Memorial Day

    

In this country we have two days set aside for those that served this country in uniform. On November 11 each year veterans are honored. Those are the ones that served. Not just in the current wars but in all wars. On the final Monday of May we celebrate those that made the ultimate sacrifice by honoring them with Memorial Day.

Originally, it started following the Civil War to honor those from both the north and the south. Later it was expanded to honor all who gave their lives in defense of this country including previous wars. This includes the Revolutionary War, to the Indian Wars, War of 1812, Mexican American War, Civil War, more Indian Wars, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, and in the past twenty years the war on terrorism.

Those that serve and have served are usually still just kids. Eighteen, nineteen year old kids. Going back to the Revolutionary War, some were as young as eight years old.

This country was founded by men and women that were overburdened with taxes where they had no say in what they’d pay. They had no representation. They banded together, organized and fought for freedom from leaders across an ocean. That may not seem significant now that we can travel in a matter of hours and be in London or Paris. But at that time it would take months to get there.

To fight for this freedom created by the great thinkers of that time the soldier was called upon. Since then, kids from all parts of this country have joined the military to protect our borders and to protect our interests and to advance Democracy where tyranny reigned.

Our freedoms that were fought for, protected and preserved by our military and many have died fighting for this country, its’ beliefs and ideals. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

It’s a Right created by God for us to worship freely as we choose and to even not worship if we choose. That Right is protected and preserved by our military. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, The Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of the Press, all of these are considered unalienable Rights endowed by God. But they are all protected by our military.

When the people of California and Texas wanted to away from Mexico and part of the United States, it was the military that laid their lives on the line for their freedom. When the Indians attacked settlements it was the military that fought to protect the settlers.

When Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, it was the soldier that beat them back and defeated Hitler. When North Korea invaded South Korea, it was the soldier that fought for our interests and the South Koreans. The same with Vietnam.

When terrorists attacked us and killed nearly 3,000 citizens that weren’t military, it was the military that went to the terrorists to try to protect this country from future attacks.

From the first shot of the American Revolution in 1775 to today, the American people have lost nearly 1,500,000 soldiers in the creation and defense of this country and our interests.

So while we’re grilling our steaks, having our picnics and officially kicking off summer we should remember that we’re able to do that because many men, women and children have sacrificed their lives not just for our ability to have that cookout, but also that we’re able to assemble friends to the cookout and we’re able to protect our guests from those that would try to harm us, and that we can thank God or not thank God for the meal and that we can talk freely while at the cookout.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

The Beginning of Tyranny

The last time I posted on this site was just a couple of days ago and the point was about how the Obama Administration and our government looks out for themselves rather than the American people. They were more concerned about their re-election than they were about American lives. They didn’t want to mention “terrorism” just prior to the election,  especially since they’d claimed that they’d decimate Al Queda.

Then we find out that the IRS has focused on organizations with the name “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their title and it’s even expanded beyond that to those the oppose government, Jewish people, and even those teaching the Constitution! They claimed that it wasn’t happening when asked but then admitted that it was happening as much as two years ago.

How long before we find out that someone in the Obama administration ordered the IRS to target these groups and other groups that we may not have heard about yet? However, even if it is an out of control arm of the government and has nothing to do with political party (yes, it was even funny in my head saying that) it does show that those with power can abuse that power even when not ordered to do so.  What is another way to describe this? Tyranny! These are the beginning signs of tyranny.  

Let’s go back a few weeks. Remember the gun control debate? Democrats claimed the second amendment is not about protection from the government but rather it’s about hunting. Why do you need an ak47 to hunt deer?

United States Senators, United States Representatives, The President of the United States, have said that it’s silly in this day and age to think that our government would attack the American people. Yet, here we have the IRS going after groups and individuals and we have the political leaders leaving our soldiers, and representatives of our nation out to be killed by terrorists and their concern is about how it’s described to come off in the best possible light to the American people rather than the safety of those protecting and representing our interests.

Remember during the Clinton years when there were over 900 FBI files on those that were in opposition to the Clinton administration. Remember that Clinton’s enemies were audited by the IRS.

We have the best form of government in the world. Unfortunately, we have people running this government who are not anywhere near up to the job of running the best form of government in the world. They are very good at being self serving at the expense of those they are supposed to represent.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

We Don’t Leave Our Soldiers Behind

Terrorism has become not so much a way of life for us, but an integral part of our national lexicon. We’ve dealt with it many times over the years. The marine barracks attack in 1983. The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. The Khobar Towers in 1996, The USS Cole in 2000. The World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001. The two soldiers in Arkansas in 2009. The Fort Hood Shooting in 2009. Benghazi in 2012 and the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. These are just the ones that I remember off the top of my head.

The army has a creed or a saying and they take it seriously. “We don’t leave our soldiers behind”. Two examples. Jessica Lynch was captured and rescued within a very short time. Matt Maupin was captured and it took two years to find his remains, but they were found and he was brought home.

After the hearings on Wednesday regarding the attack on Benghazi last September 11, it was discovered, and even today more is discovered that there was a coverup. Four men died on September 11. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glenn Dougherty and Tyrone Woods.

Not only did they get no help, but the Obama Administration did all they could to avoid the term “terrorist attack” as well as mentioning Al Queda going so far as to edit out those terms so that they didn’t have to give Congress something to question them about. They blamed it on a video that almost nobody has seen that was considered anti-muslim. Yet they knew it was a terrorist attack and affiliated with Al Queda as the attacks were happening. Those on the ground witnessing the attack knew it and the administration knew it.

Five days later, UN Ambassador, Susan Rice,  blamed it on the video and spontaneous demonstration on national television shows and on one of them, CBS Face the Nation, she said it yet again despite the leader of Libya stating just before her that he knew it to be a terrorist attack. Two weeks later, President Obama was still blaming it on a video in a speech at the United Nations.

This all took place in September, six weeks before the election. The hearing took place on May 8, 2013. Just shy of eight months later. In January, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said at one point “what difference does it make?” Then there is Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary when asked about the whistleblowers testifying saying that Benghazi was a “long time ago”.

