1984 Is Here: 26 Years Later

More and more continues to come out about the sexual molestation of American travelers at airports around the country by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

Since the "underwear bomber" aboard the flight headed to Detroit, the TSA has started putting in scanners that show body parts to protect airline passengers. At the time, we were told that these images would not be saved and would not be put out for the public to see. Since then, the TSA has added patdowns which we're all familar with thanks to John Tyners video of him being patted down and uttering the now famous line "don't touch my junk or I'll have you arrested."

We are now seeing pictures of young children being groped by TSA agents, as well as nuns and more and more women as well as men are coming out with the graphic descriptions of what's being done to them under the guise of "security".

Two days ago, a story was released out of Florida showing 100 of the scans that have been released to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. Apparently, there have been 35,000 scans maintained by the machines in Florida. This is not only a direct opposite of what we were all told when these scanners were first installed, but it may very well be in violation of laws.

It might be a good idea to look to see what the Constitution says about this. The fourth amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers , and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This story has been on the news, especially since the John Tyner incident. Now there is one more wrinkle being added. If a person is wearing baggy pants, the TSA agents will reach into the pants. It's no longer just copping a feel through the pants, but now reaching right in and actually touching.

How many terrorist attacks have been stopped by these scanners or the groping? Not only that, but how many terrorist attacks has the government stopped on airplanes in this country? The answer? None. Not one terrorist has been stopped by a government program or official on a commercial airline.

The underwear bomber was stopped, but he was stopped by two things. Apparently, he was unable to get the bomb in his pants to go off, but even the fire that was started by that was put out by passengers and the bomber himself was stopped and tackled by a Dutch passenger. Not one government official. Not even a sky marshal.

Then there is the worst day in our history where four planes were hijacked on September 11, 2001. Two flew into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and the fourth never reached it's target, but again, not due to the government, but rather by passengers who took matters into their own hands and fought back against the terrorists after they had taken control of the plane and ended up crashing in a field in Pennsylvania.

The government is putting travelers through molestation lines to protect us from terrorists and yet, it's been American citizens that have saved the butts of government people.

The government (Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano) claims that they aren't changing their policies because it's working. No terrorist has gotten through their screenings. However, they have not captured any terrorists trying to get through the screenings either. They are now talking about adding these scanners at train stations, bus depots and subways.

The TSA however, is investigating John Tyner for refusing the scanner and the pat down. He didn't get on the plane. He did as he was instructed and left the airport without getting on his plane. But the government wants to prosecute him and fine him up to $11,000 for refusing to be molested by the government.

A group out of Virginia is now trying to organize a protest for the heaviest travel day of the year, November 24. They want everyone to refuse the scanner (which apparently is now being discovered has high doses of radiation exposure) and have everyone go through the pat downs, or government molestation. My hope is that people also refuse the patdowns on that day.

Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri claims that these patdowns are nothing more than a love tap. Whenever the government claims to do things for our own good, I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it a "love tap". Frankly, if I'm going to get a love tap like that, I'd prefer it be someone of my choosing and not some government official. It's bad enough they are tapping my wallet every day.

In the meantime, cargo is not secured. We're in more danger of terrorists bringing down a plane by putting a package on the plane, as we've seen in recent weeks with the attempts at bombing planes from packages as they arrived on the east coast. Perhaps the government should concentrate on molesting boxes and packages on planes before children, women, nuns, and men.

If we allow these scanners, which don't stop bombs from appearing on planes, to permeate our country, the terrorists have won and we have a whole new set of terrorists in this country. These new terrorists will be the government officials also known as Big Brother. The predictions from the book 1984 are coming true. They are 26 years later, but they are coming true right before our eyes.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

The Myth of the Liberals

If talk of taxes are very dry reading for you, then I apologize. However, with the debate going on over extending the Bush Tax Cuts, it's important to understand some facts.

The argument from the liberals is that we can't afford to extend the tax cuts on the rich. We don't need to make the rich richer. Making the rich, richer doesn't help the middle class. The rich can afford it.

We've all heard the line that nobody has ever gotten a job from a poor person. It's simple but more importantly, it's true.

I looked at the most recent history of tax cuts. The Reagan Tax cuts of the 80's, the Clinton tax increases of the 90's and the Bush tax cuts of the 2000's. My source is the Joint Economic Committee, which can be found at the government websites.

Tax rates in 1981 were cut. Prior to those tax cuts, during the tax year of 1981, the "rich" or top 1% of income earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes.

By 1988, the top 1% of income earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes.

This is the exact opposite of what the liberals have been saying in their arguments. If the liberals were right in their argument, that tax cuts benefit the rich, they should have been paying something less than 17.6% by 1988. But that just isn't the case.

So if the tax cuts are so good for the "rich" as the liberals say, then they must be bad or at the very least, negligible for the middle class. Under that reasoning, the middle class must be paying more too. However, that's not the case at all. During that same period from 1981 to 1988, the tax burden on the middle class dropped from 57.5% to 48.7%! That means that the middle class had their taxes go down by 8.8 points, while the richest had theirs increase by 9.9 points! To give you a better idea of what the tax cuts did, the tax revenues in 1981 were $244 Billion. However, in 1988 with tax rates lower, the tax revenues were $466 Billion! If the liberals were right in their arguments, it should have been much less than $244 Billion in 1988, not a $222 Billion increase in revenues!

So how can tax rates come down yet those that have the most, actually end up paying more than when the taxes were higher? This is really very simple to understand, but liberals refuse to look beyond statism. They have more money during the year that they are able to put back into their business in several forms.

First, they can increase their inventories. After all, if everyone got a tax decrease, more people will have more money to spend, therefore, a business owner must have more supplies to sell to those wanting to buy.

Second, because they have more inventory to sell and more customers buying, they have a need for more people to sell their product. So they must hire more people. The people they hire, don't have a job or they wouldn't be applying for a job. That now means that they have more money to spend because they now have a job where they are earning money.

Third, Because they have more inventory, and because they have more sales, this generates more income for them, which means they pay more dollars in taxes even though their tax rate is down. They also have an added expense due to the new employees that they had to hire. While we pay over 7% to social security out of our paychecks an employer also pays that amount for each employee. Yet, they still hire pe0ple because they have more sales and need the workers, whether those workers are there to sell the product, produce the product or put together the product.

What this means is that while the "rich" are getting a tax break, they are paying more taxes because their income increases. They take advantage of the additional capital due to lower taxes and actually create a situation where their taxes increase by investing that capital into their businesses, and making more money.

Will the tax cuts make the rich get richer? Yes, as it should. Those that work hard for their earnings will reap the rewards of that harder work. When they are freed up by lower taxes, they know that they will have more dollars to put into their business and earn even more dollars to pay taxes on. They don't have to look for ways to lower their tax burden by avoiding taxes with investments that are free of taxes or ship their jobs oversees to avoid the taxes in this country. They can then keep the jobs here, keep the money here and keep the reinvestment here.

But what happens when taxes are raised? In 1993, a tax increase was pushed by Bill Clinton and the Democrat Congress. In the spring it was voted on and naturally it passed in the House where the Democrats controlled. In the Senate however things were more even and there was doubt that the tax increase would go through. That's when Al Gore, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate and more importantly, the tie breaking vote, chose to vote for the Democrats and Clinton and the tax increases became law. In addition, those increases were retro active to January.

The effect of that tax increase was a decrease in tax revenue. There was also a decrease in productivity. During President George H. W. Bush's final quarter of his Presidency, the economy grew at a robust 4.6%. The tax increase took effect in January the following year and the economy grew at just 2.6% for the next two years.

Again, it was proven that tax cuts work. President George W. Bush got tax cuts put into law in 2001 and 2003. This had the effect of increasing tax revenue to the Federal government in record amounts! It also had the economy growing per quarter at better than 5%. One quarters growth was actually at 8.5%!

There was another benefit to these tax cuts. Unemployment during the first 7 years of his presidency was averaged at 4.5%.

Once again, as in the 80's and the 60's and the 20's, tax cuts increased the economy, tax revenues and lowered unemployment.

This year we're not even talking about cutting taxes. We're talking about extending the tax cuts already in place that are due to expire on January 1, 2011.

If we know that decreasing taxes increases the governments checkbook, why then do we have deficits? We should have had profits many many years ago and the government should not be in debt and should not be operating on deficits. The answer? Spending. The government spends more than it takes in. When they receive extra money, they don't pay their obligations, they spend it on other things driving us further into debt despite the increase in funds.

Do you know when the last time was that the government spent less money than the year before? I didn't know. I looked it up. The year was 1965. In 1965 medicare/medicaid was passed. The war on poverty was started. Since that time, spending has increased each and every year!

If you look at graphs of spending, you can see that the largest years were during the Depression, wars and in the past two years. President Roosevelt tried to spend our way out of the depression. It failed. It only brought on a second depression in 1937. We are now doing it again.

If we want to see prosperity again in this country, we need to pass these tax cut extensions and pass them quickly! If we want to expand the recession and possibly put us into a depression, the path we're on with the massive spending, bailouts and talk of increased taxes is the right way to ruin this country.

The arguments put out by the liberals is nothing more than a myth. Tax cuts and even tax extensions for anyone does not need to be paid for. To the contrary, tax increases need to be paid for. This is why the liberals lost the election in the House, the Senate, the Governors, the state chambers and even local elections. They lost due to the health care debacle. The cap and trade threat. The financial overhaul attack on Wall St and the banks. The liberals will never admit this, but it is what cost them the election. Just like the excessive spending by the Republicans cost them the election in 2006.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Hide The Women and Children. The Government Perverts are Here as the TSA

Government intrusion has hit new heights. In recent years, the government under the auspices of safety has taken to "protecting" the public with newer technology. Originally, they said that they'd have full body scanners but that the scans would not be saved. They'd be destroyed as soon as they were viewed and the prospective passenger was cleared of having any hint of weapons or bombs in their clothing or strapped to their body in some fashion.

It was only a matter of days, however, that it was discovered that those scans weren't being destroyed and that Transportation security Agency (TSA) workers were keeping these for their viewing pleasure. This happened within days of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano assuring the nation that their privacy would be respected.

The story was amplified when an employee attacked his co-workers that were making fun of his lack of endowment.

Following the failed underwear bomber attempt last Christmas on the flight coming into Detroit, that the TSA stepped up their measures. They then added that you could opt out of the body scanners but you had to go through a pat down by a TSA employee. Recently, they've changed their policy again and now put some through pat down's as well as the full body scan.

Immediately, when I heard this I thought that men were patting down men and women were patting down women. Not so fast. That's not the case at all. But, what really got to me is that young children are having to go through this. Also, not male to male and female to female.

I have two daughters that are now young teenagers and a son that is now 20. When they were younger, they were taught that NOBODY is to touch your "private areas" except a doctor and even then, not unless one of the parents is in the room with them.

Now imagine if you have younger children and you are about to take them a flight to visit family or take a vacation during the holidays. Your younger children are going to have their bodies exposed in the body scanners and then they will be touched by some stranger wearing a uniform.

If someone groped a child in the park, they'd be arrested, put on the sexual predator list and forever be branded a pedophile. If someone groped a female in the park, same result, minus the pedophile label. But now we are expected to submit our women and children to this humiliating abuse by government workers!

From all of the information coming out, the government workers in these positions amount to nothing more than government sponsored sexual deviants and pedophiles.

I'd be tempted to do a couple of paragraphs about how this is the United States submitting to Bill Clinton antics, but this is not funny. This is only showing that this government is not only out of control but also sick. They are getting cheap thrills under the guise of security.

I don't fly. I have a fear of flying. I would fly if there were an emergency that required me to be somewhere for someone, but I can't imagine anything being so important to get on a flight and subject my family or anyone that I cared about to this sort of humiliation by the government.

I will not tell my children that it's okay to have government workers touching their private parts. We can't even trust teachers in our schools any longer, so I'm certainly not going to tell them to trust government workers. If I were married, I would not have my wife subjected that humiliation. I'm just one person. If the majority of people felt like I do and refused to fly, what would happen to the airline industry?

There's an old line that you should be wary if someone says "I'm from the government and I'm just here to help you." Can you trust them to grope you before getting on an airline?

All you have to do is look at the elected officals in government. We constantly hear of scandals that those we elect being caught in compromising positions either with sex or money. David Vitter has been caught with a prostitute. The former Governor of New York, Elliott Spitzer, who championed going after prostitution rings was caught using prostitutes when he was traveling.

There was the guy from New York that resigned last year because he was making sexual advances on his male interns and workers. The one in Indiana who admitted to an affair with a worker in his office has since resigned. Even the spouses of politicians such as Senator Debbie Stabenow's husband caught dealing with a prostitute. And we're supposed to trust other government workers?

Teachers have been convicted of molestation and rape of children in their care at school. At least thirty in the past three years all around the country and those are just the women!

This government has gotten more and more intrusive, but now that they are taking sexual advantage of women and children in airports, one has to ask the question. What is coming next?

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Former Republican Presidents vs. Former and Present Democrat Presidents

A clip of former President George W. Bush is out there promoting his appearance on Oprah's show on November 9, 2010. He was asked about President Obama's performance thus far into Obama's term. President Bush would not comment. He went so far as to say that the job of President is very difficult and that Obama didn't need a former President commenting on his performance. Then Bush went abit further and said he thought it was demeaning of the Presidency for former Presidents to enter the fray. Bush said that he'd have liked to have had that same consideration when he was elected.

There is an unwritten rule on former Presidents that you don't speak out about your successor for at least the first year. It undermines the current President. It's more of a protocol than a directive. There are examples from the past. Rarely, did you hear President George H. W. Bush say anything about President Bill Clinton. One time that I can find, in fact. President Ronald Reagan never said anything about his successors. President George W. Bush has not said anything about President Obama. He refuses to do so even when prodded. Even Gerald Ford refused to comment on his successors except supposedly to Bob Woodward, but required that it never be revealed until after he died.

On a side note, when President Bush took office he didn't say much about the previous administration. Even when he first arrived and found carpeting ripped up, items missing and even the "W's" taken off of all of the computer keyboards in the White House. He just told the staff to fix it or replace it and not talk about it.

Yet, how many times have we heard Obama blame Bush for everything and anything that goes wrong in his administration? It's almost a daily talking point. If Obama was to slip getting out of the Presidential bathtub, he'd blame Bush for leaving soap suds behind on the bottom of the tub.

Now think to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. They won't even go away, let alone shut their mouths. Bill Clinton was making comments within two weeks following Bush's inaugural and then again after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Although most of what we heard then was that he wished it would have happened on his watch so he could be as popular as Bush was then.

Jimmy Carter has been outspoken since the day he was driven away following the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Even Ronald Reagan, who had more reason to comment than any President in my lifetime, said nothing about his predecessor, when he was left with double digit unemployment, double digit inflation and double digit interest rates.

President George W. Bush remains Presidential and a class act even when he's no longer President. It's really too bad that the current President doesn't act Presidential even while he's President. Before anyone jumps on me, here's some examples. Calling Republicans "enemies" of hispanics. Appearing on any talk show that will have him. The Daly Show and even with Ryan Seacrest.

He can talk to off the beaten path programs, but he can't speak to Fox News which is only the number one News Organization in the country and has been number one for 9 of their 13 years in business.

Meanwhile, President George W. Bush finished his book and is about to make the rounds promoting his book and still refuses to say anything negative about President Obama. Not only is that class, but it's also got to be a shining example of restraint given how horrible this President is.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Now the Real Fun Starts

Now that what's been predicted has come true, the fun is about to begin. The face of the Democrat Party (pictured above) is gone. But he's not the only one. There are over 60 others that are gone.

Just to clean up abit, I thought, and said that I thought, that the Republicans would gain 70 seats. I only missed by about 5. But I missed, so that should be a reminder that I'm only giving my opinions on here. There are many that write in blogs that make declarative statements that refuse to accept any other positions.

So now what happens? Well, the real fun begins and it's already started. Yesterday, the Democrats were saying that it's now up to Republicans to cooperate with them. Unfortunately, I expected this sort of a statement from them, but it still leaves me dumfounded when I hear it. Let me be clear here. There are over 60 seats in the United States House of Representatives that are now held by Republicans that were held by Democrats. There are six new Senators.

In the House only two Republican incumbents lost. How many Democrat incumbents lost? 40? That should dispel the notion that this was an anti incumbent year. Unless only Democrats were incumbents. In addition, 19 state chambers flipped to Republicans.

The Democrats now saying that the Republicans will have to cooperate with them is the height of arrogance. What this means is that now politics will play a role in governing for the next two years. Yes, it would be nice if things got accomplished, but not the wrong things.

First order of business would be extending the Bush tax cuts. Obama has already blinked on this. He says he's willing to make the middle class tax cuts permanent, and to extend the tax cuts for those making up to $1 million. The Republicans should accept the middle class tax cuts being permanent, but they should hold out for the everyones tax cut extension to be made permanent. Failing that, which they probably will, they should back down to extending those tax cuts for another two years. These should not be separate bills. They should stay together as one bill. If they split it to two bills, they'll not get the extension for the wealthy. If it's extended on the upper class, it will come up again at the next election. This will have the effect of jobs being created almost instantly.

Second item, should be the repeal of Obamacare. As much as the liberals don't want to admit it, Obamacare, along with the stimulus, cap and tax and wall street reform all contributed to the Democrats demise this election. It's likely that they'll fail at repealing Obamacare. The House will pass it with ease. The Senate may pass it because there are another 33 seats coming up for election in 2012. This bill does not need to be tweaked, as Harry Reid says, it needs to be eliminated.

If it does manage to get through both the House and the Senate, Obama will veto it. Then we'll see if the Democrats are really serious about cooperation and will vote with Republicans to override the veto. If not, we'll have another issue in 2012 to go after those Democrats as well as Obama, who is up for re-election.

Failing to repeal Obamacare is not the end. The House can then just fail to fund Obamacare. It will die on the vine until the Republicans get a veto-proof majority or we get a new President in 2012.

Third is immigration reform. It doesn't need to be reformed. The current immigration laws need to be enforced. Immediately. More and more Americans are dying along the border. How many AMericans have to die before this President figures out he's got it all wrong.

We're in for some fun, as well as some frustration, for the next two years. It is my hope that the Tea Party does not go away and they prove themselves to be a formidable force.

But for now, I'm celebrating. Alan Grayson is gone. He's the epitome of what's wrong with the Democrats. Now he's gone and that is worth celebrating. The work begins after the Holidays.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Proper Attire for Election Day

As with anything these days, there is a proper way to dress when you go to vote on Tuesday, November 2. But, the style of dress is not necessarily the same in various regions of the country.

For instance, if you're voting for Charlie Crist in Florida, the proper attire may be a pullover shirt that says across the front "It's all about me". If you're voting for Kendrick Meek, you could wear a shirt that has an arrow pointing at the guy next to you that is wearing the "all about me" shirt and have your shirt say "I'm with stupid".

In California, you would wear a shirt that says "ma'am" if you're voting for Barbara Boxer.

In Michigan....never mind, you're just happy to be dressed at all.

In Connecticut, the proper attire is the WWE logo on your shirt.

And of course in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, the proper attire to wear to the voting booth is a blue windbreaker with ICE written on the back. Just a word of caution if you're in the southwest wearing an ICE jacket. Make sure you're agile enough to move out of the way when a hoard of illegal alien invaders begin to make a mass exodus from the building.

Whatever you do, however you dress, just make sure that you go out and vote!

You're welcome to comment.

Brett