the ruckus my grandfather was creating. He was only a little upset about the light bulb having burned out in the outhouse. He was more upset about the surprise he found when he got there...in the dark. "Roughing it".

Imagine further back. 100 years ago when they all had outhouses. Even in the cities. Or remember back to the time of our founding fathers. They had the privvy to use. Another way of saying "outhouse". Today, our kids would think of them as the blue or green porta-pots we see at playgrounds or fairs.

Last week, the Space Shuttle Endeavor took off for the space station. They joined the crew that was already there. There is now a total of 13 people on the space station. But there is only one bathroom on the space station. Unfortunately for them, the toilet quit working.

When the toilet backs up in our house, what do we do? We grab the plunger and get it unplugged so that the waste disappears into the sewer or the septic tank and fills up with clean city or well water. If it's a really serious clog we have to call a plumber.

If you'll remember about ten or fifteen years ago, it was mandated that we all have smaller more efficient toilets. Efficient in that it was supposed to save water. Unfortunately, you have to flush it three or four times when you use it just to keep it from being clogged at the smallest amount of tissue that is in there, let alone what's there from the purpose of your visit to the throne. I call these the Al Gore toilets as he was the big pusher (no pun intended) for these johns.

So it's only natural to think that 13 people using the same bathroom, with an Al Gore toilet, is a recipe for disaster. Forget putting the seat down for the women that follow. That's a minor problem. A backup is inevitable with that many people using one facility room. Do they have a plunger?

Apparently, the problem was a little larger than needing a plunger. The problem is so big they need a plumber. The men can't step outside and find a tree and the women certainly can't find a tree with leaves on it in outer space.

I am fascinated with the intricacies that go into every detail of the space program. They can monitor their health from earth everything from their heartbeats to their body temperature. Their ability to know every detail of what's happening in space on every moving part and computer chip in the ship and on the space station. But apparently, they didn't plan for the contingency of needing a second restroom, or even mens rooms and womens rooms. With this problem, the astronauts are truly looking for ways to go where no man has gone before.

I don't think there is a provision in the so-called stimulus package to send a plumber into space and if they did, imagine the cost of that house call. $5 billion dollars just for showing up, then $100 per hour plus the cost of replacement parts.

Just when you think you've heard it all in the news, now we're talking about the crapper in the space shuttle and thirteen people standing in line outside the restroom door, squeezing their legs together and prancing around because they just can't wait any longer. I never thought, when I first started making comments on a blog about politics and current events in the news, that I'd ever be talking about something we all go through. Backed up bathrooms.

All of a sudden, remembering having to use an outhouse at my grandparents cottage doesn't seem to be "roughing it" as much as those in space, the final frontier, not having even an outhouse to use. Just imagine the surprise that the dry cleaner is going to find when the astronauts return to earth. We could be headed towards the big news being, upon their return to earth next week, the astronauts not waiting for the shuttle to come to a complete stop before opening the door and making a mad dash for the restroom at the air base they land.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Health Care: Your Map to Ruin

Above is the chart of the new Democrat Socialized Health Care system. They've actually made this more detailed than HillaryCare from the early 90's.

This plan is designed to be a government take over of 18% of the economy. Government wants into your health care and to decide if you're worthy enough to receive care.

The cost of this will be higher than the current cost of health care in this country. Taxes will be increased. First just on those earning over $350,000 per year, but when they find that the costs are going up rather than down, and when they find that their estimates of the costs are higher than what they are saying now, they will then move down the tax scale and begin taxing the middle class. But then, they are already going to do that because if you don't buy their health insurance, you'll be fined a couple of thousand dollars per year for daring to disagree with the government. If you can't afford the health care, how will you afford the penalty?

You're about to be screwed. Will you fight against it, or just give up and accept it because you can't "fight city hall"? We should all be getting in touch with our representatives and Senators on the national level and applying pressure for them to stop this boondoggle, and we should be getting on our state representatives and Senators in the same fashion. One thing politicians do understand is election day. If you're showing your displeasure at their actions, they will not choose this unless they have no fear of the next election.

Socialized health care is failing around the world. Why would we want to go to failed systems?

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Conservative Wahlberg Announces Candidacy For House Seat

Tim Wahlberg, former Congressman from Michigan announced this morning that he's running again for the seat that he held two years ago. He lost that seat to Mark Schauer in 2008 by a very narrow margin.

Tim Wahlberg is a Conservative Republican while Mark Schauer is a very liberal Democrat. Schauer is the Representative that claimed to have read the so-called stimulus bill. He's the only one in the country that claims to have read it despite the common sense that it couldn't be read, let alone comprehended in the few hours that it was presented, to the time it was voted on.

I have lived in this district for just six years. During that time, Joe Schwarz held the seat. He was a Republican who ran as a conservative, but then voted like a liberal during his two years. He was one of two incumbents that lost their seats to challengers in the primary. The other was Cynthia McKinney in Georgia. The challenger that defeated Scwharz? Tim Wahlberg. Schwarz has since left the Republican party. Now the Representative here is Mark Schauer, an ultra liberal.

In 2008, Mark Schauer ran against Walhberg and narrowly defeated him, most likely on the coattails of the Socialist Barack Obama who won against the liberal John McCain.

Given the current situation, record deficits (double what Bush's highest was, and about to be four times higher), record debt (about to be doubled) under Obama and Schauers desire to follow party rather than represent the people of his district, not to mention the lying that Schauer just can't move away from, Wahlbergs biggest problem will be if another Republican decides to jump into the race. Wahlberg has the conservative credentials. It would be tough for anyone to take him on in a primary and there is no hope for Schauer to have a second term.

Finally, there seems to be some hope brought back into this with the decision by Tim Wahlberg to run for the seat he lost in 2008.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Tax and Spend Democrats:

Word is coming out that the Democrats putting together the new Socialized Health Care Plan are going to raise the upper tax bracket to 45% or higher. The statement is that this will affect only those making $350,000 per year and higher.

What they are not saying is what it does to small businesses. A small business can generate $350,000 with no problem. That doesn't mean that the business owner is earning that amount of money. The business is. The owner of the business however is the one that writes the checks for the taxes. It cuts into his/her profits. So he now has less operating expenses.

Without that money, a small business will not be able to hire new employees. With unemployment about to hit double digits, the only question will be how high into the double digits will unemployment go when they can't hire and they must lay off employees to make up for the loss of that income to their business?

The Obama administration is constantly telling us that the health care in this country is part of the reason for the reason for the recession. I dismiss this because each time they bring up a topic or issue, they always say that that particular issue is a major cause for the recession. There are apparently now minor causes to the recession, they are all the major reason. Housing, past tax policies, health care, etc.

We already have a problem with elected officials in this country. They don't read the bills they put together. The so-called stimulus bill that had to be signed by President's Day (but was actually signed a day later in Denver), wasn't read by any member of Congress. Not even the one Congressman that claims he did read it. Not surprisingly, the so-called stimulus bill has failed. The more recent energy legislation that passed the House hasn't been read by Congress, yet they still voted for it.

Do you really think that the Socialization of Health Care in this country is going to be read by Congress?

The Democrats learned this in the Hillary Care debate in the early 1990's. They didn't push it through. Instead, the bill was out there for people to read and when they read it, they found the provisions that would send people to jail or give them stiff fines or cost Doctors their licenses if they violated the law of Hillary Care. Because there was time to read it, people found out what it was and it was soundly rejected. So, the Democrats now don't allow for time to read the bills. They put groups together to provide provisions in the bill, but nobody reads the other parts of the bill, nor does anyone have time to read it in it's entirety, and it passes.

For instance, we now know that one of the provisions of the new Health Care Socialization legislation has a provision that elected officials in the House and Senate are exempt from the socialization of health care.

We're now finding out that if you earn more than $350,000 per year, your tax will increase to 45% or higher. This will affect the individual earner and the small businesses in this country. But even with that increase, it's expect to generate $550 Billion to pay for it. Far short of the $1.6 Trillion cost of the health care being socialized. They always overestimate the amount received from their bills because Congress fails to recognize that if taxes go up, people will earn less, hide more, and that will not generate what they intend for revenue. So what happens then?

Congress comes back in a couple of years and says that they need more money to fund it. So what do they do? They increase the tax rates at the lower levels of the income scale as well. Now they've hit the middle class.

They are also talking about taking money from the current medicare system to help fund it. So what happens to the current medicare system? They will say that we need to fund it to get it back to it's levels again. More taxes. But even at Medicare's current funding levels it's operating in the red. To correct that, increase taxes.

Social Security needs to be revamped. I wonder what that solution will be. Could it possibly be that they are going to increase taxes for that as well? Maybe they'll just print more money instead and we won't have to worry about increased taxes. Oh wait, that's not right. If they do that, the value of the dollar decreases, the cost for goods increases, which increases the sales taxes that must be made, which means that even the states without an income tax will now get a tax increase.

People were warned about this prior to the election. If you vote for a Democrat, your taxes will increase. If you vote in a liberal Republican, your taxes will increase. Through all of these tax increases, the delivery of health care is not fixed. So the solution to the problem, just creates more of the problem and provides no solutions.

Health care cannot be fixed by politicians. If you need a tumor removed from your arm, you don't go to your auto mechanic to get it taken care of. If you need to have your bookkeeping done for your business, you don't go to a reporter at the newspaper to do your bookkeeping. If you want the truth, you don't go to a politician. Politicians have proven they can't read. If they really want a solution to health care, they should go to the professionals and request they come up with solutions that will solve the problems the health care industry has.

It's amazing that the free market system can solve all sorts of problems and does, but the government doesn't trust the professionals. These Democrats don't think you can make your own decisions regarding your own health. I wonder how long it will take someone to come up with the idea that the abortion position they take (it's a woman's body and her decision) is not the same position when it comes to health care. It's your body, the government will decide if you're qualified to make your own health care decisions.

But then, they can't read their own bills before voting on them so it's not likely that they'll make any other good choices. Not even about your health. It's time for these politicians to be replaced.

Maybe these politicians could take advantage of another of their programs. PBS's Reading Rainbow. Learn to read,

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Obama Books Deemed Security Threat

Barack Obama has written two books. This week, both were declared security risks by the FBI and they are not permitted as appropriate reading material for prisoners at the Supermax prison. http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/50416652.html

Recently, there's been a debate raging about whether or not to turn terrorists from Guantanamo Bay into the streets of the United States. One of the governments arguments is that we can put them into our Supermax prison. That nobody has ever escaped from there. For the sake of argument, let's say that I accept that reasoning and don't worry about it any longer. After all, government gets what it wants. But wait. If it's such a secure prison, why are they banning anything at the prison? How dangerous could words in a book be? If they aren't going to permit the most secure prisoners in the world to read books because they consider them threats to our national security, just how dangerous are these books?

This all brings another question. If our current President has written something that is deemed to be a threat to national security, shouldn't we be concerned that he is now the President? Is our current President a threat to national security?

If we now have to worry about prisoners at the Supermax prison reading radical material, what about the people that haven't yet been caught? Could these books be used as a recruiting tool for terrorists? Or worse, ARE his books currently being used to recruit future terrorists?

Maybe we should be happy that Obama is staring at 16 year old girls in other countries as they walk by. Any distraction for him, distracts his moving this country deeper into socialism.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Sarah Palin Rises Higher in Stepping Down

In a stunning announcement today, Governor Sarah Palin said she is not going to run for re-election and is resigning her Governorship as of July 26! After listening to her reasons, I can only applaud her for her choice.

CNN and other news outlets are questioning her motives. Is she resigning to concentrate on a run for the Presidency in 2012? Or perhaps to challenge Murkowski for the Senate in 2010? Could it be that she just can't take the heat dished out to her in the past ten months?

Well, let me add one more question to that mix. Could it be that she is resigning for the reasons that she said? I heard the news, heard the speculation, watched the Democrat strategists that came on and were just befuddled. Not one person said she is resigning for the reasons that she said she is. Most, like Paul Begala, said it was a dumb move because she's hurt her chances to run for President in 2012.

Those Democrats look only at life as if it were completely tied up to running the country. They just can't seem to understand that some people actually say what they mean and mean what they say and care more about the country than they do about party or themselves.

Palin said she was resigning because since she was tapped to be John McCain's running mate in the 2008 election, the press went digging into Alaska looking for dirt. They couldn't find any. They found two ethics charges that they played up, but they hadn't been decided at that point. It was convenient that they were settled after the election. In the past 10 months there have been 18 ethics complaints filed against Governor Palin. All but two have been dismissed. The two that have not been dismissed yet, are still pending.

Palin said herself that this has cost her over $500,000 to answer these complaints, but they have cost her accusers nothing. The Politics of Personal Destruction. However, regarding the ethics complaints, she didn't whine about the cost to her. Instead, she said it detracts from the state of Alaska and the cost to the taxpayer for those complaints is now over $2 million! Once again, Democrats causing a waste of taxpayers dollars for their own political gains. However, they have been unsuccessful at getting Palin. The only thing they have accomplished is to spend taxpayer money for their own personal vendetta against a governor that scares them to death.

Governor Palin gave another reason for leaving, which I find extremely interesting. She said first that she wouldn't be running for re-election. Then she talked about how lame duck elected officials just put in their time and collect a paycheck, while spending taxpayer dollars traveling. She did not want to be like that so she was going to resign effective July 26. She is absolutely right! For her to stand up and give this as one of her reasons for resigning, just has me even more impressed with her. She stated what she believes and what the rest of us know and she solved the problem by resigning and turning it over to her Lieutenant Governor.

How many governors travel around the world claiming to be working for their state when they are lame ducks? Look at Michigan. Governor Granholm is a lame duck. Yet she's traveling around the world claiming to be seeking jobs for Michigan. Yet, Michigan is the state in the worst financial shape of any state in the country with the highest unemployment rate in the nation.

When Granholm is not traveling the world, she's in Washington DC sitting at a table with Barack Obama. She is no doubt phishing for a job come January 2011 when she finally leaves office. She's collecting her paycheck while doing nothing. She's certainly not looking for jobs in Michigan talking to Obama. The only employment she's looking at for a Michigan citizen is one and that's her.

If you look back at my posts leading up to the election last year, you'll see that I did not like John McCain. I didn't want to vote for him, but I didn't want to be one of those that skipped the election and created a President Obama. When he named Sarah Palin as his running mate. I learned very quickly, along with much of the nation, that she was a Conservative. Not a John McCain wannabe Conservative, but her own Conservative. As strong a Conservative as Ronald Reagan and quite possibly even more Conservative. My decision was made listening to her speeches and reviewing her history (something that liberals and will never understand). When I went into the voting booth, I was casting my vote for Sarah Palin and John McCain was just lucky enough to be on the same ticket!

So while the pundits or idiots on the news programs that we all see are wondering what her strategy is, I'm taking Sarah Palin at her word. She has been put through the ringer more than any man that has run. She has had to dodge more vicious attacks during the campaign and after the campaign than anyone has had to put up with. She has always dealt with it with class and a smile on her face. She did it without the help of the National Organization of Women or any other group that claims to be for women, but are in fact, only there for liberals.

Even with the completely distasteful comments of David Letterman attacking her daughters, she still managed to handle it with grace and style. The NOW finally came out with a tepid statement in support of her, but it took them days to do so and then only after pressure by Conservative groups wondering where they were and questioning their motives and existance.

It is too bad that the Democrats can't face an issue by discussing the issue and not getting personal. Sarah Palin has been treated like an abused spouse by the press and the comedians. Her children have been subjected to treatment that could only be called child abuse if done by an adult. Those doing the abuse are the Press, the Democrats, the liberal blogs and the comedians.

But once again, Sarah Palin has handled it with class and grace. She's taken stepping down from a high political office and turned it into a positive statement putting her state above any personal gains. That's just another thing that the Democrats will never be able to understand. Sarah Palin rose above politics and personal advantage and stood up for her beliefs and acted on her beliefs rather than making it a political strategy. The State of Alaska lost an honest woman as their governor. The country may well have lost what could have been a great leader.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Governor Sanford: Days of our Lives

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford disappeared for a period of four days in June. First it was reported that nobody knew where he was. Not his wife, nor his staff. Then he was supposedly hiking, but then, he appeared. Immediately upon his arrival, he admitted that he'd been having an affair with a young lady in Argentina. This began the usual mess by the press of vilifying him for daring to have an affair with another woman. It led the news, and the news crawl on the liberal media, and it led the news even on Fox News for two days.

That was followed up by the announcement that he and his wife were going to get away with their children for a few days and try to reconcile and heal their marriage. To his wife's credit, she did not stand with him during his press conference, as many of the wives do when their husbands are caught in the midst of an affair.

Let's stop there for a second. Affairs are a way of life. We have a divorce rate in this country of over 50%. They are not all due to affairs. It's easy to get married and easy to get divorced. If children are involved, it's a little more difficult, but still fairly easy to get a divorce over and done with within a matter of months. Even if caused by an affair, it doesn't generate much attention unless it's a politician, and then the differences in reporting are only based on which party the unfaithful one is a part.

Affairs and other marital problems are common in all professions. We don't hear about it when it's a person that works on the assembly line at a car company, or if it's the owner of the corner drug store, or if it's your insurance agent, or the operator for the phone company. In Hollywood, it's expected and not much of a story.

Politicians are treated differently however. It becomes a scandal. In addition, they are treated differently based on parties. The best known is Bill Clinton. But beyond the initial reporting, the common sentiment among the press was, "everybody does it". Republicans are treated differently. When Senator Vitter is mentioned, there is the descriptive "who had an affair".

There are exceptions. Governor Spitzer was reported on heavily because he prosecuted prostitutes and went after prostitution rings, then we caught with prostitutes. But little mention was made when he replacement, Dave Patterson admitted he'd had an affair.

Mark Sanford, however, is breaking new ground. The Press, the Party and even the opposing party don't quite know how to handle this. Sanford is not just talking about the affair, but he's giving descriptions of how his girlfriend was his "soulmate".

Sanford's three day run on the news for his disappearance and revelations of an affair were nearly over. In addition, it was knocked off the news with the death of Farrah Fawcett, then later in the day the drama surrounding Michael Jackson and his ultimate death. But he brought himself back in the news by talking about his soulmate.

The news now is discussing what his strategy might be. Perhaps it's not a strategy. Perhaps it is. It could also be that he's torn. But do we need to know this? This is for him deal with and his wife and his girlfriend. If it's interfering with him doing his job, he should resign. But, when your co-worker at your job is caught having an affair, do they lose their job? Do people call for their resignation?

The difference is that the politicians are holding the public trust. If they are not doing their job because their personal life is interfering, they do need to resign. If Sanford doesn't get his mess cleared up at least in the public view, within the next couple of days, he should resign in my opinion.

He was right in my opinion on his stance with refusing the so-called stimulus money. That should not be part of this story. It is possible for a man to be right on one topic while making a mess of himself in another area. But his actions in his personal life are taking away from his very good argument on another topic. If this continues, the state of South Carolina is not served well by the attention he is generating.

People are divorced everyday for various reasons including extra-marital affairs. However, they are not required to surrender their jobs because of their extra-curricular activities. It's how their reaction to those activities affects their jobs that should determine their further employment. The people of South Carolina don't need the leader of their state playing Days of our Lives every day.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

A New Government Program: For Government

In six months this year, spending has quadrupled the deficit and doubled the debt. Those $500,000,000 deficits that the Democrats whined and complained about is now chump change. The $11 Trillion debt? Those were the good old days.

The day after Presidents Day in February, Barack Obama flew to Denver to sign the so-called stimulus package. Remember, this is the bill that not one Congressman read before voting on it. One claimed he did, but he didn't read it. It was physically impossible for him to read it.

In this past week, the United States House of Representativess has again voted on a bill without reading it. This most recent bill will increase our taxes at a rate never before seen in this country. Again, not one Congressman read the bill. There was even a dispute as to whether the bill was in the chamber when the House debated the bill they hadn't read. At 3:09 a.m. on the day that the bill was voted on, an additional 300 pages was dumped into the bill in the form of an amendment. Again, nobody read the amendment.