Why keep the fact that it was a terrorist attack from the American people? Why give no help to those under fire? Why tell those offering help to those under fire to “stand down”? Why change the talking points at least 12 times?

What was the mistake that was made? The mistake was making decisions based on an upcoming election rather than the actual events on the ground at the time.

The Obama Administration was looking at the election and how they could handle this so that it wouldn’t negatively impact his re-election bid. No bad news allowed. A terrorist attack would apparently not be good for his re-election bid in their eyes. They reacted to the election desires rather than to the events taking place.

Let’s turn this around. Imagine some different choices made. The Administration is informed that Benghazi is under attack. The first question is asked, “what do we have in the area to get in there and put a stop to this or get our people out at least?” After finding out, the administration says “send them in and get our people out of there and put an end to this attack”.

What could have happened? We could have sent in the soldiers that were told to stand down. Even if our soldiers are outnumbered, I’d still put the odds in favor of the Americans. Would we have saved the four that lost their lives? Maybe, maybe not. But by not going in, we appear weak and we definitely can’t save those lives. The possibility of a rescue was eliminated because it was never tried.

We could even have lost more soldiers trying to affect a rescue but we’d have tried to save every American life. The American people can understand a failed attempt. But to not even attempt is unacceptable. To not make the attempt because it could influence the outcome of an election is beyond the pale. Yet, had he done the right thing and done everything  possible to quell the attack and save the lives, even in a failed attempt, that too could have influenced the election...but in his favor. We reward honor, integrity, valor. 

With the choices that the Obama Administration made, they left those four brave Americans behind to die for the sake of their re-election. There was no honor. They left them behind a second time by trying to cover up what they knew and by their now discovered out and out lies. There was no integrity, The Administration sacrificed those lives for Obama’s election. There was no valor. 

Our soldiers risk their lives to bring back the remains of soldiers lost even years after the fact. The Obama Administration didn't risk their political careers to save Americans from an attack. To attack our consulate is the same as an attack on our soil. The Obama Administration did nothing to protect the Americans that day. The Obama Administration left Americans behind! But hey, at least he won his election.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Debt Ceiling: COLA vs Chained COLA

In May of this year, just a few short weeks away, Congress is going to debate the debt ceiling once again. They are apparently also going to tackle one aspect of Social Security and that is the Cost of Living Adjustment as part of the entitlement talks in the debt ceiling debate.

The term for this is one we’ll be hearing about shortly and it may be part of our lexicon before summer even arrives. It is chained cost of living.

To explain this would be very boring and not easily understood. I’ve been reading about it for days and it’s a bear to understand. However, this example may make it a bit easier to understand and not be quite as boring. This really is an oversimplification of the way it works and will work if this passes, but hopefully I’m explaining it well enough to make it easier to understand.

First of all, Cost of Living or COLA is figured annually. So the number will change from year to year. If you look at the history of Social Security, you’ll see that the average COLA since 1938 is 2.8% per year. However, some years paid more and some years there was none. For instance, in 1980 the COLA was 14.3%. So you know there were years that it was at zero.

The Cost of living is figured by looking at urban wage earners and clerical workers spending habits. The cost of bread, milk, meat, gasoline and housing to name a few. If the cost is higher this year than it was last, COLA rises. If it’s basically the same, there is no increase.

The Chained Cost of Living will change one of the parameters. Instead of using the urban wage earners and clerical, it will use the elderly. The elderly is a smaller sampling of the population of this country than urban wage earners and clerical. That’s one drawback.

The elderly don’t use as much as those still young and working. Food for instance. They don’t eat as much and they save money. They are on a fixed income. So where you may go to the store and buy a loaf or two of bread for $1.78 each, they will buy an off brand for $1.00. They get less slices, less quality and spend less because again, they don’t eat as much.

A younger person will likely have a family and maybe buy a couple of gallons of milk in a weeks time where a retiree might get a half gallon of milk per week and again, buy the off brand because it’s cheaper

Then there is housing. A house worth $100,000 a couple of years ago may have lost 50%-60% of it’s value making it now worth $40,000-$50,000. How many elderly buy brand new houses? Not many. Their houses are paid for, or they’ve sold them and moved into smaller homes, cheaper homes or even gone to renting.

So while younger people will spend money to take care of their families and even waste money on junk food or things they don’t really need, but have just in case, the elderly are more frugal.

All of these factors and more will cause the increases to Social Security from COLA to be lower. So those on Social Security will get a lower increase in the years that there is an increase.

There is one other factor that is less mentioned but still out there. Social Security’s increase with the COLA is figured on the current amount you’re drawing from Social Security. Under the new system, it will be added to the amount you began with.

Here’s an example. You started drawing Social Security at age 62. You’re now 65. You have been getting an increase to your social security the past two years due to COLA. So you’re check at age 64 went up by 3.6% and this year it went up by 1.7% over last years figures because of COLA.

If we were under the Chained COLA your cost of living would be based on the amount you began drawing Social Security that first year. So if you started drawing Social Security at age 62 and you were receiving $1,000 per month, and got a 2% COLA increase, your check would be for $1,020 at age 63, and then they’d figure next years COLA on the $1,020. But if we’re under the Chained COLA, if you got that $20.00 increase the first year, the next year when they figure the Chained COLA they will figure it based on $1,000, not the $1,020 that you’re now receiving.

That may not seem like much of a difference now, but what happens ten years from now? Instead of receiving $1,400 per month after ten years of COLA, you’re now receiving $1,100 because of the Chained COLA.

Social Security was originally designed to be a supplement to whatever you’d done for your own retirement. But it’s evolved over the years and is now designed to keep a retiree above the poverty level. The Chained COLA could easily keep that from happening.

There are changes that could be made to make Social Security more solvent, but do we have to do it at the expense of our seniors?

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Which Kind of Terrorist

As the events in Boston unfolded on television on Monday, the natural inclination is to believe that it was a terrorist attack. So much misinformation, as is usually the case, was coming out over the airwaves. As many as 12 dead and 86 injured. Two bombs went off in the span of about 15 seconds. Then they reported that two other bombs were found and dismantled. Another bomb was set off at the JFK library. Most of all of those reports turned out to untrue. The only thing that turned out to be accurate was the two bombs and their timing, but that could be seen on video.

The date? April 15. Also known as tax day. The even Patriots Day. A holiday in Maine and Massachusettes and Boston where they run the Boston Marathon. The actual holiday is April 19, but it’s celebrated on the third Monday of April each year.

The holiday is for the “shot heard round the world” which was the opening of the American Revolution at Lexington and Concord. The date is also significant in a couple of other ways. April 19, 1993 is the day that the Branch Davidian “compound” was attacked by the Federal Government killing many women and children along with the leader, David Koresh. David Koresh believed that the government would eventually come and kill him and his people.

Another event is April 19, 1995. Timothy McVeigh pulled a truck up to the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, which was loaded with explosives. Many were killed including children in a day care.

It wasn’t long after the bombing in Boston took place that it didn’t “feel” like a terrorist attack from Al Queda. They seem to prefer going after  numerous targets at once, or at least attempting to.

Now we hear people saying they hope it turns out to be a Right Wing Extremist. Oh that term. I could do a mile long rant on that term and comparing it to Left Wing Extremist, but I won’t. At least not yet.

McVeigh apparently had a problem with the government. So he blew up a government building or a building that housed a government agency. He didn’t seem to care about the non governmental people in that building. His cause was more important to him than some innocent people.

Koresh worried about the government attacking him, but he didn’t worry about brainwashing a bunch of people and fathering children by numerous women under his control.

People that bomb abortion clinics may really have a beef about abortion, but they don’t seem to mind certain other lives be it doctors, women getting abortions or girls confused and scared and finding out their options getting killed in addition to the unborn babies that may about to be aborted who’s lives they are supposedly wanting to protect.

These aren’t sick people in my opinion. That gives them an out. Instead, I believe that their cause and reasoning is more important to them than the results of their selfish reasoning. That’s pretty much the definition of terrorist isn’t it? Kill people for your beliefs regardless of any collateral damage and in spite of their beliefs against death or those that they have decided to protect and guide for whatever reason to make others afraid to go against your own personal belief?

You're welcome to comment. 

Brett

Debate vs. Filibuster

Watching Face the Nation this morning both Senators John McCain and Chuck Schumer were on discussing immigration reform. They are part of the "gang of eight" which is trying to come up with Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

During the discussion it was said that they would be doing things differently. When the gang of eight puts together their compromise and can agree on it, they will send it to committee for markup. This means the members of the committee will then chop up whatever the gang of eight comes up with and once agreed in committee it would be sent to the Senate floor.

Apparently, they have an agreement with Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, where amendments will be allowed. The bill will then be up for amendments and each amendment will be debated until debate is shut down and the full Senate will vote on the bill.

The host of the program also asked about Senator Ted Cruz' threat to filibuster it if it comes to the floor in an attempt to shut down debate and kill the bill.

When you watch the Senate at work on C-Span, you see a Senator standing up and giving his speech on whatever the topic is at the moment. They rarely show anyone else on the screen and usually when they do, it's the staff of the speaking Senator, or it's the President (or his appointed representative by the majority party leader, again, Harry Reid). You rarely, if ever, see other Senators until just before the current Senator speaking, winds up his remarks and the next one is about to take over.

In other words, in the United States Senate, the chamber is open, but nobody is listening. It's not debate, it's a place for speeches. Nobody's mind is being changed because nobody is there. Nobody is taking apart arguments because nobody is there. Nobody is debating because they've made up their minds before debate ever begins and those decisions are made by party, not by the individual and certainly not be a Senator that is acting on the wishes of his/her constituents. They decide by party and by polls.

On the other hand, filibusters are noticed. A filibuster is when a Senator will get up and start speaking and not relinquish the floor to anyone that could break or would break the filibuster. This makes news. This is what's noticed.

Several weeks ago, Senator Paul mounted a filibuster. The news was not the topic. I'll bet most don't remember that it was about the use of drones on Americans. But the fact that Senator Paul controlled the floor for some 11 hours. This doesn't happen any longer. The way they conduct a filibuster now is they shut down debate under threat of a real filibuster.

Is it any wonder why we don't trust our elected officials any longer? They don't do things honestly. They don't even believe that other Senators are really voting correctly because they go out in the press and tell the press that the "extremists" or the "Tea Party Extremists" are controlling them.

If you are of a different mindset, you're attacked as being extreme or under the control of someone.

The American people form their opinions and state them. The United States Senate, and even the House and the White House wait until the polls come out to tell them what they believe in.

Immigration reform will not be debated. It will be amended. The amendments will have nothing to do with immigration reform. At least not all of them. Someone will stick a study as an amendment to the bill that will create a study to see how high flies can fly, or frogs can jump.

Our government is out of touch with reality.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

More Without Health Care

The new Health Care plan through the government is called by most "Obamacare". The name of the bill is the "Affordable Care Act".

We have learned about the over 20 new taxes included that have, or are about to take effect. There are more that will kick in next year in 2014.

There are other charges that aren't called "taxes". For instance, if you're a tobacco user, you're going to pay much higher rates for "free" health care. If you're 60, you could be charged over $5,000 per year which would increase your health care premiums so high that you'll be considered in poverty.

20% of the people in this country smoke or use tobacco in some form or another. That's nearly 70 million people. But, at the beginning of the debate (or lack of debate) on Obamacare, it was said that there were 50 million people without health care and they said the vast majority were the lower income folks. The bulk of the smokers are lower income.

If you're lower income, and you have to pay $5,000 per year more because you use tobacco, and now can't afford the penalty let alone the health care (that is supposed to be free), how will you get that "free" health care?

This is in addition to the exorbitant taxes that tobacco users pay at the counter when buying their tobacco.

Whether you're a smoker or an ex smoker or a non smoker that hates tobacco use, the logic of this escapes. President Obama, who claims to be the champion of the poor, and increasing the middle class from the ranks of the poor, continues to beat down those that are struggling.

Those penalties for not having health care are looking pretty cheap now.

You're welcome to comment.


Brett

Danny Glover said WHAT???

Actor Danny Glover was invited to speak at Texas A&M. During his speech, he made some odd statements about a few different subjects. But the topic of the day seems to be about gun control lately, so Mr. Glover weighed in with the following:

 "I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he said. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,”  

When I hear statements that seem outrageous, I start looking for sources. How did this person come up with that idea? So I started looking to see where Glover could possibly come up with this notion, after all, he doesn't just sit there and dream these things up himself does he?

To look for the "genesis", I thought it wise to look at the federalist papers. Federal Judges use the Federalist papers as a way to understand the intention of the framers of the Constitution. So that seems reasonable to go to the federalist papers.

In No. 28, the writer say that when a government amasses too much power and becomes tyrannical, the people have the right to self defense by fighting the tyrannical government.

No. 29 says that an armed citizenry is the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive.

No. 46 says that the ultimate authority resides in the people and that if the government got too powerful and overstepped it's authority, the people would develope plans and resort to arms.

It becomes clear that the "genesis" was not about protecting themselves from slave revolts, but rather about an oppressive government. Remember, those that wrote the Constitution had just fought and won for  themselves freedom from one tyrannical government,

But what about slavery? Many from the south, fought against those in the north that wanted to eliminate slavery at the time of the Declaration of Independence. Slavery could have held us back from independence because of the southerners, even at the time of the revolution. So while we can claim that we gained independence, independence was not all inclusive in our Declaration because the slaves were left out. They were not considered people by enough of the Continental Congress. They were considered property. Since they weren't considered people, they were not considered citizens.

Property does not own nor possess firearms. I can't think of one person that goes out to buy a weapon for their plow horse to defend itself and unfortunately, the slaves were similar in stature to plow horses in those days.

The idea of slavery has always been a problem for this country. While the founding fathers had to give in and keep slavery to achieve the Declaration of Independence, and the slaves were considered property and not citizens, they contradict their own statements when they armed some of the slaves to fight in the revolution and granted them their freedom after a specified term of service.

Glover has it all wrong. The second amendment was about protecting from a tyrannical government. Any government can become tyrannical at some point.

If I take this a step further, why is Glover in favor of gun control? Imagine if the slaves were allowed to own guns from the time they first came here. Even if they were still slaves, eventually they would have taken arms up against the tyrannical government that held them in the bonds of slavery. Yes, even our founding fathers were tyrannical to a point because they allowed for slaves to remain slaves so that non slaves could attain their freedom.

After the success of the Colonies against King George, wouldn't the slaves then turn around and fight for the same independence from slavery against our new government had they been armed? Slavery could very well have been ended 82 years earlier than it was.

The second amendment was not about slavery. It was and is about the people protecting themselves from a tyrannical government. Danny Glover could make a case that George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were tyrannical over the slaves, despite that all three were in favor of freeing slaves.

Glovers own argument, false as it is, should have him in favor of the second amendment, not creating falsehoods to justify President Obama and the others in government trying to confiscate guns.

You're welcome to comment.


Brett

Protect Yourself you Racist

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

The above quote comes from the Declaration of Independence. Now before anyone start screaming that I’m looking to overthrow the government and that we should have a second revolution, let me clear this up immediately. I’m not!

However, if our declaration says that it’s not only our right, but our DUTY, isn’t it also our Duty to fight back against the actions taken by government (even the best government on the planet) to protect ourselves from having to go to the extreme of a second revolution by standing up and raging against actions taken by the government that can be a step towards taking away freedoms?

I think of the recent “fiscal cliff” talk and subsequent signing. The White House and both Houses of Congress co-opted the term fiscal cliff from its original meaning. The original meaning had to do with the destructive path we’re on financially in this country over the coming months and years. Massive debt. Massive deficits. They changed it to mean the increased taxes, and huge reduction in spending that they didn’t want.

Another action is the recent gun control talk. They want to enact legislation that prevents you from being able to shoot more than ten rounds without reloading. Their reasoning that they state? The kid that shot up the school kids in Connecticut. But what nobody seems to want to talk about is that Adam Lanza, the shooter, didn’t use that weapon. He left that in the backseat of the car. Yet Senator Diane Feinstein (D) California, is pushing that the weapon not used be illegal because it was there in the neighborhood during the shooting. As though the weapon had some sort of mind control over the shooter from the back seat while the shooter was in the school taking aim with two guns that are not talked about being banned.

There is a reason that we have the freedom to have guns in this country. We were under tyranny at one time. Not us individually, but us as a country. I know, there is nobody left alive from that time. After all, it was 238 years ago that the first shot of the war was fired. But who says we can’t get a tyrannical government again?

I’ve heard the questions on some talk radio programs asking “why do you need a gun that shoots that many times in such a short time?”  When some come back and say because we need to protect ourselves from the government, the talk show hosts (some) then turn it around and say it’s a racist mentality because sales set records in 2008 and again in 2012 both times after Obama was elected.

It’s not racism. It’s because it is well known that Obama is a Democrat and Democrats have for years had as part of their agenda, ‘gun control’. We didn’t have record sales of guns in 2000 and 2004 because George W. Bush was not in favor of gun control. Why would people be worried about a guy that believes as they do?

Why the gun with the ability to shoot many rounds without reloading? Because the government has those weapons. If people are buying guns to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, wouldn’t it make sense to have the same arms they have? If you’re really worried about the government attacking you it would be silly to arm yourselves with spitballs when the enemy has nuclear weapons.

We have corruption in government. We have a government that looks out for themselves first and the people they are elected to represent second. To think that can’t get worse is to be foolish.

We have Congresspeople that actually stand up and say that this is a great Congress because it’s the most diverse we’ve ever had. Diversity doesn’t make good government. This was stated before the 113^th Congress was even sworn in.  Another Senator says that the record number of women will cause the negotiations to be less confrontational. She said “less testosterone. Are you kidding me? If they are going to talk about less testosterone, would I be wrong in saying we had less PMS with more men in the Senate? Both thoughts are not just ridiculous, but outrageous.

I think a good House and Senate would be one that represents the people and is not self serving and probably one that passes less laws. The adults aren’t in Washington DC. They are in the fifty states. They are the people. Those people need to be able to fight back against the possibility of tyranny coming from the more and less diversified elected leadership.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

The "Efficiency" of Government

In the wake of the mass murder in Connecticut where 20 children and seven adults, including the shooter, died, various politicians from both sides have been looking at doing “something” about these shootings. The most often “solution” is to reinstate the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 but expired in 2004.

Do you realize that the assault weapons ban would not have stopped the assault in Connecticut? Adam Lanza, identified as the shooter, had three weapons. Two handguns and an assault weapon. The assault weapon was found in the back seat of his car, unused. So how would an assault weapons ban saved anyone at the Sandy Hook school?

During the assault weapons ban for ten years, there was no discernible difference in violence involving guns. The difference between incidents seems to be the same as the difference between a plane crash and a car accident. It’s been well established that flying is the safest form of transportation. But when a plane goes down, it can take a couple of hundred people. You can’t get that many deaths even in a bus accident.

I’ve heard many so-called news reporters and radio talk show hosts asking why anyone needs assault weapons. They aren’t designed for hunting season. They are only designed for mass killings. I’ve heard them say that those types of weapons should only be for those in the military and law enforcement.

Are the military and law enforcement exempt from having someone lose control and start shooting up a crowd? Did I just hear a huge gasp that I would dare suggest that the military or law enforcement would ever do anything untoward? Well, I remember early in the Iraq war that a soldier killed several fellow soldiers because he didn’t want to be there. I seem to remember a shooting in Fort Hood by a soldier and in fact a counselor, psychologist or something in the psychological field, where over 30 people were shot and 13 dead. I also seem to remember a cop in Illinois, I believe that was being tried for killing several wives.

I don’t know that assault weapons were used in any of those, although I think one was used in Ft. Hood, but why should I have to be accurate in defending weapons when pundits and politicians aren’t accurate about banning the types of guns used in Connecticut?

So why are politicians now so anxious to ban certain types of weapons when those weapons have nothing to do with the shooting in Connecticut?

There is an answer to the question “why are these weapons available” but those that disagree will not give a direct answer. Their answer will be, “you’re paranoid” or “you’re an extremist” but they will not have a direct answer. My answer to why these weapons are available is because the other guy has one.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

I AM LIVID!!!

What the hell is wrong with people?!!?

Another shooting in a school! This time at an elementary school. At Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, a man ( I use the term loosely) walked into an elementary school and apparently shot his mother and the students in her classroom. At least 20 children are dead six school officials and the shooter. The shooters mother is dead and it's being reported that the someone the shooter lived with is dead.

This happened at 9:40 a.m. I turned on my radio and unfortunately, Geraldo Rivera was on. The first conversation I heard on his program was about guns and their legality. That's probably where this will go as it does after all shootings. They'll want gun control. How well has that worked so far?

There are 15 day waiting periods. Requirements for getting a license to carry a concealed weapon and on and on. All of these controls and licenses and checks on people carrying weapons and wanting to buy weapons and still people are being massacred in movie theaters, schools, shopping malls, and churches or temples (and I don't give a rip which religion it is, it's WRONG!), military institutions, and shopping centers where Congress members are speaking.

Another 22 children were slashed by someone wielding a knife. This took place in China, also today.

In Washington we have the President and the Speaker of the House that are saying the other one isn't being serious about solving the so-called "fiscal cliff". The leader of the Democrat Party in the House, Nancy Pelosi, who is "bored" with all of this.

In Michigan we have Union thugs beating up reporters because they work for Fox, and older folks in a tent set up as an advocate for Right to Work, have their tent pulled down on top of them.

Where is the respect for human life? Where is the respect for the elderly? Where is the respect for others opinions that may not agree with your own opinions? What the hell is wrong with people in this country and around t he world?

Young children and the elderly are the least able to defend themselves, but we're having it proven to us over and over that we are all defenseless against someone that is bound and determined to cause harm to large amounts of people unless we are allowed to defend ourselves.

The police aren't called until something has happened. In what appears to be ten minutes time (the time it took for the police to be called and arrive at the scene) 27 people are dead!

We depend on these schools to teach and protect our children. Obviously our protection isn't working. Rather than side on the side of gun control laws, I'm more interested in people arming themselves to protect those that they are responsible for and those around them.

Do you need further examples? Think back to the day we were attacked. September 11, 2001. Four planes were hijacked. One flew into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. One flew into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. One flew into the Pentagon. None of those were rescued, nor deterred from their targets by any government entities. The police, the national guard, the air force. Not one of those agencies did anything to protect where those planes were headed nor the people on board.

Another plane was headed for the Capitol. None of those government entities saved the people on board that plane. However, the citizens of this country that were on the plane did step up. They took back the plane and while it crashed in a field in Pennyslvania, and all were dead, those citizens actually protected the government!

Senator John Kerry admitted that he sat there frozen in the Capitol when he heard of the attacks happening. Suppose those citizens on that plane hadn't fought back. He could be dead now if not for citizens of this country. How many others were in the Capitol building that could have died had it not been for the passengers on that plane saving their lives?

Nearly 3,000 dead on that day and the only ones who's lives were saved were government officials in Washington D.C. and they were saved by American Citizens fighting back against the terrorists.

Imagine if even one teacher had been armed. One school official had been armed. Maybe the same amount would be dead. But then again, maybe not. Maybe the gunmen would have been the only dead one.

There is no perfect answer. But when given the chance to defend oneself, there is at least a chance that lives would be saved.

But what we're likely to get is politicians that will say "if there are no guns, we will prevent these things from happening." Where's your proof?

This country has serious problems. From the lack of leadership, to the lack of a moral center any longer. One thing is certain. If you think the government is going to protect you, the proof is not there.

These idiots that want to perpetrate mass murder know that the best place fo them to accomplish their desire is to go where the most people are assembled together. Schools, churches, shopping malls and even our own military installations. We need to counteract the idiots by being smart, not be becoming idiots in a different way.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Right To Work in Michigan

The Michigan Legislature passed the Right to Work Law in the State of Michigan today and Governor Rick Snyder signed it this evening. This makin Michigan the 24^th state to be a right to work state.

Michigan is the birthplace of the United Auto Workers and home of the Auto manufacturing in this country making the Right to work law an unexpected event. But it really shouldn’t have come as a surprise. Governor Snyder cautioned the Democrats and the Labor movement earlier this year not to push Proposal 2 which was to add Collective Bargaining as a right in the Michigan Constitution. He warned them it could lead to a push for Right to Work in Michigan. It’s generally thought that Snyder didn’t want to get into this battle and didn’t want to deal with this law, but his hand was forced because the Democrats went ahead with their proposal and lost.

Unions and hard core Democrats have been fighting this law for a long time. They call it the Right to Work for less. Even President Obama was in Michigan yesterday calling for the law not to be passed.

12,000 protestors showed up in Lansing today against the law. The story has led the news locally and become a national story. Many of those were quoted saying that this was all about union busting. Some said that it wasn’t fair that their union dues would go to pay others benefits and of course they have the usual ones saying that wages will drop and Michigan will become like a third world country.

There is a lot of hype, but not much in the way of accurate information. So, let’s take a look at some of this.

Right to work for less. This is one of those word games. Yes, in most of the right to work states, workers do make less than in other states. It costs a small fortune to just exist in New York. The cost of an apartments in New York can be more than owning a house in the Midwest. This is why we use the Cost of Living Index (COLI). Living, eating, sleeping in Alabama is much less expensive than the industrial states.

On the other hand, we can look at the unemployment rate. In Right to work states the unemployment rate is lower than the union states. Not quite a full percentage point, but still lower.

The auto companies are building their plants in right to work states in the south and not in Michigan, which has always been the car making capitol of the world. So what good will it do to have a union if you don’t have a work place to have a union?

It’s unfair to use my union dues to pay for others benefits: The irony in this statement is just too hard to pass up. The other big issue of the day is the “fiscal cliff”.  The President wants everyone above $250,000 income to pay more taxes because they can afford it. The argument is that they should give more to help the country. But what happens with that money that is collected? It’s given to people that won’t work. Yes, the government helps those that are down and out for various reasons, and there are many in that position now due to the governments lack of discipline in managing the nations finances. But money is also given to those that want to be lazy and don’t even try to better themselves. In non right to work states, if you don’t join in the union within a certain time frame, you don’t’ get to keep your job. This is confiscation of union dues. Even if you don’t join the union, you must pay union dues. Still confiscation of union dues. So it’s not unreasonable to consider union dues just like another tax. Where does the union dues go? A tremendous amount of it goes to the Democrat Party. Is it not unfair to apply money that one person pays to a party that they don’t want to help fund?

So I don’t feel sorry for the ones that complain that others are using their money to fund others after years of the others money going for things they wouldn’t support.

This is all about Union Busting!: There is not one word in the law about ending unions. In fact, this is an opportunity for unions to be better than they’ve ever been in history. I expect that the first thing that will happen is that many will drop out of the union as soon as they are allowed to in April of next year in Michigan. Those will be the ones that haven’t wanted to be part of a union in the first place. That’s only natural.

Another thing that will likely happen is that many union members that want to be union members will see that their co-workers that are no longer paying their union dues are still getting the same from unions as they themselves get and they too will drop from the union. Why stay in the union if you can get the same representation and not pay for it?

There will be another group that will see that their union dues is actually another bill or tax and first they’ll ask that their dues not come out of their paychecks. Then they’ll not pay the bill when it comes.

There will be those staunch union members that will always pay their union dues regardless of current events or expenses that they have. They are proud to be in the union and happy to pay.

It these unions are smart, they will act between the first event happening, which they won’t be able to stop and the second event listed which they could stop by changing their ways. I don’t believe the unions are smart. I think they will waste tremendous time and resources fighting the new law in court and not prepare for the future and the opportunities they have with the new law.

They could put together a package of perks for their members. Discount Health Cards. Maybe some competitive college scholarships for children of their members. There’s any number of things they could put together as part of being in the union.

They will also have to change their ways regarding management and discipline of employees that get into trouble. Ironically, today 13 Chrysler workers got their jobs back due to the grievance system with their union. In September of 2010 they were fired after being caught by a local news crew on tape, smoking dope and drinking while on break from their job. It was reported on the news and they were suspended then fired. They filed a grievance through the union and today (of all days) they got their jobs back after two years. An arbitrator found there wasn’t enough proof of what they were doing and ruled in their favor. Chrysler now has 13 more workers that may or may not be drunk or high while building our cars, back on the job. This type of representation has to change if these unions want membership and respect.

It will probably take a vote of the rank and file to bring in new leadership that will work towards these goals to make the unions more palatable to both worker and management.

They have an opportunity to move forward and be better than ever, or they can keep screaming about union busting and crying about workers earning less when they won’t be.

Michigan will start getting more businesses here in the near future due to the Right to Work law and that means more people will have jobs. Unions would be wise to partner up and take advantage of the additional workers and make their existence viable rather than whining and crying about being picked on by the people’s representatives in this state doing the people’s bidding.

I'm going to say one more thing in closing. Protesting. It's a right we have to protest what our leaders are doing. But, we do not have the right to destroy property of the state or other people's property nor to assault other people including the police. Tearing down the oppositions signs while carrying their own signs, is wrong. Each side should be permitted by each other to hold their signs or set up their signs without fear of vandalism. The union people did just that by tearing down the oppositions signs. 

There were arrests today when protesters attacked the police and things got violent. Peaceful protest is fine and I believe should be encouraged. But violent protests are only showing that you believe the other side has no right to their own opinions if they differ from yours. Those violent protesters did absolutely nothing to further their cause with their actions. They only showed how intolerant they are of others opinions. 

Unlike those violent Union protesters you’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Our Elections are Corrupt!

Pennyslvania law states “Pennsylvania election law states "no person within a polling place may electioneer or solicit votes for any political party, political body, or candidate, nor may any unauthorized written or printed materials be posted within the polling place."

Yet the above picture shows a mural of Obama on a wall in a school where people are expected to go vote.

In addition, 70 Republican election officials were denied access to polling places in Philadelphia where elections take place.

Remember the black panthers standing outside of polling places in Philadelphia in 2008, intimidating those that showed up to vote? Well, that too is happening again.

These are all violations of election laws in this country.

The election laws in this country have been ignored and expanded on to accommodate those that can’t take the responsibility of exercising their privilege to vote and violating the privileges of those voters that do vote legally and responsibly.

In fifteen wards in Philadelphia court appointed Republican election officials have been removed from polling places that they were required to show up for. One of those, a woman was physically pushed out.

Apparently, the Democrats in Philadelphia have no confidence in Obama getting re-elected so they aren’t going to allow voters that look like they are going to vote for Romney to vote.

In several areas, people have used the electronic voting machines and when they voted for Romney, the machine automatically changed it to Obama. In one case it went the other way and an Obama vote was changed to Romney.

My solution. Eliminate electronic voting. Eliminate punch cards (no more chads). Print up ballots and put empty boxes next to each person and each item to be voted on. Purge the rolls of all voters and have everyone that wants to, get a voter registration card. If they don’t do it 30 days before the election, they are not eligible to vote in that election. When they show up to vote, they must prove who they are. Picture ID with a copy of a phone bill or utility bill that was sent to you in the past thirty days. Hand them their ballot and an ink pen. Have them go to a table and put an X in the box next to the person and the item they want to choose.

When they are done, they put their ballot into a box, return the pen and leave. At the end of the day when the polls close, the election workers then start counting the ballots by hand to figure out who won the election in their precinct.

Is this a sexy way to vote and count the votes? No. Is this technologically advanced? No. Is it accurate? Yes. The only way that it can screw up is if the person counting the ballots can’t count by ones. The only other thing that can be wrong is that the person doing the counting lies about their own count.

No advertising outside within 100 yards of the polling station. No advertising within the polling station. All references to any candidate or issue is to be removed or completely covered up and hidden from view. No campaign workers or advocates for any  candidate or issue position to be allowed within 100 yards of the polling station.

This may not  be an ideal way for people, but the current way is failing miserably. If it’s not broke, it doesn’t need to be fixed. This system is broke and needs to be fixed and the most accurate way is for people to actually have to count each ballot.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

I'm From the Government and I'm Here to Help You

Have we learned nothing from history? Seven years ago, Hurricane Katrina embarrassed the President of the United States, George Bush.  It embarrassed Governor Blanco of Louisiana. It embarrassed Mayor Nagin of New Orleans. How long did it take FEMA to get water to the Superdome? 5 days?

Now we get Hurricane Sandy hitting the northeast. New Jersey, New York and Connecticut are hit the worst. Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania were also hit, although not as hard. Here in Michigan, we had some power outages, but by the time Sandy got here it was just a big wind with a little rain.

They are still pulling bodies out of houses. The power is trickling on. People are shooting at each other. Gas lines are hours long.

President Obama showed up after the Hurricane was over and landed and flew in a helicopter over New Jersey. That sounds familiar. Bush showed up with a flyover a day after. However a few days later, he was on the ground in the Southeast, which was not only Louisiana, but Alabama and Mississippi as well.

New York had an answer to the hurricane. Mayor Bloomberg decided that the people needed to “feel” better, so he decided the New York Marathon would go on as planned. People that were stranded from leaving by the Hurricane, were forced out of those hotel rooms to make room for the runners of the Marathon. People who’s homes were destroyed and were lucky enough to get a hotel room, were told to leave to make room for the runners.

The people of New York were angry and criticizing the Mayor. People around the country were angry about the Marathon going on in the midst of the devastation with so many people that were left without food and shelter.

Mayor Bloomberg then decided to cancel the Marathon. This reminded me of the Democrats Convention two months ago when they left out God and the capitol of Israel out of their platform, then changed their mind when the criticism began. Apparently, the people of New York didn’t “feel” better after all.

Obama was asked about the people’s anger about their treatment and like Benghazi, he ignores the questions and gives no answer. It really makes me wonder how the Democrats can count on New Yorkers going to the Democrats in the coming election.

Volunteers came from Alabama came to help the people of New Jersey and New York. They were turned away by Union members because the Alabamans weren’t Union workers. I don’t remember Alabaman’s refusing New York’s help when they needed it following Katrina because the helpers were Union workers. The red cross is passing out cookies and hot chocolate to some, but what’s needed are coats and blankets.

Michelle Obama has pushed for more healthy menus at the schools across the country. Kids are wasting that food. They don’t like it, don’t want it and don’t get enough to eat now. But they can’t food to the northeast?

Yet, the Democrats are claiming that the Republicans are politicizing the hurricane.

If things don’t improve drastically really soon, the problems are going to get worse in the Northeast because the weather people are predicting a nor’easter this next week.

If people can’t get coats and blankets, let alone shelter, what happens if they get freezing rain and snow this week while out in the elements?

Here’s a little bit of irony for you. The Roe v Wade decision was in 1973. Since then we’ve had five Republican Presidents and three Democrat Presidents. In each election the Republicans are called out on whether they will overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s never happened in 23 years of Republican Presidents since then, and certainly not in the 16 years of Democrat Presidents. Yet, gun control, while not as prevalent any longer has been an important issue in the past and is still mentioned, although not much, in each election.  

The people of the Northeast, a Democrat stronghold, are now arming themselves, with guns if they have them, some with bows and arrows, and others with baseball bats to protect themselves. I wonder if they are now more worried about gun control or abortion.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

The Buck Stops........Where?

Do you remember April 19, 1993? That was the day that the federal government served the warrant on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas and ended up killing over 100 men, women and children citizens of the United States.

In the following days, Janet Reno took responsibility for ordering the raid which ended up with an out of control fire and many deaths. President Clinton originally said he knew of attack plans, but didn’t plan them, then “supported” Reno’s decision, and finally took responsibility for making the decision.

Now we have Benghazi and the attack on the consulate resulting in the death of our Ambassador, two seals and a security agent. President Obama and the White House spent the past couple of weeks blaming a video, then spent a couple of days with the White House saying it was terrorism, and Obama still blaming the video, and at the debate of Vice Presidential candidates Biden said that he and Obama didn’t know that more security had been requested.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State stood up and said that the buck stops with her. That it was her department that was responsible for the lack of increased security.

Will the White House let Hillary Clinton take the responsibility or will they be looked at as allowing a woman to take the blame for him, which might put him in a bad light, then turn around and say it was his responsibility? It will be interesting to see. If he does take responsibility (after all, isn’t anything that happens in his administration ultimately his responsibility) which would in effect undermine both his Vice President and his Secretary of State, won’t it make him look even weaker and out of control?

We may find out at the debate tonight.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Terrorism is Alive and Well Again

President Bill Clinton and Terrorism 

During the Bill Clinton years from 1993-2001, there were numerous terrorist attacks against this country. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the World Trade Center, Oklahoma City, the USS Cole. These are just the well publicized ones like the Khobar Towers. I’d even include the TWA 800 flight that exploded just after take off as a terrorist attack, but that’s another topic for another time…maybe.

The World Trade Center attack took place just over a month after he took office. So a case could be made that having such a large event take place so soon after taking office could make him slow to react and improperly. However, I don’t believe it should. We have a transition take place from one President to the next when the election is over that begins virtually the next day and runs beyond the new President taking office. Presidents also have former Presidents to turn to for assistance or questions, privately or publically if needed. Clinton made the WTC attack a criminal matter rather than an act of war.

Americans died here and around the world during his eight years in office and other than prosecuting a few in the criminal courts, there was only one thing that Bill Clinton ever did as President. He threw a bomb into Afghanistan to try to kill bin laden at a training camp. He missed. Bin Laden was gone already. He also tossed a bomb at pharmaceutical company where a janitor was killed at the same time as the training camp bombing.

So President Bill Clinton did virtually nothing during his 8 years in office about terrorism. By contrast, George Bush took office in January 2001. The first days were filled with replacing computer keyboards that the outgoing staff had destroyed by taking out the W’s from the keyboards, and left the White House looking trashed.

President George W. Bush and Terrorism

Less than 8 months after taking office, this country suffered it’s worst attack on our own soil with the bombing of the World Trade Center where four commercial airliners were flown into, as well as into the Pentagon and the other failed to reach it’s target because of brave citizens that took the plane back from terrorists and crashed it in a field in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 dead from these three places on the same day.

President Bush responded quickly and forcefully. Less than 30 days after the September 11, 2001 attack, on October 7, 2001, we started the aerial attack on Afghanistan. There were no attacks following that. There were attempts, but a combination of new policies and safety measures by the Bush administration and citizens more aware and willing risk their lives to thwart them stopped those attacks before they could succeed.

President Barack Obama and Terrorism

Now we have President Barack Hussein Obama. First terrorist attack was in June in Arkansas. One marine dead, one wounded. One terrorist is charged for a crime.

Another attack at Ft. Hood. 33 people dead or wounded. This one by a military officer that is Muslim and shouted Alihu akbar as he fired. He’s still awaiting trial.

Now we have September 11, 2012. Our embassy has been attacked. Our Ambassador has been killed along with three others. The day after the attack, President Obama said that acts of terror will not be tolerated but never said that this was a terrorist attack.

For the next ten days, the attack was chalked up to being a group of protestors and not an organized attack. The protestors were upset about a video put out in the United States. Susan Rice, the ambassador to the UN appeared on the talk shows saying it was due to a video while on some of the same programs, leaders in Libya, where the attack took place, were saying it was organized although they didn’t know for certain by whom, they suspected Al Queda.

Now it’s over a month later and we know it was organized and implemented by Al Queda operatives. We also know that there was a warning prior to the attack and we also know that the embassy had requested more security before the attack. Still, nothing has been done. It’s October 13, and nothing has been done.

In the debate recently between Vice President Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan, Biden said “we didn’t know “ that they wanted more security. This brings up another question. The State Department knew. That’s part of the administration headed up by Hillary Clinton, wife of former President Bill Clinton. But Biden says that neither he nor President Obama knew of the request for more security. Why didn’t they know? Wouldn’t that have been in the briefings? Doesn’t the State Department report to the White House?

The White House has blamed a video. Blamed the lack of knowledge and even tried to blame Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. But, still, nothing has been done. Do they have a plan or is this just complete incompetence on the part of Obama?

We are in the midst of an election. Obama is falling in the polls and it’s looking more and more like Romney/Ryan could win this election. So what might happen? The administration has already been accused of cooking the books on the economy by bringing the unemployment rate down to 7.8% just in time for the election.

What could they do about this terrorist attack? Could they fire Hillary Clinton saying that her ambitions sabotaged the administration by not telling them of the additional security desired? Or, could they all of a sudden figure out where a large al queda camp is, send the bombers in and claim that they’ve killed or captured those responsible for the attack on the embassy?

We know that Clinton did next to nothing and treated terrorism as a criminal activity and attacks continued. We know that Bush fought back less than a month following the attack on 9/11/01, and there were no more attacks for eight years, and we know that Obama has treated terrorism as a criminal activity. Will his response be election driven or continued to be treated like a criminal activity? 

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett