Your Vote Means More Than Our Laws

The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) is an American legislative proposal first introduced in the Senate on August 1, 2001, by  Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch. It has not passed. It didn’t pass when the Democrats had the House and Senate and it’s been sitting ever since.

President Obama, in an election year, has now decided to implement parts of the Dream Act. It doesn’t matter that the bodies of Government required to pass laws aren’t passing it. King Barry is doing it himself.

Children that are in this country illegally will now be, in effect, given amnesty. Now, these children came here illegally by the actions of their parents. Their parents broke the law by coming here improperly. They brought their children. These children that are now here illegally by no doing of their own, are being allowed to stay.

The Obama administration is not going to enforce the current laws of this land when it comes to these children. I am not saying that these children of illegal immigrants should pay the price for their parents transgressions. However, they should be deported. Sent back to their homeland and if they want to be here, do so in the legal way. By the way, these “children” can be as much as 30 years old. At my age of 55, yes, they are children to me. But they are adults. They just weren’t responsible for the crime they committed by coming to this country illegally.

We have a process in this country. Congress writes the laws, and either passes them or doesn’t. If they pass a law, it then goes to the President for his signature or veto. This gives time for debate in each House of Congress, and allows for the Executive Branch (President) to weigh in on it with either his signature or a veto. But he’s not the final say. The final say belongs to Congress. If the President veto’s a bill, Congress can override the veto. This is another form of check and balance which is supposed to serve the people that have entrusted these elected officials with the power to decide these things for us.

What Obama has done with this action is to remove Congress and the law from this debate. He has chosen which laws to enforce and which ones not to enforce. It doesn’t matter if every single person in this country doesn’t want this. He’s thumbing his nose at every American by saying “you’re wrong, Congress is wrong and my way is the right way, so this law will not be enforced.” Isn’t that aiding and abetting a criminal? Isn’t that a violation of law?

Suppose I decided that my ex-wife should no longer have my children with her. So I keep my children and when the authorities come to arrest me for keeping my children away from her as the law states, I can say that I disagree with the law so they have no right to arrest me and she has no right to complain about me so I don’t let them arrest me.

Obama likes to say that the economy is doing so poorly (right after he says the private sector is doing fine) because the Republicans will not pass the law he wants. There are two sides to this debate. The House has passed 33 laws for a so-called jobs bill that the Senate Democrats have voted against with the blessing of Obama. Shouldn’t we now be claiming that the President and Democrats are the cause of the economies woes because they refuse to pass the House plans? What makes Obama’s ideas the correct ones? He’s already proven he’s failed with the economy following the Stimulus failure and who can forget the “cash for clunkers” debacle?

This is all about the election. Obama is in serious trouble in his re-election bid. So in recent weeks, he’s solidified the gay vote by coming out in favor of gay marriage and now he’s trying to secure the hispanic vote by stopping deportation of illegals.

In the past week, his justice department has been after the State of Florida for purging illegal voters from their rolls. In other words, dropping illegal voters so they can’t vote illegally. Do you liberals understand that? There are thousands in Florida that have no privilege to vote, no right to vote, and Obama’s administration is trying to stop the State of Florida from running a fair and honest election.

He’s got the hispanic vote already, so what has he gained other than to ignore the law of the land? He’s already got the gay vote so what has he gained by “evolving” into saying he believes in gay marriage?

But combining two of these, here’s what he has accomplished. Florida has a large hispanic vote. If he stops deporting (following the law) illegals in Florida, there is a chance that some of those illegals will fall through the cracks and vote for him and not be caught and have their vote thrown out. Those that are caught will claim voter suppression and blame the Republicans.

What everyone (conservatives and liberals) should be seeing is that there is a man that occupies the White House that is willing violate his oath of supporting the Constitution, and “possibly”(?) violate the law for his vote.

There is another possibility. If these "kids" are already working, will the administration then be able to say that the unemployment rate has dropped? 

Obama is not concerned about all Americans, he's concerned only about his re-election and to do that he has to divide the people into groups. Hmm, that almost sounds like a bias or another term for racist. Ok, well not "almost". It is. 

Voting for him is more important than the laws of the land.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Blame Bush. Can it Work?

This election is turning into Barack Obama vs. George W. Bush. But then, so did the last Presidential election. There is just one problem with this. George W. Bush and Barack Obama never faced each other in an election. Details, details. Obama is still running against Bush, and Bush is still not on the ballot.

Last week I posted the unemployment rates from the beginning of the Bush years through May of this year. I tried to show how the Bush years had full employment for the most part and for a couple of years, it was more than full employment. The purpose was to show that job creation cannot be compared by the numbers because if there is full employment, how do you hire still more?

Unfortunately, I forgot to point out something else about those years. The unemployment rate began to increase in 2007. In addition the economic growth rate began to decrease in 2007. Something else happened in 2007. In the election of 2006, the Democrats won both the House and the Senate and were sworn in in early January 2007.

So how does this relate to Obama blaming Bush? Well, the House and the Senate is not the only election in 2006. All House seats are up every two years and a third of the Senate is up every two years. But there are also state offices that are elected in the midterm elections. Michigan’s seat for Governor is one of those.

Prior to 2002, the Governor of Michigan was limited to three terms in office. In 2002 that changed to two four year terms. The Governor in Michigan prior to 2002 was John Engler, a Republican. He was finishing his third term. Taxes were lower, unemployment in the state was at 3%. Granholm ran and won her first term as Governor in 2002.

In 2006, she ran for a second term. Unemployment was soaring. Michigan had the highest unemployment rate in the country and it wasn’t showing any indication of stopping from going up. The state had begun to fall apart during Granholm’s four years. Her opponent in that election was Richard DeVos, the rich businessman best known as being the son of one of the two founders of Amway and very successful in his own right in business.

Granholm claimed that the states maladies had been caused by Engler and she had “inherited” his mess and she was still cleaning it up but that she needed four more years to finish the job. She didn’t run against DeVos, she ran against Engler. Engler’s years were successful and the state was thriving but she, and the willing press, claimed that it was falling apart because of her predecessor. In a state that is for the most part a liberal state, it was an easy sell. She was the bashed on female against the evil male millionaire who was more of the same of John Engler.

Granholm never faced Engler directly in an election. But she ran against him in the first election, even though the real opponent was Dick Posthumous the Lt. Governor. In 2006, she ran against Engler, even though her real opponent was Dick DeVos. This tactic gave Granholm four more years. What did she do with that four years? She increased the unemployment rate still higher. Michigan was falling apart.

Sound familiar? Barack Obama is running against Bush, who has never been the opposition on the ballot against Obama. Obama’s words? “I inherited a mess.”

Do not take blaming Bush lightly. Michigan is a perfect example why we should not take this tactic lightly however ridiculous it sounds. With Obama’s record the past three years, even Democrats should have been begging for Obama to be challenged in primaries. A serious challenge, not some convicted felon in Texas running in the West Virginia primary. Instead, Obama is running virtually unchallenged in his own party, so he sits back and claims it’s Bush’s fault for all of the problems in this country.

Each time I hear that Obama inherited the problems created by Bush, I think it’s silly that anyone would even consider this as viable. Yet,  it’s repeated by the press and the constant repetition has made it sound as though it’s a given.

Can blaming Bush work? The 2006 re-election of Jennifer Granholm in Michigan says it can work. 

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

False Praise Doesn't Bring Excellence

Please read the following two paragraphs in quotes:

“You are not special. You are not exceptional,” "Yes, you've been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble-wrapped," . “Yes, capable adults with other things to do have held you, kissed you, fed you, wiped your mouth, wiped your bottom, trained you, taught you, tutored you, coached you, listened to you, counseled you, encouraged you, consoled you and encouraged you again. You've been nudged, cajoled, wheedled and implored. You've been feted and fawned over and called sweetie pie. ... But do not get the idea you're anything special. Because you're not."


 "Think about this: even if you're one in a million, on a planet of 6.8 billion that means there are nearly 7,000 people just like you."
 A 'B' is the new 'C.' Midlevel courses are the new advanced placement."

Finally!! Someone that says it like it is, albeit rather bluntly. The quotes above are from a speech that a teacher gave to students at their graduation. The teacher is David McCullough Jr. His father is better known for his historical books he's authored.

I have three children. They are special to me. They aren't favored over their cousins by their cousins parents, nor are they favored over their cousins by their grandparents. I know that my parents think their children are special to them. They don't favor my brothers or my sister over me and they don't favor me over my brothers and sister. I would think that in this day and age of broken marriages and remarriages that step children would be speical to step parents, at least I hope they are. But beyond that, children are not any more special to any one as they are to the parents and possibly step parents of those children.

Teachers, government authorities (including those charged with protecting endangered children from harm), neighbors, relatives and friends will never consider children special over their own children.

Yet for the past twenty years, lip service has been paid to them. "Do it for the children". They don't necessarily care for the unnamed children. They care more for their agenda and use the children to achieve that agenda. I'm not saying that they purposely use the children and I'm not saying that they all don't care. So please don't fall into the trap of lumping everyone under one umbrella. There are the those that will go out of their way for children even though those children aren't their own. But there is always a limit.

This is also not to say that children shouldn't be encouraged. But not false encouragement. One of the old lines that's been used, especially when the "self esteem of the children" was the hot topic, was that if little Johnny said in school that 2+2=5, he was to be praised for trying and not told he's wrong out of fear that it would destroy his self esteem and he'd become a homeless bum destined to walk to the streets and sleep under bridges. There's just a little problem with that. Little Johnny may remember that he got it right when he said 5 as his answer, and then one day uses a calculator and finds that it says the answer is really 4. Does he then swear up and down that he's got a defective calculator? Does he then decide that a school teacher that should have been helping him learn, has actually lied to him? Does he then question whether anything he was told was the truth in those 13 years of school?

When he starts working and his employer wants something done in a certain way, and he does it wrong, does the employer now have to provide therapy for little Johnny after he's told he's doing his job wrong? What if the employer actually fires little Johnny? Not many employers are going to worry about a persons self esteem when his business is going under because little Johnny has never learned disappointment nor been corrected when he's been wrong.

When kids are very young and play sports for the first time, many of these organizations tell the parents and coaches that they aren't going to keep score. But guess what. The children do keep score!

I used to coach my kids in baseball. Both my son and my daughters. Parents were told by the league that they could not yell negative things at the players during the game. Even yelling out after a kid dropped a popup that he or she should keep their eye on the ball, was considered wrong and the parents would be ejected and banned for the next game. But, as the coach, I could say it to them. At one point, my son was playing second base and turned around late to tell the outfield how many outs there were, as he was supposed to do. But he did it late. While his back was turned, the pitcher pitched and the batter hit a line drive towards my son. It whistled right past his face as he was turning to face the batter. I don't know who was more scared. Him or me. Luckily, it missed him.

I immediately yelled at him to keep his eyes front. I yelled it quickly and loudly and with some fear and anger in my voice. One of the parents came over to me and said that I shouldn't do that because everyone heard it and it only embarrasses my son.

Suppose I did what that parent suggested and kept my mouth shut and let it go so as not to embarrass him again. He'd never know he made a mistake. If he didn't have the mistake corrected the next line drive might break his jaw, cheek or knock some teeth out.

Suppose it was that parents child and I said nothing and it happened again to their child and because I didn't correct that child when it happened the next time and they were seriously hurt, would the parent be so willing to tell me not to say anything so as not to embarrass their child again?

Kids should be encouraged to improve in whatever they choose to do, but to tell them they are doing great at anything when what they are actually doing is poor, only makes them be satisfied with less than adequate results in anything they do.

This teacher is one that had it exactly right. If you strive for excellence and don't achieve that excellence to begin with, you won't reach excellence because you have nothing to improve on when adequate is completely acceptable.

Children are special to their parents. They have special talents but they are not talented at everything. If those talents are not found because we're so busy praising them but not correcting the mistakes they make, we get constant mediocrity rather than occasional excellence.

I like to use baseball as the example with this. Take a look at the batting averages of the professional ballplayers. Someone hitting .300 is considered a very good hitter. But .300 for an average means that you're only successful three out of ten times. It's one of the few times that failing seven out of ten times is an acceptable outcome. Every 20 or 30 years we get a player that flirts with a .400 average and it becomes the headline near the end of the season. Everyone is watching to see if he can actually accomplish that great of a task. Even if he does, he's still failed six out of ten times and he'll get in the record books.

But baseball is a game. Imagine if you build cars for a living and seven out of every ten cars you build have the doors falling off as the new owner is pulling out of the dealership. How long do you think you'll keep your job?

To berate children isn't right, but to heap false praise on them or even praising them but not helping them to improve when there is room for improvement is not doing them any good at all. Mediocrity should not be praised. Giving a trophy to a team that hasn't won a game because the other teams got a trophy keeps that trophy from being a reward for excellence.

David McCollough Jr. has it right and I wish there were more teachers like him out there.

What did the kids say in reaction to his speech? Well, this is something that I believe the children should be praised for.

"For once someone told us what we need to hear and not necessarily what we wanted to hear," 
"Undoing all 'they've' done in on 10-minute speech. My faith in the world may have been restored," 

The kids seem to understand what was meant by this teacher. It's too bad that some adults don't get it.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Walker Didn't Survive, He WON!

The Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker (R), just won his second election in 18 months for the same job. He didn't survive the recall vote, as the news media is reporting. He beat his opponent by 7 points! That's not hanging on, or surviving. That's winning!

Walker first won election to the office in the 2010 election. He immediately set out to fix Wisconsin's deficit and other fiscal problems. In the process of doing this he made the unions mad by eliminating collective bargaining. So the unions set out to start a recall of the election of 2010.

The unions pumped in a ton of money from out of state as well as in state. One of the things that was eliminated was the unions ability to take the dues automatically from their membership. Now, the union members had a choice of whether or not to pay their union dues on their own. Tens of thousands did not pay their dues.

The media however, only talked about the millions pumped into Wisconsin by Republicans for Walker. They did not talk about the money from unions and Democrats.

There was another piece of news that came out yesterday. Michigan spent years at the bottom of the list in economic news. From 2002 until 2011, Michigan ran the highest unemployment rate, the slowest growth in the economy under Governor Jennifer Granholm (D). But in 2010 Rick Snyder (R) was elected governor of Michigan.

After spending 9 years falling to the bottom and reaching the bottom and staying at the bottom, it's taken less than two years and Michigan is now in sixth place in economic growth in the country!

You can draw your own conclusions about these two stories.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

What Creates Jobs?

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
2002	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	5.8	5.8	5.8	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	6.0
2003	5.8	5.9	5.9	6.0	6.1	6.3	6.2	6.1	6.1	6.0	5.8	5.7
2004	5.7	5.6	5.8	5.6	5.6	5.6	5.5	5.4	5.4	5.5	5.4	5.4
2005	5.3	5.4	5.2	5.2	5.1	5.0	5.0	4.9	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.9
2006	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4
2007	4.6	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4	4.6	4.7	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.7	5.0
2008	5.0	4.9	5.1	5.0	5.4	5.6	5.8	6.1	6.1	6.5	6.8	7.3
2009	7.8	8.3	8.7	8.9	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.8	10.0	9.9	9.9
2010	9.7	9.8	9.8	9.9	9.6	9.4	9.5	9.6	9.5	9.5	9.8	9.4
2011	9.1	9.0	8.9	9.0	9.0	9.1	9.1	9.1	9.0	8.9	8.7	8.5
2012	8.3	8.3	8.2	8.1	8.2

Don't you just love charts? Listening to the candidates about who creates more jobs, Obama or Romney, made me curious about some details we've always been told. Obama likes to say that he's created 4 million jobs and calls former President Bush a job killer, or that Bush created very few jobs in his eight years. 

Bush had eight years in office. During his first four years, his average rate of job creation was 0.51%. In his second term, his average rate of job creation was -0.84%. 

By comparison, Obama has been in office for just over 3 years. His average rate of job creation through 2011 (2 years) is 0.75%. 

If we stop there, the Obama team would be correct. They are creating more jobs. Bear with me a minute. I have a couple more numbers to throw at you and then I'll explain my thoughts. 

Since we can't fairly compare month to month, especially since Obama doesn't have the same amount of time as Bush had, we can only average out the figures. Each of the figures in the chart above are monthly unemployment rates. 

The average unemployment rate during the Bush years was 5.23%. 

The average unemployment rate during the Obama years was 9.15%. 

I have a few points to make on this and I apologize if you're not a statistical person. 

1. What effect does the change in tax rate have on unemployment? The tax cuts actually took place during the following year, and it does take some time for it to work it's way through the system to see the benefits or detriments of the change in tax rates. 

The average unemployment during 2002 was 5.3%. But in 2003, the average was 5.99%. Just using that, it would look like the tax cuts had a short term benefit to unemployment, if you want to consider six tenths of a percent as a detriment. However, there was another tax cut in 2003, which took effect in 2004. At the end of 2004, the average unemployment rate was 5.07%. If we use the same standard as above about it taking two years, then in 2005 the average unemployment rate was 5.08%. Virtually no change. But then look at 2006 and 2007. 4.22% and 4.61% respectively. 

2. What effect does spending have on unemployment? In 2009, Obama took office. In February of that year, one day following Presidents Day, Obama signed the stimulus bill. The average unemployment rate that year was 9.27%. 

However, I gave Bush a second year for the tax cuts to work their way through the system so let's do the same for Obama, after all, I don't want to be called a racist for not being fair to both. The average unemployment rate in 2010 was 9.62%. That's a four tenths of a percent increase. 

3. Which increases revenue to the government?  During the Bush years, following the tax cuts, the federal government brought in record amounts of income from taxes. During the Obama years, the revenues to the federal government have DECREASED. 

There is another comparison that is pretty important here. During the Bush years, he had a Republican House and Senate. During the Obama years, he had a Democrat House and Senate. 

With all Republicans, the tax rates were decreased, the revenue increased, and the unemployment decreased. With all Democrats, the revenue decreased, and spending exploded. 

This is not the first time this has happened. During the Reagan years, taxes came down, unemployment dropped and revenues to the government set record highs. 

This is what Democrats don't seem to understand. When the people have money, they spend it and they save it. When they save it, more investment is made. When they spend it, more businesses earn more money, allowing them to hire more people, invest more money and draw investments in their businesses. As the people make more money, they pay more in taxes even when they are paying a lower rate. Imagine if we lowed the business tax rate. Businesses would be able to hire more, they'd pay more in taxes because their businesses would be growing. 

Tax cuts don't need to be paid for but spending does need to be paid for. 

4. So why the difference in job creation? First of all, 5% -5.5% unemployment is considered full employment. I'm going to use just 5% to make it easy. 

Let's assume that we have a pool of 1 million people able to work. As mentioned earlier, the average unemployment rate during the Bush years was 5.23%. This means that of those 1 million people available to work, 52,300 aren't working. Obama has an average unemployment rate of 9.15% which means there are 91,500 workers unemployed and available to work. 

If each of those two Presidents were to find jobs for 10% of their unemployment pool, Obama would gain 9,150 jobs to his credit, but Bush, who gets the same percentage of 10% would only gain 5,230 jobs. 

By virtue of the fact that Obama has more workers available to create jobs for, it's simple math that he SHOULD be able to have higher numbers in job creation. 

Make no mistake, I'm not forgetting that many workers have been unemployed for so long that their unemployment has run out and they aren't counted in the unemployment rate now. I also understand that this wasn't a problem during the Bush years. After all, during just 2006 and 2007 the average unemployment rate was 4.42%. Bush just didn't have the pool of workers to draw from and the nation was not in the throes of a recession. 

Liberals will claim that Bush left a mess and Obama's numbers are actually caused by Bush, but if we were to look at economic growth (which is another topic for a later date), that argument falls by the wayside. 

What they won't tell you is that Bush warned us twice, with the last time being in 2005, that if we didn't rein in our spending, we'd end up with a huge economic mess and those problems would continue for years. Yet, the spending continued, and that includes Bush and the Republican Congress along with the Democrats. During the Bush years, the Republicans actually spent more than the Democrats ever spent. Unfortunately, since Obama was elected, the Democrats have regained that record and continue to add to it. 

It's not low tax rates that is the problem. It's the constant spending that is the problem. 

You're welcome to comment. 

Brett

Mitt (John Kerry) Romney

Apparently, former Governor Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee to run against President Barack Obama for President. He was not my first choice. In fact, there were many ahead of him as far as I was concerned. I'd have gladly accepted Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and even Rick Santorum before Romney.

I'd pretty much decided prior to the primary here in Michigan that it was a toss up between Gingrich, Bachmann and Cain. But then Bachmann dropped out I'd decided a couple of weeks before the primary that I'd be voting for Cain. But then he dropped out. So Gingrich got my vote. Romney only beat out John Huntsman and Ron Paul for me.

I am now supporting Romney and will vote for him in the fall. Romney is not a Conservative. He's actually the Republican version of John Kerry from 2004's election in that he was for something before he was against it. Gun Control, abortion, Government health care. Had Romney and Kerry been running against each other in 2004, we would not be able to tell the difference between the two. They even look somewhat alike.

So should I give up and just sit out this election? Nope. Not me. If we sit this election out we could get Obama for another four years. If anything is worse than getting Romney, it would be four more years of Obama.

I don't believe that Romney will repeal health care. He can't. He's not going to be in the Congress. He can only sign what the Congress sends. So if we want to get rid of Obamacare, we must have a Republican Senate.

Romney could be considered a great President, but not of his doing. Only if we have a Republican Senate and House so that Romney can sign what they send. Ideally, the Senate and House would be controlled by the Tea Party members. Spending would be cut. Romney will sign it. Obamacare would be repealed (If the Supreme Court hasn't already shut it down in June). Taxes would not be raised

I have no doubt that Romney will be good for the economy. I do have alot of doubts about his social policies. He seems willing to go along to get along, which is why I believe it's very important to get a Republican Senate which is at the very least, influenced by the Tea Party if not controlled by the Tea Party.

Even a failed businessman would be better than a man that has never had any business experience and Romney has not been a failed businessman.
Romney is not a Conservative, unless we stand him next to Obama. Except for the die hard Democrats, the one person that is probably thrilled to have Obama as President is former President Jimmy Carter. Obama makes even Carter look like a smart man.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Which Politician To Trust

This was a perfect week for showing the veracity of the two men running for President of the United States. It's scary to say the least, but we've always known that politicians aren't honest.

The week started with Vice President Joe Biden saying in an interview one Sunday with Meet the Press' David Gregory, that he supports gay marriage. For the rest of the day and on Monday the story was how Joe Biden had committed another gaffe by giving a belief without the White Houses permission. He'd gone off the rail.

However, the press actually asked spokesmen Jay Carney about President Obama's position on gay marriage and if he'd finally landed on a decision. The answer was that Obama was "evolving" on the issue. Evolving?

Do they really expect us to believe that he's not made up his mind before this? Apparently, his evolution completed within hours because it was announced that he does support gay marriage. So he's not evolving any longer. During those few hours after being questioned about it, it was speculated that he wasn't coming out with his view until after the election when it wouldn't matter what his belief was because people wouldn't be able to vote for or against him on that particular issue.

Within hours of Obama coming out, the question then was asked in the press if Mitt Romney's position on gay marriage would hurt him in the election. He hadn't been hemming and hawing on the topic. It's one thing that we do know about Romney. He is not in favor of gay marriage. For all of Romney's double positions on various issues over the years (was he evolving?), this is one issue he actually actually has a consistent position. But the press didn't ask if Obama's position would hurt him in the election, nor even help him, it was just whether or not Romney's position would hurt him.

I cannot remember the press asking what the American people thought other than to say that it's split 50/50. Well, before I get to Romney's veracity, let's look at what the people think.

We have 50 states in this country (I'm sorry for stating the obvious, but thought I should since Obama has confused the less informed that we have 57 states). There have been 6 states that have approved same sex marriage. However, not one of them was decided by the people. They were all decided in various legislatures or courts. There have been 30 states that voted to ban same sex marriage the most recent being North Carolina on Tuesday (which happened the same day Obama decided he was for it). The people chose to ban it. Even in California. There are more states with it on the ballot this fall.

According to the Williams Institute at UCLA 3.5% of the population is gay. We're having this discussion over 3.5% of the population!! Unemployment is officially at 8.1%. More than twice as many people affected than the gay marriage issue. The real unemployment rate (those that have dropped off the unemployment rolls because theirs ran out) is better than 16%. More than 5 times the people affected than the gay marriage issue.

The reason for this discussion is there are 1,100 federal benefits to marriage. In other words, the gay marriage crowd wants benefits from the federal government that they can't get because they aren't married in the traditional way of marriage.

But what of Romney's ability to be honest? A story came out that in 1965 Romney and four others had pinned down a kid at school and cut his hair possibly because he was gay. This was at Cranbrook Institute where Romney attended school in Michigan. When Romney was asked about this incident, he admitted he pulled pranks in high school, but couldn't remember this particular incident. Some of the others involved have claimed that this burdened their minds since it happened. But Romney doesn't remember.

I was listening to someone recently who talked about this and she said "if you did something like this, it would be memorable." I have to agree. If Romney did this once, I would think he would remember. If he did it more than once, I'd have to think that repetitive actions would be memorable as well. In other words, I don't believe Romney doesn't remember this. He may not remember the kids name or the day that it happened, but I don't believe that he can't remember doing this.

What I find interesting about this story, other than I believe Romney is lying about his memory, is that the story was held by the Washington Post. What were they waiting for? It's been stated that they held on to the story for a week. They chose this day to release it. One day after Obama decided to let the world know he's in favor of same sex marriage. In addition, this coming out put on the back burner another thing that Obama said when talking about the gay marriage issue. He also talked about the military personnel that are gay and serving. He didn't say they were serving their country. He said the military were serving him. 

Here's the quote: "When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” said Obama.


But this was put aside quickly because Romney acted a bully....47 years ago....as a high school student.

Let's see, how mature are high school students? In 1965, 18 year old kids couldn't vote. They couldn't buy alcohol or drink. Now that did change a few years later. 18  year olds were given the ability to vote and they did lower the drinking age to 18, but that was changed back to age 21.

18 year olds are still teenagers. Still immature. Still...well, evolving (although I prefer the term "maturing"). Emotions are still running wild at times. Even the body hasn't fully developed at age 18. Many will go off to college and have their wild drinking parties, chase men or women (and 3.5% of will chase the same gender as they are). Their only real responsibility is to attend school but now without parental supervision, but still having supervision.

So we have two men that seem incapable of being honest. Surprise, surprise.

You're welcome to comment. Encouraged even.

Brett

Prove Who I am? Are you nuts!!??!!

There has been an ongoing issue about vote fraud. It comes in many ways. It can be dead people voting. It can be people saying they are someone that they aren't but not proving it. It can be an illegal alien going to vote because they have a home address. It can be someone claiming that they are a celebrity when they aren't. Even cartoon characters have been registered to vote in different places.

More and more states are creating voter id laws. In short, they require you to prove that you are who you say you by showing a valid id such as a drivers license with your picture on it.

The Democrats are claiming that this is Republicans trying to suppress the vote. This may surprise you, but they are actually correct in this assertion. Allow me to explain. If you are a citizen of this country, whether born here or moved here and became a legal citizen, age 18 or older, you are eligible to vote in our elections. There are a few ways you can lose that eligibility to vote, but otherwise, you're not stopped from voting.

The votes that the ID laws suppress are the illegal votes. An illegal alien is not eligible to vote. A 10 year old is not eligible to vote. So yes, the ID laws being passed are to suppress votes. Illegal votes!

One of the Democrats that is against the voter ID laws, is none other than the Attorney General of the United States. His name is Eric Holder. He is the one that is charged with upholding the laws of this country.

Recently, a man showed up in Washington DC to vote. He had no ID, but it didn't matter because it wasn't a requirement in Washington DC to prove you are who you say you are. This man claimed to be Eric Holder. He was about to be processed through to vote when he said he should get his identification to prove who he is, but it was out in the car. The worker said it wasn't necessary, that he gave his name and address and it matched their records, so he could vote and not prove with an ID who he was. The man insisted and finally the worker agreed. The man said he'd be back with his ID faster than the worker could say "furious" referencing the fast and furious scandal regarding gun running by the government to the Mexican cartels.

Here's the problem. Eric Holder, the attorney general, who's name and address that the man gave as his name, is black. The impersonator is white.

The man that did this, was part of the group from James O'Keefe, who is the same man that did the videos exposing the ACORN group awhile back.

This should cause the liberals a real problem. By their own words, the man should have been permitted to vote despite him not being who he said he was. They'll naturally claim it was a setup because it was done by the O'Keefe group and brought to light on Britebarts site. But, regardless of who did it, and their reasons for doing it, this person should have been permitted to vote and have it count. Well, he would have been permitted to vote. He tried to help the election worker catch him at voter fraud, but the worker wouldn't bite at the help.

This same group (the O'Keefe group) are responsible for the new voter ID law in New Hampshire when they exposed that dead people had voted in a recent election. They also went to Minnesota and were going to vote at Tom Brady, the New England Patriots quarterback. Minnesota is now putting the voter ID law on the ballot to change their Constitution.

I wonder if Eric Holder minds that someone tried to use his name to vote. Had anyone checked the ballots following the election would they have found that Eric Holder had voted twice? Would they even care?

I also wonder if Eric Holder will still say voter ID laws aren't necessary after finding out that someone was impersonating him to cast their ballot...or his ballot.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Judicial Activism or Check and Balance?

President Obama, on the campaign trail, said that if the court strikes down the health care law, it would be what Republicans have railed against the past several years. Judicial Activism. The decision is due to be announced in June after the recent hearings.

Obama said "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," I think there are  a couple of things to look at in that quote. First, is the "Strong Majority of a democratically elected Congress".

We should remember that Congress. Let's start with the House. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker. It was March of 2010. Remember them walking into the Capitol with the throng of protestors that many of the Democrats passed through as though to throw their upcoming vote in the protestors faces? Remember the so-called spitting incident?

Remember Bart Stupak, who was the leader of a group of congressmen that were withholding their vote because they didn't want government funded abortions paid for by the bill? They got their promise of an executive order (not binding at all) before they would agree to vote for it. This put them over the top in getting it passed. Remember also that in the House there was only one Republican that voted for the bill. Representative Cao from Louisiana.

But a bill doesn't become law just from a House vote. The Senate must also vote on the bill. If they don't pass it exactly as the House passed it, it must go back to the House for another vote. To pass the House version, the Senate only needs a simple majority, or 51 votes. But if they make changes to it, they must have 60 votes to pass it before it goes back to the House.

Prior to the bill coming up, Senator Ted Kennedy died. A special election was held. A man by the name of Scott Brown ran on the Republican side and his campaign slogan was that he would be the 41st vote to stop the health care bill. Brown was elected to fill that seat in Massachussets. The health care law appeared dead.

But the Democrats got together. They decided they wanted the law passed more than to listen to the people that were in the majority against it and to negate Scott Brown. There was just one way to do that. Pass the House bill as is. Even if they disagreed with parts of it, they could "fix it later". That is exactly what they chose to do. They got their health care bill, despite many thinking it flawed. The law passed with trickery on the Democrats part because they didn't have a strong enough majority in congress.

Another thing to remember was the deals that needed to be made to get this bill passed. Money given to certain states to obtain their vote. The "Louisiana Purchase" for Mary Landrieux's vote."Cornhusker Kickback" for Ben Nelson's vote. Money given to Connecticut for Senator Dodd's vote.

Obama is playing word games and fast and loose with the facts. He's right in a way. The Congress did have a strong majority of Democrats. The House only needs a simple majority to pass a bill and they had a majority in the House. The Senate needed 60 Democrats and at times they had their 60 vote majority when Senator Arlen Specter switched parties. However, he did not have a strong majority of the Congress. He eked out a victory on health care.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the law, he's calling it "unprecedented" and "judicial activism". He may be right on this. However, the health care law is unprecedented. It just may be that an unprecedented action is needed to offset another unprecedented action. The takeover of the health care system is unprecedented. The judicial branch is an equal branch of government created to be a check and balance on the executive and legislative branches. When one branch does something unprecedented, would you not expect another branch to react in the same manner at times?

I'm not much on Science. I tell my kids that I can't be much help to them with Science because about the only thing I get right with Science is the spelling of it. There is one thing that I've learned though and it's physics (science) and pretty basic. For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Congress set a precedent. Why shouldn't the Judicial Branch set a precedent if needed?

Obama has already taken on the Supreme Court once in a State of the Union speech which led to Justice Samuel Alito mouthing out "that's not true" on camera to Obama's words. I believe this too, was unprecedented. Not just for a justice to be caught mouthing disagreement but also for a President to attempt to dress down a Supreme Court in the State of the Union speech.

This case has worked its' way through the system. It's been upheld and shot down and even called Unconstitutional by one judge. It has earned it's place at the Supreme Court where it will be judged. To try to change the facts about how the law came to be and to make excuses for how it failing, if it fails, before it fails, seems more like he's trying to influence the outcome.

You're welcome to comment.


Brett

To Serve or be Served

It is increasingly apparent that “service to one’s country” does not have the meaning that the line seems to convey.


Take the pre-Revolutionary times and through the Revolutionary War. The founders sacrificed as did most colonials of the time. The signers of the Declaration of Independence did so knowing the risk they were undertaking. Not just their financial well being, but their very lives. They were, after all, traitors to the crown in creating a new nation. Some lost their homes, their property and some even their families in getting this country established as its’ own nation.

Our soldiers have sacrificed in every war we’ve engaged in fighting for freedom in every war. They have given lives and limbs for their country. Their families have sacrificed as well watching as their loved ones go off to war leaving behind wives, husbands, children, parents, and sometimes, not coming back or coming back hurt.

Our present day politicians are praised (mainly by each other) as having “served” when they leave and while they are still in office they are described as having chosen to “serve”. But have they chosen to serve the country and the people they represent or have they chosen to be served at the expense of the American people and those they represent in their particular districts, or states?

Take the case of Arlen Specter, former Senator from Pennsylvania. He has a new book coming out called “Life Among the Cannibals”. I read about this in “The Hill”. The article only focuses on his last two years with all of the tumult surrounding him. If there is more to the book, it’s not mentioned in the article. However, what is written about shows a very self serving man in Arlen Specter.

Specter voted for the stimulus package in 2009 that was signed by Obama the day after Presidents Day, just one month following his inauguration. Specter crossed party lines along with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both Republicans from Maine.

By joining the Democrats in passing the stimulus package, along with Snowe and Collins, Specter made himself less than welcome by the Republican Constituency in Pennyslvania as they gave their indications in polls that they were going to vote for Pat Toomey. Apparently, that vote didn’t help his standing in the Republican Party with the other members of his party.

We of course, remember the town hall meetings that followed where people questioned Specter and wanted truthful answers and were not accepting of answers that he gave that were misleading.

Specter then added insult to injury by voting for the takeover of the health care system with ObamaCare. His Republican days were all but officially over after that and in April he made it official by changing to the Democrat Party.

Before announcing to the American people that he had changed parties, he worked out his deal with the Democrats and gave he Republican colleagues the heads up that he’d decided to make this change.

Specter says that Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, promised he’d keep his seniority even as a Democrat and become Chairman of Labor, Health and Human Services subcommittee, and be the next Chair of the Judiciary committee. Instead, Reid had Specters seniority stripped by slipping through a resolution by unanimous consent in a near empty Senate.

Everything in the article on the book was about Specter being promised certain things to make the switch and those promises not being fulfilled. Senator Harken of Iowa refused to allow Specter to move ahead of him in one committee. Senators Kohl of Wisconsin, Fienstein of California and former Senator Feingold of Wisconsin refused to step aside so that Specter could move ahead of them.

Specter is also upset that President Obama didn’t follow through on his promise to help Specter get elected as a Democrat, by campaigning for him in the Democrat primary against Representative Joe Sestak, saying that Obama flew past Philadelphia without stopping on his way to New York and past Pittsburg on his way to Youngstown, Ohio and for Biden to be just a few blocks away from another rally. He claims that Obama had been associated with former New Jersey Governor who lost his election, and Martha Oakley the Attorney General of Massachusetts in their losses and didn’t want the trifecta of campaigning with Specter.

The point of all of this is not that Specter voted for the stimulus or the Health care takeover because he thought it was good for the country. He did it for personal gain. Everything in the story is about the committee chairs for him. The seniority for him. The campaigning for him. Not once did he talk about what advantage he brings to the country for the country.

This can only make me wonder if he voted for the stimulus to get a better deal from Obama and to vote for the health care to get something from the White House.

He was losing against Pat Toomey as a Republican in the primary. He switched to the Democrat party and was losing, and eventually lost, in the Democrat Primary to Joe Sestak, and he doesn’t blame his actions. He blames Reid, Obama, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold.

Even when talking about Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, he says that McConnell was worried about how a Specter switch in parties would look to others about McConnell. However, he does say that former leader Bob Dole said that had he been in Specters position, he too would switch parties.

Specter has only himself to blame. His concern was about him, not his constituents. Not the American people. He depended on Obama, Biden and Reid to take care of him. He should now know what most of the rest of us already know. Government cannot take care of the people. Only the people can take care of themselves. Unfortunately, according to the story in “The Hill” Specter has still not learned this.

Our politicians should really look at Arlen Specter and learn how not to be a representative of the people. They should really look at our fighting men and women and emulate them instead. They do serve the country. Politicians expect the country to serve them. Good luck in retirement Mr. Specter.

You’re welcome to comment.


Brett

Let the Games Begin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Occupy.......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Unbelievable!

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

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

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

Lack of stimulation from the stimulus:

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

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

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

Halloween is Dangerous:

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

Kill list:

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

Olive Garden refused to allow American Flag:

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

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

Occupiers claim violence is the only way:

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

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

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

Give em guns:

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Welcome to Government Health Care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett