In recent weeks, the press has been asking about the pardons that President George W. Bush will be meting out before he leaves office in January. Their questions have mainly been, will President Bush pardon his staff, his cabinet and his subordinates as well as himself prior to leaving office.
Prior to the election in 2006, the Democrats (or liberals, since they are the same) were saying they wouldn't try to impeach President Bush. Once they got the majority, that's exactly what Representative John Conyers (D-MI) started to do.
Leading up to the election in 2008, the liberals (or Democrats, since they are the same) said they weren't interested in prosecuting the White House staff, cabinet under Bush, nor President Bush himself. If the liberals don't intend to prosecute President Bush, nor his people, why is the press speculating on whether or not he will pardon his people or himself? Do they not trust the liberals taking office?
I have no idea if President Bush would pardon any of them. I believe he should give a full pardon to Scooter Libby, but even before that, I'd like to see him pardon the two border guards now in prison for shooting a drug smuggler and failing to report the discharge of a firearm. The two border agents are Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campeon. On February 17, 2005 they intercepted drug smugglers crossing from Mexico. The smugglers had 743 pounds of marijuana. The drug smuggler was shot in the buttocks but survived and ran to a waiting van across the border.
The Justice Department granted immunity to the drug smuggler if he'd come back and testify. The drug smuggler was treated for his injury by the United States, given immunity to testify against the agents and is now suing the United States Government for $5 million.
These two border agents, one of which was named Border agent of the year in 2005 and the other who was a former naval officer, are now serving 11 and 12 year sentences. These two agents should never have been prosecuted, and deserve a full pardon.
I would be surprised to see President Bush pardon terrorists as Bill Clinton did (FALN Terrorists), and I don't know that it's possible for President Bush to match the length of the list of Pardons that Bill Clinton produced before he left office.
It will be interesting though to see if President Bush does pardon his staff, Cabinet and himself. If he doesn't, it will also be interesting to see if the liberals hatred for President Bush is carried out in the form of charges and trials when he's out of office. I suspect that if he doesn't pardon his people and himself, that the liberals will be similar to the bitter ex wife and continue to whine, moan and complain as well as to bring charges. We already know here in Michigan that regardless of what happens there, that for the next four or (God Forbid) eight years, anything that doesn't go well will be blamed on President Bush. Governor Granholm has that speech down to a tee. She takes no blame for anything that's gone wrong in Michigan since she took office. She's constantly and consistantly blamed President Bush.
I hope that President Bush does pardon the two border patrol agents at the very least.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Talk Radio...Rant
Former General, Former Secretary of State, Former Head of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell said on Fareed Zakaria's interview that Republicans need to appeal more to minorities because the minorities will be in the majority in 20 years. He also asked if we really needed to listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Powell must really be upset that Limbaugh commented about Powell's endorsement of Barack Hussein Obama's candidacy a week before the election. Could this be the first salvo to the attacks on talk radio?
Personally, I like listening to Rush. He comments on the news. He shows what the politicians say in their own words and then points out their hypocrisy as well as their two faced comments and the double standards they have, using their own words against them.
Powell is wrong. He sets himself up on a fence. Claims to be a Republican to give himself credibility but then complains about the position he was put in at the United Nations in the lead up to the war in Iraq. If Powell was an honest man, he'd have stood up when he thought he was wrong, or the administration was wrong and refused to give that speech. He has no principles.
He played his game about whether or not he was a Republican or a Democrat prior to Bush being elected. Now he claims to be a Republican but is insisting that we must cater to minorities. It's big of him to say it's okay to be a Conservative. I'm so happy that I have his permission to believe as I believe. I didn't hear him say that he was for the Fairness Doctrine, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's leading up to that.
So let me be clear about what I think of talk radio. Rush is consistent and comments on the news. Sean Hannity is one that I don't like. He interrupts his guests, interrupts his callers and makes everything about him. I quit listening to him quite a while ago. I listen to and like a local radio program called Live with Renk. I like Laura Ingraham. These are all successful people. They give an outlet to conservatives. We aren't stuck with the liberal media on CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and even Fox half the time. Does CBS still exist? I haven't watched them since Dan Rather had the forged documents story to try and derail Bush in 2000.
Why aren't there more liberal talk radio programs? Because nobody listens. Radio stations lose money when they have liberal hosts. People don't listen to them. Advertisers don't want to pay for ads that aren't going to be heard.
Colin Powell has it wrong. Conservativism will appeal to the so-called minorities. They only need to hear what's being said. We need to get away from putting people into groups. The press did it with their polls saying blacks would vote in higher numbers for blacks, Jews would vote a certain way, Christians would vote another way, the south will vote this way, the northeast will vote that way, and so on. We are all Americans. For all of the talk about ending racism, the liberals and the press are playing a race card each time.
As a Conservative, I want all Americans to do better. I want for the entire country, black, white, hispanic, female, male, Jew, Gentile, left handed people, right handed people, southerners, northerners, westerners, midwesterners, easterners, the left coasters, the right coasters, EVERY American to take advantage of the opportunity for success. I believe that's best done by the individual working with other individuals without hindrance of government intrusions.
I'm sick of being told that one racial group is unfairly represented in prisons, courts, or that they are committing crimes in greater numbers against their own race, than other groups are. There is a solution to this. STOP COMMITTING THE CRIMES. Concentrate on improving your own life without stealing property, money or lives of others.
In other words, we're all Americans. My kids are all the same race as I am. I have one that has somewhat red hair, one that has blonde hair and one that has brown hair. I tan easily in the sun. My son doesn't. Does that make him better or me better? No. It makes us individuals. His interest for a career is different than mine. That doesn't make one of us better than the other. It means we each have our pursuits that contribute to this country.
That is the type of thing that talk radio advocates. Not separation from other groups, but combined as one group. AMERICANS. Liberals advocate fighting between the classes. Race, workers, income differences. White collar vs blue collar vs laborer. I believe we are one class. AMERICANS. Liberals advocate dividing people into groups. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, European Americans, and so on. If you're an American whether by birth or by choice, you're an American.
Talk radio does not divide the races and classes. Neither does Conservatism. Colin Powell does. The liberals do. The press does. Having said all of that, I guess I should admit to one group that I'm prejudiced against.....Lawyers. I'm working on it though.
I guess today was my day to rant.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Powell must really be upset that Limbaugh commented about Powell's endorsement of Barack Hussein Obama's candidacy a week before the election. Could this be the first salvo to the attacks on talk radio?
Personally, I like listening to Rush. He comments on the news. He shows what the politicians say in their own words and then points out their hypocrisy as well as their two faced comments and the double standards they have, using their own words against them.
Powell is wrong. He sets himself up on a fence. Claims to be a Republican to give himself credibility but then complains about the position he was put in at the United Nations in the lead up to the war in Iraq. If Powell was an honest man, he'd have stood up when he thought he was wrong, or the administration was wrong and refused to give that speech. He has no principles.
He played his game about whether or not he was a Republican or a Democrat prior to Bush being elected. Now he claims to be a Republican but is insisting that we must cater to minorities. It's big of him to say it's okay to be a Conservative. I'm so happy that I have his permission to believe as I believe. I didn't hear him say that he was for the Fairness Doctrine, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's leading up to that.
So let me be clear about what I think of talk radio. Rush is consistent and comments on the news. Sean Hannity is one that I don't like. He interrupts his guests, interrupts his callers and makes everything about him. I quit listening to him quite a while ago. I listen to and like a local radio program called Live with Renk. I like Laura Ingraham. These are all successful people. They give an outlet to conservatives. We aren't stuck with the liberal media on CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and even Fox half the time. Does CBS still exist? I haven't watched them since Dan Rather had the forged documents story to try and derail Bush in 2000.
Why aren't there more liberal talk radio programs? Because nobody listens. Radio stations lose money when they have liberal hosts. People don't listen to them. Advertisers don't want to pay for ads that aren't going to be heard.
Colin Powell has it wrong. Conservativism will appeal to the so-called minorities. They only need to hear what's being said. We need to get away from putting people into groups. The press did it with their polls saying blacks would vote in higher numbers for blacks, Jews would vote a certain way, Christians would vote another way, the south will vote this way, the northeast will vote that way, and so on. We are all Americans. For all of the talk about ending racism, the liberals and the press are playing a race card each time.
As a Conservative, I want all Americans to do better. I want for the entire country, black, white, hispanic, female, male, Jew, Gentile, left handed people, right handed people, southerners, northerners, westerners, midwesterners, easterners, the left coasters, the right coasters, EVERY American to take advantage of the opportunity for success. I believe that's best done by the individual working with other individuals without hindrance of government intrusions.
I'm sick of being told that one racial group is unfairly represented in prisons, courts, or that they are committing crimes in greater numbers against their own race, than other groups are. There is a solution to this. STOP COMMITTING THE CRIMES. Concentrate on improving your own life without stealing property, money or lives of others.
In other words, we're all Americans. My kids are all the same race as I am. I have one that has somewhat red hair, one that has blonde hair and one that has brown hair. I tan easily in the sun. My son doesn't. Does that make him better or me better? No. It makes us individuals. His interest for a career is different than mine. That doesn't make one of us better than the other. It means we each have our pursuits that contribute to this country.
That is the type of thing that talk radio advocates. Not separation from other groups, but combined as one group. AMERICANS. Liberals advocate fighting between the classes. Race, workers, income differences. White collar vs blue collar vs laborer. I believe we are one class. AMERICANS. Liberals advocate dividing people into groups. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, European Americans, and so on. If you're an American whether by birth or by choice, you're an American.
Talk radio does not divide the races and classes. Neither does Conservatism. Colin Powell does. The liberals do. The press does. Having said all of that, I guess I should admit to one group that I'm prejudiced against.....Lawyers. I'm working on it though.
I guess today was my day to rant.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Do You Remember....
Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook". Resigned
Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". Impeached.
And now we have Jesse Jackson Jr saying, " I reject and denounce pay-to-play politics and have no involvement whatsoever in any wrongdoing,"
When a politician speaks, you have to question his words. When a politican says they aren't guilty, there seems to be some guilt there.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". Impeached.
And now we have Jesse Jackson Jr saying, " I reject and denounce pay-to-play politics and have no involvement whatsoever in any wrongdoing,"
When a politician speaks, you have to question his words. When a politican says they aren't guilty, there seems to be some guilt there.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Unnecessary Lies
Following the breaking of the story about the Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, Senator Barack Hussein Obama made a brief statement saying that he had not been in contact with the Illinois Governor. However, on Fox News, Obama's spokesman, David Axelrod said that Obama had been in touch with Blagojevich (or "bag the riches) about who would fill his Senate seat. In addition, a reporter from Chicago reported that Obama was meeting with the Governor on November 5. The day following the election.
It would make perfect sense for the man elected to be the new President to make suggestions on his successor. I would see nothing wrong with giving his input. In fact, I would expect it to take place. So when I saw Axelrod say that Obama had been in touch, I thought nothing of it other than my belief that politicians should not be appointing politicians to replace politicians.
So why would Obama come out and say he hadn't spoken with the governor? 1. Either he didn't speak to the Governor which meant that Axelrod lied or 2. Obama did speak to the Governor and lied to the American people about it.
There are a couple of possible reasons why Obama would lie. For one, he might be just trying to distance himself from the governor. I can understand that, but you don't distance yourself by lying to the people of America. Another reason could be that Obama has been involved in Chicago politics (the Chicago way), and didn't want it known how involved he was or is.
Assuming that Obama is too busy to be involved in a play for pay scheme, there was no need for him to lie about his contact with the governor. Perhaps he really wasn't in touch with him, but had his surrogates in touch with the governor. This makes some sense because of the way Obama parsed his words when discussing it. He plainly changed his comment from "we" to "I" when he said there'd been no contact.
I don't believe it. I think he has spoken personally with the governor. I don't know that he's involved in this scandal, but I believe he's lying about not having spoken to the governor. This is a lie he didn't need to tell. It's also another example of how we're going to get more of the Clinton years. Remember, Clinton lied when it wasn't necessary for him to lie. Imagine if Clinton had admitted in his Grand Jury testimony that he did have a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He wouldn't have been impeached. He wouldn't have obstructed justice, and he never would have had to stand up in front of the American people and said "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."
Since Grand Jury testimony is private, Clinton's testimony would never have been made public. In fact, it's likely that Starr would have begun wrapping up his investigation saying that there would be no charges brought.
Senator Obama is stepping in it when he doesn't have to step in it. It would have been very simple for him to say 'yes, I've spoken to the governor about my successor in the Senate and made my suggestions.'
Unneccessary lies lead to more lies. That then leads to mistrust. Will we be able to depend on what Obama says after he becomes President? Not if he will lie about things that it's not necessary to lie about. We'll never be able to believe him when he needs to lie to us for national security reasons.
Some irony. Bill Clinton was 47 when he took over as President in 1993. Obama is 47. Bill Clinton told unnecessary lies. Obama seems to be following the same track. Unneccessary lies tainted the Clinton administration. We're now headed that way with Obama.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
It would make perfect sense for the man elected to be the new President to make suggestions on his successor. I would see nothing wrong with giving his input. In fact, I would expect it to take place. So when I saw Axelrod say that Obama had been in touch, I thought nothing of it other than my belief that politicians should not be appointing politicians to replace politicians.
So why would Obama come out and say he hadn't spoken with the governor? 1. Either he didn't speak to the Governor which meant that Axelrod lied or 2. Obama did speak to the Governor and lied to the American people about it.
There are a couple of possible reasons why Obama would lie. For one, he might be just trying to distance himself from the governor. I can understand that, but you don't distance yourself by lying to the people of America. Another reason could be that Obama has been involved in Chicago politics (the Chicago way), and didn't want it known how involved he was or is.
Assuming that Obama is too busy to be involved in a play for pay scheme, there was no need for him to lie about his contact with the governor. Perhaps he really wasn't in touch with him, but had his surrogates in touch with the governor. This makes some sense because of the way Obama parsed his words when discussing it. He plainly changed his comment from "we" to "I" when he said there'd been no contact.
I don't believe it. I think he has spoken personally with the governor. I don't know that he's involved in this scandal, but I believe he's lying about not having spoken to the governor. This is a lie he didn't need to tell. It's also another example of how we're going to get more of the Clinton years. Remember, Clinton lied when it wasn't necessary for him to lie. Imagine if Clinton had admitted in his Grand Jury testimony that he did have a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He wouldn't have been impeached. He wouldn't have obstructed justice, and he never would have had to stand up in front of the American people and said "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."
Since Grand Jury testimony is private, Clinton's testimony would never have been made public. In fact, it's likely that Starr would have begun wrapping up his investigation saying that there would be no charges brought.
Senator Obama is stepping in it when he doesn't have to step in it. It would have been very simple for him to say 'yes, I've spoken to the governor about my successor in the Senate and made my suggestions.'
Unneccessary lies lead to more lies. That then leads to mistrust. Will we be able to depend on what Obama says after he becomes President? Not if he will lie about things that it's not necessary to lie about. We'll never be able to believe him when he needs to lie to us for national security reasons.
Some irony. Bill Clinton was 47 when he took over as President in 1993. Obama is 47. Bill Clinton told unnecessary lies. Obama seems to be following the same track. Unneccessary lies tainted the Clinton administration. We're now headed that way with Obama.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Democrat in White House = CORRUPTION
Here we go again. In 1992, Bill Clinton was running for the Democrat nomination for President. Amid some obscure stories of a corrupt land deal, he was selected to run against President George H. W. Bush (Bush 41 for those unfamiliar). Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, draft dodging, and even reports of him fathering a child out of wedlock were mentioned but not seriously considered during the campaign.
During his first year in office, Whitewater became a household word. There was travelgate, then Vince Fosters suicide (?) possibly related to travelgate, whitewater or other things. Following his suicide(?) there were the reports that Hillary got the cold shoulder from Mrs. Foster because she was having an affair with Vince Foster.
We spent the next 8 years having to listen to the corruption of the Clintons. Travelgate, Arlingtongate, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, culminating in his being caught red-handed (or blue dressed) with Monica Lewinsky. There was a sitting governor indicted and convicted (Jim Guy Tucker). Mike Espy, Webb Hubbell, Ron Brown (died in plane crash), a woman found dead in the Commerce Department offices, blackmail by a foriegn country, then there was the married couple, Jim and Susan McDougal.
Here we are in 2008. The people of the United States have just elected a Democrat to the White House. Senator Barack Hussein Obama has been elected President. By the way, there is no such thing as the "office of the President Elect" and Senator Obama is not officially "President Elect" until after December 15 when the electors finally elect him President. So what do we have now?
Obama has not even taken the office yet and the corruption has started. We've heard again, short-lived reports of a shady land deal, how he forced out another candidate in his own party to get elected to the state Senate in Illinois, questions about his citizenship and even reports of another woman. Now we find out that the governor of Illinois was trying to sell the vacated Senate seat of Senator Obama (he resigned his seat on November 16). The sale portion was to put money into the hands of the governor, his wife, and his campaign for re-election.
Governor Rod Blagojevich, (pronounced bagoyovich) was arrested at his home at 6:15 am on Tuesday, December 9, 2008. There are numerous charges against him and his advisor (also arrested this morning), for bribery in trying to sell the vacated Senate seat of Senator Obama. He also wanted to get his wife appointed to a board which would give her a high paying job which they hoped would be in excess of $150,000 per year. He also wanted to be appointed to the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services. If he didn't get something, he considered appointing himself to the Senate to replace Obama.
In addition, the governor and his aide were allegedly conspiring to demand the firing of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune in exchange for help in selling Wrigley Field.
Again, if we refer back to the Clinton years, we go just a bit before the Clinton years. There was a senator named Bob Packwood who was charged with sexual harassment. The prosecutor in his case was Ken Starr. The Democrats loved Ken Starr because he managed to get rid of Bob Packwood. However, just a few short years later, Ken Starr was appointed to be the special prosecutor in the Whitewater investigation of Bill Clinton. We all know how Starr was vilified by the Democrats for his work on Bill Clinton's corruption.
Let's move ahead to the Bush 43 years. A special prosecutor was named to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. His name was Patrick Fitzgerald. The only thing he was able to accomplish was to get Scooter Libby indicted for lying to investigators during the investigation. Democrats loved him for getting the indictment, despite Libby not being indicted for outing Plame. Richard Armitage was actually the one that put her name out, and he was never indicted let alone convicted.
Now, Patrick Fitzgerald is the prosecutor in the case against Governor Blagojevich. Already the press is complaining because the governor was arrested at his home rather than being allowed to turn himself in. Patrick Fitzgerald is about to be the Ken Starr of the Obama administration.
In another bit of irony, a Grand Jury has issued subpoenas in the Rezko/Obama land deal.
Do you notice what's missing in all of this information? First thing that's missing is The people. Obama didn't finish his term in the Senate. The Governor of Illinois selects his replacement. Not the people. This is a perfect example of what's wrong with a sitting governor replacing a Senator or a Representative when they don't finish their terms. The way to solve this is not to leave this in the hands of elected officials, but rather to call a special election so the people may select their Representative or Senator to represent them. After all, the people proved they can do the righ thing. They voted out the corrupt and indicted William Jefferson from the House. The second thing missing in all of this is that the stories I read in the Chicago Tribune and the CBS websites don't even mention that Governor Blagojevich is a Democrat. It's not mentioned even once in either of those stories.
It appears we're in for another four years (hopefully not eight years) of investigations and corruption. I, for one, do not want to see another impeachment of a sitting President. I'm afraid though that we're headed that way. For you liberals reading this, fear not. You have 58 Senate seats, so he won't be removed from office.
We're about to have another Democrat in office and we've already got the scandals.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
During his first year in office, Whitewater became a household word. There was travelgate, then Vince Fosters suicide (?) possibly related to travelgate, whitewater or other things. Following his suicide(?) there were the reports that Hillary got the cold shoulder from Mrs. Foster because she was having an affair with Vince Foster.
We spent the next 8 years having to listen to the corruption of the Clintons. Travelgate, Arlingtongate, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, culminating in his being caught red-handed (or blue dressed) with Monica Lewinsky. There was a sitting governor indicted and convicted (Jim Guy Tucker). Mike Espy, Webb Hubbell, Ron Brown (died in plane crash), a woman found dead in the Commerce Department offices, blackmail by a foriegn country, then there was the married couple, Jim and Susan McDougal.
Here we are in 2008. The people of the United States have just elected a Democrat to the White House. Senator Barack Hussein Obama has been elected President. By the way, there is no such thing as the "office of the President Elect" and Senator Obama is not officially "President Elect" until after December 15 when the electors finally elect him President. So what do we have now?
Obama has not even taken the office yet and the corruption has started. We've heard again, short-lived reports of a shady land deal, how he forced out another candidate in his own party to get elected to the state Senate in Illinois, questions about his citizenship and even reports of another woman. Now we find out that the governor of Illinois was trying to sell the vacated Senate seat of Senator Obama (he resigned his seat on November 16). The sale portion was to put money into the hands of the governor, his wife, and his campaign for re-election.
Governor Rod Blagojevich, (pronounced bagoyovich) was arrested at his home at 6:15 am on Tuesday, December 9, 2008. There are numerous charges against him and his advisor (also arrested this morning), for bribery in trying to sell the vacated Senate seat of Senator Obama. He also wanted to get his wife appointed to a board which would give her a high paying job which they hoped would be in excess of $150,000 per year. He also wanted to be appointed to the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services. If he didn't get something, he considered appointing himself to the Senate to replace Obama.
In addition, the governor and his aide were allegedly conspiring to demand the firing of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune in exchange for help in selling Wrigley Field.
Again, if we refer back to the Clinton years, we go just a bit before the Clinton years. There was a senator named Bob Packwood who was charged with sexual harassment. The prosecutor in his case was Ken Starr. The Democrats loved Ken Starr because he managed to get rid of Bob Packwood. However, just a few short years later, Ken Starr was appointed to be the special prosecutor in the Whitewater investigation of Bill Clinton. We all know how Starr was vilified by the Democrats for his work on Bill Clinton's corruption.
Let's move ahead to the Bush 43 years. A special prosecutor was named to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. His name was Patrick Fitzgerald. The only thing he was able to accomplish was to get Scooter Libby indicted for lying to investigators during the investigation. Democrats loved him for getting the indictment, despite Libby not being indicted for outing Plame. Richard Armitage was actually the one that put her name out, and he was never indicted let alone convicted.
Now, Patrick Fitzgerald is the prosecutor in the case against Governor Blagojevich. Already the press is complaining because the governor was arrested at his home rather than being allowed to turn himself in. Patrick Fitzgerald is about to be the Ken Starr of the Obama administration.
In another bit of irony, a Grand Jury has issued subpoenas in the Rezko/Obama land deal.
Do you notice what's missing in all of this information? First thing that's missing is The people. Obama didn't finish his term in the Senate. The Governor of Illinois selects his replacement. Not the people. This is a perfect example of what's wrong with a sitting governor replacing a Senator or a Representative when they don't finish their terms. The way to solve this is not to leave this in the hands of elected officials, but rather to call a special election so the people may select their Representative or Senator to represent them. After all, the people proved they can do the righ thing. They voted out the corrupt and indicted William Jefferson from the House. The second thing missing in all of this is that the stories I read in the Chicago Tribune and the CBS websites don't even mention that Governor Blagojevich is a Democrat. It's not mentioned even once in either of those stories.
It appears we're in for another four years (hopefully not eight years) of investigations and corruption. I, for one, do not want to see another impeachment of a sitting President. I'm afraid though that we're headed that way. For you liberals reading this, fear not. You have 58 Senate seats, so he won't be removed from office.
We're about to have another Democrat in office and we've already got the scandals.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Monday, December 1, 2008
Zogby Results on Obama Election
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
Not only does this tell us how poor the news media in this country is, but it also tells us that liberals don't think or apply reason.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
Not only does this tell us how poor the news media in this country is, but it also tells us that liberals don't think or apply reason.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Four Financial Institutions Paid Clinton $2.1 Million
Citigroup paid Bill Clinton $700,000; Goldman Sachs paid $550,000; Lehman Brothers paid $300,000 and Merrill Lynch paid $175,000 to the former president for speeches during that time period. Sen. Clinton’s 2008 financial disclosure reports are not yet available.
I really have to wonder about these institutions that are taking bailout money or disappearing altogether, then sending their people off to party in other parts of the country, and those that pay out big bucks for speeches. If these companies didn't know that they were heading into financial problems, then I also have to wonder about the quality of management of these companies.
I have always thought that there was nothing wrong with a CEO getting a big bonus in his contract for leaving. Let me rephrase that. Nothing illegal. I can understand giving certain perks to have a certain CEO that you want to come and run your company. However, these CEO's should know the status of their company once they are in that position and they should know that paying out huge dollars just to have a guy speak is not affordable. If they didn't know that they were about to enter lean times, then the question becomes 'what was so enticing about this guy that we signed the guy with a big payout when he leaves'?
We all know that Bill Clinton is a political animal. So why was he invited to speak at financial institutions? This seems inappropriate at best. There really is no difference between a union spending union dues to endorse certain candidates than for a major financial institution to bring in political figures to speak. I cannot think of one thing that Bill Clinton could contribute to a financial institution. He's a former lawyer who lost his license. He's a former President who was impeached (one of only two in history).
What could Bill Clinton have contributed to financial institutions? I'm admittedly biased because I don't care for the former President at all. The only thing that I can think that he would contribute to them is advice on how to destroy the blue dress before you return home to the wife and kids.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
I really have to wonder about these institutions that are taking bailout money or disappearing altogether, then sending their people off to party in other parts of the country, and those that pay out big bucks for speeches. If these companies didn't know that they were heading into financial problems, then I also have to wonder about the quality of management of these companies.
I have always thought that there was nothing wrong with a CEO getting a big bonus in his contract for leaving. Let me rephrase that. Nothing illegal. I can understand giving certain perks to have a certain CEO that you want to come and run your company. However, these CEO's should know the status of their company once they are in that position and they should know that paying out huge dollars just to have a guy speak is not affordable. If they didn't know that they were about to enter lean times, then the question becomes 'what was so enticing about this guy that we signed the guy with a big payout when he leaves'?
We all know that Bill Clinton is a political animal. So why was he invited to speak at financial institutions? This seems inappropriate at best. There really is no difference between a union spending union dues to endorse certain candidates than for a major financial institution to bring in political figures to speak. I cannot think of one thing that Bill Clinton could contribute to a financial institution. He's a former lawyer who lost his license. He's a former President who was impeached (one of only two in history).
What could Bill Clinton have contributed to financial institutions? I'm admittedly biased because I don't care for the former President at all. The only thing that I can think that he would contribute to them is advice on how to destroy the blue dress before you return home to the wife and kids.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Friday, November 21, 2008
The True Story of Thanksgiving
The following story is about Thanksgiving. You’ll notice it’s a bit different from what’s taught in the government school system, not that that should surprise anyone. The source for this story is Governor William Bradford himself.
On August 1, 1620, a ship called the Mayflower set sail for the New World. There were 102 passengers aboard of which 40 were the pilgrims. In November, they arrived in New England and found a barren and desolate wilderness. During that first winter, nearly half of them died, including Governor William Bradford’s wife.
When spring arrived, the Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish, and skin beavers for coats. Life did get better for the pilgrims, but they didn’t prosper. In the fall of that year, they celebrated Thanksgiving, which for the Pilgrims meant a day of fasting and prayer, then the three days of feasting.
Edward Winslow gave this account of that Thanksgiving. "Our harvest being gotten in, our Governour sent foure men on fowling, that so we might after a more speciall manner rejoyce together, after we had gathered the fruit of our labours; they foure in one day killed as much fowle, as with a little helpe beside, served the Company almost a weeke, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Armes, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest King Massasoyt, with some nintie men, whom for three dayes we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed dive Deere, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captaine, and others. And although it be not alwayes so plentifull, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodnesse of God, we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie."
The original contract that they pilgrims agreed to with their merchant-sponsors in London called for all that they produced to be placed in a common store and each family was entitled to one common share of that store. The land they cleared and the houses they built all belonged to the community. There was no incentive to work their lands any more than their neighbors. There was no motivation to improve.
William Bradford, who had become the Governor decided to take action to improve the lives of the pilgrims. He assigned a plot of land to each family. What they produced on their land they were free to sell to others. They would no longer be expected to contribute to a community store for all to share. Governor Bradford wrote, “ The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years…that by taking wealth, would make them happy and flourishing, as if they were wiser than God. For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense…that was thought injustice.”
They found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So they turned loose the capitalism. Free enterprise. Bradford wrote,” This has very good success for it made all handsd industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”
In short order, the pilgrims had more food than they could eat themselves. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London and their success attracted more and more Europeans and began what came to be known as as the Great Puritan Migration.
It is sad that this is not taught in the government schools.
This Thanksgiving, I'll be giving Thanks for my children, for the chance to live in a free society where I am free to worship as I choose, and that I can hope and work for that free society to continue even in trying times which we are likely to be headed.
Sources for this: http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/nov2796.html http://www.latimes.com/features/kids/readingroom/la-et-story23-2008nov23,0,7094177.story, http://www.rushimbaugh.com/
Brett
On August 1, 1620, a ship called the Mayflower set sail for the New World. There were 102 passengers aboard of which 40 were the pilgrims. In November, they arrived in New England and found a barren and desolate wilderness. During that first winter, nearly half of them died, including Governor William Bradford’s wife.
When spring arrived, the Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish, and skin beavers for coats. Life did get better for the pilgrims, but they didn’t prosper. In the fall of that year, they celebrated Thanksgiving, which for the Pilgrims meant a day of fasting and prayer, then the three days of feasting.
Edward Winslow gave this account of that Thanksgiving. "Our harvest being gotten in, our Governour sent foure men on fowling, that so we might after a more speciall manner rejoyce together, after we had gathered the fruit of our labours; they foure in one day killed as much fowle, as with a little helpe beside, served the Company almost a weeke, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Armes, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest King Massasoyt, with some nintie men, whom for three dayes we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed dive Deere, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captaine, and others. And although it be not alwayes so plentifull, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodnesse of God, we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie."
The original contract that they pilgrims agreed to with their merchant-sponsors in London called for all that they produced to be placed in a common store and each family was entitled to one common share of that store. The land they cleared and the houses they built all belonged to the community. There was no incentive to work their lands any more than their neighbors. There was no motivation to improve.
William Bradford, who had become the Governor decided to take action to improve the lives of the pilgrims. He assigned a plot of land to each family. What they produced on their land they were free to sell to others. They would no longer be expected to contribute to a community store for all to share. Governor Bradford wrote, “ The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years…that by taking wealth, would make them happy and flourishing, as if they were wiser than God. For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense…that was thought injustice.”
They found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So they turned loose the capitalism. Free enterprise. Bradford wrote,” This has very good success for it made all handsd industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”
In short order, the pilgrims had more food than they could eat themselves. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London and their success attracted more and more Europeans and began what came to be known as as the Great Puritan Migration.
It is sad that this is not taught in the government schools.
This Thanksgiving, I'll be giving Thanks for my children, for the chance to live in a free society where I am free to worship as I choose, and that I can hope and work for that free society to continue even in trying times which we are likely to be headed.
Sources for this: http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/nov2796.html http://www.latimes.com/features/kids/readingroom/la-et-story23-2008nov23,0,7094177.story, http://www.rushimbaugh.com/
Brett
Friday, November 14, 2008
What is Wrong with the Republicans?
There is a simple answer to the question of what is wrong with the Republicans. The answer is that they moved away from their conservative roots and tried to join the mainstream media and to get along with the Democrats.
Most of the people that read this blog already know this, but for you liberals and Democrats that have this read to you, here’s a little newsflash for you. John McCain is not Conservative. I don’t care how many times he claimed to be, he is not a Conservative. There is only one thing that saved him from being beaten into oblivion in this past election. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. She is a Conservative.
When the head of a ticket is a Conservative, they don’t lose. Ronald Reagan won in two landslides. He also carried George H. W. Bush to the Presidency in 1987. President Bush, however, raised taxes (not a conservative thing to do). That caused a short recession. He lost his next election. He probably wouldn’t have lost had it not been for Ross Perot, but Perot wouldn’t have been a factor had Bush stuck to Conservatism.
Bob Dole was not Conservative. He was a moderate. He lost. George W. Bush ran as a Conservative and he won. That’s about when Conservatism went into hiding. In 1994 Republicans nationalized the election and ran on the Contract With America. They promised open debate and votes on ten items within their first 100 days. They won the majority on that promise. They followed through on their promise and voted on all ten in less than 100 days. Not all passed, but they held to their promise and had open debates and votes on all ten items. One was vetoed by President Clinton and they overrode his veto.
After George W. Bush was elected, the Republicans had the House, the Senate and the White House. That’s when Conservatism disappeared. There were a few, but for the most part, the Republicans started buddying up to the press (who hate them) and they started spending like Democrats. I will give them credit for one thing. They did do better than Democrats. Not only did they spend like Democrats, they spent better than Democrats.
The Republicans have an opportunity here. Now that the House, Senate and White House is all Democrat, we know they will do more to take away rights and impose taxes on the American people. However, they should be going after all with another nationalized election in 2010 and beyond. No more of keeping one or two Democrats around to remind us. We can win again and will win again, if we put forth Conservative ideas and promises and follow through on those promises.
First of all, the Republicans should not go on any political programs, such as the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, nor any of the repeated versions following that like Campbell Brown’s “all bull all the time” nor on Larry King, nor on Anderson Cooper. They also shouldn’t go on programs on Fox like Hannity and Colmes or Bill O’Reilly or any of the others they have on.
If a Republican is going to be on television, it should only be in the form of a press conference. Tell the press what they are looking at, what they plan to do, why the Democrats are wrong and then leave. The Press is not the friend of the Republicans.
The Republicans also need to start putting together their conservative principles into the form of an agenda for the next election. I believe they should start with these, although it’s not an entire list.
1. National Security: Protect our borders and invoke the Bush doctrine again. If you sponsor terrorism, you’re a terrorist. If you harbor terrorists, you’re a terrorist.
2. Free Market. No more bailouts. If a company fails, it fails. No more of the government buying stock in companies.
3. Illegal Immigration: If you are in this country illegally, leave. You have one year to leave on your own. You’re welcome to come back as long as you do it legally. We will put you on a list and welcome you back quickly if you’re legal. If we catch you here illegally and you haven’t taken advantage of the one year chance to leave on your own, you will be deported and will not be allowed back.
4. Taxes: Debate the Fair tax and other tax plans to revamp the tax code. What we have is not working. People are not paying their fair share. I’m speaking mainly of the poor.
5. Cut spending: Line by line through the budget and eliminate the ones that aren’t working. This could take some time because there are a lot of things that are not working.
6. Social Security/Medicare: This needs to be fixed. It could be fixed with an implementation of the Fair Tax, but I still prefer privatization. Not the way the liberals describe privatization, but the truth and the facts.
7. Reduce the size of government: Eliminate the redundant and the dead weight.
8. Revamp the voter registration: There are simple ways to count the vote. Purge all voter registrations nationwide. Make the registration process uniform through each state.
9. End Earmarks.
I’m sure there are more things that I’m forgetting or not thinking of right at the moment that can be added to this list, and I’m open to hearing them from anyone.
Power is lent to the government by the people. In our day and age, it seems to me that the people are allowing the government to take the power away from the people and claim it as their own. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.
It’s time that the people got tough with our elected officials and told them what we want or that we’ll get rid of them. Conservatism is the only way for Americans to maintain the power to lend to the government. If the Republicans don't get back to being Conservate, we'll all be asking the government for our daily needs.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Most of the people that read this blog already know this, but for you liberals and Democrats that have this read to you, here’s a little newsflash for you. John McCain is not Conservative. I don’t care how many times he claimed to be, he is not a Conservative. There is only one thing that saved him from being beaten into oblivion in this past election. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. She is a Conservative.
When the head of a ticket is a Conservative, they don’t lose. Ronald Reagan won in two landslides. He also carried George H. W. Bush to the Presidency in 1987. President Bush, however, raised taxes (not a conservative thing to do). That caused a short recession. He lost his next election. He probably wouldn’t have lost had it not been for Ross Perot, but Perot wouldn’t have been a factor had Bush stuck to Conservatism.
Bob Dole was not Conservative. He was a moderate. He lost. George W. Bush ran as a Conservative and he won. That’s about when Conservatism went into hiding. In 1994 Republicans nationalized the election and ran on the Contract With America. They promised open debate and votes on ten items within their first 100 days. They won the majority on that promise. They followed through on their promise and voted on all ten in less than 100 days. Not all passed, but they held to their promise and had open debates and votes on all ten items. One was vetoed by President Clinton and they overrode his veto.
After George W. Bush was elected, the Republicans had the House, the Senate and the White House. That’s when Conservatism disappeared. There were a few, but for the most part, the Republicans started buddying up to the press (who hate them) and they started spending like Democrats. I will give them credit for one thing. They did do better than Democrats. Not only did they spend like Democrats, they spent better than Democrats.
The Republicans have an opportunity here. Now that the House, Senate and White House is all Democrat, we know they will do more to take away rights and impose taxes on the American people. However, they should be going after all with another nationalized election in 2010 and beyond. No more of keeping one or two Democrats around to remind us. We can win again and will win again, if we put forth Conservative ideas and promises and follow through on those promises.
First of all, the Republicans should not go on any political programs, such as the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, nor any of the repeated versions following that like Campbell Brown’s “all bull all the time” nor on Larry King, nor on Anderson Cooper. They also shouldn’t go on programs on Fox like Hannity and Colmes or Bill O’Reilly or any of the others they have on.
If a Republican is going to be on television, it should only be in the form of a press conference. Tell the press what they are looking at, what they plan to do, why the Democrats are wrong and then leave. The Press is not the friend of the Republicans.
The Republicans also need to start putting together their conservative principles into the form of an agenda for the next election. I believe they should start with these, although it’s not an entire list.
1. National Security: Protect our borders and invoke the Bush doctrine again. If you sponsor terrorism, you’re a terrorist. If you harbor terrorists, you’re a terrorist.
2. Free Market. No more bailouts. If a company fails, it fails. No more of the government buying stock in companies.
3. Illegal Immigration: If you are in this country illegally, leave. You have one year to leave on your own. You’re welcome to come back as long as you do it legally. We will put you on a list and welcome you back quickly if you’re legal. If we catch you here illegally and you haven’t taken advantage of the one year chance to leave on your own, you will be deported and will not be allowed back.
4. Taxes: Debate the Fair tax and other tax plans to revamp the tax code. What we have is not working. People are not paying their fair share. I’m speaking mainly of the poor.
5. Cut spending: Line by line through the budget and eliminate the ones that aren’t working. This could take some time because there are a lot of things that are not working.
6. Social Security/Medicare: This needs to be fixed. It could be fixed with an implementation of the Fair Tax, but I still prefer privatization. Not the way the liberals describe privatization, but the truth and the facts.
7. Reduce the size of government: Eliminate the redundant and the dead weight.
8. Revamp the voter registration: There are simple ways to count the vote. Purge all voter registrations nationwide. Make the registration process uniform through each state.
9. End Earmarks.
I’m sure there are more things that I’m forgetting or not thinking of right at the moment that can be added to this list, and I’m open to hearing them from anyone.
Power is lent to the government by the people. In our day and age, it seems to me that the people are allowing the government to take the power away from the people and claim it as their own. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.
It’s time that the people got tough with our elected officials and told them what we want or that we’ll get rid of them. Conservatism is the only way for Americans to maintain the power to lend to the government. If the Republicans don't get back to being Conservate, we'll all be asking the government for our daily needs.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Monday, November 10, 2008
Next Step: The Transition
On January 20, 2009 President George W. Bush will watch as President Elect Barack Hussein Obama is sworn in as 44th President of the United States. Between now and then there will be a transition. Obama will have to be brought up to speed on National Security first as well as all other aspects of governing that goes beyond the partisan politics.
While I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall as Obama learned things he didn't know before regarding our National Security, it would be purely out of curiosity if a light would come on over his head when he learns about the very real threats facing our nation that he didn't deal with during the campaign.
So instead, I'm looking forward to a very smooth transition from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. I remember all too well the reports of the transition from Clinton to Bush. Items were taken by the Clintons from the White House that shouldn't have been. Carpets were torn. Walls were scuffed, and most childishly, the "W's" were removed from computer keyboards.
From all accounts that I've read and heard about thus far, President and Mrs. Bush have been extremely gracious to the Obama's and various departments are bending over backwards to help the Obama transition team have a smooth move. Not only is this classy, it's necessary for the country. Imagine if the Bush people were bitter and angry about the outcome of the election and left graffiti on the walls, or stole various items from the people's house. The new administration might have every road block thrown in front of them that's conceivable and taking their eyes off, even briefly, the safety of the borders and the American people.....oh wait. We don't have to imagine. Bush came in at a disadvantage with his transition process because of the election that lasted 35 days, then the petty vandalism committed by the Clinton Administration. Less than 8 months later, we were attacked by terrorists.
The new President deserves, by virtue of the election, to have every advantage and no hindrances placed before him. I'm all for kicking his butt around (not literally) when he proposes the silly policies and laws he wants enacted that will be bad for the country. However, the transition from one administration to another is not the time for partisanship. It IS the time for America to shine in it's transfer of one person for another to hold the highest office in the land.
I am worried that a President Obama will be the socialist he portrayed himself to be during the campaign and that he has the Congress all in agreement with him because they are all liberal. For now though, I'm happy to see that the Bush Administration is working hard and seems prepared for any attempts at attacks on the American people on American soil during the time of transition.
Finally, I hope that Obama learns from the Bush Administration on how to transition to the next administration. I'm hoping he gets to put it into practice in four years, but whenever it is, I do hope that Obama puts (to quote John McCain) Country First over his own ego, or disappointment when he leaves and the Republicans take back the White House, whether in four years or eight years.
President Bush may not be popular at this time, but he is a class act and showing how to make the transition without the bitterness of the past administration.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
While I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall as Obama learned things he didn't know before regarding our National Security, it would be purely out of curiosity if a light would come on over his head when he learns about the very real threats facing our nation that he didn't deal with during the campaign.
So instead, I'm looking forward to a very smooth transition from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. I remember all too well the reports of the transition from Clinton to Bush. Items were taken by the Clintons from the White House that shouldn't have been. Carpets were torn. Walls were scuffed, and most childishly, the "W's" were removed from computer keyboards.
From all accounts that I've read and heard about thus far, President and Mrs. Bush have been extremely gracious to the Obama's and various departments are bending over backwards to help the Obama transition team have a smooth move. Not only is this classy, it's necessary for the country. Imagine if the Bush people were bitter and angry about the outcome of the election and left graffiti on the walls, or stole various items from the people's house. The new administration might have every road block thrown in front of them that's conceivable and taking their eyes off, even briefly, the safety of the borders and the American people.....oh wait. We don't have to imagine. Bush came in at a disadvantage with his transition process because of the election that lasted 35 days, then the petty vandalism committed by the Clinton Administration. Less than 8 months later, we were attacked by terrorists.
The new President deserves, by virtue of the election, to have every advantage and no hindrances placed before him. I'm all for kicking his butt around (not literally) when he proposes the silly policies and laws he wants enacted that will be bad for the country. However, the transition from one administration to another is not the time for partisanship. It IS the time for America to shine in it's transfer of one person for another to hold the highest office in the land.
I am worried that a President Obama will be the socialist he portrayed himself to be during the campaign and that he has the Congress all in agreement with him because they are all liberal. For now though, I'm happy to see that the Bush Administration is working hard and seems prepared for any attempts at attacks on the American people on American soil during the time of transition.
Finally, I hope that Obama learns from the Bush Administration on how to transition to the next administration. I'm hoping he gets to put it into practice in four years, but whenever it is, I do hope that Obama puts (to quote John McCain) Country First over his own ego, or disappointment when he leaves and the Republicans take back the White House, whether in four years or eight years.
President Bush may not be popular at this time, but he is a class act and showing how to make the transition without the bitterness of the past administration.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
The Election: Interesting and Dangerous Times Ahead
I have been asked why I haven’t written anything about the recent election. There are several reasons. Some personal, such as very busy with work, and some repairs that were needed due to a summer storm but the main reason is that I didn’t want to be a reactionary or defeatist about the election and what it meant and what it means.
First, Barack Hussein Obama won the election. He is to be congratulated. He’s won the largest victory margin of any Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson. Bill Clinton never reached 50% in his two elections. Jimmy Carter barely beat Gerald Ford in 1976. So this was a clear victory for Obama.
Republicans were generally wiped out across the country, but not with the same difference in spread as the Obama win over McCain. For instance, in my own district, Tim Walberg lost to Mark Schauer by a very small margin. I went to bed on election night with Walberg winning, but when I woke up in the morning, Schauer had won. It’s this way across the country, with a few exceptions. I give the credit for that to Obama. Had the election been similar to the Clinton elections, I believe that Republicans wouldn’t have lost as many seats. The margin would still have been close, but many would have been reversed with the Republicans maintaining their seats. You may feel differently, and that’s fine. It’s just my opinion that Obama brought the Democrats over the finish line with his wider than expected margin of victory.
Obama should have won this election handily. In that, I think he failed. John McCain is not a conservative. I’ve been saying this since the Michigan primary back in January. It still holds true. John McCain is a moderate. Remember, this is a man that was tempted to leave the Republican Party in 2000. He was also considering running as John Kerry’s Vice Presidential candidate in 2004. He’s been a co-sponsor on campaign finance reform (those limits proved successful, eh?), immigration reform and others. Remember McCain/Feingold? McCain/Kennedy? McCain/Lieberman?
It amazes me that the Republicans chose McCain as their candidate after his complete failure in immigration reform. He wanted amnesty and the people of this country rose up and defeated it. If the people hadn’t spoken by their own choice when writing, faxing and calling their elected officials in opposition to the immigration reform package, we’d be operating under a completely different system.
Does all of this mean that I voted for Obama? Absolutely not! The decision I made prior to the Republican National Convention was that I would hold my nose and vote for McCain because Obama would be (and now will be) worse for this country than McCain. But something changed. At the Convention, McCain chose Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.
My vote then became a vote for Palin and McCain just happened to be on the ticket as well.
We’re in for some fun, as well as dangerous times for this country in the next four years, but one thing is certain. This will be an interesting four years.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
First, Barack Hussein Obama won the election. He is to be congratulated. He’s won the largest victory margin of any Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson. Bill Clinton never reached 50% in his two elections. Jimmy Carter barely beat Gerald Ford in 1976. So this was a clear victory for Obama.
Republicans were generally wiped out across the country, but not with the same difference in spread as the Obama win over McCain. For instance, in my own district, Tim Walberg lost to Mark Schauer by a very small margin. I went to bed on election night with Walberg winning, but when I woke up in the morning, Schauer had won. It’s this way across the country, with a few exceptions. I give the credit for that to Obama. Had the election been similar to the Clinton elections, I believe that Republicans wouldn’t have lost as many seats. The margin would still have been close, but many would have been reversed with the Republicans maintaining their seats. You may feel differently, and that’s fine. It’s just my opinion that Obama brought the Democrats over the finish line with his wider than expected margin of victory.
Obama should have won this election handily. In that, I think he failed. John McCain is not a conservative. I’ve been saying this since the Michigan primary back in January. It still holds true. John McCain is a moderate. Remember, this is a man that was tempted to leave the Republican Party in 2000. He was also considering running as John Kerry’s Vice Presidential candidate in 2004. He’s been a co-sponsor on campaign finance reform (those limits proved successful, eh?), immigration reform and others. Remember McCain/Feingold? McCain/Kennedy? McCain/Lieberman?
It amazes me that the Republicans chose McCain as their candidate after his complete failure in immigration reform. He wanted amnesty and the people of this country rose up and defeated it. If the people hadn’t spoken by their own choice when writing, faxing and calling their elected officials in opposition to the immigration reform package, we’d be operating under a completely different system.
Does all of this mean that I voted for Obama? Absolutely not! The decision I made prior to the Republican National Convention was that I would hold my nose and vote for McCain because Obama would be (and now will be) worse for this country than McCain. But something changed. At the Convention, McCain chose Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.
My vote then became a vote for Palin and McCain just happened to be on the ticket as well.
We’re in for some fun, as well as dangerous times for this country in the next four years, but one thing is certain. This will be an interesting four years.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Governor Sarah Palin Cleared in Troopergate
An Independent counsel has cleared Governor and Republican Vice Presidential Candidate, Sarah Palin, of any and all ethics violations in the troopergate matter.
But then, we all knew she would be cleared.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
But then, we all knew she would be cleared.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Friday, October 31, 2008
Obama's Girlfriend?
It's being reported that Barack Hussien Obama has had a girlfriend. Vera Baker, who was on his staff (but didn't seem to do much that others in the office could see) was originally sent to New York when Michelle Obama got angry about her, but was later sent to exiled to the Carribean.
One can only wonder if Michelle throws her ash trays as fast and hard as Hillary throws hers.
This country doesn't need another Clinton, stained blue dresses, and the subsequent scandals. Thankfully, the polls are showing McCain/Palin rising fast in the polls while Obama drops like a rock.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
One can only wonder if Michelle throws her ash trays as fast and hard as Hillary throws hers.
This country doesn't need another Clinton, stained blue dresses, and the subsequent scandals. Thankfully, the polls are showing McCain/Palin rising fast in the polls while Obama drops like a rock.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Obama's Racism Now On Display
Senator Barack Hussein Obama has kicked off three newspapers from his plane that have endorsed Senator John Sydney McCain for President. The Washington Times, Dallas Morning News and New York Post all have endorsed McCain for President. Obama has told them they are no longer welcome on his plane. He plans to replace them with a couple of black media organizations.
Every instance of racism in this election has been perpetrated by the Democrats beginning with Bill Clinton in South Carolina and other events and comments, leading now to the expulsion of three news outlets and the replacement with BET Television and others.
In other news, a man in California hung an effigy of Governor Sarah Palin. However, two young men hung an effigy of Obama in Kentucky and have been arrested. The California man has not been arrested. In Indiana a woman was not arrested for doing the same thing.
These types of things are what we're in for during the next four years if Obama is elected.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Every instance of racism in this election has been perpetrated by the Democrats beginning with Bill Clinton in South Carolina and other events and comments, leading now to the expulsion of three news outlets and the replacement with BET Television and others.
In other news, a man in California hung an effigy of Governor Sarah Palin. However, two young men hung an effigy of Obama in Kentucky and have been arrested. The California man has not been arrested. In Indiana a woman was not arrested for doing the same thing.
These types of things are what we're in for during the next four years if Obama is elected.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Monday, October 27, 2008
What Does Obama Bring to us?
It's been an interesting couple of days.
1. The owner of the Miami Dolphins says he's going to sell the NFL team because he'd rather give money to charity than to give it to Obama if Obama wins the election. Obama plans to raise the capital gains tax from the current level of 15% to 20%. Of course, the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 are due to expire on December 31, 2010, which is another tax increase on the capital gains, in addition to income taxes increasing, estate tax increase, dividend tax increase and others. Obama has said he wants them to expire, so he'll have raised taxes twice if he wins and gets his increase and doesn't stop the automatic increase.
2. In Indiana, the Attorney General said that ACORN had turned in many fraudulent voter registrations. Charges will be pursued soon. They found thousands of fraudulent registrations in Illinois as well, including one former State Senator who died five years before he registered.
3. Joe Biden was interviewed by an Orlando television station and was asked about Obama's "spread the wealth" comment and if he was a Marxist, among other things. The TV station has been notified that they are banned from the Obama campaign. Now today, a Philadelphia television station asked some of the same questions and today, they too were banned from being allowed to interview the Obama campaign.
4. In West Hollywood, someone had a mannequin dressed like Governor Sarah Palin, and another mannequin of Senator McCain coming out of a burning chimney. This just displays that lack of good taste on the part of the Obama followers.
5. In Ohio, the attorney general announced that they are investigating the illegal use of government resources to gather information on Joe the Plumber. You'll remember that after Senator Barack Hussein Obama dropped by Joe the Plumbers house uninvited, and interrupted him playing catch with his son, Joe asked about the Senators tax plan and said it sounds like socialism to him. He instantly became national news. Then Senators Obama and Biden started berating and mocking Joe the Plumber in their speeches. All of a sudden the news media had information on Joe the Plumber that apparently came from whomever was illegally using government resources to gather this information on Joe the Plumber.
6. It still amazes me that John McCain is so close in this race. With President Bush's high unpopularity, this should be a cakewalk for Obama. McCain fell in his lead after the credit markets had their blow up. Yet he's still in this race. The news media focuses on Joe the Plumbers past, Sarah Palin's clothes and they are constantly asking if Palin is a drag on the ticket, yet they don't report for more than one day about Biden's comments about Obama being tested within six months. Nor do they talk about the two television stations being banished by the Obama campaign for daring to ask questions. Nor do they talk about Biden saying that FDR went on television after the market crash in 1929 (by the way, Herbert Hoover was President, not FDR, and there were no televisions in those days).
It really is a wonder how McCain can be in striking distance with the media bias and their lack of reporting on the Obama side, and all of the negative reporting of McCain and Palin on non stories.
It's going to be a fun final week. Then we get to hear about all of the voter fraud on election day. These liberals still don't know how to count past twenty. If they have someone missing a toe or a finger, they may not even make it to twenty.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Campaign 2008 Issue No. 2. The Economy
The second priority this election season, and the most pressing, is the economy. We have two candidates that are diametrically opposed to one another.
Unfortunately, neither one of them can lay claim to being good at the economy. So our hope must be that they’ll choose some very good advisors in the matter of the economy.So far, both have made mistakes in dealing with the credit market breakdown.
McCain suspended his campaign for a couple of days and returned to Washington when this crisis erupted. It would have been much better if he had actually publicly accomplished something. If it was a grandstand political ploy, the Democrats political grandstand got the better of it because they came out en masse to berate him for coming back and saying that he’d only clog up the works. We didn’t find out until a couple of days later that he actually did help John Boehner and the House members with this problem.
However, he compounded his problem by voting for the final bailout package because it had so much pork in it. In fact, even if it only had one pork item in it, he’d not have been successful. The only thing that saved him is that Barack Hussein Obama also showed up in Washington and then started grandstanding at the White House meeting.
McCain should have voted against the bailout, then gone out and told the world that he voted against it because it had pork. A bonus would have been if he could have identified the ones that added the pork, but that seems to be a matter of national security to find out who added the pork.
Now the talk has turned to taxes to help the economy. We know the Democrats plan. Tax and spend our way out of the problem. It never works. Obama has a spending program for every item that is talked about. Yet he’s sticking to his claim that he’ll cut taxes for 95% of the people and only add taxes on those making over $250,000 per year. This is class warfare and if he’s elected, along with a Democrat House and Senate, he’ll get what he wants, although the 95% will not see a tax cut.
Obama will pull a Clinton. If you remember, Clinton ran on a middle class tax cut in 1992. One month after his election, he went on national television and told the world that he’d never worked so hard in his life, but he just couldn’t honor the middle class tax cut.
Our taxes are going to be increased when the Bush tax cuts expire. If Obama wins and the Democrats win Congress, they’ll likely end the Bush tax cuts quickly, raising our taxes sooner (and possibly even retroactively to January 1) and plunge us deeper into a recession. Raising taxes in a bad economy is never good. Raising taxes in a good economy slows the growth.
The Democrats claim to be the champions of the working man, yet when Obama was called on his tax plan as he walked from door to door in Ohio, he met Joe the Plumber. When answering Joe’s question about taxes, he said that he wanted to spread the wealth as Joe made more money. In other words, punish Joe’s hard work by taking some of his earnings and giving it to others that didn’t work as hard, if at all. Obama and Biden then set out to berate Joe the Plumber.
That news prompted McCain and Palin to call Obama out on his socialist views. Even after this, Obama has been trying to explain why McCain calls him a socialist and can’t get that correct.
In Michigan, we know first hand , and recently, that increasing taxes in a bad economy does not work. We have been in a one state recession here for five years. After taxes were increased unemployment jumped from 7.5% to 8.9%.McCain has the right idea. Lower taxes, cut spending. At the very least, leave the taxes where they are and cut spending. But lower taxes would help even more. It would cut the deficit, raise revenue and put the economy back into the growth mode again.McCain has the right idea. Obama will only prolong the pain.
I welcome your comments.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
2008 Presidential Campaign Issue Number One: National Security
Yes, I know. CNN claims that issue number one is the economy. What can I say? They are wrong. The top issue is ALWAYS national security. If we’re attacked over and over again, what difference does the economy make? However, with our safety intact, we can then go to the next issue, which right now is the economy.
So what’s the difference between Barack Hussein Obama and John Sydney McCain on National Security? Well, we already know that Obama will be happy to sit down with our enemies without pre-conditions. What will he say? Will he beg Iran to not take over Iraq when he pulls our troops out? If they go along with him and say they won’t, what happens when Obama pulls them out and Iran does move in? Will he admit that he should not have gotten an agreement from Iran? Will he then move troops back into Iraq to free them from Iran? Or will he again sit down with the Iranian leadership and try to negotiate?
We know what McCain will do. He won’t leave Iraq until we’ve won and the Iraqi’s are able to protect themselves. He will not sit down with Iran until they come to us and ask to speak to us and even then, he won’t talk with them until Iran has made the rounds through the lower levels and already agreed to end their nuclear ambitions, and demonstrate it openly.
What about Hugo Chavez? Obama has said he’d speak to him as well. Can we trust his experience as a community organizer to solve the problems with Venezuela? What about when Chavez wants to move into Cuba. Will Obama chase him out or will he try to negotiate?
We know what McCain would do. He doesn’t even have to say it. He’d keep Chavez out of Cuba.
How do we know this? Obama has said he’d talk to our enemies withour pre-conditions. We saw and heard his wishy washy response during the Georgian crisis. We’ve also heard from Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrat Party, Joe Biden. He had “guaranteed” that if Obama is elected that Obama will be tested. Russia or the middle east, Al Queda (now in charge in the hills between Pakistan and Afghanistan according to Biden) will test Obama. The problem here is that if someone does test Obama, they are killing American citizens to give that test to Obama.
What it boils down to is that Biden is guaranteeing another attack in the United States within six months of Obama becoming President. Which group of us is Obama willing to sacrifice for that test? Another attack on New York? Maybe one in California. Is he really willing to allow a nuclear bomb or some other attack in Los Angeles, Houston, New York, Miami? Does he really consider that some Americans are worthy of sacrificing to prove he can lead?
I’m also curious why they would think we would be attacked. They’ve been saying for a year now that an Obama Presidency would bring the world back to respecting us. Why do they guarantee that we’ll be attacked if Obama will bring respect back to the US around the world?
We’ve been tested. During the 90’s we were attacked at least 8 times beginning with the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and ending with the USS Cole in 2000. Bill Clinton failed with each test. How do you know he failed? Because were attacked again and again.
We were also tested on September 11, 2001. President George Bush passed that test. Remember, he’d only been in office for less than 8 months. Yet, once we were attacked, it took him less than 30 days to respond. On October 7, 2001 he started bombing in Afghanistan. More importantly, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED SINCE. That is the best form of respect that we’re getting from around the world. They haven’t attacked us since. They’ve tried, but they’ve failed each time.
To change to Obama and the Democrats, with them guaranteeing that we’ll face a crisis seems silly to me. Which one of your children are you willing to sacrifice to a dirty bomb? Which one of your family members are you willing to watch die while Obama tries to figure out which country he should enter into discussions with? Which one of your friends are you willing to not have around any longer?
We don’t have that worry with McCain. The military understands this. In the Military Times Poll, they have published that the military is voting for McCain by 68% to 23%. If those that are in the know, that are on the front lines to protect this country aren’t willing to take a chance on Obama, then why should we?
Joe Biden put foreign policy back on top in this campaign. That is John McCain’s milieu. He did this by making stupid remarks to a group of supporters at a fund raiser.
McCain is the answer when it comes to protecting the country. If you want National Security, which is always issue number one, there is no choice. McCain must become President.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
So what’s the difference between Barack Hussein Obama and John Sydney McCain on National Security? Well, we already know that Obama will be happy to sit down with our enemies without pre-conditions. What will he say? Will he beg Iran to not take over Iraq when he pulls our troops out? If they go along with him and say they won’t, what happens when Obama pulls them out and Iran does move in? Will he admit that he should not have gotten an agreement from Iran? Will he then move troops back into Iraq to free them from Iran? Or will he again sit down with the Iranian leadership and try to negotiate?
We know what McCain will do. He won’t leave Iraq until we’ve won and the Iraqi’s are able to protect themselves. He will not sit down with Iran until they come to us and ask to speak to us and even then, he won’t talk with them until Iran has made the rounds through the lower levels and already agreed to end their nuclear ambitions, and demonstrate it openly.
What about Hugo Chavez? Obama has said he’d speak to him as well. Can we trust his experience as a community organizer to solve the problems with Venezuela? What about when Chavez wants to move into Cuba. Will Obama chase him out or will he try to negotiate?
We know what McCain would do. He doesn’t even have to say it. He’d keep Chavez out of Cuba.
How do we know this? Obama has said he’d talk to our enemies withour pre-conditions. We saw and heard his wishy washy response during the Georgian crisis. We’ve also heard from Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrat Party, Joe Biden. He had “guaranteed” that if Obama is elected that Obama will be tested. Russia or the middle east, Al Queda (now in charge in the hills between Pakistan and Afghanistan according to Biden) will test Obama. The problem here is that if someone does test Obama, they are killing American citizens to give that test to Obama.
What it boils down to is that Biden is guaranteeing another attack in the United States within six months of Obama becoming President. Which group of us is Obama willing to sacrifice for that test? Another attack on New York? Maybe one in California. Is he really willing to allow a nuclear bomb or some other attack in Los Angeles, Houston, New York, Miami? Does he really consider that some Americans are worthy of sacrificing to prove he can lead?
I’m also curious why they would think we would be attacked. They’ve been saying for a year now that an Obama Presidency would bring the world back to respecting us. Why do they guarantee that we’ll be attacked if Obama will bring respect back to the US around the world?
We’ve been tested. During the 90’s we were attacked at least 8 times beginning with the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and ending with the USS Cole in 2000. Bill Clinton failed with each test. How do you know he failed? Because were attacked again and again.
We were also tested on September 11, 2001. President George Bush passed that test. Remember, he’d only been in office for less than 8 months. Yet, once we were attacked, it took him less than 30 days to respond. On October 7, 2001 he started bombing in Afghanistan. More importantly, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED SINCE. That is the best form of respect that we’re getting from around the world. They haven’t attacked us since. They’ve tried, but they’ve failed each time.
To change to Obama and the Democrats, with them guaranteeing that we’ll face a crisis seems silly to me. Which one of your children are you willing to sacrifice to a dirty bomb? Which one of your family members are you willing to watch die while Obama tries to figure out which country he should enter into discussions with? Which one of your friends are you willing to not have around any longer?
We don’t have that worry with McCain. The military understands this. In the Military Times Poll, they have published that the military is voting for McCain by 68% to 23%. If those that are in the know, that are on the front lines to protect this country aren’t willing to take a chance on Obama, then why should we?
Joe Biden put foreign policy back on top in this campaign. That is John McCain’s milieu. He did this by making stupid remarks to a group of supporters at a fund raiser.
McCain is the answer when it comes to protecting the country. If you want National Security, which is always issue number one, there is no choice. McCain must become President.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Monday, October 20, 2008
Walberg asks Paulson, Bernanki to Examine recent AIG spending sprees
WASHINGTON D.C. — Recent news reports have surfaced that executives from AIG recklessly spent money shortly after the federal government bailed the giant insurance company out, including “a $400,000 retreat at a posh California resort.”Congressman Tim Walberg, who opposed taxpayer bailouts of the financial sector, joined a delegation of members concerned about AIG’s reckless spending and sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asking the two leaders to ensure taxpayer dollars were not used by AIG on these spending sprees. Full text of the letter is below:Dear Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke:We write to express strong concerns about AIG’s possible misuse of federal taxpayer funds.It has come to our attention that, after the Federal Government provided a loan of $85 billion to AIG, the AIG executives hosted a lavish $440,000 retreat at the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California. Even more troubling, the day after this was revealed to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the New York branch of the Federal Reserve announced it will borrow $37.8 billion in investment-grade securities from AIG in exchange for cash.At a time when many of our constituents have serious concerns about their own financial security, we demand that you ensure that no taxpayer funds were used by AIG to host this retreat. If taxpayer funds were used, we demand that AIG repay the American people in full. It is crucial that the American people be able to trust the actions of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury.
Biden Admits Defeat and Predicts Major Crisis within Six Months of Election
Democrat Vice Presidential Candidate predicted in Seattle that there would be a major crisis with World Wide implications within six months of the election if Barack Hussein Obama is elected.
While he was being vague in his predictions, he did say that it could come from the middle east or Russia. He also mentioned that Al Queda was very powerful in the Pakistan Afghanistan hills area and that we can't defeat them claiming that our "kids" (meaning our military) cannot compete with them and talking about nuclear weapons. Isn't this exactly what President Bush warned us about?
Biden implied that the polls would drop very low and was asking his followers to trust them and stand behind them. He also said that he'd forgotten most about foreign policy than his colleagues knew now.
There is an answer. Rather than elect the defeatist attitude of Obama/Biden, vote instead for known military man, John McCain.
It is unbelievable to me that a candidate for VP of the US would even entertain the thought that we'd lose before the fight has even started.
I do agree with Biden on one count. I believe that if Obama is elected the terrorists will test him and us, quickly. We know that if an attack came with McCain as President, that he'd go after them immediately. I suspect that Obama will send us all to conflict resolution therapy if we're attacked.
I don't like much about McCain, but of the two, I can't vote for anyone else. Biden makes that even easier with his comments.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
While he was being vague in his predictions, he did say that it could come from the middle east or Russia. He also mentioned that Al Queda was very powerful in the Pakistan Afghanistan hills area and that we can't defeat them claiming that our "kids" (meaning our military) cannot compete with them and talking about nuclear weapons. Isn't this exactly what President Bush warned us about?
Biden implied that the polls would drop very low and was asking his followers to trust them and stand behind them. He also said that he'd forgotten most about foreign policy than his colleagues knew now.
There is an answer. Rather than elect the defeatist attitude of Obama/Biden, vote instead for known military man, John McCain.
It is unbelievable to me that a candidate for VP of the US would even entertain the thought that we'd lose before the fight has even started.
I do agree with Biden on one count. I believe that if Obama is elected the terrorists will test him and us, quickly. We know that if an attack came with McCain as President, that he'd go after them immediately. I suspect that Obama will send us all to conflict resolution therapy if we're attacked.
I don't like much about McCain, but of the two, I can't vote for anyone else. Biden makes that even easier with his comments.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Where's the media?
Joe Biden said the other day that this election is about a three letter word: JOBS. I'm abit confused about this new math. Four letters equals a three letter word?
20 years ago, Vice President, Dan Quayle was in a classroom monitoring spelling. A child spelled potato correctly, and Quayle asked if there wasn't supposed to be an "E" on the end. The media made him look even more like a fool than his comment made him out to be. Yet, the media hasn't touched Biden's three letter word: JOBS.
I guess the media is too fixated on giving the anal exam to Joe the Plumber.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
20 years ago, Vice President, Dan Quayle was in a classroom monitoring spelling. A child spelled potato correctly, and Quayle asked if there wasn't supposed to be an "E" on the end. The media made him look even more like a fool than his comment made him out to be. Yet, the media hasn't touched Biden's three letter word: JOBS.
I guess the media is too fixated on giving the anal exam to Joe the Plumber.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Joe the Plumber Takes Obama Down
Barack Hussein Obama has claimed that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut if he becomes President. Can we trust him? I don’t think so.
First, he went to Joe the Plumber the other day and was told by Joe that he hopes to buy his bosses business. Obama said that he’d only be taxed if his business produced an income of $250,000 year. At some point, Obama then said that he’d like to spread the wealth.
Obama wants to tax the profits and give that money to people that haven’t earned it. This is socialism. This opened the door for McCain to tell Joe the Plumber that he wouldn’t get a tax increase if McCain became President. He repeated this at the debate.
That set the news media off. They immediately went after Joe the Plumber. He’s not licensed. He’s behind in his taxes. Never mind that he’s not required to be licensed where he lives. Naturally, he’s concerned about taxes if he can’t keep up with the tax burden he already has. The media was camped out in front of Joe the Plumbers house with their satellites and reporters. Joe obliged by granting interviews. David Gergen said on CNN that McCain made a mistake and should have vetted Joe the Plumber.
Later, on the campaign trail, Obama and Biden tried to belittle Joe the Plumber. Biden said that he didn’t know of any plumbers in his neighborhood that made $250,000 per year. Obama went a step further and said “this is who McCain is targeting for his votes? How many plumbers do you know that make a quarter of a million dollars a year?”
The second point regarding Obama promising a tax cut to the middle class. We were told this before. In 1992, Bill Clinton was running for President. He too promised a middle class tax cut. But then, less than a month after his inauguration, he appeared on national television and said that he’d never worked harder in his life, but he just couldn’t find a way to provide that middle class tax cut he’d promised.
Naturally, he claimed it was Bush’s (President George H.W. Bush) that he couldn’t give the tax cut. Does this sound familiar? In Michigan, President Bush (the present President) has been blamed for the one state recession by Governor Granholm who has presided over this one state recession for six years.
In the meantime, at the Alfred Smith Charity dinner, Michelle Obama ordered Lobster and caviar from room service showing that they are the Washington elite as has been stated over and over by Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin.
Obama won’t be giving a tax cut to anyone. He’s only using the Democrat Party playbook by playing the class warfare card. This is standard procedure for Democrats. Now he’s claiming that McCain will take away social security, and cut medicare and Medicaid. None of which is true if you read McCain’s website.
There are certain things we can count on from Democrats. They will always shoot themselves in the foot before the election when their true beliefs are shown. Obama has joined that crowd by showing his desire for socialism.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
First, he went to Joe the Plumber the other day and was told by Joe that he hopes to buy his bosses business. Obama said that he’d only be taxed if his business produced an income of $250,000 year. At some point, Obama then said that he’d like to spread the wealth.
Obama wants to tax the profits and give that money to people that haven’t earned it. This is socialism. This opened the door for McCain to tell Joe the Plumber that he wouldn’t get a tax increase if McCain became President. He repeated this at the debate.
That set the news media off. They immediately went after Joe the Plumber. He’s not licensed. He’s behind in his taxes. Never mind that he’s not required to be licensed where he lives. Naturally, he’s concerned about taxes if he can’t keep up with the tax burden he already has. The media was camped out in front of Joe the Plumbers house with their satellites and reporters. Joe obliged by granting interviews. David Gergen said on CNN that McCain made a mistake and should have vetted Joe the Plumber.
Later, on the campaign trail, Obama and Biden tried to belittle Joe the Plumber. Biden said that he didn’t know of any plumbers in his neighborhood that made $250,000 per year. Obama went a step further and said “this is who McCain is targeting for his votes? How many plumbers do you know that make a quarter of a million dollars a year?”
The second point regarding Obama promising a tax cut to the middle class. We were told this before. In 1992, Bill Clinton was running for President. He too promised a middle class tax cut. But then, less than a month after his inauguration, he appeared on national television and said that he’d never worked harder in his life, but he just couldn’t find a way to provide that middle class tax cut he’d promised.
Naturally, he claimed it was Bush’s (President George H.W. Bush) that he couldn’t give the tax cut. Does this sound familiar? In Michigan, President Bush (the present President) has been blamed for the one state recession by Governor Granholm who has presided over this one state recession for six years.
In the meantime, at the Alfred Smith Charity dinner, Michelle Obama ordered Lobster and caviar from room service showing that they are the Washington elite as has been stated over and over by Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin.
Obama won’t be giving a tax cut to anyone. He’s only using the Democrat Party playbook by playing the class warfare card. This is standard procedure for Democrats. Now he’s claiming that McCain will take away social security, and cut medicare and Medicaid. None of which is true if you read McCain’s website.
There are certain things we can count on from Democrats. They will always shoot themselves in the foot before the election when their true beliefs are shown. Obama has joined that crowd by showing his desire for socialism.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The Precious Right To Vote
In Ohio, a 19 year old was paid with cash and cigarettes to register more than 70 times to vote. In Nevada, the Dallas Cowboys, an NFL football team in Texas, have been registered to vote.
This discovered fraud has been expanded to more than 15 states with the biggest culprit seeming to be a community organization called A.C.O.R.N. Their offices have been raided in various parts of the country. People are coming out saying they’ve been paid to register.
Over 4,000 dead people have been discovered to be registered voters in Houston, Texas. Now, again in Ohio, it’s been discovered that the secretary of state has been holding over 200,000 registration cards that are questionable.
Also in Ohio, they decided that people could register to vote and turn around and vote on the same day. This is being challenged in the courts and seems to be going down.
There are laws against this. One is Voter Registration Fraud. If you’ve registered illegally to vote, you’re guilty of Voter Registration Fraud. If you vote with that fraudulent registration, you’re then guilty of Voter Fraud, which is a felony, as I understand it.
The election of 2000 was a small contributor to this, in my opinion. The big problem as I see it, is allowing anyone to sign up others to vote. Specifically, community organizers.
There are solutions. First, voting is not a requirement. It’s your choice. If you want to vote, you should have to register in one of several places. Your county offices, the secretary of state or DMV.
Second, you should have to do this no later than 30 days prior to any election. If you haven’t, you may still register, but you may not participate until you’ve been on the voter rolls for 30 days. When you do register, it must be in person and with a valid photo ID from either a passport or a drivers license. If you can’t prove that you’re a citizen and that you are who you say you are, you should not be allowed to register.
When you arrive to cast your vote, you should be required to produce a photo id of yourself. You must be 18 years of age or older on the day of the election to vote.
If you are not a citizen of this country, you should not be permitted to vote. If you’re not and you want to participate in electing representatives in this country, become a citizen.
Counting the ballots. There seems to be all sorts of people that are complaining that their votes aren’t being counted, or that machines aren’t working, or that the machines are tearing up cards, or chads are hanging or pregnant or dimpled. It is obvious that we cannot trust the machines, nor can we trust the elected officials reviewing the ballots when there is a question.
So here is a very simple solution to that problem. Each county should have ballots printed up. The ballots should be 8x10 sheets of paper, and be numbered.
A black ink pen will be provided to each voter. Each person, and proposal on the ballot will have a square in it. The voter will come in, step into one of those plastic booths on legs with three walls surrounding it and a little table in front of it. That voter, after proving he/she is who he/she says she is, will then put a check mark next to the candidate of their choice.
They will then step up to the copy machine. Run a copy of their ballot. Deposit the original in a locked container and take their copy as their receipt. Any ballots with incorrect check marks makes the entire ballot void.
When the polls close that night, the election workers will then open the boxes. There will be two people counting each ballot. One person from one party, one from the other. Any worker that gets stumped when they run out of fingers and toes to count on, should be fired immediately.
Once they are tallied up, that count is then recorded and the ballots placed in another sealed container where they will be saved for a period of six years.
It’s a simple process. Prove who you are so you can vote. Get a receipt for your vote. Count the votes one at a time and stop trusting the machines that everyone complains about and declare a winner within 48 hours following the election.
Oh yeah, and arrest, convict and incarcerate those that perpetrate voter fraud and remove their right to vote from them for the rest of their lives.
One of our most precious rights is now protected, provable in case of a contest of the vote and no voter can say that he/she didn’t get to vote because they have their receipt. Most importantly, we only have to make sure that our election officers have a third grade education where they have learned to count by ones properly. This ought to shut the liberals up and stop them from registering Mickey Mouse to vote.
I see just one problem with this plan. Finding a politician that has enough common sense to do what's right for the people and actually simplify the rules for registering to vote and putting it to paper. If we did actually have a politician that is capable of this, then the problem is getting 534 other politicians to understand it, sign on to it and avoid the urge to add billions of dollars of pork to it.
I'm going to add one more thing. People should show up to vote wearing blue windbreakers with gold lettering on the back of those jackets that says INS. That should solve the problem of illegal aliens even coming outside on election day, let alone going to the polls.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
This discovered fraud has been expanded to more than 15 states with the biggest culprit seeming to be a community organization called A.C.O.R.N. Their offices have been raided in various parts of the country. People are coming out saying they’ve been paid to register.
Over 4,000 dead people have been discovered to be registered voters in Houston, Texas. Now, again in Ohio, it’s been discovered that the secretary of state has been holding over 200,000 registration cards that are questionable.
Also in Ohio, they decided that people could register to vote and turn around and vote on the same day. This is being challenged in the courts and seems to be going down.
There are laws against this. One is Voter Registration Fraud. If you’ve registered illegally to vote, you’re guilty of Voter Registration Fraud. If you vote with that fraudulent registration, you’re then guilty of Voter Fraud, which is a felony, as I understand it.
The election of 2000 was a small contributor to this, in my opinion. The big problem as I see it, is allowing anyone to sign up others to vote. Specifically, community organizers.
There are solutions. First, voting is not a requirement. It’s your choice. If you want to vote, you should have to register in one of several places. Your county offices, the secretary of state or DMV.
Second, you should have to do this no later than 30 days prior to any election. If you haven’t, you may still register, but you may not participate until you’ve been on the voter rolls for 30 days. When you do register, it must be in person and with a valid photo ID from either a passport or a drivers license. If you can’t prove that you’re a citizen and that you are who you say you are, you should not be allowed to register.
When you arrive to cast your vote, you should be required to produce a photo id of yourself. You must be 18 years of age or older on the day of the election to vote.
If you are not a citizen of this country, you should not be permitted to vote. If you’re not and you want to participate in electing representatives in this country, become a citizen.
Counting the ballots. There seems to be all sorts of people that are complaining that their votes aren’t being counted, or that machines aren’t working, or that the machines are tearing up cards, or chads are hanging or pregnant or dimpled. It is obvious that we cannot trust the machines, nor can we trust the elected officials reviewing the ballots when there is a question.
So here is a very simple solution to that problem. Each county should have ballots printed up. The ballots should be 8x10 sheets of paper, and be numbered.
A black ink pen will be provided to each voter. Each person, and proposal on the ballot will have a square in it. The voter will come in, step into one of those plastic booths on legs with three walls surrounding it and a little table in front of it. That voter, after proving he/she is who he/she says she is, will then put a check mark next to the candidate of their choice.
They will then step up to the copy machine. Run a copy of their ballot. Deposit the original in a locked container and take their copy as their receipt. Any ballots with incorrect check marks makes the entire ballot void.
When the polls close that night, the election workers will then open the boxes. There will be two people counting each ballot. One person from one party, one from the other. Any worker that gets stumped when they run out of fingers and toes to count on, should be fired immediately.
Once they are tallied up, that count is then recorded and the ballots placed in another sealed container where they will be saved for a period of six years.
It’s a simple process. Prove who you are so you can vote. Get a receipt for your vote. Count the votes one at a time and stop trusting the machines that everyone complains about and declare a winner within 48 hours following the election.
Oh yeah, and arrest, convict and incarcerate those that perpetrate voter fraud and remove their right to vote from them for the rest of their lives.
One of our most precious rights is now protected, provable in case of a contest of the vote and no voter can say that he/she didn’t get to vote because they have their receipt. Most importantly, we only have to make sure that our election officers have a third grade education where they have learned to count by ones properly. This ought to shut the liberals up and stop them from registering Mickey Mouse to vote.
I see just one problem with this plan. Finding a politician that has enough common sense to do what's right for the people and actually simplify the rules for registering to vote and putting it to paper. If we did actually have a politician that is capable of this, then the problem is getting 534 other politicians to understand it, sign on to it and avoid the urge to add billions of dollars of pork to it.
I'm going to add one more thing. People should show up to vote wearing blue windbreakers with gold lettering on the back of those jackets that says INS. That should solve the problem of illegal aliens even coming outside on election day, let alone going to the polls.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Another Freedom Lost
Tonight, the first step in the nationalization of the American Financial System has taken place. This has happened despite the will of the people. The House and the Senate has been inundated with phone calls from Americans telling them not to pass this bailout. The Senate has now thumbed their noses at the American people.
There are no repercussions included in the bill passed by the Senate for those that helped cause this problem on Wall St. Barney Frank will still be in the House and Christopher Dodd will still be in the Senate.
There is still hope. The House Republicans did not go along with this on Monday when they voted on it. 95 Democrats also voted against it. This made House Speaker Nancy Pelosi look like a fool. But then there have been enough fools running around this debate for two weeks now that you’d need a roll of paper to list them all.
Congress has the lowest approval ratings in history. People don’t trust them. I’m hoping for the people to stand up on election day and eliminate anyone that voted for this bailout.
The markets work, but those in government don’t have what it takes to let the market work. This isn’t a solution to the problem. This is a new problem to be added to the existing problem. Among those problems are corrupt politicians, over regulations in some areas, under regulation in other areas. Loans to people that wouldn’t otherwise qualify for loans if the lending institutions weren’t forced by Congress to give those loans.
Investors wouldn’t buy a bad investment, so Congress stepped up and took our tax money and bought the bad investment for us. They aren’t at risk. OUR money is now at risk. Today we lost a freedom. The freedom for us to decide what is done with our money.
Now, the only thing that I can hope for is that I’m wrong and the idiots that nobody likes in Washington were right. I keep remembering the old line that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Hopefully, this sad excuse for a Congress doesn’t make it worse when this doesn’t work.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
There are no repercussions included in the bill passed by the Senate for those that helped cause this problem on Wall St. Barney Frank will still be in the House and Christopher Dodd will still be in the Senate.
There is still hope. The House Republicans did not go along with this on Monday when they voted on it. 95 Democrats also voted against it. This made House Speaker Nancy Pelosi look like a fool. But then there have been enough fools running around this debate for two weeks now that you’d need a roll of paper to list them all.
Congress has the lowest approval ratings in history. People don’t trust them. I’m hoping for the people to stand up on election day and eliminate anyone that voted for this bailout.
The markets work, but those in government don’t have what it takes to let the market work. This isn’t a solution to the problem. This is a new problem to be added to the existing problem. Among those problems are corrupt politicians, over regulations in some areas, under regulation in other areas. Loans to people that wouldn’t otherwise qualify for loans if the lending institutions weren’t forced by Congress to give those loans.
Investors wouldn’t buy a bad investment, so Congress stepped up and took our tax money and bought the bad investment for us. They aren’t at risk. OUR money is now at risk. Today we lost a freedom. The freedom for us to decide what is done with our money.
Now, the only thing that I can hope for is that I’m wrong and the idiots that nobody likes in Washington were right. I keep remembering the old line that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Hopefully, this sad excuse for a Congress doesn’t make it worse when this doesn’t work.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Life After Fannie and Freddie
Be sure to read the "where they are now" at the end !!
Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pres sure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsou nd manner." These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
Net windfall . . . $190 million!
Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"
On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.
Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee
IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street ?
Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pres sure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsou nd manner." These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
Net windfall . . . $190 million!
Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"
On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.
Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee
IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street ?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Mr. Smith (McCain) Goes to Washington
Senator John McCain on Wednesday, suspended his campaign as of Thursday morning so that he could return to Washington to do his job as Senator and try to help the Congress reach an agreement to save the country’s economy.
Naturally, the liberal media is portraying this as a political stunt to try to save a free-falling campaign. There is no thought that McCain considers this crisis to be real and that he’s one of 100 people that are supposed to deal with this crisis. This is understandable, since the press is in the pockets of Senator Barack Hussein Obama and he’s not going to follow suit and return to do his job.
I have one disagreement with McCain’s decision. I don’t think he should have suspended his campaign. I do agree with his decision to return to Washington, but I think he missed an opportunity here.
He could have said he’s returning to Washington to help with the “rescue package” but said that due to his having to honor his duties first, he is instead sending his VP choice (Sarah Palin) to the debates to stand in his place against Senator Obama. This would have shown a couple of things. 1. It would show that he takes the crisis seriously. 2. It would be a presidential move by sending his VP to fill in for him. When the President can’t fulfill his duties, the VP steps in. This would have been a very real example of how he would lead.
Had he done that, Obama would have had several decisions to make. As it is, he’s chosen to continue his campaign and claim that Presidents need to handle more than one thing at a time. Had he stuck by that decision even if Palin was sent to debate him, he’d have had to make another decision. Does he debate McCain’s stand in or does he then agree to postpone it? If he postpones it, he’d have looked like he was afraid of Palin. Had he agreed to show up for the debate, he’d have appeared weak because he was debating the second slot on his opponents ticket against someone that he claims has no experience but who in fact has more experience than Obama does.
If nothing else, this would have been fun to watch. The events that happen, or the debate if it was to take place. It would have been fun to watch the maneuvering.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Naturally, the liberal media is portraying this as a political stunt to try to save a free-falling campaign. There is no thought that McCain considers this crisis to be real and that he’s one of 100 people that are supposed to deal with this crisis. This is understandable, since the press is in the pockets of Senator Barack Hussein Obama and he’s not going to follow suit and return to do his job.
I have one disagreement with McCain’s decision. I don’t think he should have suspended his campaign. I do agree with his decision to return to Washington, but I think he missed an opportunity here.
He could have said he’s returning to Washington to help with the “rescue package” but said that due to his having to honor his duties first, he is instead sending his VP choice (Sarah Palin) to the debates to stand in his place against Senator Obama. This would have shown a couple of things. 1. It would show that he takes the crisis seriously. 2. It would be a presidential move by sending his VP to fill in for him. When the President can’t fulfill his duties, the VP steps in. This would have been a very real example of how he would lead.
Had he done that, Obama would have had several decisions to make. As it is, he’s chosen to continue his campaign and claim that Presidents need to handle more than one thing at a time. Had he stuck by that decision even if Palin was sent to debate him, he’d have had to make another decision. Does he debate McCain’s stand in or does he then agree to postpone it? If he postpones it, he’d have looked like he was afraid of Palin. Had he agreed to show up for the debate, he’d have appeared weak because he was debating the second slot on his opponents ticket against someone that he claims has no experience but who in fact has more experience than Obama does.
If nothing else, this would have been fun to watch. The events that happen, or the debate if it was to take place. It would have been fun to watch the maneuvering.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Monday, September 22, 2008
President Bush: Right Man at the Right Place at the Right Time
We very nearly suffered through a meltdown that could have made the Depression look like prosperous times. Through a week of bailouts, high CEO payout stories and the dire prediction of the meltdown, something needed to be done. President Bush stepped up.
On Thursday, President Bush called a meeting with SEC Chair Christopher Cox, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke. They came up with a plan to attempt to stop this country from falling into a precarious financial situation. They developed a plan to stop that in its’ tracks.
While the two Presidential candidates jockeyed for position that would make them look better to voters, the President stood up and grabbed the bull by the horns. If it succeeds, he will be a hero. If it fails, he will be a goat. The success or failure of his efforts now lay in the hands of Congress.
Congress has failed for years. This trouble goes all the way back to the Jimmy Carter Presidency. They’ve put in laws that forced lending institutions to loan money to those that would not otherwise be eligible for loans. They’ve not done the proper oversight as is their charge.
In 2003 President Bush tried to end some of these tactics and laws that would bring about the very situation that we just ran into last week. Congress wouldn’t act. Last Thursday, President Bush had a choice. Call in his people to try to solve the problem or let the problem work itself out.
The President has just four months left in office. He could have put it off to the next President. If you watch the news, he’s already considered a failed administration by the liberal media. He could have done nothing and let it play out. It may have played out and worked itself out. Instead, President Bush didn’t take the chance of the country going down the economic drain. He put the country first and acted. I don't know that the solution is the correct one. I tend to think that it's not. Nationalizing the markets doesn't seem to be a correct answer. That's not the point of this however. The point is that the situation called for someone to stand up and present a plan and President Bush did so.
Now our fate is in the hands of Congress. Congress, who always adds their pet projects to bills that have nothing to do with the bill, are now being asked to deal with this situation and not politicize it with those pet projects. Already it’s begun. Congressman Barney Frank has called for a surtax on the rich blaming them for the situation we’re in.
President Bush had a moment that is similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were on the brink of a disaster and he stepped up to the plate and got the job done. Now it’s in the hands of Congress. Congress holds the purse strings. Not the President. Yet, President Bush stepped up and did Congress’ job which they’ve neglected for years, and now we’re back to hoping that Congress can step up and do as the President has done.
Can they do it? With the likes of Christopher Dodd, Kent Conrad, and Barney Frank who have received deals on their mortgages and are directly and indirectly responsible for this situation, it’s a scary thought. Congressman Rangel, who writes tax law, but didn’t realize he owed taxes on property. Again I ask. Can they do it?
Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the Senate who said that they didn’t know what to do so they left on Friday. It doesn’t look promising.
I hope that the people of each district take a very close look at their Representatives and Senators and ask themselves if they really trust the person in office and vote for the proper the person, not based on party, but based on whether they have the wherewithal to do what’s necessary when called upon.
I suspect that this will get taken care of, but then we’ll be subjected to the return to the blame game. The blame lies with Congress. Democrats and Republicans. Some are no longer in Congress. Some have been entrenched there for 20 years or longer. What is needed is a plan to get this money back to the people of this country that are bailing out this problem. The real problem with Congress will be their propensity to create new laws that will make things worse once they have this problem resolved. Assuming that they can put aside their hatred for each other and get this legislation done cleanly.
President Bush stepped up when needed as needed. Now we have to hope that Congress, contrary to their history, can do the same thing.
President Bush was the right man, at the right place as he was on September 11, 2001. Imagine if we had Al Gore as President on September 11, 2001. Now imagine if Barack Hussein Obama was President last Thursday. President Bush was the man to have there in both instances.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
On Thursday, President Bush called a meeting with SEC Chair Christopher Cox, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke. They came up with a plan to attempt to stop this country from falling into a precarious financial situation. They developed a plan to stop that in its’ tracks.
While the two Presidential candidates jockeyed for position that would make them look better to voters, the President stood up and grabbed the bull by the horns. If it succeeds, he will be a hero. If it fails, he will be a goat. The success or failure of his efforts now lay in the hands of Congress.
Congress has failed for years. This trouble goes all the way back to the Jimmy Carter Presidency. They’ve put in laws that forced lending institutions to loan money to those that would not otherwise be eligible for loans. They’ve not done the proper oversight as is their charge.
In 2003 President Bush tried to end some of these tactics and laws that would bring about the very situation that we just ran into last week. Congress wouldn’t act. Last Thursday, President Bush had a choice. Call in his people to try to solve the problem or let the problem work itself out.
The President has just four months left in office. He could have put it off to the next President. If you watch the news, he’s already considered a failed administration by the liberal media. He could have done nothing and let it play out. It may have played out and worked itself out. Instead, President Bush didn’t take the chance of the country going down the economic drain. He put the country first and acted. I don't know that the solution is the correct one. I tend to think that it's not. Nationalizing the markets doesn't seem to be a correct answer. That's not the point of this however. The point is that the situation called for someone to stand up and present a plan and President Bush did so.
Now our fate is in the hands of Congress. Congress, who always adds their pet projects to bills that have nothing to do with the bill, are now being asked to deal with this situation and not politicize it with those pet projects. Already it’s begun. Congressman Barney Frank has called for a surtax on the rich blaming them for the situation we’re in.
President Bush had a moment that is similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were on the brink of a disaster and he stepped up to the plate and got the job done. Now it’s in the hands of Congress. Congress holds the purse strings. Not the President. Yet, President Bush stepped up and did Congress’ job which they’ve neglected for years, and now we’re back to hoping that Congress can step up and do as the President has done.
Can they do it? With the likes of Christopher Dodd, Kent Conrad, and Barney Frank who have received deals on their mortgages and are directly and indirectly responsible for this situation, it’s a scary thought. Congressman Rangel, who writes tax law, but didn’t realize he owed taxes on property. Again I ask. Can they do it?
Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the Senate who said that they didn’t know what to do so they left on Friday. It doesn’t look promising.
I hope that the people of each district take a very close look at their Representatives and Senators and ask themselves if they really trust the person in office and vote for the proper the person, not based on party, but based on whether they have the wherewithal to do what’s necessary when called upon.
I suspect that this will get taken care of, but then we’ll be subjected to the return to the blame game. The blame lies with Congress. Democrats and Republicans. Some are no longer in Congress. Some have been entrenched there for 20 years or longer. What is needed is a plan to get this money back to the people of this country that are bailing out this problem. The real problem with Congress will be their propensity to create new laws that will make things worse once they have this problem resolved. Assuming that they can put aside their hatred for each other and get this legislation done cleanly.
President Bush stepped up when needed as needed. Now we have to hope that Congress, contrary to their history, can do the same thing.
President Bush was the right man, at the right place as he was on September 11, 2001. Imagine if we had Al Gore as President on September 11, 2001. Now imagine if Barack Hussein Obama was President last Thursday. President Bush was the man to have there in both instances.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Monday, September 15, 2008
Obama Tried His Own October Surprise
Senator Barack Hussein Obama tried his own October surprise in this election asking Iraq not to enter into an agreement for troop withdrawal with the Bush administration but rather to wait until after the elections here in the United States. He then wanted the Iraqi's to negotiate the troop withdrawal with the new incoming administration. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama asked for this delay.
Why would Obama want to leave troops in a war zone where he says the war was illegal? This would delay the troop withdrawal if it were successful.
Once again, we see that Obama's concern is not about the war, the troops or even the success of the war, but his concern is about his potential election.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama asked for this delay.
Why would Obama want to leave troops in a war zone where he says the war was illegal? This would delay the troop withdrawal if it were successful.
Once again, we see that Obama's concern is not about the war, the troops or even the success of the war, but his concern is about his potential election.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Democrats Fading Fast, Republicans Rising
I have been very disappointed in the Republicans over the past months. They have not been actively seeking election nor re-election. It was as if they had decided there was no way they could win so why bother campaigning for a seat. Through no effort of their own, that seems to be changing. Recent polls indicate that not only are the Republicans now in a position of regaining control of Congress, but they are leading in that by 5 points.
The Democrats are running from Senator Barack Hussein Obama like rats leaving a sinking ship.
A local race to me was looking like it was going to be the most exciting race in the country this year after the Presidential race. Tim Walberg is being challenged by State Senator Mark Schauer a Democrat. With what the Democrats have done to the state of Michigan the past five years, and Schauers active participation in the states downfall, I’m surprised that any Democrat would even be considered competitive.
With the recent choice of Governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s running mate, it’s now looking like the man has coat tails where just a month ago people were wondering if he even had a jacket, let alone a coat.
The hope here is that the Republicans don’t start playing defense to protect their lead, but rather that they stay on offense and build on their lead. That means that the Republicans that have been dormant this election season, should star running with vigor in all of their races.
Once they are elected, they’d best remember why they were kicked out two years ago. They were booted because they spent money like Democrats. They now have a second chance at this. They need to jump in with both feet and run their offense.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
The Democrats are running from Senator Barack Hussein Obama like rats leaving a sinking ship.
A local race to me was looking like it was going to be the most exciting race in the country this year after the Presidential race. Tim Walberg is being challenged by State Senator Mark Schauer a Democrat. With what the Democrats have done to the state of Michigan the past five years, and Schauers active participation in the states downfall, I’m surprised that any Democrat would even be considered competitive.
With the recent choice of Governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s running mate, it’s now looking like the man has coat tails where just a month ago people were wondering if he even had a jacket, let alone a coat.
The hope here is that the Republicans don’t start playing defense to protect their lead, but rather that they stay on offense and build on their lead. That means that the Republicans that have been dormant this election season, should star running with vigor in all of their races.
Once they are elected, they’d best remember why they were kicked out two years ago. They were booted because they spent money like Democrats. They now have a second chance at this. They need to jump in with both feet and run their offense.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Experience and Change
Looking at a list of Presidents and Presidential candidates over the years, it really is no wonder about who is more experienced and who represents change from the Washington insiders.
In 2000 and 2004, we had George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Cheney had been a Congressman, but was really out of it when he was named as Bush’s running mate. His opponent in 2004 was John Kerry and John Edwards. John Kerry was definitely part of the Washington entrenchment. In 2000 it was Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has been a long time Senator, although not as liberal as the rest of the Democrats on some issues. Gore’s dad was a Washington politician and Gore himself had been in the Senate for years.
1996 was Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. Kemp had been away for a number of years. Dole had been there for years. He lost.
1992 was Clinton and Gore and President Bush and Dan Quayle. Bush had been part of Washington for years, and Quayle was fairly new to Washington, but Clinton wasn’t part of Washington, Gore was.
1988. President Bush and Quayle vs. Dukakis and his running mate (I don’t remember who it was. Bush was actually serving Reagan’s third term. Reagan had a successful two terms and Bush benefitted for one term.
1984. Ronald Reagan (governor, never part of Washington) and Bush. Mondale and Ferraro. Two entrenched Washington insiders.
So what do we look at this year. John McCain part of Washington for years, but known as a maverick. He may be part of Washington, but nobody knows on any given issue, which part of Washington. Palin is not part of Washington. Which his part of what the Obama camp is complaining about.
Then there is Obama/Biden. Obama has aimed at Washington and then he arrived he began planning to move his residence down the street to the White House. Biden came into the work force and after two years, joined Washington and stayed ever since.
For all of the Democrats entrenchment in Washington, they haven’t gained any experience to satisfy the people that they would be worthy of being in the White House. Their two forays into the White House in the past 39 years have been disasters. Jimmy Carter was a complete and utter failure and Bill Clinton was filled with 8 years of scandals to the point that he didn’t look at terrorism as anything more than a traffic violation.
Governor Palin makes the difference in this election. She is not an insider, yet she has proven her ability to not only work with both sides, but to hold the corrupt accountable.
The biggest problem for McCain/Palin is the results of the next four years. If they don’t actually follow through on their reforms, we could still end up with Hillary for President in 2012. The best thing they have going for them in this regard is that neither is actually a third term of Bush/Cheney. The last time there was a third time was Bush for Reagan. None of Bush’s team is part of the McCain/Palin team, which makes this the greatest possibility of success for a third term.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
In 2000 and 2004, we had George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Cheney had been a Congressman, but was really out of it when he was named as Bush’s running mate. His opponent in 2004 was John Kerry and John Edwards. John Kerry was definitely part of the Washington entrenchment. In 2000 it was Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has been a long time Senator, although not as liberal as the rest of the Democrats on some issues. Gore’s dad was a Washington politician and Gore himself had been in the Senate for years.
1996 was Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. Kemp had been away for a number of years. Dole had been there for years. He lost.
1992 was Clinton and Gore and President Bush and Dan Quayle. Bush had been part of Washington for years, and Quayle was fairly new to Washington, but Clinton wasn’t part of Washington, Gore was.
1988. President Bush and Quayle vs. Dukakis and his running mate (I don’t remember who it was. Bush was actually serving Reagan’s third term. Reagan had a successful two terms and Bush benefitted for one term.
1984. Ronald Reagan (governor, never part of Washington) and Bush. Mondale and Ferraro. Two entrenched Washington insiders.
So what do we look at this year. John McCain part of Washington for years, but known as a maverick. He may be part of Washington, but nobody knows on any given issue, which part of Washington. Palin is not part of Washington. Which his part of what the Obama camp is complaining about.
Then there is Obama/Biden. Obama has aimed at Washington and then he arrived he began planning to move his residence down the street to the White House. Biden came into the work force and after two years, joined Washington and stayed ever since.
For all of the Democrats entrenchment in Washington, they haven’t gained any experience to satisfy the people that they would be worthy of being in the White House. Their two forays into the White House in the past 39 years have been disasters. Jimmy Carter was a complete and utter failure and Bill Clinton was filled with 8 years of scandals to the point that he didn’t look at terrorism as anything more than a traffic violation.
Governor Palin makes the difference in this election. She is not an insider, yet she has proven her ability to not only work with both sides, but to hold the corrupt accountable.
The biggest problem for McCain/Palin is the results of the next four years. If they don’t actually follow through on their reforms, we could still end up with Hillary for President in 2012. The best thing they have going for them in this regard is that neither is actually a third term of Bush/Cheney. The last time there was a third time was Bush for Reagan. None of Bush’s team is part of the McCain/Palin team, which makes this the greatest possibility of success for a third term.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Friday, September 5, 2008
Oprah Afraid to Have Governor Palin on her Program
The staff of the Oprah show are divided regarding inviting Governor Sarah Palin on her television show, it’s now being reported.
I find this to be another double standard by the extreme liberals. The liberals want the fairness doctrine implemented to try to offset Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and others. This action/problem of Oprah’s shows the liberals have no soul. If they truly believed in the fairness doctrine, they would stand by their beliefs and enact their own form of the fairness doctrine on what they do control. Their own programs.
This puts on display that the fairness doctrine is their only way to shut up some of the conservative talk shows and not necessarily to get their positions out there. They have had liberals that have been out there on the radio to try to compete with Rush Limbaugh and they have failed. Remember Mario Cuomo? He didn’t last. After a few attempts at programs like Mario Cuomo’s that failed, they then decided to create their own network.
That network was Air America. Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and others. Let’s see, Al Franken is gone and now running for the Senate in Minnesota and is finding himself in more and more trouble over there. I’m not sure where Randi Rhodes is these days. Air America is gone.
People don’t want the liberal programs. They get it with the nightly news, CNN, MSNBC and others. They don’t want to listen to them on the radio too. How do I know? Because they keep failing!
Now it’s Oprah’s turn. She backed Obama, and still does, but refuses to ask Sarah Palin onto her program. It makes sense. In one week, Sarah Palin has soared to popularity that even Obama couldn’t do.
I suspect Oprah will give in. After all, it’s not about Oprah, it’s about what people want and ratings. She’ll eventually give in and have Governor Palin on, if the Governor wants to go on a daytime talk show. Personally, I think Palin would be much better off going where the voters are, not where egotists play.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
I find this to be another double standard by the extreme liberals. The liberals want the fairness doctrine implemented to try to offset Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and others. This action/problem of Oprah’s shows the liberals have no soul. If they truly believed in the fairness doctrine, they would stand by their beliefs and enact their own form of the fairness doctrine on what they do control. Their own programs.
This puts on display that the fairness doctrine is their only way to shut up some of the conservative talk shows and not necessarily to get their positions out there. They have had liberals that have been out there on the radio to try to compete with Rush Limbaugh and they have failed. Remember Mario Cuomo? He didn’t last. After a few attempts at programs like Mario Cuomo’s that failed, they then decided to create their own network.
That network was Air America. Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and others. Let’s see, Al Franken is gone and now running for the Senate in Minnesota and is finding himself in more and more trouble over there. I’m not sure where Randi Rhodes is these days. Air America is gone.
People don’t want the liberal programs. They get it with the nightly news, CNN, MSNBC and others. They don’t want to listen to them on the radio too. How do I know? Because they keep failing!
Now it’s Oprah’s turn. She backed Obama, and still does, but refuses to ask Sarah Palin onto her program. It makes sense. In one week, Sarah Palin has soared to popularity that even Obama couldn’t do.
I suspect Oprah will give in. After all, it’s not about Oprah, it’s about what people want and ratings. She’ll eventually give in and have Governor Palin on, if the Governor wants to go on a daytime talk show. Personally, I think Palin would be much better off going where the voters are, not where egotists play.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Governor Palin Didn't Say "Economy"
Governor Sarah Palin showed why she was selected to be John McCain’s Vice President last night. Barack Hussein Obama said he hit a home run with his choice of Joe Biden. If that was a home run, then John McCain hit a Grand Slam with his choice of Sarah Palin and Sarah Palin made it a second Grand Slam in the same inning with her speech last night.
Democrats complained following her speech about what she didn’t say. Donna Brazille, Carl Bernstein, David Gergen, Paul Begala, and the rest, including the group that was on Larry King later all said she didn’t mention the economy, didn’t mention health care, and so on.
Look at the speech. First, she talked about how she lowered taxes, lowered spending, balanced the budget and has a surplus in Alaska. Is that not economic speak? She talked about Obama’s plans. Increase income taxes. Increase capital gains taxes, increase death taxes, increase taxes on businesses, small and large.
Perhaps they didn’t notice that she spoke of her sister and sisters husband who have just built and opened a new business and asked about them paying higher taxes under an Obama tax plans.
Do they not recognize economic speak when they hear it? Or were they just fuming too much from when she said that she was only the mayor of a small town that had to balance a budget, cut spending and end corruption which Obama doesn’t seem to consider a community organizer.
Maybe they missed where the speakers last night said that the answer to health care does not lie with big government programs. Or maybe they didn’t understand what it means that when you have to give all to government, you beg for government to give back.
I do have to admit that my favorite part of the night was when Carl Bernstein said that we were suffering through skyrocketing unemployment. Unemployment has been below 5% for the better part of six years and in the past year it’s gone up to 5.5% and then, in July, the exact same time that the minimum wage increased, the unemployment rate increased to 5.7%.
Ok, so that wasn’t my favorite part. Sarah Palin was my favorite part. This woman is amazing. In the past six months, she’s dealt with a new baby that has Down Syndrome, a son that is about to be deployed to Iraq, a daughter that is about to get married and her pregnancy and being selected to become Vice President of the United States.
In the past week, she’s been subjected to liberal blogs accusing her of not having a baby, but that it was actually her grandchild, which we know is untrue. She’s been accused of being part of a party that wants to secede from the United States, also untrue. She’s now being accused of having had an affair. She’s been questioned in the press about whether or not she can be a mother and Vice President. They now are demanding a DNA test on her baby and after her speech last night Senator Harry Reid called her “shrill”. The press is also questioning whether she was adequately vetted.
Poor Joe Biden. He’s not getting any attention. Palin is being compared to Obama. Yet they aren’t running for the same office. While Palin talks about John McCain’s trials and tribulations of being a POW and talking about how he’s stood up to Democrats and Republicans over the years, the liberal Democrats are comparing her to Obama. Not Biden, who would be her counterpart, but to Obama.
Sarah Palin has proven in the past six months and especially in the past six days that she is qualified for the Presidency and those that have proven it are the liberal Democrats. They’ve made the case for her. So the Republicans actually have two Presidential candidates while the Democrats have one candidate who is probably not qualified to be President.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Democrats complained following her speech about what she didn’t say. Donna Brazille, Carl Bernstein, David Gergen, Paul Begala, and the rest, including the group that was on Larry King later all said she didn’t mention the economy, didn’t mention health care, and so on.
Look at the speech. First, she talked about how she lowered taxes, lowered spending, balanced the budget and has a surplus in Alaska. Is that not economic speak? She talked about Obama’s plans. Increase income taxes. Increase capital gains taxes, increase death taxes, increase taxes on businesses, small and large.
Perhaps they didn’t notice that she spoke of her sister and sisters husband who have just built and opened a new business and asked about them paying higher taxes under an Obama tax plans.
Do they not recognize economic speak when they hear it? Or were they just fuming too much from when she said that she was only the mayor of a small town that had to balance a budget, cut spending and end corruption which Obama doesn’t seem to consider a community organizer.
Maybe they missed where the speakers last night said that the answer to health care does not lie with big government programs. Or maybe they didn’t understand what it means that when you have to give all to government, you beg for government to give back.
I do have to admit that my favorite part of the night was when Carl Bernstein said that we were suffering through skyrocketing unemployment. Unemployment has been below 5% for the better part of six years and in the past year it’s gone up to 5.5% and then, in July, the exact same time that the minimum wage increased, the unemployment rate increased to 5.7%.
Ok, so that wasn’t my favorite part. Sarah Palin was my favorite part. This woman is amazing. In the past six months, she’s dealt with a new baby that has Down Syndrome, a son that is about to be deployed to Iraq, a daughter that is about to get married and her pregnancy and being selected to become Vice President of the United States.
In the past week, she’s been subjected to liberal blogs accusing her of not having a baby, but that it was actually her grandchild, which we know is untrue. She’s been accused of being part of a party that wants to secede from the United States, also untrue. She’s now being accused of having had an affair. She’s been questioned in the press about whether or not she can be a mother and Vice President. They now are demanding a DNA test on her baby and after her speech last night Senator Harry Reid called her “shrill”. The press is also questioning whether she was adequately vetted.
Poor Joe Biden. He’s not getting any attention. Palin is being compared to Obama. Yet they aren’t running for the same office. While Palin talks about John McCain’s trials and tribulations of being a POW and talking about how he’s stood up to Democrats and Republicans over the years, the liberal Democrats are comparing her to Obama. Not Biden, who would be her counterpart, but to Obama.
Sarah Palin has proven in the past six months and especially in the past six days that she is qualified for the Presidency and those that have proven it are the liberal Democrats. They’ve made the case for her. So the Republicans actually have two Presidential candidates while the Democrats have one candidate who is probably not qualified to be President.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Message to Liberals
Beat that!!
Governor Sarah Palin rocked the house!
Governor Palin is a better man than Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden.
You're welcome to comment, but if you disagree, it will fall on deaf ears.
Brett
Governor Sarah Palin rocked the house!
Governor Palin is a better man than Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden.
You're welcome to comment, but if you disagree, it will fall on deaf ears.
Brett
Best Line of Tuesday Nights Convention Speeches
In my opinion, the best lines of Tuesday nights speeches were both given by former Senator Fred Thompson:
To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history-making nominee for president.
History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.
and this one....
Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family.
No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business," like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business," don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.
They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.
To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history-making nominee for president.
History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.
and this one....
Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family.
No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business," like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business," don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.
They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.
Senator Lieberman's Career Ended
Last night at the Republican Convention, Senator Joe Lieberman looked into the camera and said that Barack Hussein Obama is not ready to be President. He made an appeal to Democrats and Independents to vote for the country by voting for McCain.
This has the liberals up in arms. Harry Reid within minutes came out with a statement about Lieberman's comments. Obama's team campaign came out with comments. Donna Brazille on CNN said immediately afterwards that she thought he'd talk about what a wonderful man McCain is, but didn't expect him to play the part of "attack dog".
Senator Joe Lieberman put his career in the Senate, his chairmanship of a committee on the line and he's going to lose it. He claims to be an Independent now but caucuses with Democrats. I believe it's only a matter of time before the liberals punish him by removing him from the committee he chairs and ostracizes him from their party.
Why would Lieberman go this far? For one, I believe that he really believes in John McCain's presidential bid. I think he laid it all on the line with the expectation that McCain/Palin will win the election. He's so close to John McCain that McCain will appoint him to a cabinet position. He'd have to give up his Senate seat if that happens and I think he's banking on that happening.
Lieberman is not a Republican and will never be one. Even if he was to switch parties, he'd still be a Democrat in Republican clothes. He is more liberal than Olympia Snowe. He could become a Republican, but he would be a liberal Republican.
In his assessment of Senator Obama, he is very credible. He is not a liberal lap dog. He truly believes in the Democrat ideology, but he's sensible enough to recognize reason when he sees it.
It will be fun to watch as the Democrats remove him from the fold in the coming weeks.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
This has the liberals up in arms. Harry Reid within minutes came out with a statement about Lieberman's comments. Obama's team campaign came out with comments. Donna Brazille on CNN said immediately afterwards that she thought he'd talk about what a wonderful man McCain is, but didn't expect him to play the part of "attack dog".
Senator Joe Lieberman put his career in the Senate, his chairmanship of a committee on the line and he's going to lose it. He claims to be an Independent now but caucuses with Democrats. I believe it's only a matter of time before the liberals punish him by removing him from the committee he chairs and ostracizes him from their party.
Why would Lieberman go this far? For one, I believe that he really believes in John McCain's presidential bid. I think he laid it all on the line with the expectation that McCain/Palin will win the election. He's so close to John McCain that McCain will appoint him to a cabinet position. He'd have to give up his Senate seat if that happens and I think he's banking on that happening.
Lieberman is not a Republican and will never be one. Even if he was to switch parties, he'd still be a Democrat in Republican clothes. He is more liberal than Olympia Snowe. He could become a Republican, but he would be a liberal Republican.
In his assessment of Senator Obama, he is very credible. He is not a liberal lap dog. He truly believes in the Democrat ideology, but he's sensible enough to recognize reason when he sees it.
It will be fun to watch as the Democrats remove him from the fold in the coming weeks.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Are We Defending Teenage Pregnancy?
Earlier today, while listening to a radio program, the discussion was about John McCain’s choice for his Vice President. Naturally, the discussion turned to her qualifications especially since it’s been discovered that her 17 year old daughter is with child. A caller brought up an interesting aspect to this story. He said that we’re now in a position of defending teenage pregnancy. Almost glorifying teenage pregnancy.
I believe he couldn’t be more wrong and I also believe that he couldn’t be more right. Confused? Me too. I’m going to start with how he couldn’t be more right. Teenage pregnancy has the possibility of becoming defendable in certain segments of society.
We now have a Vice Presidential candidate in this position. To the hard partisans of her party, this could be turned to say ‘so what. She’s only done what all teenagers do and her only mistake was not using contraception.’ They will defend the circumstance regardless of what they are, not because of their beliefs, but because it’s “their” candidate. This would be akin to saying “I’m voting for the black man because I’m black.” Or “I’m voting for the ticket that has the woman because I’m a woman.” In cases like that, I believe that caller could be right.
We see this attitude all of the time, on both sides. Liberals will say ‘I’m willing to pay a little extra in taxes to solve the problems that others are having which is causing a drain on the states economy.’ Then they move their investments into tax free investments so that they don’t have to pay those taxes.
However, I believe that the caller couldn’t be more wrong. Teenagers are not mature. They are caught between puberty and adulthood. They still want to be a child and do child things, but not where any adult can see because they want to be able to be seen as an adult. A boy will want to go out and play baseball in the summer, but he’s got this girlfriend that he wants to take out to a movie on the weekend, so he works a little to make money for that while still trying to find time to play some baseball.
I am the father of an 18 year old boy that thinks he’s an adult and wants to be heard, but he’s still not mature enough to know that he could be wrong and the adult might actually know better. I’m forever saying that I wish I was 18 again when I had all of the answers. Now that I’m in my fifties, I know that I didn’t have all of the answers then, and I still don’t have all of the answers.
Teenagers want to experiment. They want to try things that mom and dad have said is not proper. They want to know why it’s not proper. They don’t have the maturity to say no all of the time to things that they shouldn’t do, and they are pressured to say yes.
If a 30 year old woman gets pregnant, she knew in advance what she was getting into and made a choice. She’s mature enough. But a teenager is not mature enough to make those decisions. This shows with each teen that gets pregnant and with each teenage boy that finds himself having to marry, or having to pay child support for the next 18 years. The other options is to come up with a couple of hundred dollars (or go to the school and government and let them pay for it out of our taxes) and end the pregnancy. This is often done so that the parents never knew that there was a pregnancy.
When a teenager makes a wrong choice, is that a reflection on the parents? A little yes. In some cases, it may even be a direct reflection of the values (or lack of values) of the parent. But not always. Teenage pregnancies happen in the poorest of families and in the most well off families.
Nothing is 100%. Teenage pregnancy can be the lack of upbringing by the parents. However it can also be due to teenage experimentation without looking forward to the consequences of their actions. Maturity is then forced on the young teenagers. They must make a major decision. How to tell the parents. Should they tell the parents. Whether to continue the pregnancy. Marry the father/mother of the unborn child. Raise the child alone. Put the baby up for adoption.
Regardless of what is thought about, an accidental pregnancy when it happens to a teenager, it comes from a lack of maturity that gives one the ability or at least the thoughtfulness of looking ahead and saying “if I do this, what could be the repercussions”. Most teens won’t think about the ramifications. It’s the heat of the moment.
Teenage pregnancies are a mistake in judgment on the teens part. It’s not, in most cases, a lack of good parenting. Teaching abstinence doesn’t stop teen pregnancies. Being abstinent stops pregnancies. Contraceptives don’t stop teen pregnancies. It just lessens the chances of pregnancy. Using contraceptives actually says more about parenting than not using them. It says that it’s okay to have sex as a teen. Since contraceptives are not 100% effective, permitting the use of them is telling a teen that it’s okay to engage in adult activities. It doesn’t relieve the teens of making a mistake in judgment, it’s advocating putting off the responsible decision making.
So am I defending teenage pregnancy? No. I can’t speak for the VP candidate, but I suspect that she didn’t condone the activity. I can’t think of even one parent that I know that would want to see their teenager pregnant or responsible for a pregnancy. Once the activity has been done and the mistake is magnified with a pregnancy, the decision now has to be made. Parents guidance should become most important at that time.
Once there is a pregnancy though, the situation must be dealt with. Barack Hussein Obama says that he wouldn’t want to force an unwanted child on his daughters. I have yet to hear anyone accuse the VP candidate or anyone in her family say that they are about to have an unwanted child added to the family. Would they have preferred this happened a few years from now, with their daughter married? More than likely. Would their daughter prefer that she be pregnant with a husband rather than have to go through the embarrassment on top of everything else that she would be going through if her mother wasn’t a public figure? I suspect so. That wasn’t to be for her, however.
The liberals, and the liberal media are keeping this in their reporting for their own political purposes. They are making this pregnancy even more difficult for this teenager that is still learning to deal with mature issues that she’s not mature enough to handle alone as yet.
I trust her mother and father to know their daughters ability to deal with being in the spotlight, and to protect her if the spotlight starts affecting her still more. The boyfriend is going to be at the convention tonight, which tells me something about his character. He didn’t run out on the girl. He didn’t hang back and hide while his girlfriend had to go through the national spotlight alone. He’s gone to join her. I’m sure that the press will make a big deal out of his being there and create more pressure for these two teens.
I would never advocate teenage pregnancy, and I would never defend teenage pregnancy, but once the pregnancy is a reality, the situation must be dealt with and from all appearances thus far, these two teens seem to be doing well and I’m quite certain that a lot of that has to do with the parents of both teens and how they are supporting these two.
Should McCain and Palin win this election, which I believe they will, we’ll hear when this daughter has her baby and I believe that we’ll see an outpouring of support for the daughter and the new baby from people all across the country.
It is wrong for the press and the liberals to use a child, and she is still a child. They risk making this pregnancy more difficult than it needs to be. They are walking a dangerous line here if anything goes wrong with this pregnancy due to stress. This teenager has enough to deal with in plotting the rest of her life, she doesn’t need the added stress of the liberals and the liberal media passing moral judgment on her.
Defend teenage pregnancy? Nope. No way, no how. Defend the teen once pregnant? ABSOLUTELY!!!
I welcome your comments.
Brett
I believe he couldn’t be more wrong and I also believe that he couldn’t be more right. Confused? Me too. I’m going to start with how he couldn’t be more right. Teenage pregnancy has the possibility of becoming defendable in certain segments of society.
We now have a Vice Presidential candidate in this position. To the hard partisans of her party, this could be turned to say ‘so what. She’s only done what all teenagers do and her only mistake was not using contraception.’ They will defend the circumstance regardless of what they are, not because of their beliefs, but because it’s “their” candidate. This would be akin to saying “I’m voting for the black man because I’m black.” Or “I’m voting for the ticket that has the woman because I’m a woman.” In cases like that, I believe that caller could be right.
We see this attitude all of the time, on both sides. Liberals will say ‘I’m willing to pay a little extra in taxes to solve the problems that others are having which is causing a drain on the states economy.’ Then they move their investments into tax free investments so that they don’t have to pay those taxes.
However, I believe that the caller couldn’t be more wrong. Teenagers are not mature. They are caught between puberty and adulthood. They still want to be a child and do child things, but not where any adult can see because they want to be able to be seen as an adult. A boy will want to go out and play baseball in the summer, but he’s got this girlfriend that he wants to take out to a movie on the weekend, so he works a little to make money for that while still trying to find time to play some baseball.
I am the father of an 18 year old boy that thinks he’s an adult and wants to be heard, but he’s still not mature enough to know that he could be wrong and the adult might actually know better. I’m forever saying that I wish I was 18 again when I had all of the answers. Now that I’m in my fifties, I know that I didn’t have all of the answers then, and I still don’t have all of the answers.
Teenagers want to experiment. They want to try things that mom and dad have said is not proper. They want to know why it’s not proper. They don’t have the maturity to say no all of the time to things that they shouldn’t do, and they are pressured to say yes.
If a 30 year old woman gets pregnant, she knew in advance what she was getting into and made a choice. She’s mature enough. But a teenager is not mature enough to make those decisions. This shows with each teen that gets pregnant and with each teenage boy that finds himself having to marry, or having to pay child support for the next 18 years. The other options is to come up with a couple of hundred dollars (or go to the school and government and let them pay for it out of our taxes) and end the pregnancy. This is often done so that the parents never knew that there was a pregnancy.
When a teenager makes a wrong choice, is that a reflection on the parents? A little yes. In some cases, it may even be a direct reflection of the values (or lack of values) of the parent. But not always. Teenage pregnancies happen in the poorest of families and in the most well off families.
Nothing is 100%. Teenage pregnancy can be the lack of upbringing by the parents. However it can also be due to teenage experimentation without looking forward to the consequences of their actions. Maturity is then forced on the young teenagers. They must make a major decision. How to tell the parents. Should they tell the parents. Whether to continue the pregnancy. Marry the father/mother of the unborn child. Raise the child alone. Put the baby up for adoption.
Regardless of what is thought about, an accidental pregnancy when it happens to a teenager, it comes from a lack of maturity that gives one the ability or at least the thoughtfulness of looking ahead and saying “if I do this, what could be the repercussions”. Most teens won’t think about the ramifications. It’s the heat of the moment.
Teenage pregnancies are a mistake in judgment on the teens part. It’s not, in most cases, a lack of good parenting. Teaching abstinence doesn’t stop teen pregnancies. Being abstinent stops pregnancies. Contraceptives don’t stop teen pregnancies. It just lessens the chances of pregnancy. Using contraceptives actually says more about parenting than not using them. It says that it’s okay to have sex as a teen. Since contraceptives are not 100% effective, permitting the use of them is telling a teen that it’s okay to engage in adult activities. It doesn’t relieve the teens of making a mistake in judgment, it’s advocating putting off the responsible decision making.
So am I defending teenage pregnancy? No. I can’t speak for the VP candidate, but I suspect that she didn’t condone the activity. I can’t think of even one parent that I know that would want to see their teenager pregnant or responsible for a pregnancy. Once the activity has been done and the mistake is magnified with a pregnancy, the decision now has to be made. Parents guidance should become most important at that time.
Once there is a pregnancy though, the situation must be dealt with. Barack Hussein Obama says that he wouldn’t want to force an unwanted child on his daughters. I have yet to hear anyone accuse the VP candidate or anyone in her family say that they are about to have an unwanted child added to the family. Would they have preferred this happened a few years from now, with their daughter married? More than likely. Would their daughter prefer that she be pregnant with a husband rather than have to go through the embarrassment on top of everything else that she would be going through if her mother wasn’t a public figure? I suspect so. That wasn’t to be for her, however.
The liberals, and the liberal media are keeping this in their reporting for their own political purposes. They are making this pregnancy even more difficult for this teenager that is still learning to deal with mature issues that she’s not mature enough to handle alone as yet.
I trust her mother and father to know their daughters ability to deal with being in the spotlight, and to protect her if the spotlight starts affecting her still more. The boyfriend is going to be at the convention tonight, which tells me something about his character. He didn’t run out on the girl. He didn’t hang back and hide while his girlfriend had to go through the national spotlight alone. He’s gone to join her. I’m sure that the press will make a big deal out of his being there and create more pressure for these two teens.
I would never advocate teenage pregnancy, and I would never defend teenage pregnancy, but once the pregnancy is a reality, the situation must be dealt with and from all appearances thus far, these two teens seem to be doing well and I’m quite certain that a lot of that has to do with the parents of both teens and how they are supporting these two.
Should McCain and Palin win this election, which I believe they will, we’ll hear when this daughter has her baby and I believe that we’ll see an outpouring of support for the daughter and the new baby from people all across the country.
It is wrong for the press and the liberals to use a child, and she is still a child. They risk making this pregnancy more difficult than it needs to be. They are walking a dangerous line here if anything goes wrong with this pregnancy due to stress. This teenager has enough to deal with in plotting the rest of her life, she doesn’t need the added stress of the liberals and the liberal media passing moral judgment on her.
Defend teenage pregnancy? Nope. No way, no how. Defend the teen once pregnant? ABSOLUTELY!!!
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)