Debt, Debt, and More Debt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Is Casey Anthony Innocent?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Constitutional Amendments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

The Public (Lack of) Trust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Memorial Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Al, for sending this to me.

Brett

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

White House Under Fire, Answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Is Chicago School Taking Kickbacks for School Lunches?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Public Education Proving It's Lack of Value

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

What Has America Become

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

"Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Perception vs Reality

The lines are blurred, but are they blurred purposely, or maybe because people think too much into words or is this the way culture is headed?

Politicians blur the lines purposely. For instance, Nancy Pelosi said during the health care debate that the bill had to be passed so that the American people could find out what's in the bill. As though the people have no interest or no right to know what the options are, or the debates are that are eing presented. Does she really believe that people trust politicians?

These lines blurring have moved into television programs. The program "House" is an excellent example of this. The character is constantly analyzing why people do things, say things and what they mean by what they say without taking into consideration that the patient may actually be telling the truth about the events, pain or whatever is going on in that episode. But it's scripted television so he's always going to guess right (or analyze correctly) by the end of the episode because it's a script. It's not real life.

These lines are becoming more and more blurred in everyday life as well. If you say something to someone else, are they hearing what you are saying or are they hearing what they think you "really" mean? An event is relayed to another person, and the person hearing it reacts to the last part of the event, but not the rest of the event, and because that is their reaction, the person relaying the events questions the reaction thinking there is a hidden meaning other than what's actually said because the first comment made is regarding one particular thing in the event rather than talking about the event as a whole or even one item at a time.

The Republicans put out a pledge during the campaign. One of their pledges was to repeal the health care plan that was passed without one Republican vote and without the backing of the people. This plan can be voted for repeal in the House and would likely pass. It will then be voted on in the Senate and may pass. But the assumption is that if it reaches the Presidents desk, that he'll veto the repeal and we'll continue to be stuck with the expensive and poorly put together Obamacare. There aren't enough Republicans in Congress to override his veto.

So the talk the past few weeks has been about getting rid of parts of the Obamacare plan but keeping the good parts. The lines are being blurred. This is not what the Republicans ran on. They ran on repealing Obamacare. They ran on cutting spending. They ran on being more accountable to the people which government has not been the past year and a half to two years.

It seems that it's almost useless to say what you mean and mean what you say any longer. It is only say what you mean, get what you want and to heck with what you mean because you didn't mean what you say.

A husband and wife Michigan were recently divorced. This came about because the husband used the wife's password to his wifes E-mail and discovered that she was having an affair. Divorce proceedings ensued. However, now the husband is being charged with a crime for hacking into her E-mail and finding out that she was having an affair. The divorce was finalized in recent weeks, but his felony trial comes up on February 7 for the hacking.

The divorce coming about because of an affair makes perfect sense. It happens everyday, but charging the man with hacking into a computer in his own house, that both he and his wife use, and charging him with a felony to boot, seems to be something other than what the law was intended for. But since the prosecutors, if successful, gets another felony conviction under their belts. Was the law created for this purpose? I think not. I think it's just an unintended consequence of the law being created.

There seems to be no common sense left in government nor even in the country any longer. The perception becomes reality, whether it was the reality or not. With everyone analyzing every thing said that others say, or everything done that others do, the perception becomes the reality and the poor slob that may never have intended anything that the other has decided, is the one that suffers.

If someone was to ask me what it's like outside, if I say the sky is a deep blue, will another person then get upset with me because they heard that the sky as it looks puts me deep in the blues? When in fact, the sky being blue might please me because the sun is shining, and it's not raining or snowing.

The people of this country did not like what they were hearing from the leaks about the health care bill. They wanted to know what was in it, they wanted some parts to be voted down, and then when the final bill came up, they wanted it defeated. They didn't want it to pass and become law then find out what was in it. They wanted to know before it was voted on. They didn't want the 2,400 page bill passed until it was fully read and understood.

The man didn't hack into his wife's E-mail to stage a terrorist event or steal state secrets. He looked at his wife's E-mail supposedly to try to help his stepchild, but discovered his wife was having an affair. Why is this a felony?

Legislators represent us. We should be informed before the bills pass and if we choose to not be informed, then it's our fault. But to accept how good a bill is going to be because it's named "Health Care Reform" and to be told how happy we'll be after it's passed and find out what's in it, is wrong. Perception is reality until the reality is discovered.

The Republicans asking for a vote based on their statement that they'd repeal the health care bill and then deciding to keep parts of it and get rid of parts of it rather than doing as they said is again, perception (they'll do it, we'll vote for them) but once elected the reality is we'll still be stuck with Obamacare.

I like a deep blue sky because it usually means warmer weather, but definitely not any precipitation. That's the reality. Thinking that I mean it put me deep into the blues is the perception that someone else has decided by analying my words without regard to how I put them together let alone what I really meant by my words.

I can think of one way that reality can be reality rather than someone making a decision based on their own perceptions of what is voted on, looked at or said. Discuss it. Find out the truth rather than guessing at it.

It's beginning to appear that we're going to get more of the same from the Republicans as well. It's too bad if it happens this way because it's not what I voted for.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Government Schools Continue to Fail Students

In the past month, there have been two incidents in the Public School systems, or Government schools, that show very clearly the failure of the system and those running the schools.

We send our kids to school to learn. One of the ways you learn is to make mistakes. One of the ways you mature is to experience things. My son turned 18 a couple of years ago. Shortly after his birthday, he wanted something or to do something. I don't remember what it was, but he wanted to argue about it. At one point, he said "Dad, I'm an adult now."

My response to him was that he may be legally an adult, but he's not mature. The 18th birthday didn't turn him into a man. His actions and inactions showing his maturity or lack of it, it was determines he's an adult.

Last week, in Florda, there was a high school basketball game. A player pushed an opposing player and was called for a technical foul. He didn't like the call. So he pushed the referee. The referee promptly ejected him from the game which made the kid even madder and he grabbed the ref and threw him over his shoulder and to the floor. The referees then called the game, awarded the win to the other team.

Then punishment was discussed in the press, on the talk shows and just about everywhere else. The kid could be charged with assault. A high school kid charged with assault. A kid that isn't mature, which he made very obvious with his reaction to a call. This is a missed opportunity.

In my perfect world (ahem), this kid would be permanently suspended from playing. He'd still be forced to be on the team, which means that he would sit on the bench in street clothes with the other players for the rest of the season. He'd be forced to watch his teammates play and when he would normally be in the game, he wouldn't be allowed and have to watch as his friends and teammates had to do his work for him that he can't do because of his actions. He'd be forced to meet the refs before each remaining game, and shake hands with them and call the sir, and smile.

When the game is over, he'd be ordered to approach each referee and congratulate them on the job they did refereeing the game. During school hours, he'd be in detention each day for the remainder of the basketball season and for each day he missed, whether due to illness or other absence from school, he'd make up each day following the season until his time was served.

He's a teenage kid. Do we give up on him? Or do we correct his behavior? There is only one reason to prosecute this kid. If the referee was injured, then I can understand involving the law. He has to pay the price for his actions. But, why involve the legal system on a school incident if there is no injury to the referee? To charge this kid with a felony for his actions on the basketball court, removes his chances to better himself and likely improves his chances for more problems later.

The second incident happened in Howell, Michigan at their high school. Apparently, a female student was wearing a belt buckle with the confederate flag symbol on it. A teacher, Jay McDowell, ordered her to remove the belt buckle apparently saying that it was intolerant of gay students and bullying of gay students. Another student criticized the teacher for wearing an anti-bullying gay pride shirt with the gay pride symbol on it. He supposedly said "I don't accept gays, it's against my religion." McDowell ejected him from class.

For ejecting this student from class, McDowell was suspended for one day without pay. Since this happened, it's been an ongoing topic in Howell, Michigan.

A 14 year old student in the Ann Arbor school system came to the board meeting in Howell and sang the praises of this teacher. That student claimed he's gay.

An ACLU attorney for the group Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) group praised McDowell for his support of "gay rights" but also said that he was wrong for taking away the students freedom of speech. McDowell is an economics teacher.

Again, in my perfect world, this was another opportunity lost. Rather than ejecting the student from his class, the teacher could have opened up a discussion on anti-bullying and even anti-gay-bullying. Yes, it's an economics class and probably not within the scope of the class, but the teacher made it a part of his class by telling the one student to remove her belt buckle and also by his own wearing of the gay pride shirt.

Bullying is a problem. Any sort of bullying is a problem. It's been a problem since the beginning of time. But what this teacher did was nothing more than bullying. He took his position of power and forced someone in his charge to either tolerate his position on a topic or leave. However, the student didn't have the same opportunity. He couldn't order the teacher to change his shirt or take the day off work.

Even a discussion on gays probably wouldn't have changed this kids mind on the gay lifestyle. I know that it wouldn't change my mind. But at least each sides positions would be aired out, and the teacher could actually lead by keeping it a civil discussion with open ideas. When intolerance is the answer, the result is a battle with one side or the other moving to a more drastic action to get his/her point across.

Even if the kids didn't learn that there is no moral or legal reason to think the gay lifestyle is wrong, and on the other side, even if the teacher didn't learn that the gay lifestyle is wrong in many religions and should be illegal (if that's the kids position), the free discussion done in a respectful and tolerant way, would have been more towards teaching than anything else.

The kids would have learned that even though people disagree, they can still discuss topics and draw their own conclusions from the discussions on whether the topic is something that they are for or against.

Instead, what the students seem to have been taught is that they must accept a position even if they are against it because someone with power has deemed it so. They've just learned that they are not free to believe as they choose and they are not free to state what they believe.

Maybe, just maybe, had the tolerance been displayed allowing all sides to state their positions, it could end some of the bullying at least in the area of bullying gay students. Although, I have a hard time believing that there are that many students in one high school that are gay. But that tolerance exhibited with a discussion may have also helped in other areas that bullying takes place in.

So in one instance, we have a school system insisting on treating a student like an adult by possibly prosecuting him and in another we have a school system that doesn't allow for a student to learn by treating them as though they have the wrong opinion on a topic.

At home, the kids should be punished. If the basketball player was my son, he'd have been turned over my knee that night when he got home (if that bothers you non-spankers, then don't look). In school, the basketball player should get punishment for his actions in school, but his punishment should be to face what he did not to be tossed out and ignored and given up on.

The student in Howell, if he was my child, if he spoke disrespectfully to the teacher, and there is no indication of that, would also have been given a lesson on speaking respectfully at home by me. But at school the discussion should have taken place because it was a learning experience even if there is no certain outcome on the topic.

It's annoying to see people with their children acting up in public and they try to reason with them, but at the same time, it's annoying to go too far in public in meting out punishment to them. But that's a topic for another time.




There is no wonder to why the Government School Systems are failing our children in this country. These are just two examples.





You're welcome to comment.





Brett

Socialism Loses Twice More

Socialist policies in this country took two hits today! First, the House of Representatives. The Speaker couldn't get the votes on the rules to pass the Bush Tax Cut Extension. Finally, in the early evening, they came up with the rules and debate is going on as this is written. It is expected to pass the House.

It's a little disconcerting to see that the Democrats are still claiming that it is unfair that this tax cut for the rich is going to pass because President Obama agreed to this deal which is to include no amendments.

It's also a bit unnerving that the Democrats think that taking the money from the rich to give to those that don't have as much is perfectly acceptable. The rich earned their income as we all earn our incomes. They were just better at making money than others whether it's due to a better education, harder work or an inheritance or even a combination of the above. Someone worked for that money and to take it from them, to give it to someone that hasn't earned it is redistribution of wealth or socialism. All rich people didn't make their money at the expense of others. They made their money because they took advantage of all the country has to offer. Many of them failed the first few times they tried a new venture before finally finding their niche.

The rich are not getting a tax cut. They are having their current rates extended just as the rest of us are having our current rates extended. Yet, the Democrats have fought this and are now whining about it.

In the Senate, the Democrats brought out the Omnibus Appropriations bill and laid it out for everyone yesterday. 1,924 pages were slapped on the table and they said "we're voting on this." Nobody has read it. The Democrats planned to just put it out there to be voted on without the opportunity to read the bill.

Included in that bill were over 6,700 earmarks. The very item that the American people told the government they no longer wanted. The people said they wanted the spending stopped.

The Republicans were doing everything they could think of to stop it. They put out a 1 page continuing resolution that would keep the government running into next year until they can deal with the appropriations in a sensible manner.

The appropriations bill has been in the works for months and many earmarks were put into the bill long before the election. The election had a resounding no attached to it when it came to earmarks and ridiculous spending.

When the Democrats dumped it on the table yesterday, it included all of those earmarks. Had they listened to the people following the election, AND been smart, they'd have offered the Continuing Resolution because of all of the earmarks. Instead, they chose to ignore the people and stick it to them one last time while they still have the power.

Then Senator Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina requested the entire bill be read before a vote. Late today, the reading began. During that time, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D) found he didn't have the votes for cloture. So a little bit ago, he went to the floor of the Senate and announced that he was stopping the reading and the Continuing Resolution would be the way to go.

One page, trumped 1,924 pages. 42 Republicans stopped 58 Democrats. This is a good example of why the filibuster and a 60 vote majority works, but that's a discussion for another day.

During this back and forth before DeMint requested the bill be read on the floor, CNN and MSNBC were talking about the hypocrisy of the Republicans because they too had earmarks in the bill. However, as many times as they were told that the earmarks were put in before the election and these Senators changed their positions because of the elections and what the election meant, they dismissed that response and continued with calling one side hypocrites but didn't complain that Obama would sign the bill even though he promised too, transparency and earmark free bills.

There were a couple of Republican Senators that still wanted the earmarks in the bill even though Republicans had decided to forego earmarks. Kit Bond of Missouri, George Voinovich of Ohio and Bob Bennett of Utah all were for leaving their earmarks in and likely would have voted for the bill had it come to a vote. All three are leaving the Senate for good in the next week. Not a proud commentary on their service to the nation to leave with that as their last act. I'm particularly surprised at Senator Kit Bond being part of this.

These earmarks took money which comes from the American people and gives it to others. $10 million to the John Murtha Foundation for example. Another took $48 million and distributed it to inner cities. Just given to them. This to fight poverty. Again, Socialism. Take from those that have and give it to those that haven't earned it.

In one day, Socialism was handed two resounding defeats! If the Republicans can keep this up in the new Congress during the new year and for the next two years, there is still hope for this country to survive this debacle that began in December 2007.

If the Republicans follow through and actually repeal the Health Care law that was just put in place last March, that will be three strikes on Socialism and that one will be out. But it's just one batter in the first inning of a nine inning game. There are many more issues to deal with. The Republicans are off to a good start and the new Republicans aren't even in office yet.

These next two years are looking better and better. The Republicans need to keep this pressure up and the American people must keep writing their legislators on each issue to see to it that these elected officials do things the way the people want them done.

Who knows, we could see Socialism only in other parts of the world.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Congress Proves Elections Turned out Correct

This President and this Congress have proven themselves to be silly at best. They just don't get it. After two years of passing legislation in spite of being told by the American people that they didn't want these bills. The stimulus passed with just three Republicans, who are really not Conservative and one of those Republicans made it official by changing to the Democrat Party. That would be Arlen Specter.

The House passed the Cap and Trade bill, aka Cap and Tax. The American people didn't want it. Then came the health care debacle. The Senate passed the Health care takeover bill against the wishes of the American people. When Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy in the Senate, the Republicans now had a way to stop the health care bill. Unless the Democrats in the House passed the bill exactly as the Senate had passed it. If there were any changes it would go back to the Senate for a vote and Scott Brown would have been the vote that stopped it from reaching 60 votes and passage.

The Health Care bill came with a pricetag. The Louisiana Purchase to get Senator Mary Landrieux's vote. The Cornhusker Kickback to get Senator Ben Nelsons' vote. A buyout in Connecticut to get Senator Dodd's vote.

Then in the House, Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan agreed to vote for it along with his coalition because Obama promised to stop abortion from being in the bill with an Executive Order. Not one Republican voted for the bill and many Democrats backed away from it, but they got enough to pass it. Again, against the will of the American people.

With the largest tax increase in history looming at the end of the year, the Democrats shut down Congress to go and campaign for the upcoming election rather than pass the extension to the Bush Tax cuts.

The people spoke. Democrats were voted out across the country. The Republicans gained 63 seats in the House and added Senate seats as well. More importantly over the long haul, they also took over many many more state legislatures and Governorships across the country.

Obama, who didn't include Republicans in anything the last two years, now worked out an arrangement with the Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts. This time, he didn't include the Democrats in the deal. They were left out and they were livid claiming that Obama "caved".

To make matters worse, he then came out and instead of praising the two sides for working out a deal for the American people that they said loudly and clearly that they wanted in the election, he instead said that he had to negotiate with "hostage takers" (the Republicans) and told the Democrats it's the best deal to be had and they should get over it.

After this monumental screw up, he needed damage control. So he called in former President Bill Clinton and Clinton took over the press conference. Obama actually walked out and left it all to Clinton to deal with.

Today, the Senate passed the tax cut extension with a vote of 81-19. The House Democrats are still angry.

But then today, the Democrats came out with the appropriations bill. Another 1,900 page monstrosity. Included in this were earmarks totaling $1.1 Trillion Dollars!!

Both Republicans (who agreed recently to a moratorium on earmarks) and Democrats put in big dollars for their districts. Dollars we don't have. Not one legislator is going to have time to read this before the vote. Democrats have been whining that the tax deal was going to blow up the deficit and the debt, then turn around and add $1.1 Trillion dollars to that shortfall.

The American people have said loudly and clearly that it's time for Congress to get it's financial affairs in order. Cut spending. Stop taxing. Stop passing bills that we don't want. But this Congress flipped the bird to the American people by putting out this massive spending plan.

We are 16 days from taxes going up, and finally the Senate passes the tax cut extension bill. They've only had 8 years to do it. They still have to wait for the House to pass it. We are 21 days from all of those that we elected this year to taking over the House and their new Senate seats and this current Congress is spending as though the people didn't matter. But then, the people haven't mattered to this President and this Congress for the past two years, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

Prior to the election, the question was beginning to be asked 'how long can this country survive'. Now the question seems to be 'can the country survive another 21 days.

This new Congress that comes in is going to have it's work cut out for it. Repealing Obamacare (which also failed in Federal Court this week), cutting spending in massive amounts, not to mention dealing with the border issue and Americans dying on the border that this Congress and this President don't seem to care about.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Deal? Or No Deal!

President Obama hasn't just blinked, he's now hammering those eyelids up and down he's creating a windstorm. Word came out this morning that he's open to renegotiating the tax deal that he entered into with Republicans earlier this week.

You'll remember that earlier this week it was announced that the Bush tax cuts would be extended for everyone. In addition to keeping the tax rates the same, they agreed to lower the payroll tax, leaving more of your hard earned money in your pocket rather than in the hands of the government to misuse. They did agree to set the estate tax at 35% beginning at $5 million.

This infuriated Democrats! Apparently, they were left out of the discussions. They were so mad that one Democrat was heard to say "F*** the President", making Joe Wilson's "You lie" comment during a speech to a joint session of Congress, seem like a compliment.

This president seems to have a problem getting along with others. For the first 18 months of his Presidency, he never met one on one with Senator Mitch McConnell who is only the leader of the Republicans in the Senate. Now that the Republicans are on the verge of taking over the House following the election which gained them 63 seats, and the Senate Republicans have gained six seats, he's now willing to talk to the Republicans, but not to his own Democrats.

In response over the deal, Obama came out and lambasted the Democrats and the Republicans. He said that Republicans had held the middle class hostages and that while he wouldn't deal with hostage takers, he makes an exception when the hostage is in danger. Calling Republicans hostage takers after having just come to an agreement with them is not working and playing well with others. Telling his own Democrats to in essence "man up" shows that he can't play well with friends either.

Now he's showing that his word means nothing. Actually, this the second time on this topic that he's gone back on his word. During the campaign, he said that he would see to it that the Bush tax cuts for the rich would be rolled back. Then he agrees to extend them, then he is open to renegotiate.

We've all seen how meanings have changed. Sports figures have contracts and they renegotiate them while still under contract. I remember a day when a handshake was as good as any contract. Now, a signature on a piece of paper isn't worth the ink used.

If the Democrats can't honor an agreement, the Republicans should demand more and give less in the next agreement. They should argue to extend all of the tax cuts, remove the estate tax, extend the payroll tax decrease to two years and get a 10% decrease in spending across the board. I would also add a repeal of Obamacare to the bill. They might as well go for everything because the Democrats can't honor agreements.

If the Democrats can't accept that, let them go home for Christmas and come back after the holidays. The Republicans can then come back with the majority in the House and a larger minority in the Senate and pass their own plan, and make that plan retroactive to January 1.

The Republicans have something more powerful on their side that Obama and the Democrats don't have. The American people behind them.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett