Obama Adm Orders Suit Dropped in Voter Suppression Case

Election day 2008. The opponents are John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain, a white male, former POW during Vietnam, current Senator from Arizona and Republican candidate for President. Barack Obama, a black male and former community organizer in Chicago Illinois, and current Senator from Illinois and Democrat candidate for President.

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the New Black Panther Organization has three men at a polling station. They are dressed in their new military type uniforms. They are carrying dangerous weapons, using racial slurs and insults while carrying dangerous weapons to scare would be voters and those there to assist the voters. One of the panthers was overheard telling a white poll watcher “You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.” Doesn’t this show racism? A hate crime?
.
These men were being sued by the government for violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Career lawyers with the justice department have been pursuing this for five months. Yes, I said they were. Not are. Were. Past tense. The career lawyers were told by the political appointees of President Obama’s to drop it.

For all of the complaints about the militia organizations around the country, that is constantly laid at the feet of the Republicans, I would think that the last thing the Democrats would want to be involved with, and especially Obama, is a radical group that intimidates people into not voting. This Black Panther Organization might better be named the new KKK.

When have you seen the Michigan militia in Detroit in military garb, brandishing weapons, intimidating people that dared to show up to exercise their one chance every four years to have a say in their government?

Yes, there was voter intimidation in the past. Black people were intimidated and threatened. It led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That law, and all laws apply to all Americans regardless of skin color or gender. It did not apply only to those that didn’t have white skin. In other words, two wrongs do not make a right.

Now, we have a President of the United States ordering lawyers that are career lawyers, not to pursue a suit that would punish those that violated the law. There is no reason given. If they said it was because they didn’t want to start racial tensions again, fine. I could live with that. I wouldn’t agree with it, but at least there would be a stated reason. We are left to think of our own reasons why this would be done. The fact is, we don’t know if there is a good reason, but what we do know is that those three Black Panther members may have violated the law and should be tried for their actions and brought before a jury of their peers, the American citizens.

For all of the talk of the Democrat party about eliminating racism in this country, at every turn, they are advancing racism. Obama seems to be the worst of the group. First he nominates for the Supreme Court, a woman that has a record of racist comments and admitting that she uses her own heritage in her courts. Now we have people that are intimidating with language, weapons and threats if someone doesn’t vote the way they want them to vote.

President Bush is still under threat of investigation for firing 8 Justice Department lawyers. Never mind that President Clinton fired 53 when he became President. Now we have the political appointees of the Obama administration telling career lawyers to drop the suit against people that were stopping Americans from voting based on their skin color.

Another freedom lost under this President, and this one directly related to racist activities. He’s only been in office for four months. How many freedoms can he remove from the American people, ALL American people, in three years and 8 months that he still has left in his term?

I was only a child when the civil rights marches were going on. I was just becoming aware of current events. But even at that early age, in the mid to late 60’s, I knew it was wrong what was happening to black people in the south. This action by the New Black Panthers is just as wrong. It’s childish of this President to order this suit stopped. The only thing it will accomplish is to create more of it.

People had better wake up to what this man is doing to this country or we’re going to find ourselves in a situation that cannot be corrected without having to rebuild the country down to its very foundation.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

The Nominee is: No Surprise

This week, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Supreme Court Justice. This should come as no surprise. Obama had a guideline to follow. First, Liberal. Second, Hispanic, and third female. Not one of these criteria is a surprise. Obama was the most liberal member of Congress before becoming President.

Sotomayor has the reputation of being a bit of a bully on the courts she’s served and not all that bright. She has been overturned by the Supreme Court on three of her five majority writings. That is likely to increase with the New Haven, Connecticut case under review by the Supreme Court.

She is also caught on tape talking about setting policy at the Appeals Court level, which would make her an activist judge. Exactly what America has been complaining about in recent years.

The media makes much of the fact that Sotomayor was appointed by President H.W. Bush to the District Court in 1991. What they don’t tell you is that there was a huge backlog in selecting judges in the Senate. In an attempt to get appointments moved forward Senator Al D’Amato and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan worked out a deal. D’Amato would choose five and Moynihan would choose two, and President Bush (41) would appoint them. Sotomayor was one of Moynihans two choices.

She is qualified for the Supreme Court. But then so are most of us. There is no requirement to be a lawyer, judge or anything other than being an American and appointed by the President with the Advise and Consent of the Senate.

Regarding appointing activist judges, or those that would legislate from the bench, I urge you to read Federalist papers number 76, 77, and 78.

I consider this a racist pick of a racist person. From the day that Judge Souter announced he was leaving, the media told us that Obama was likely to choose an Hispanic woman because there have been no Hispainics on the court and there was only one woman.

I don’t remember mention of even one man being considered, not one black person being considered and not one white man being considered. Even the National Football League has to make a show of hiring a coach. They are required to interview at least one black man to coach, even if they have no intention of hiring him.

I have yet to see one comment from anyone in the news or in the government say that the person chosen should be the most qualified choice. The concern has been race, and gender and then of course Obama added the qualification of empathy which I can’t find in any description of any judge at any post anywhere.

So why do I consider Sotomayor a racist and sexist? That’s a simple answer. She said
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”.

Look at Lady Justice. Our symbol for the law in this country. She wears a blindfold. The blindfold is signifying hearing the issue and applying the law to the issue and not to the persons race, gender, stature in life to help with the decision making process. A judge is to rule on the law.

She will likely be confirmed. I doubt that the Republicans have the courage to challenge her substantively. They won’t be able to stand up to the calls of racism that the liberals will certainly throw at them if they dare as a hard question.

When Republicans nominate someone for the Supreme Court, the first question is always ‘what is their position on abortion?’ Have you heard this question put to her or anyone in the White House? It’s interesting that for all of the concern about how Republican Presidents will nominate pro-life judges, still after all of these years, abortion is still legal. We’ve had O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito all appointed since the 80’s and still abortion is the law of the land. Granted, Souter turned out to be a liberal member of the court, but the Supreme Court has been fairly Conservative the past 30 years and still no change.

It’s likely the only way this inferior nominee misses out confirmation for the Supreme Court it will only be because she steps in it during her testimony. There are very many more qualified for this position. Male or Female, all Americans that are more qualified.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Memorial Day 2009

Today is the day set aside each year to remember those that gave the ultimate sacrifice for this country and all she stands for. From the Revolutionary War up to the wars we're involved in today. For me personally, I have a hard time separating out those that died for Freedom and those that served for Freedom.

I've had family serve in nearly every war since the Revolutionary War. Some died, some returned. I've had friends that didn't return from Vietnam. But, in the recent past what is most thought of is our current situation. The soldiers that sacrificed to fight the war on terror.

There is one group also that didn't ask to be soldiers. They were people making a living, traveling for their jobs. Doing what they did everyday. They are the ones that died on September 11, 2001. The ones in the World Trade Center that were attacked. The ones in the Pentagon that were attacked. Those on the planes that were hijacked. The ones on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. How many lives did they save by taking the plane back from the hijackers that day?

Flying my flag is a small gesture for what these people and so many other soldiers have given. But fly it, I am.

Brett

Mess with Success

Today, President Obama spoke at the National Archives regarding terrorism and former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke on the same topic shortly after.

The first thing to notice is that Obama was tardy. This brings back memories of the Clintons who were always late for their press briefings, press conferences, and anything else they did. Originally, Obama was scheduled to speak, and Cheney was scheduled to speak shortly after Obama finished his speech, although Cheney's was at a different location. This delay of Obama's was not lost on Cheney, so he just started his speech later so that he'd not intrude on the Obama's speech.

The second noticeable thing about Obama was that he chose to hold it at the National Archives where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are housed, which was political in choice, and that brings out more politics. The National Archives was in the news earlier this week when they discovered that sensitive material of the Clinton years went missing. Did Sandy Berger complete his period of probation where he lost his security clearance yet and where has he been between October and March?

The speeches were very close to each other in that Obama laid out his plans for the future with detainees and his plan to bring them to the United States, and Cheney who said they shouldn't be brought here among the American people and putting us at risk.

Obama did say again that Gitmo is creating more terrorists around the world, but that's an old argument that nobody has given any evidence or proof that it's a true statement. I fail to see how being a prisoner at Gitmo can lead one to want to terrorize Americans.

Cheney said that we waterboarded 3 terrorists, one of which was the planner of the September 11, 2001 attacks and that we gathered more information that prevented more attacks in this country possibly saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

One thing is for certain. Whatever the Bush/Cheney Administration did worked. We were not attacked again during the remainder of the Bush Administration. Why would anyone want to change success?

The liberals will and have come back and said that the attack on September 11, 2001 happened on Bush's watch. True. Seven months into the Bush Administration we were attacked and Bush was President. We also know that the attack was planned for five years. That's 4 years and five months under Clinton and 7 months under Bush before the plans came to fruition.

However, what happened the previous eight years? In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. Clinton's watch. The embassies were attacked in Africa. The Khobar Towers, the USS Cole. All under Clinton's watch. Why weren't we protected after the attack in 1993?

Regardless of how you cut it, the Bush administration protected this country for 7 1/2 years and Obama is dismantling some of those protections that Bush used during that time.

Obama keeps saying that we have to quit pointing fingers, and just move forward. Yet in his speech, he blamed the Bush administration 28 times.

Unfortunately, we will have to wait and see if we're really protected under Obama. There is one of two possible dates that we'll know if we're protected. The first date, and hopefully this date comes to pass, will be his last day in office. If we make it that far, I will have to admit that what he did, did protect us. Unfortunately, it's the other date that is unnerving because we don't know what that date will be, but it will be the day that the terrorists are sucessful again at attacking us.

We already know that many are converted to terrorism in prison when subjected to being locked up with terrorists. There is no evidence that Gitmo creates terrorists. Just political words from politicians tell us that.

We also know that if we bring the detainees to this country to be tried in our courts, that they will gain rights of due process that they are not entitled to when outside the country as enemy combatants. They are not soldiers, so we can't classify them as POW's.

One last irony. On the very day of these two speeches, when Obama says that he'll have them locked up in maximum security prisons, the first detainee was brought to this country from Guantanamo Bay for a trial in this country. The detainee? He was Usama bin Ladens body guard.

Didn't Obama also release one of the terrorists that led the attack on the USS Cole killing our sailors? Obama seems to be taking a successful program that has kept us safe since September 11, 2001 and playing political games with it. Perhaps he should put a little placard on his desk that he'll see each time he looks up that says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

California Rejects Elected Leaders

An amazing thing happened yesterday in California. The people of the State of California just told the politicians "you people don't know what you're doing". In their election yesterday about increasing taxes, creating a rainy day fund, and stopping politicians from giving themselves raises the people told them no to taxes and no to legislative raises in hard times.

This is not what the advocates of the various proposals said that it meant. Their spin is that the people didn't understand the proposals. In other words, the politicians think the people are too stupid to understand. Did I mention that each of the proposals save one, were voted down with over 60% of the vote? The one that didn't get 60%? That was the one regarding the politicians pay raises. They were denied raises by over 70%. So apparently, the politicians believe that better than 2/3 of the people of California are stupid.

These states are looking out for their own coffers and not looking out for what's best for the people of their states. Look around the country. Tax revenues are down nearly everywhere. Taxes are going up and revenues are coming down. These so-called leaders of the states ignore history. Each time taxes are reduced, revenues to the states and feds increase. This creates a new problem. That problem is that the politicians then think they can spend more and more money on more and more "programs".

In Michigan, the economy was good in the nineties during John Englers Governorship. He took over and reduced taxes. Revenue's started increasing, unemployment dropped from 13% down to 3% by the time he left. Engler created the rainy day fund from the added revenues received to help during tougher times. When he left, Granholm took over. Unemployment has been on a steady climb since. Michigan has been in a one state recession for over five years and now has the highest unemployment in the nation and has maintained that distinction for three years.

What will the California officials do now that they have been soundly rejected? They will snap out of their massive losses and say "Ok, if you want cuts, we'll give you cuts." They will release prisoners from their prisons. They will cut back fire and police protection. They will reduce money to the schools. They will take money from the Federal Government further driving up the nations deficits and debt. The people of California will complain about their police and fire and schools taking the hits. In the meantime, the ones that refuse to take responsibility for their own lives will continue to receive their checks each month. They won't be cut. Money will still be wasted on unnecessary programs.

Finally, after squeezing the people of the necessities, they'll come back and rework the proposals that will increase taxes and increase pay for politicians. They'll throw it out to the people and say if you want police and fire protection back, you'll have to vote yes for these proposals that you voted no on in the past election.

I've seen this happen in Michigan, usually with school elections. They will ask for a millage renewal or a millage increase to buy computers, or build another school building as they close up three other schools. They get turned down in the May elections. The schools then set plans in motion to eliminate popular things such as sports or band or maybe remove some English classes or increase the size of classrooms or eliminate the library. But then they'll say, we'll put this on the ballot again in August and put it up for a vote and see if people will choose the higher taxes or the cuts that we're proposing.

The August turnout is very low, and those that do vote are usually involved in the schools somehow. The measures pass and I go to my daughters classroom for parent/teacher conferences in November and instead of seeing a blackboard or even a whiteboard, I instead see a big screen TV with all of the software imaginable and I wait to see if John King is going to step up and show a map of the country describing each county and whether it's a red county or a blue county.

There is a breaking point. Maybe California has reached that point and calls the states bluff on their cuts that they will propose, and say "go ahead and make your proposed cuts." California is currently the second worst state in the country when it comes to their budget and unemployment. Number 1? Michigan. I hope that we get the chance here in Michigan to do what the people of California did and I hope that the people of the State of Michigan do the same thing as the people in California. I also hope the same thing for New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Oregon and all of the other states that into a free fall slide.

New Jersey's Governor is in trouble for his re-election. Harry Reid is in trouble in his state. Christopher Dodd is in trouble in his state.

We had the Tea Parties in April. California just showed us that the tea parties were only the beginning. We went from tea party protests, to ballot box protests in just over a month. Maybe there is hope for the country after all. The people are proving that they've had enough of the silliness of state capitols. This could turn out to an interesting 18 months coming up.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

http://www.sacbee.com/

Graduates Come Second at Notre Dame This Year

Just a warning. If you're Catholic, you'll probably be ticked with this piece. I am not Catholic and the only time I even give a thought to Notre Dame University is in September when the University of Michigan plays against Notre Dame.

In less than an hour, President Obama will be addressing the graduating class at Notre Dame. The powers that be at Notre Dame decided to invite Obama to give the commencement address. This despite Obama being pro-abortion and the Catholic Church being Pro-Life. Whether you're in favor of or against abortion, that is not the scope of this. But rather the lack of following through on ones beliefs.

It was wrong for Notre Dame University. The Catholic religion is against abortion. To invite Obama is to divorce themselves from their beliefs for the sake of having the prestige of the President of the United States speaking to their seniors. They are compromising their beliefs for a politician. It's difficult for me to understand compromising beliefs for just about anything. To add insult to injury, they are giving Obama an Honorary Degree.

However, it was also wrong for the President to accept the invitation. If he is not Catholic, which he isn't, and is on the opposite of a very volatile issue, which he is, out of principle, he should not have accepted the invitation.

The invitation, and ultimate accepting of the invitation by the President, has dampered for some what should be a very exciting day for the graduates of Notre Dame. The focus of graduation day should be on the graduates. Not on the issues of the day. Not on Obama.

I'm not sure why these universities have Presidents speak other than for the prestige of having the President. If you go to a University and your major is math, or science or medicine, what does the Presidents attendance serve? Are they suggesting that math, science, or medicine is a political issue? I guess that argument could be made since math could represent taxes, science would be global warming and medicine would represent Nationalized health care. But I don't think that is the intention of the students when they start school.

It seems to me it would be less intrusive if the President of the United States, whomever he or she may be, could send a video with a five minute address to graduates that could be incorporated into the graduation ceremony.

Ironically, two polls recently came out showing that more Americans call themselves pro-life. This hasn't been widely reported in the liberal media, but Gallup was the first poll to come out this week with that information.

Whether you are pro-life/anti abortion or pro-choice/anti life, for this issue to not be considered by Notre Dame University before inviting Obama, is wrong and for Obama, who shows his disgust for Christians, and is on the opposite of the issues from the Catholic religion, was wrong.

I guess we'll soon see if two wrongs make a right.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Nancy Pelosi: Politics over Security

Speaker of the House has herself in hot water over waterboarding. She's railed against it and claimed that the Bush Administration lied, hid information and mislead for years. Now she's been caught in the middle of a lie.

First, she said that in a briefing in 2002, she was told that Enhanced Interrogation Techiques may be used but haven't yet been used. Then yesterday she said that she was informed in February of 2003 by her own aid who attended another briefing that the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques were used. But she's claiming she didn't lie because she was informed by her aid who attended the briefing, but wasn't briefed herself. However, the CIA and others have said she was briefed that they had been used.

It appears as though Nancy Pelosi is the one that has been telling the lies all of these years and not President Bush, not Vice President Cheney nor others in the Bush administration.

This is just another example of a Democrat playing with the language. Bill Clinton had the country trying to figure out what the definition of "is" is, and now we have Nancy Pelosi in a dispute over the difference between a briefing and being informed. She's also seeming to try to split hairs over whether she found out in September of 2002 or February of 2003.

Regardless of her word games, Senator Kit Bond read the notes from the briefings and found that she was indeed "briefed" in September of 02 and she admits she was "informed" by her aid who attended a "briefing" in her stead in February 03.

Pelosi then tried to pass the blame on to the CIA saying that they withheld information from the Congress and her. This doesn't seem to be very smart. The CIA has already been reeling from threats of charges coming from the Justice Department on the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques from the past, then told that there wouldn't be any charges. Now they are being called Liars from the person that is third in line to the Presidency. I can think of a lot of people Pelosi could choose for enemies, but the CIA wouldn't be one of those wise choices.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich today flat out called her a liar and said that she is unfit to be speaker. Others are pointing out that she's been playing political games with this topic. Even she said that there was nothing she could do until they took control of the Congress and the White House. Representative Jane Harmon sent a letter questioning this information back in 2003, but Nancy Pelosi chose not to have her name affiliated with that letter.

In the meantime, you can bet that those interested in causing harm to America and Americans are soaking this up and plotting how to take advantage of this internal strife brought on by the Speaker of the House.

For my part, I'm not anxious for Pelosi to resign yet. She is self destructive and she will respond again to the CIA's latest comments. I'd like to just leave her alone as she digs her hole deeper and deeper.

It's scary that these Democrats are now in charge of both Houses and the White House, but there is no shortage of comedy from them. The President was going to release photo's of prisoner abuse, but then pulled back finally realizing that it would put soldiers in peril. It's been discovered that when news of abuse comes out, whether true or speculation, attacks from al queda increase. I'll bet that General Petraeus had alot to do with Obama changing his mind on that one.

Pelosi should be worried. Even Robert Gibbs refused to comment on the Pelosi mess at his press briefing today. Or was it a Press Informing?

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Opportunities Missed; Tyranny On Its Way

In November I wrote what I thought the Republicans ought to do to get back to where they should. It is now six months later and still there is nobody emerging with any message. Not just a coherent message, but any message.

Obama has quadrupled the deficit. Republicans do mention this occasionally. Obama has doubled the debt. Republicans do mention this occasionally. That’s it. Nothing else from them.

Why haven’t they noticed that each time Obama offers an idea he always says that it will affect 95% of the people? 95% is his favorite line. He is NEVER challenged on that. Remember the campaign? “McCain voted with President Bush 95% of the time.” “My plan will give 95% of the people a tax cut.”

The Republicans are on a listening tour, but when it’s reported on, I see the Republicans talking. Not the people, and what is with Jeb Bush saying we need to get away from talking about Ronald Reagan? He’s only the most successful President we’ve had and stuck to his Conservative ideals and created the longest period of growth in the economy. Why would any Republican suggest moving away from success?

These Republicans need to stop letting the liberals and the liberal media define what they are, what they’re doing, what they’re not doing and what they should do. The way to make the liberals scared is to do the opposite of what the liberals suggest. Do these Republicans really think that the liberals have the Republicans best interests at heart when they tell Republicans how they should go about getting back on the road to success?

With every proposal that comes out from the White House, or the Congress, the Republicans ought to be out there stating why it’s against the American way of life, the American values, the American success story of the past 233 years.

They fought the so-called stimulus package, but they haven’t followed up on it. They haven’t pointed out that the economy seems to be slowly recovering despite only 6% of the stimulus having gone out. They should be out there trumpeting that the economy is recovering without the so-called stimulus. They should be sounding the horn loud and clear that the free market system is working and the recovery is coming as we knew it would, without the stimulus.

They should also be out there warning that if the government continues to print money the more they print the higher and harder inflation is going to hit us in the next couple of years.

Right now, the Republicans remind me a lot of a trip that my kids and I made up north. We saw dead fish laying in the water. Those are the Republicans right now. If they don’t get their act together, it’s only going to be worse in 2010. They should be taking advantage of the Tea Parties that were put together by the people. These commentators on television are telling us what the American people want. But what they are missing is that the American people are saying loud and clear what they want and what they don’t want. They don’t want higher taxes. They don’t want government intervention in Wall St., the banks, the car companies. They don’t want government health care.

What the people want is someone with ideas on how Americans can make their lives better and freer so that they can go out and earn a living and improve on that living they’re earning. They want the American Dream. Not the American nightmare of government tyranny.

The Republicans are missing opportunities that are like gold mines. They are claiming to be listening, but they aren’t turning their hearing aids on.

The Democrats look at bad things happening and take the opportunity to impose government control, as Rahm Emanuel has said. The Republicans have opportunities to give their solutions to the problems, and even more importantly to show how the recovery without the stimulus is happening and to build their opportunities around the free market bringing back the economy.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Elizabeth Edwards: An Update Resiliency or Conspiracy

In the past few days, since I put the piece in about Resiliency and Conspiracy, I've received a couple of E-mails questioning me on my take on this. Both indicated to me that Elizabeth Edwards should get more of break because of her cancer or because of her cheating husband.

When I first wrote that on the blog, it was much much longer than it turned out to be as a finished product. I cut alot of things out and probably shouldn't have cut some of it out. Due to both E-mails, I went back and looked again at my sources that I used before putting that blog item out there.

So, let me be absolutely clear on this. "Transparent", if you will, but probably not "Enchanting". I still believe that Edwards should not have run and his wife should not have allowed him to run for the Presidency of the United States. They were given no less than two chances to drop out of the race for their sake and for the sake of the country.

I'm going to begin with what we know.

Edwards Joins Presidential Race: On December 28, 2006, John Edwards announced he's running for the Presidency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122800251.html

At this point, we did not know that Edwards was having an affair or had an affair. Had we known that, his candidacy would have been a joke. We also did not know that his wife had cancer and we certainly didn't know that her cancer was incurable.

I did make a mistake in response to one who E-mailed me about Obama's position in the race when he announced in February of 2008 that he was in the running. I thought that the race, early on, was between Hillary and Edwards. However, Obama's entering the race made the fight between he and Hillary and Edwards had dropped to third.

On March 22, Edwards announced that Elizabeth's cancer had returned and was now in her bones as well and was incurable. On the 25th, he said he was continuing his campaign.

I have found in my search on this subject that Elizabeth knew of the affair before the Candidacy was announced. If that's true, then my question is why would they put the country through that again? We'd already gone through this with Bill Clinton. That was ugly enough. But to do it again didn't make sense.

In going over this again since receiving the E-mails, I found others that said she knew of the affair a couple of days after the candidacy was announced and that she wanted him to drop out. If this is true, then I have to take some of what I said away.

However, when March arrives and they know she has incurable cancer, again, I have to wonder why they didn't drop out then. My own conclusion is that they were looking for power. Just the affair, if it got out would destroy him politically forever. The cancer would cause people to wonder if he can handle a wife who will at best be in terrible health and quite possibly worse, while he was President. It would likely leave the country at risk during that time. Thus far, the kids haven't even been considered.

What happens if the affair ends up in public after the campaign gets underway? As it turned out, he was out of the race when it came out in August of 2008. But suppose he had been the eventual winner. The race was over in July. Would the Democrats still support him? Would he have a chance against John McCain?

The only conclusion that I can reach is that they shouldn't have run once the affair was known to them. Whether a month before he announced or a day after he announced. Once her health situation was known, the campaign should have stopped. Even cynically, he had his "out" with her cancer information. It solved the problem of the affair. He had to have known that the affair would come out because he'd been asked about it.

The mainstream media ignored the story at first because the information came from the National Enquirer. This may also have delayed the inevitable.

I stand by my original position that Edwards should not have entered the race. His first reason could and probably should have been for the best interests of the country. But, even if not for the country, he should not have entered the race for the sake of his wife and children. If she knew, she should not have encouraged him to run. If she didn't know, it's a little more understandable. However, once the cancer was found to be incurable, it's my opinion that his wife and children should have come first and he should have immediately dropped out of the race.

Mrs. Edwards book dealing with her cancer is a terrific idea. It can serve as help for others facing similar circumstances. She had to know though that the affair is what people would be looking for in her book and when started touring, that would be the first set of questions. Since she has children, her including the affair in the book only serves to degrade their father, who will be caring for two younger children alone at some point. Is this the lasting memory she wants to leave for her children?

It's likely that this will only upset women even more with my update here. I consider men and women equal. No special rights, just equal rights. I believe that women should have been equal from the beginning. When George Washington cast his first vote in the new country he helped to create, Martha should have had a vote as well. If Billy is earning $100,000 per year doing his job, Mary should be earning $100,000 per year for doing the same job. If John is out earning the money and Joan is home taking care of the home and the children, Joan's work is every bit as important as John's job is. I don't consider either of them as being a lesser person because they do something different everyday. I consider them equal partners in a joint life together. I also think that if a pregnancy comes about, the man should have the exact same amount of say about the future of the baby as the woman. It ceased being her body alone when she shared it with the man and a new life was created whether intentionally or unintentionally.

So, if you don't like my position that I've taken on this, at least understand that it's not because she's a woman or because he's a man. It's because he screwed up the partnership they had and that screw up affects the public because of the choice that they made to attempt to take that partnership to a position of leadership that affects millions of other Americans. She just apparently joined that screwup by allowing him to run after the affair was known to them. The cancer just added another reason for him to drop out of the race for the sake of his wife, and the mother of his children.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/say-it-aint-so-elizabeth_b_117867.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1487609.html

http://www.usmagazine.com/news/elizabeth-edwards-johns-affair-made-me-throw-up-2009304

Resilience or Conspiracy

On May 12, 2009, Elizabeth Edwards book “Resilience” will be hitting the bookshelves. Of late, Mrs. Edwards has been appearing on various forms of media, most notably, Oprah. The big story here seems to be discussion of her husband’s extra-marital affair that came to light by the National Enquirer following his dropping out of the Presidential Race of 2008.

I have seen no discussion of the timing nor of how he could do this to his wife while she’s battling cancer. If you will remember approximately ten years ago, after Bill Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice, the Democrats began to go after Republicans and their past and current affairs. The story that correlates here is Newt Gingrich.

It was widely reported that Newt Gingrich served divorce papers on his wife at the time while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer treatment. What the liberal media left out of the story was that Gingrich’s wife asked him to bring her the papers to be signed.

In the Edwards Affair, it’s been admitted that John Edwards told his wife of his affair with Rielle Hunter prior to his run for the Presidency in 2006. Still, despite the recent past of Bill Clinton’s antics and how they hurt the Democrat Party, she gave her blessing for his candidacy.

In March of 2007, it was announced that Elizabeth Edwards cancer was incurable. They took a couple of days to decide whether or not John would continue his candidacy in light of this new information. With much fanfare and praise for Mrs. Edwards and her courage, it was announced that he would indeed continue his candidacy. Mrs. Edwards appeared on many political television shows on her husband’s behalf before and after debates.

In the meantime, the National Enquirer, a tabloid best known for reporting on celebrities meeting with two headed aliens from Mars, began to report of an affair between John Edwards and Rielle Hunter. It was dismissed by the main stream liberal media.

Following Edwards dropping out of the race, and his speech giving his support to Barack Obama in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Edwards was chased into a bathroom at the apartment building of Rielle Hunter and had to be rescued by security. It was then reported that he was the father of her new child.

So where are the stories in the mainstream liberal media asking how Edwards could do this to his wife who has incurable cancer? Where are the media reports about the cover-up of both John and Elizabeth Edwards allowing him to run for President? She was willing to announce to the world that she had incurable cancer, but she participated in the lie perpetrated on the American people of one of the top three candidates to run for President on the Democrat ticket.
Suppose Edwards had won the nomination and even the election for President. What would another affair coming out have done to this country? If he was elected to two terms, should we have expected Mrs. Edwards not to survive the two terms? Did she really want to deteriorate in front of the American public? How much damage was done to her to find out that her husband, a former Vice Presidential Candidate in the previous election, was having an affair?

It’s their choice to put themselves out there despite their marital problems, and her health problems. It is none of our business what their choices are regarding their health and their marriage and the affect it will have on their children. However, they are not in a private sector job. They were applying for a position of the Public Trust.

This seems to be a power hungry couple. They wanted the power of the Presidency regardless of the ramifications to their personal lives, her health and their children. Even now, she’s said that they haven’t told their children. Are they that insulated that they don’t know why their mother is being interviewed on Oprah and other media outlets?

The press in this country leaves a lot to be desired. This is a perfect example of the double standard of the liberal media. By the way, the National Enquirer beat out the mainstream liberal media on this story. They actually got it right.

Cancer is a life threatening illness and in Elizabeth Edwards case, well, it’s not a good prognosis. Perhaps she wants to be an active person rather than wallow in her illness and that’s admirable. Everyone loves a fighter. But she was a participant to covering up something that could rip the country apart. The dishonesty of those two is unnerving. I will not be buying her book because she and her husband have proven that they are not honest people. I can’t trust anything she would write in a book.

I will suggest a book for you. "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin. I've read it twice and I'm reading it a third time. I learn more and more from it each time I read it.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

An Era Comes to an End: Jack Kemp 1935-2009

Jack Kemp, former star football player, former Congressman, former Vice Presidential Candidate and Architect of the Reagan Tax cuts died of Cancer on Saturday.

In 1957, Kemp was drafted in the 17th round of the Football draft by the Detroit Lions. This was in the days when the Lions were actually winning championships. In fact, I believe that 1957 was the last time the Lions won the championship. Kemp became the first in a long line of Lion players and coaches that went on to greatness after leaving Detroit.

After a couple of years playing for the Chargers, first of Los Angeles, then San Diego, Kemp was injured. His coach tried to hide him on the waiver rolls, but the Buffalo Bills found him and ended up getting him for the cost of $100. That $100 investment, got the Bills a top quarterback who led them to two championships and who made the all star team 7 out of 8 years, with one of those years having only played in four games. As a player, Kemp began the AFL players union and served as its' head.

As a member of the Army Reserves, he was called to active duty during the riots, but due to injuries was turned down. He was also drafted for the Vietnam War in 1962, but again, he was not fit for duty due to football injuries. The United States Army wouldn't take him, but football did and he excelled.

Kemp retired from football when he ran for and won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. As a member of the House he became a strong advocate for tax cuts, saying each time that taxes were cut they were followed by increased economic activity. He was the architect of the Reagan Tax cuts in the 80's and is credited with the longest period of economic growth due to those tax cuts.

Kemp was also a strong supporter of civil rights, began the concept of enterprise zones and was a strong advocate for personal ownership of public housing. He urged the poor to work towards buying their rental properties. Fought toe to toe to stop the Great Society saying it would only hold back black Americans rather than inspire them to improve their lives. While he wasn't a part of the Rosa Parks movement he was of the group following and supported Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis and counted among his close friends, Andrew Young, Coretta Scott King, John Lewis and others. Kemp was a strong advocate for creating a Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday.

Jack Kemp was considered as Vice Presidential material by Ronald Reagan, before George H. W. Bush was chosen. He was also considered as Bush's running mate in 1988. The Conservative to Bush's more moderate positions, but Bush chose Dan Quayle. In Bush's re-election bid, it's said that the Republicans wanted Bush to replace Quayle with Kemp to offset the popularity of H. Ross Perot which was drawing people from Bush. Again, though Bush stuck with Quayle.

In 1996, Kemp ran for President, then dropped out and endorsed Steve Forbes candidacy as a flat tax proponent. Despite this, the eventual nominee, Robert Dole chose Kemp as his running mate which eventually lost to Bill Clinton for his second term.

Kemp again ran in 2000 for the Presidency, but dropped out early and endorsed George W. Bush who was an early supporter of Kemps tax cutting philosophy. Those tax cuts eventually led to another economic growth boom following the attacks on September 11, 2001 until late 2007.

Kemp has been an inspirational speaker with the ideas to back them up. While he didn't worry about balancing the budget, his tax cutting ideas when implemented, proved both times that it leads to economic growth. The Reagan Tax Cuts, which were written by Jack Kemp and the Bush tax cuts, which were spurred by Jack Kemps advocacy for tax cuts creating the economic boom.

Jack Kemp didn't make it about him. It was always about the people. He wanted black Americans to succeed and encouraged growth and ownership. He wanted the American people to succeed, and proved how to do it with his tax cutting ideas that were implemented twice. He also advocated for immigration as well as giving illegal aliens the opportunity to become legal citizens.
In typical fashion, it was announced that Kemp was diagnosed with cancer in January of 2009 but the exact nature of the cancer, nor the prognosis were disclosed. On May 2, he lost his battle with cancer. The fiscal conservatives lost a strong voice for economic growth, black Americans lost a civil rights leader from the second wave of civil rights advocates, and the country lost a true man of the people.

You're welcome to comment.


Brett

New York Pays $300k to settle Democrat Racism

The State of New York secretly settled a lawsuit for $300,000 where Governor David Paterson (D) was accused of firing a white photographer to hire a black photographer. Paterson was the minority leader in the State Senate in 2003 which is when the event took place.

Paterson has just increased taxes in New York by $8 billion and has now cost the state an additional $300,000 with his racism. The attorney generals office has made no comment on the embarassing lawsuit. The suit was scheduled to go to Federal Court in Syracuse with Paterson as the key witness.

You can find this in the New York Post. I'll provide the link at the end of this. There are a couple of things in this story that I find interesting.

Party Identification

The story never mentions that Paterson is a Democrat. It does mention the person that Paterson replaced as minority leader, Martin Connor, and shows the (D) after his name but not until the fifth paragraph. Later it identifies the Senate Majority leader, Malcolm Smith as (D). For those that are politically aware, they would know that Paterson is a Democrat. But, papers are delivered to a variety of people many of whom don't follow politics.

Racism by a Democrat

Isn't it interesting that on news programs when Democrats are asked about what's wrong with the Republican Party, they say that Republicans don't include minorities hinting racism is systemic within the Republican Party. Do we need reminding that Janeane Garafolo and others have called the tea party attendees in recent weeks as complaining about a black man being elected? Saying it's racist. Yet, the racism comes from Bill Clinton in the campaign, even from Obama in the campaign talking about how a face like his doesn't appear on money, and now the Governor of New York as minority leader putting a man out of work because he's white and hiring a black man because he's black.

Reverse Discrimination

A brief mention is made of reverse discrimination in the story. If you reverse racism, isn't it not racism? If a white man discriminates against a black man, it's discrimination. If a black man discriminates against a white man, wouldn't that also be discrimination? This is just one of my little pet peeves about language, so I won't go further with this part of the topic.

Where's the outrage?

So why isn't this act of racism leading the news? Ok, we have the swine flu and the media wants to hype that as much as possible, and Justice Souter is retiring and the media will want to talk about what a great opportunity this will be for Obama, but isn't a major political figure, a leader of a state, a man that has raised taxes by $8 billion and causing the state to spend $300,000 additionally, isn't that a huge story? In addition, if Republicans are the racists in our society, wouldn't a Democrat being caught committing discrimination and having the people pay for his racism be a huge story? After all, the way racism in this country is portrayed, a Democrat displaying racism should be very rare and therefore a huge story.

Some Quotes:

The suit was brought by Joseph Maioriello. The new hire is El-Wise Noisette.

Maioriello claimed he was told by John McPadden, then Paterson's chief of staff, that he was being fired because a number of minority senators wanted to replace him with "a minority photographer, a black photographer." He said he was also told, "You got to remember who Sen. Paterson is. Sen. Paterson is black."

Paterson, who is legally blind, claimed in a sworn deposition that he didn't see well enough to have fired Maioriello because of his race. A spokesman for Paterson later said the comment was "a quip, a joke."

I have given depositions in the past. I can't remember anytime that I would take a deposition so cavalierly that I'd joke in my answers and quite often, I make quips or jokes, in odd situations. But not in a deposition.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05012009/news/regionalnews/paterson_burned_by_a_racial_fire_167078.htm