I think it would be wise, since we're spending all of this money anyway, that we should create a new federal program. We have Head Start for children to help them learn to read. I think we shold appropriate billions of dollars for a Head Start program for the United States House of Reprensentatives. Why billions? The answer is simple. We also have to teach, as part of this Head Start Program for Congress, how to not lie about it.

This is particularly interesting to me because my Representative in the House is someone named Mark Schauer. Mr. Schauer is a Freshman Representative in my district. To his credit, I have not heard him say that he read the entire bill this time before voting on it. This is important because of what happened in February.

Mr. Schauer put on little town hall meetings in February leading up to the so-called stimulus package. He called them "Congress on your Corner". From the first day through the last of his town hall style meetings, he claimed he had read the entire bill. He is the only member of Congress that claimed to have read the entire bill. Not one person believed him. Yet he continued to say that he read the entire bill before voting on it. It defied logic since the bill was put out near midnight, was over 1,300 pages long and it was voted on the following day around noon.

So, if we're going to have people representing us in the Congress of the United States, I believe that they should be required to learn to read before taking office. This will not be easy. These are stubborn men and women. They vote on global warming legislation claiming they are saving the world from global warming, but global warming doesn't exist. We need to teach these people how to read, so that they are up to date on the facts rather than falling for Al Gore's words just because he speaks louder and slower and doesn't use big words (which I find to be good since Congress people don't understand the English language). We need to teach these people to read so that they at least can stop lying about reading things that they haven't read.

We'll also have to include comprehension in these classes. Letting them read the global warming bill is not enough. They must also comprehend that there is no global warming. The must learn that saying "You don't raise taxes in a recession" is not just a slogan. They must learn to read and comprehend that that "slogan" is actually something they should live by, understand why you don't raise taxes during hard times and quite possibly let them learn that reduced taxes improves the economy, and creates more tax revenue for the federal government. They will never learn this until they learn to comprehend what they read.

This will not be an easy task. Therefore, we should probably spend extra money hiring second and third grade students to teach these Congress people to read and comprehension. This is what we learn from Congress. The government education system is failing. It's dropping worldwide and it's the least productive form of education in this country. They keep throwing money at it and it gets continually worse. So it's only right that we throw money at these illiterate Congress people that don't have the common sense nor the brains of a bug heading for the headlights on a car doing 70 mph on the expressway at night.

There is a simpler solution. We could vote people into office that have half a brain, but there must be something wrong with the American voter too because we keep putting these dimwits in office. So, since we can't seem to find people to put in office that can walk alone in public without supervision, then I suggest we start a new government program to teach reading and comprehension to these elected people. We can't call it head start because that's already taken for the children that are learning to read as they enter school at an early age. Maybe we could call it "Congressional Reading and Comprehension: The Final Frontier". I nominate as the first student, Representative Mark Schauer.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Solution to Obama-care. The American Businessman

What happens if we end up with Obama’s socialist Health Care that he and the Democrats are trying to have enacted in this country?

While it’s not a certainty that this will happen, I believe it’s likely that we’ll get some form of Socialized Medicine from the Democrats and Obama.

What is likely to happen should the public system be created is that the health insurance industry will disappear. Obama claims that you can continue your current plan but the companies will not be able to compete. Businesses will be forced to cover employees and if they don’t, they will be fined. Since the employees aren’t being covered, they’ll have to go to the socialist care put out by Obama, or they will have to purchase their own coverage from private industry. Government will see to it that they are much less expensive than private care, so people will choose the government plan. They’ll actually not have much choice because they won’t be able to afford private plans because they will need their money to pay their taxes.

However, the American people have always been an independent group. Many will fight off the government plan as long as they can. Businesses are in business to earn a profit. They are not in business to supply people with jobs and benefits. Business will also fight back. This could be the new American Revolution that comes about. Consider a couple of possibilities.

First the American people. We won’t put up with government running our lives. Caging people up is not the way to endear them to you. If the resistance is strong enough before the next election, we could see Democrats falling like flies in the next election with the Republicans taking over and repealing many of these socialist laws that are being enacted. Or we may see more Democrats looking out for the American people rather than big lobbyists to be corrupted by or to corrupt themselves.

The idea that I find most fascinating, however, is American Business. The Obama administration has taken over Chrysler and General Motors. The Unions now own a substantial portion of GM along with the U.S. and Canada. One of the ideas floated is that unions would be exempt from taxes related to health care. But there is still another car company out there that is large and did not take any bailout and did not file bankruptcy and is not under the governments thumb yet. Ford Motor Company.

Let’s assume that Obama’s health care plan is going to be expensive to Ford Motor Company and they choose not to provide the health insurance to their employees. However, they must obey the law if this is enacted. So what could their solution be?

Ford Motor Company could lay off all of their employees and tell them that they will never be called back. Instead, Ford could advertise for Independent Contractors to come and do the work that they need done. But there aren’t that many independent contractors out there to replace all of the workers that Ford just laid off. There is however, a very large pool of people that are unemployed, that could be independent contractors. They are the current employees of Ford Motor Company. So, let’s use Joe Sixpack as an example. He’s working for Ford Motor Company today and he’s earning $50,000 per year. He has all of the benefits of working for Ford. Ford pays him every two weeks, deducts out taxes, deducts out Social Security and pays the employer half of social security and all other expenses related to employing Joe. Joe has a wife and two kids. They are all covered under the benefit package provided by Ford.

Ford now needs to cut expenses to compete with the new Government Motors and Chrysler. So they decide a good way to save a lot of money is lay off Joe and his co-workers, and bring in independent contractors.

Joe is an innovative guy and decides he’s going into business for himself as an independent contractor. He registers a business name and approaches Ford about becoming an independent contractor doing the work that Ford needs to have done.

Joe, however needs to think of his family. He must provide health insurance for himself and his family, he needs to earn enough to feed, clothe and set aside money for his children’s education and for his own retirement. So Joe negotiates a contract with Ford to work for them for $60,000 for one year. He agrees to put out a certain number of units per day using a five day work schedule, for nine hours per day.

Ford no longer has to pay benefits, Joe will take care of it from his pay that he negotiated. Joe will also have business expenses that he didn't have before, as a result of being a business owner, thus saving more money in taxes. Ford no longer has to pay half of Joes Social Security. It’s now Joe’s responsibility as an independent contractor to pay for his own social security. The same with Medicare. Ford also doesn’t have to give Joe a two week paid vacation each year. Joe can take his two weeks, but he just won’t be paid during those two weeks.

Ford no longer has to withhold money for Joe’s taxes. It’s now Joe’s responsibility. Ford no longer has any obligation to take part in pensions for Joe, although Joe is free to negotiate any other perks if Ford is willing to give him any. It’s now Joe’s responsibility for himself and his family to create his own education for children, and his own retirement for himself.

Joe’s business is now merit based. If he does the job, Ford is happy to have him continue to do the work they need done. If he fails to do the job as his contract states, Ford is free to replace him and bring in another independent contractor to fill their needs.

There is no more need for unions. Joe negotiated his own contract. Joe could even hire employees under his business or he is free to hire his own independent contractors to fill other positions that need to be filled.

This simple little act, has created a spurt of new businesses (each former employee of Ford), has saved Ford from the nightmare of tax withholding, social security expense, health care expense and more. Not only has it created those new businesses, but it’s also created a demand for more CPA’s, for example, which creates the need for more offices to house the CPA's. After all, Joe will need someone to do his record keeping, not to mention his taxes. This will also give Joe the choice of going to the government for health care, or to go out and get his own health care privately.

Imagine if this were to happen at Ford Motor Company and it would work. How long do you think it would take for other businesses to see the benefits of hiring independent contractors rather than employees? The former employee, who is now an independent contractor would have to take more pride in his work because it’s now his business name attached to his work. He’d have more control over his money. He’d have more of a stake in how much the government charges in taxes each year which means he’d pay more attention at election time and make sure that he’s voting for the person that’s going to best serve his needs for his business.

Joe would have more of a stake in seeing that he gets a health care plan that will take care of his family as he wants them cared for. Should he not be satisfied, he could then change over to a competitor in health insurance to get better care. Doctors may find it necessary to open their own offices again rather than being with a group of doctors. All of these create more competition, more innovation on the part of many industries.

Ford Motor company would be saving a lot of money in employee expenses. This would lead to lower prices of cars. That would increase the demand for more cars, which would create a need for more independent contractors to fill that need. States would be clamoring for a factory to be built in their state to hire their unemployed citizens. They’d be forced to change the tax code to entice Ford to build more in their state so that their state’s citizens would be hired.

Since Ford’s major competitor would be Government Motors and Chrysler, both owned by the government, they would now be leveling the playing field that Obamacare will tilt in the governments favor.

This is just one idea. What other ideas would Ford come up with to stay competitive. In the meantime, Obama would be responsible for busting the unions. While it would be Ford that would get the ball rolling to fix the problems in health care in this country, Obama would be inadvertently responsible for fixing it by trying to create this socialist society that is doomed to failure, by creating the reaction by American business to save their way of life, improve their businesses and the American people that would take advantage and create their own business and improve their businesses.

The American businessman would once again stand up and lead the newest American Revolution by creating a better business and personal standard of living climate against what is becoming a more and more tyrannical government. No government would be toppled. It would have to be responsive to the actions taken by the American Businessman.

There’s an old law of physics. For each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Obama pushing through government control of businesses and forcing health care on them is the action. Businesses finding a way to improve themselves while staying within the laws would rebuild the economy, and be the equal and opposite reaction.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Health Care in America

In the interest of full disclosure, before I comment on this topic, I want to make it known that I am licensed to sell health insurance in Michigan. I rarely sell it. I do have to offer it. I don't like selling health care insurance. It's cumbersome for me, confusing to everyone. Now, understand I'm talking about major medical coverage. Going to your doctor. There are exceptions to what I said. I do suggest and offer Long Term Care coverage and Medicare Supplement plans for the retired.

The President held a press conference during the day yesterday. It was nice to see that he didn't interrupt prime time programming for a change. It's much better when few are watching. During his press conference, he said that he didn't understand the notion that government entering the health care business wouldn't be competition for the market place and can't understand why insurance companies would balk at government offering a public solution to health care in the United States.

There are a couple of simple answers to this. I have no doubt that he can't understand it. You have to believe in our market system to understand. First, let me say right off the bat that we do have a problem in this country with health care. There are problems with it. However, and this is where any liberals reading this will start seeing smoke coming from their ears, our health care system, flawed as it may be, is still the BEST HEALTH CARE AVAILABLE IN THE WORLD!

If it weren't, people from around the world would not be coming here to get their care rather than waiting on a waiting list in their own country for someone to decide they are worthy of seeing a doctor.

NOBODY in this country has to go without seeing a doctor. If you need the emergency room, you will not be turned away. If you need to see a doctor, you will be able to see one, and you won't have to wait for months to get that broken arm fixed.

But let's get to Obama's words about not understanding why anyone would have a problem with a public health system competing against the private companies. Private companies exist to make a profit. They can't exist without a profit. They must pay their sales people to offer insurance to the American people. They must pay the underwriters to write the policy. They must pay for the creation of some of the most innovative care plans ever created. Think about it. When you go to work, do you want to get paid? What if your company didn't pay you? What incentive would you have to go to work in the morning? Imagine if you called your insurance company because you have a claim and there is nobody there to answer the phone? Nobody to mail your check or pay your doctor? These are people that do this work and the companies must make a profit to pay them to do that work, and to earn money to support their own families.

How does this differ from the Federal government if they manage to get into the insurance business? Government doesn't have to work for a profit. If they run short on funds, they can always go into deficit spending....again. They can have Congress appropriate more money to pay for it. Where doesn't Congress get their money? From you and I. TAXES.

Government has no need to run a profitable business. They can just go to the people for more money. So when they force insurance companies out of business and there is no more competition, when they need more money, their argument will be, 'you don't want to go without health insurance for your children, so we're going to raise taxes'. Again and again.

Can you name one business that has ever been run successfully by the government? I can. The military. That's it. They botched Social Security. They plunged Medicare/Medicaid into deep debt and will be operating in the red in a matter of months if it hasn't happened already.

How do I know they will force insurance companies out of business? Have you tried to find a private insurance for someone over the age of 65? You can't. The best that the elderly have is Medicare Supplement. It "supplements" Medicare...which as I mentioned is operating in the red. And the rates on the Medicare Supplement continue to rise. Why? Because Medicare doesn't have the money any longer, and more and more are reaching the age of the elderly. The baby boomers started retiring and that will only grow for the next 20 years. In addition, medical advances are keeping people alive longer and longer. This will increase expenses.

Competition works. Capitalism works. The free market system works. Obama putting a public health system into place is not competition. It's taking a level playing field and tilting it towards government.

We now know that the Federal Government has forced states to take the so-called stimulus money. We know that the Federal Government fired the CEO of GM and they have their own people running the new Government Motors even if in the background pulling the strings. We now know that Bank of America was forced to take on a bad investment (Chairman Bernanke is dealing with that in hearings today). Each thing that Government gets into gets corrupted. The one success story they have is the military and they are cutting funding for the military. Of course, we also know that the dictator Obama took over ABC on Wednesday night under the guise of answering health care questions.

If Obama's health plan was the be all and end all as he tries to make it sound, why did he have to have the infomercial last night on ABC where there was no opposition allowed? No hard questions asked. Why was the deck stacked against those opposing his plan? Why did he have to have the hand picked audience where there was no dissenting point of views permitted? If his plan will stand up to scrutiny, he wouldn't have had to take over ABC for the night and stage that dog and pony show.

There are problems with our Health Care in this country, but it's the best health care in the world. Let the professionals in the health care industry solve the problem and leave government out of it. Leave Obama out of it. To have government or the dictator Obama take it over is only guaranteeing that our standard of health care will drop to the level of the Canadian system (see the link below). The British system, the German system. All failing. All expensive and paid for with higher and higher taxes and still they don't have enough money.

If Obama's plan is so good, why is it that he has to provide for Unions to not have to pay taxes on their health care while everyone else does? This is another example of Obama trying to walk into a window. The "pain" is hidden, but it's there when you hit it.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4363

Boxer: Respect me or else

Brigadier General Michael Walsh was testifying before a Senate Committee regarding the work in Louisiana following the hurricane in 2005. He was being questioned by Senator Barbara Boxer. Each time he answered her, he respectfully called her ma'am. Senator Boxer seemed to take offense to this and interrupted his responses by requesting that he begin addressing her as Senator rather than ma'am. She said that she worked hard for the title and would prefer he use it.

There are so many things that can be said about this. For instance, her arrogance. She worked hard for the title and feels she's earned the right to be called Senator. I'm not sure that striving to be a Senator is a lofty goal, but okay. Perhaps she did work hard for it and it is responsible to address her as Senator. The Senate is an important part of government, and the office deserves respect. Those sitting in those seats are less than adequate and considering them worthy of respect, is difficult for me to consider. Respect is earned and not freely given. Barbara Boxer is one of those that I don't have much respect for, so I find this more than silly.

Her dressing down of the Brigadier General was uncalled for. She'd have been better served to have provided a heads up to those testifying that she'd prefer to be called Senator rather than ma'am, rather than trying to show him up in a hearing. The term "ma'am" is a term of respect for a higher rank. The military addresses men as "sir" and women as "ma'am". If the woman is outranked by the officer, the officer will address her as "Miss".

Ma'am comes from the term "madam". Apparently, many feel this is a negative term, probably because people tend to think of the woman heading a house of prostitution. However, in it's original form it was meant as "My Lady". I've always used it as a sign of respect for the woman that was speaking. Clients, girlfriends, acquaintences. When they said they'd like something done, or said, my answer has been "Yes ma'am". It's not intended to hurt or degrade anyone. Just giving them their proper respect. Occasionally, I'll even say "Yes'm" using the term that children used when speaking to their mother in the past.

It's not disputed that the liberals don't have much use for the military. Remember during the Clinton years, Hillary hated the military hanging around and she treated them with disrespect. Of course, we all know this by the treatment of General Petraeus when they called him General "Betrayus".

Barbara Boxers treatment of the Brigadier General was that same form of disrespect. Even in the story written, it says that she called the Brigadier General and spoke to him about it to clear the air, so to speak AFTER the hearing...in private. She can call the guy afterwards in private, but apparently isn't capable of preparing in advance of his testimony.

Barbara Boxer showed disrespect to Brigadier General Michael Walsh. She didn't earn any respect in return. Someone really needs to explain to these government people, Senators, staff, Representatives, Secretarys of different cabinets, White House staff and anyone else that draws a paycheck from the people that it's not about them. It's about the country. Boxer proves she hasn't earned the respect. Her office does, but she hasn't earned it.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/18/sen-boxer-chides-brigadier-general-calling-maam/

Census: Next Scandal

Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has said that she will not completely fill out the census in 2010. She will give the number of people in her home, but she will not answer the questions that are included with the census.





Her reason for not doing so is due to too much information going into the system, which will be in the hands of ACORN among other Community Organizations.





ACORN is currently under investigation by no less than ten states and have been indicted in two states for their activities. This, while they are set to receive billions of dollars of taxpayer money.





Michele Bachmann has become a target of the Democrat Party for her staunch, unapologetic Conservative views.





My opinion is that the Census is Constitutionally mandated for a count of Americans every ten years and that giving your name and those of others that live in your household is and should be required. However, anything beyond that is government intrusiveness. I don't know if the other questions that are asked are required to be answered or not. But I'm with Mrs. Bachmann on this and don't want to tell the census workers anything other than what's required by the Constitution.



If you'll remember, Senator Judd Gregg was nominated to be Commerce Secretary. When accepted, the Census, which was handled by the Commerce Department, was moved to the White House. This raised many eyebrows and questions such as, was this done because Gregg is a Republican and couldn't be trusted to lead the Census? I think we are now seeing the answer to that and I believe it was wise of Senator Gregg to remove his name from consideration for the Commerce Department.


I certainly don't want to put family members at risk by telling ACORN workers about my life or that of my family.





I applaud Michele Bachmann for her stance. She's a star in the Republican Party and a real asset to Conservatives.





You're welcome to comment.





Brett

Finally!! President George W. Bush Speaks Out!

In Erie, Pennsylvania yesterday, former President George W. Bush had a few things to say. After five months of the new President blaming the former President for the country's woes, President Bush finally stood up and diplomatically responded to some of the issues.

While the former President spoke out, he was still very gracious and respectful in his comments. He was asked questions about the current state of the economy and stopped himself from going directly after Obama for his attempted solutions. He said that he had warned of the housing crisis before it became a crisis, which is true. Early in his Presidency and again after his re-election, he tried to get Congress to act on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the Democrats in Congress blocked any solutions from coming. Bush described it as "vested interests" in Congress.

He also said, to rousing cheers from the audience, that it would be the private sector that would improve the economy and not the government. He added that Government doesn't create wealth, but it can create an environment making it easier for the free market and private sector to bring this economy around and said it will be better than it was before.

Regarding health care, he said that he was concerned about nationalizing health care that again, the private sector would be the one to fix the health care system.

You can read this at http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/18/bush-takes-swipes-at-policies-of-obama/. The headline is misleading. While Bush did talk about the current directions he did not go directly after Obama. He displayed class.

We in Michigan are familiar with "make excuse politics". We've been in a one state recession for five years and the rest of the country joined us in the past year. Governor Granholm has consistantly blamed Michigans woes on first former Governor John Engler and then President Bush then both of them. Yesterday, it was announced that Michigan's unemployment rate jumped to 14.1%. Highest in the nation again. I believe this is now 37 consecutive months.

Granholm blamed Engler in the beginning. Engler took over from Governor James Blanchard (D). Unemployment was in double digits at the time. After 12 years, Engler's final term expired. He left the state of Michigan with an unemployment rate of 3.9%. The economy was thriving.

In addition to Engler, Bush took over in 2001 as President. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, when the economy dropped like a rock, his policies turned it around and the economy soared from 2002 until 2007. The strongest economy in over 25 years. He lowered taxes and revenues to the government INCREASED to record numbers. But not in Michigan. Granholm's policies, fee increases, tax increases were running Michigan down. While the rest of the country was growing and working, the people of Michigan were hearing "It's Englers' fault", it's "Bush's fault".

When Bush took over, he inherited a recession. You rarely heard the administration say that. He just went to work and implemented policies that would solve the problem. However, now that Obama is in there, he's taken up the mantra of Governor Granholm. "It's Bush's fault". Or "we inherited this mess".

In Bush's speech yesterday, he said he wasn't going to directly go after Obama's policies and he didn't. He showed in his answers much class and dignity, and talked about the issues. Even regarding the question of whether he thinks we're being led to socialism, he was still diplomatic and said "we'll see".

It's been just under 6 months, but I already miss having an adult in the White House. One can only hope that the new President takes advantage of advice from former Presidents. Perhaps he could start with not getting too close to the press. The press is his friend now, but they will turn on him. You have to be careful about stroking the tail of a dog. When he turns, there's teeth in the other end.

Bush didn't do things exactly correct last fall, in my opinion, but he didn't play the blame game. He went after the problem in the short time he had left. I'll criticize what he did from September through January, but I admire him for not shirking his responsibility and for taking on the problem. He handled this speech and question and answer period with much class. Something we're not seeing out of the current White House, nor from the Press for that matter.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

America: Land of Opportunity

In the past week we've learned several things. We've learned that our illustrious Congress, and of course the President, guessed wrong on the so-called stimulus package. This information comes from the Vice President of the United States on Meet the Press on Sunday, so we really can't question that source. I feel much better knowing that our government is passing laws, that they don't bother to read, based on "guesses".

We've also learned that our soldiers are now required to read terrorists their rights on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq before taking them into custody. Never mind that they aren't entitled to rights because they aren't citizens of this country and because it's war. They now must be read their rights.

We've also learned that terrorists are now being released and deposited into Bermuda with beachfront living quarters that are exceptional places to live. Oh, and we're paying for it with our tax dollars. We also did this without seeking the approval of the British who happen to be the mother country for Bermuda. Apparently, when Obama said he was going to restore our esteem around the world, he only meant the middle east and to heck with one of our best friends.

We've also recently learned that the intent of this White House is to get an amnesty bill through. The same amnesty bill that the American people got up in arms over a couple of years ago and shut down when Congress was about to pass it.

It's becoming more and more apparent that the best way to take advantage of the opportunities available in the United States is to give up your citizenship, move to Mexico, sneak back in as an illegal alien. You're assured a job. If you happen to be a terrorist, you'll get relocated to a beautiful resort in Bermuda and you won't have to worry about the laws passed in this country because you'll be living in luxury in the sunshine, getting a nice tan and the United States Taxpayer will be paying your expenses.

If you're not thrilled with the Atlantic Ocean, there's always this little island 500 miles from the Phillipines out in the Pacific Ocean, that you could go to, and the taxpayers are giving that island money to cover your expenses. I could say something about socialism and the government taking care of the people, but I'm a but confused because our government seems to be taking care of our enemies.

Why does it appear to me that the fox is guarding the hen house?

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

David Letterman: Dirty Old Man or Pedophile or both?

I should warn you up front that this could be a very long piece or a very short one. I am incensed at what’s been happening lately especially in two areas. I’m going to take the one that makes me angriest, and let me state right up front, if any of you liberals are reading this and want to talk about other situations, you’re out of luck. There is absolutely no excuse for this from either side, any side or even no side.

David Letterman. He is the final straw in anyone on the left talking about civil discourse. It’s bad enough with Keith Olberman being on display daily with his hatred. He proves that NBC is not a news organization. They are an Obama advertising crew. Add to that Chris Matthews with that tingle running down his leg. Hey Chris. Step into the bathroom, I think you misspelled “tingle”. You might want to grab some tissue and clean that up.

Then there’s Nora O’Donnell, Contessa Brewer, Brian Williams bowing to Obama, who bows to the King of Saudi Arabia. The list goes on. But, what David Letterman did the other night on his program was beyond decency and as far as I’m concerned, pornographic.

I have long been of the belief that politicians, by nature of their positions are open fodder for criticism for their policies, their beliefs and their lack of beliefs. However, there is a difference between criticism and outright abuse. Letterman saying that Governor Sarah Palin had been shopping for makeup to update her “slutty flight attendant” look was just flat out distasteful. If his opinion is that Palin looks slutty, what does he feel about his own wife? After all, Palin was married before she had children. Letterman can’t say the same thing about his wife. Where is the National Organization for Women? Why aren’t they defending Palin? Why aren’t they defending flight attendants?

The comment about Palin, while supposedly a joke, was part of his top ten list. However, another comment was made during his monologue. This was not part of his top ten list. Sarah Palin was visiting New York with her 14 year old daughter, Willow. Did you get that? Willow is 14 years old. Letterman, during his monologue, said that Palin took her daughter to a New York Yankees game and during the 7th inning of the game, Alex Rodriguez knocked up her daughter.

David Letterman is a 62 year old man (I use the term “man”, loosely). With that comment, about a 14 year old girl, suggesting it did happen, even suggesting it could happen, would happen or might happen, puts Letterman into the category of a pedophile to me. That pervert should have been removed from the airwaves immediately. Where are you CBS? Are these the standards that you want for your programming? Apparently, you have dropped your standards even further. Allowing Dan Rather to forge documents and then put them on the air was serious enough, but now you’re keeping a pedophile on the air.

How many times have we heard these moronic liberals say that the Republicans, not just Conservatives, but Republicans, are racists because they disagree with Obama? How many of these jackasses in the Democrat Party called the Tea Party attendees racists? Hate filled? With no proof to back up that even one person attending the Tea Parties was a racist. They talk about the Republican Party being run by balding white men. It is the Democrats that constantly bring up race, gender, age. They are the ones that are racists and have a problem with gender and age. Nobody else. Yet they say nothing about a pedophile having a talk show on television. Imagine if someone with a Conservative Talk Radio program, or someone on Fox said the same thing about one of Obama’s children or called Michelle Obama what Sarah Palin called. They’d be marching in the streets.

David Letterman, it’s time for you to go. CBS should have fired you immediately. Take your opportunity now and retire and join Dan Rather in the CBS archives of fools.

It takes a real coward to use the public airwaves to attack a woman and a fourteen year old child. I don’t like Hillary Clinton, but I have never said anything about her that vile. The attempt at an apology was worthless. Governor Palin responded to Lettermans apology and declined his offer to appear on his program saying she wasn't going to boost his ratings for him. Had I been Todd Palin, Governor Palin’s husband, I’d have declined for her and made my own offer to David Letterman. Come visit Alaska and let’s go for a walk on a glacier and talk about it….bring your own crutches.

There is no excuse out there to justify Letterman’s words. I dare, even one of you liberals to try and put an excuse on here using your real name rather than anonymous or a false name. There is no excuse for treating a woman this way and there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for saying what he said about a fourteen year old. I did hear that he tried to say he wasn’t speaking of Willow, but rather Bristol, the 18 year old daughter. That is supposed to be justification? Absolutely not!!

You’re welcome to comment, but if you’re a liberal, I recommend you don’t. There is no denying that Letterman is a pervert. And yes, I know that I said two areas at the beginning of this. I’m going to save the second one for another time.

Brett

The Honeymoon is over: Obama is failing

It only took a little over five months, but it's happened. The American people now trust the Republicans to handle the economy better than the Democrats. It was close last month. 44%-43%, but it's now Americans trust Republicans 46%-39% over Democrats. Of those not affiliated with the parties, the margin is 2-1 Republicans over Democrats.

Five months of spending, promised tax increases, nationalization of two car companies, and financial institutions, not to mention the increasing unemployment rate has led the American people to reject the Democrats and move to the Republicans. In fact, Republicans now lead on 6 of the 10 top issues.

In addition, two Democrats have left the Democrat party in New York and apparently now putting the State Senate into the hands of the Republicans. This over gay issues.

Europe is finding that Conservatives are more palatable than the liberals and moved towards more Conservatives in recent elections. They are expected to now hold the majority. Americans are trending the same way. This is the first time in two years that the Republicans have had the public trust on the economy. Two years ago was 2007 when the Democrats took over the House and Senate. Since the Democrats have taken over, we've been plunged into a recession and to listen to the President today, it's a very deep recession.

Democrats are changing parties, Europe is moving Conservative, Americans trust Republicans more, and the recent vote in California on five proposals show that the people, here and abroad are not happy about the way the liberals around the world are handling the crisis we've been plunged into. Add to that the reports coming out showing that the so-called stimulus bill isn't doing as it was promised to do, and unemployment is still on the rise and you have a recipe for booting out the liberal Democrats.

This is good news for Republicans for the 2010 elections, and it's also good news for the coming debates on national health care. National Health Care has a chance of going down in defeat which would save the country (millions of taxpayers) trillions of dollars.

Now when will someone conservative step up and lead these do nothing Republicans in Congress to start doing the right things and putting out the right messages? It's time for someone to step up and step up in a forceful way. Someone could step in right now and become the next Ronald Reagan and lead the Republicans back to where they ought to be. But he or she must be strong enough to keep them moving foward even after the initial bump upwards.

The Republicans nationalized the elections in 1994 and took over the congress with the promise in the Contract with America. That contract was a promise to bring ten items to a vote within the first 100 days. They did as they promised. They didn't promise to pass them all, but they did promise to have a vote on those items and they fulfilled that promise. This time, they need to make one of their contract items that they will continue to vote down laws proposed that take away freedoms and pass laws that enhance freedom. They also need to continue to push the conservative points beyond that first 100 days.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Barry Has a Date

There is some talk about the about of money being spent on the Obama's trip to New York for date night. I have no problem with Barry taking Michelle out on a date. I think date night is a good thing even for President's. It's much better, after all, than date night being an intern bringing a pizza and a cigar as President Clinton used to do.

The problem lies with who's paying for that date. The American people. At his news briefing, press secretary when asked said that Obama would have taken a commercial flight, but the Secret Service wouldn't allow it. This is reasonable, but doesn't Obama think that maybe he ought to reimburse the American people for his date?

I know a terrific lady that lives some distance from me that I'd love to take out on a date or two or ten. I wonder if I could have the American people pay for my travel time. I promise that I won't spend as much as the Obama's. Even half as much as what Obama spent though could fund someones retirement for a couple of years.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

General Motors is Dead: Long Live Government Motors

There is an excellent report in the Wall Street Journal. I recommend you read it. Here's the link. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html

I'll give you the shortened version, but please look at the story on the link. It's an excellent report and easy to read even if you're not in business.

In 1913, the government thought that they were being overcharged for the steel plating on warships. They decided to go into the steel business saying that they could save 30% costs in the steel. They built the steel plant. It was completed (over budget naturally), and actually went into production. Unfortunately, the war had been over for three years before it opened. They had one production run. The cost was twice as much as their competitors, the American business. They shut their doors and never opened again.

Now we have the takeover of General Motors. It's now owned by The United States of America, the Canadian government and the union. The investors in GM have been shut out. Stock has been wiped out and bondholders were forced to take nearly a 75% loss.

Obama has said he doesn't want to be in the car business and he doesn't want to be in the financial services business. So why is he in them?

There is good news however. We will now find out which runs a business better. The government or the American people. Ford did not take the bailout, and did not file bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler have accepted both. Ford is even stepping up production.

Government does want into the car business. They just entered it. They want into the health car business. Their track record? Medicare, which is full of waste, fraud and abuse. They want into the financial services business. Their track record? Social Security, which is dying a slow death and will be operating in the red in 7 short years and broke in 2037. Everyone born from 1973 on, is going to be very ticked off at their parents for wasting all of that money put into the social security system.

Remember last September and October when everyone said that the car companies can't be allowed to go into bankruptcy because nobody would buy a car from a car company that was bankrupt? What changed? I'm afraid that the government will force everyone to buy one of their cars.

What of the retired GM worker? Excuse me, the retired General Motors worker, not the Government Motors worker. They put years into their craft only to have the government take it over and now their retirement is dependent on what some crackpot in Washington DC decides to do to boost his election chances in the next term.

The recent retirees had their rough patch back in the early 80's. They made a car that didn't have the quality and they were being beaten by the Japanese upstarts that were making a better vehicle than the Americans were. But they didn't give up. They came back and made the best cars in the world. Do you really think you're going to get quality from someone receiving a government check every two weeks? I should be careful saying something like that if a liberal is reading this, because their answer will be yes.

This will also change our driving habits. Government Motors will be making cars made of a substance similar to cardboard and it will only be the size of a go-cart. We'll have to be careful and be certain that if we hit a bump in the road, to look in the rearview mirror to be certain we didn't run over a Government Motors made car.

This is a sad day for America. 2/3 of the Auto Industry has been taken over by the Obama Administration. He even admitted that this wasn't going to work well. That more jobs will be lost, more plants will be closing, never to reopen and more dealerships will be shutting their doors.

When a man/woman opens a business, they are upbeat, proud, anxious to get to work to make their business grow. They are full of optimism. But when the government takes over a business, they are not optimistic. They predict doom and gloom for a long time to come.

Mr. Obama, if you don't want to get into the Car business and the finance business, here's a suggestion for you. It's really simple. 'DON'T! You will not be able to compete with the American worker, nor the American spirit of entrepreneurial enterprise. You're doomed to failure just as the government was in 1913 when they decided they could do it better and proved that they couldn't.

I wonder, does this mean that the liberals will now turn their hatred towards Ford for daring to succeed?

You're comments are welcome.

Brett