The War on Police

There have been three incidents in recent months that has triggered a war with police in this country. But other factors have figured into it than just those three incidents.

Michael Brown was the first well known incident. He’s the 18 year old that was killed in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael Brown doesn’t seem to have had a criminal record. However, on that day, he was caught on video stealing cigarellos and pushing a clerk into a display rack. Then he was shot dead after fighting for an officers gun while the officer was in his car and then fled. He turned and charged back at the officer who then opened fire and killed Brown in the street.

A grand jury was convened and heard the case and concluded no charges should be brought against Officer Wilson. The people of Ferguson then started burning down their own town and opportunists took advantage of the melee and looted businesses.

In New York, Eric Garner resisted arrest. He was being arrested for selling individual cigarettes without a tax stamp. Garner, unlike Brown, had an arrest record dating back to 1980 for various crimes such as assault, grand larceny and selling cigarettes. Again, a grand jury was convened and again concluded no charges should be brought.

In Cleveland, Ohio, a twelve year old boy was brandishing a gun, pointing it at people walking by in a park. The police were called and when they pulled up the boy reached for the gun. It did not have the red cap on it to indicate that It was a toy and it looked real enough to the officer who then fired. They boy died later.

In the past two days, there have been three policeman killed. Two in New York and one in Florida. In California, a billboard honoring four policeman who were killed four years ago was vandalized.

Several things have gone into and not created the problem but fueled the flames of the problem

The Media:

Do they ever get anything right? They spend all of their time giving their opinions of the news but never seem to get around to reporting it. On CNN’s Anderson Cooper, the night the Grand Jury evidence was released in Missouri, they learned that Michael Brown had grabbed for the officers gun and was shot in the car. Cooper said “I didn’t know that’. Other news outlets had been reporting it from leaks they’d received but somehow CNN just seemed to miss out on it and were giving opinions mostly leaning towards Hands up don’t shoot . The New York Times had already published the officers address putting the officer and his family at risk.

Al Sharpton:

He inserts himself into every situation where there is a white and a black, but I can’t remember an event where he has been on the right side yet. From Tawana Brawley to these latest incidents. He fuels the fire towards riots rather than away. After the two officers were killed the other day in New York, he wrote a piece for the New York Daily News. He talks about the two officers being killed and says that he spoke to the Brown family and the Garner Family and they said they didn’t want this. They wanted non violent protests. He mentions in writing the Garners and the Brown families but never once in his writing does he name the two officers. Well Mr. Sharpton. I’m going to help you out. The two officers names are Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. They were ambushed. They didn’t have even a fighting chance. Brown and Garner at least got the chance to fight back even though they seem to be guilty of committing crimes. Ramos and Liu were just sitting in their car.

Another officer was killed in Florida. If early reports are correct, he was shot and then run over. His name is Charles Kondeck. In California a billboard honoring four officers slain 4 years ago was vandalized. The four honored officers were Mark Dunakin, Daniel Sakai, Ervin Romans, and John Hege. Mr. Sharpton, before you start talking about these men maybe you should learn their names.

It’s disappointing that there has to be a separation between blacks and whites, but one of the first things that could be done to try to ease conflict is to stop listening to Al Sharpton.

The St. Louis Rams and others sports figures

Four or five of the players on the Rams came out of the tunnel with their hands up as a symbol for Michael Brown. A symbol based on something that was apparently not true. According to witnesses, Brown did not put his hands up and did not say "don't shoot". 

Perhaps the Rams ought to concentrate on football when they are on the field. 

President Obama:

Obama seems to be wrong each time he opens his mouth. Presidents should not insert themselves into local situations. He should know better than to even offer any thoughts on it until after the system has run its’ course. He was supposedly a law professor at one time. I would think he would know this.

Obama inserted himself into a situation at Cambridge within the first months of his presidency, saying the Cambridge police acted “stupidly”. A black professor was breaking into his own home and the police stopped him asking for ID. The professor wasn’t cooperative.

Obama inserted himself into the Trayvon Martin case saying if he had a son, he’d look just like Trayvon. This was before the facts were out showing that Martin was actually the attacker.

Now he doesn’t like the grand jury results in Missouri and inserts himself into that. It wasn’t surprising that as he begins commenting on it, on a split screen they show the rioters starting up their activities by trying to turn over a police car.

A good president….even a bad president, would say something like, “we  have to trust in our judicial system” before the results are out, and when they come out, even if he disagrees with the result, he should be saying “our system has spoken and if one side feels it was wrong, there is an appeals process for people to follow.”

But for a President to undermine the system that he’s supposedly the head of shows at the very least unprofessionalism and much closer to incompetence and bias.

New York Mayor DeBlasio

Like President Obama, the mayors job was to back his police force and back the justice system. He’s just made enemies of the very people that he’s got in charge to serve and protect the citizenry.

New York Gun Laws:

Just one comment here. Guns are outlawed in the city of New York. So how did the shooter get close to the two officers to shoot them? Could it possibly be that criminals don’t respect the laws? Apparently, they don’t have any respect for the laws nor for human life.

There are many more things than just those listed above that fed into this. Parents that don’t take care of the children that they bear. Schools that fail these kids way too often. Human life is not given any worth by some. Those that think the world owes them everything and they have no responsibility for their actions. This is not just a black problem. This is a problem in the human race.

Not all police are innocent and not all of them are guilty. Not all blacks are innocent and not all of them are guilty. But once they break out in a physical confrontation where lives are at stake, who’s right and wrong won’t matter until the bodies are figured out. At that point, it’s too late to say “sorry” because one or more are dead.

If you want to see your children stay out of jail, teach them to not break the law. If you want to stay out of jail, don’t break the law. There is a place for grievances to be heard, but it’s not on a street corner.

If you don’t trust the police, why on earth would you give them reason to distrust you by bringing attention to yourself with your actions or your attitude? Trust is not freely given. It’s earned and once earned can be lost. If you want to keep the trust you’ve earned don’t give reason for it to be removed.

There was somebody, I don’t remember who it was now, that said in Eric Garners case, he was driven to this because of the high taxes on cigarettes in New York. Maybe he was, but he still broke the law. I understand an underground market being created by the ridiculous taxes put on various items, but if you’re actively doing something about it by selling them when it’s illegal, accept your punishment. It’s odd too that the Mayor of New York would have his police on the lookout for someone selling a cigarette. That would seem to me to be more of an incidental discovery rather than a smoke cop being assigned. But it’s still breaking the law.

In each case there was an apparent breaking of the law. Cigarettes being sold illegally, cigarellos being stolen from a store along with an assault and a kid pointing what looked like a real gun at an armed policeman.

Now we are left with a war on the police. That will only make it more difficult to weed out the bad ones and let the good ones continue to do the fine job that most do.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Anti- Government Democrats?

In recent weeks, we’ve seen the Democrats attack the Police, and even the judicial system, and now our intelligence agencies and Military. With Democrats undermining government agencies, one can only wonder how long before they become the new anti government group. If Janet Napolitano was still the secretary of Homeland Security, would she open investigations into Democrats as domestic terrorists?

This started with the Michael Brown death when he was shot and killed by a police officer. The prosecutor sent the investigation to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury found no reason to indict the officer. Without rehashing the entire episode again, what it boils down to is that Democrats from President Obama, to Eric Holder the Attorney General, along with Obama’s latest advisor, Al Sharpton chose to side with Michael Brown despite not having seen all of the evidence.

Grand Juries don’t operate under the same rules as a court room. First, the accused is not permitted to have an attorney in the grand jury room with him. Second, there is no legal wrangling about technicalities as there is in a civil or district court. Grand Juries look at evidence presented and decide if there is a probable cause a crime was committed. It’s easier to get an indictment than it is to get guilty conviction in a trial court. So there must have been very strong evidence in the officers favor for them to not indict.

Yesterday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) California and Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, released their CIA report on torture. The investigation was 500 pages and cost nearly $50 million dollars and they didn’t interview one person from the CIA.

The activities that the investigation was looking into was waterboarding and other techniques to get prisoners to talk. By all accounts, except for the report, information was gathered and did save lives and prevent attacks.

The program was stopped nearly ten years ago, although President Obama claims it was discontinued when he became President. But then he takes credit for anything that happens that’s good until it turns bad, then claims he knew nothing about it.

So this report served no purpose save one. It puts our CIA operatives as well as our military at risk. Days before the report was released, our embassies and marines were put on high alert for possible attacks due to this report coming out. The President, the Congress and even Senator Dianne Feinstein knew that this biased partisan report was going to put our men and women serving in the field to protect Americans at home as well as abroad and released it anyway.

The reason for Senator Feinsteins vigor in getting this report out appears to be because the CIA was caught spying on her office a few years ago. To punish them for their activity, she is putting our heroes lives at risk. If she’s going to play a tit for tat game, my question is how many of her staff members or anyone else that entered her offices at the time of the alleged spying on her offices, died? The answer is NONE. So her little vengeance game will be won by her at the expense of a marine, or a CIA operative. A marine who may have killed or captured the next terrorist to fly a plane into a building here. A CIA operative who may discover that the terrorists have a biological weapon that will now not be prevented because that operative died in the name of the Feinsteins revenge.

This begs the question. Just what did Senator Feinstein have going on in her office that would justify the killing of a marine or a CIA agent spying for the United States of America?

Thankfully, we have the finest marines in the world and the best spies in the world. They at least have a chance because they are the best. Unfortunately, their margin of error just shrunk because a United States Senator got a hornet up her skirt and is bent on revenge against her own country.

We can only hope that she never gets the chance to be faced by the parent or the spouse of a dead US Soldier because of her actions. Maybe the cost of losing an election this badly is that the Democrats are turning anti-government. More likely they'll become more pro socialist. 

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Consequences of Lies?

The man in the picture above is a Democrat. He died a few weeks ago in October. I would love to tell you the story behind this, and many of you may have already heard it, but I would rather that you heard his story from his wife. It's a little better than six minutes long. Please take the time to watch it before reading on. Following is the url. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0da4PjaS90A&feature=player_detailpage

If you watched the video, you now know that the man in the picture above is Alvin Wiederspahn. He is a former state legislator in Wyoming. His wife is Cynthia Lummis, a Republican Representative in the House of Representatives. I didn't know of either of them until today. She questioned Jonathan Gruber and Marilyn Tavenner in the committee hearing today. 

Gruber and Tavenner spent most of the time dodging, hemming and hawing to the Republican questions and dealing with softball questions from the Democrats in the committee. Some of the Democrats took their shots at Gruber as well, but were still fairly mild with him. 

The Democrats first commenter was Representative Elijah Cummings (D) Maryland, ranking member of the committee. He did tell Gruber he was disrespectful of the American people but his most pointed comments were how Grubers comments gave the Republicans a gift wrapped up with a bow on it to try to tear apart the Affordable Care Act. 

The Affordable Care Act or Obamacare was supposed to HELP the American people be insured. At least ostensibly. The true reason for Obamacare is control of the American people. Make everyone equal and stick it to the insurance companies and the rich. Not to mention create a legacy for some Democrats (By the way, when the new congress takes over in January, half the Senators that voted for Obamacare will not be Senators any longer).

As we all know Obamacare is not a bi-partisan piece of legislation. It was rammed through and passed the House using the reconciliation process. If they didn't do that, the bill would die when returned to the Senate. Not one Republican voted for it and according to polls 65% of the American people were against the take over of health care by the government. 

To get the bill through and to get the American people behind the bill, a series of lies needed to be told. "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Lie. "If you like your existing plan, you can keep your existing plan." Lie. 

In recent weeks, we've learned that Gruber was one of the architects of the bill and there are seven videos out there where he talks about fooling the people, the stupidity of the American voter and tax the insurance companies so the American people can feel like they aren't paying when in effect the cost is passed on to the people. Even admitting in some that lies had to be told about whether it was a tax or not. 

He had been to the White House and met with Obama. He'd met with Speaker Pelosi. Health and Human Services Secretary has not admitted meeting him directly, and nothing has turned up yet saying they had met, but both Obama and Pelosi were caught in lies about knowing him. 

These Democrats, and remember, not even one Republican voted for this, felt they had to lie to get this passed. They didn't care about insuring the uninsured. There were supposedly 48 million Americans without health care.  

Remember the problems they had with the websites last year. When all was said and done they were proud that they had 7 million people sign up. What's 41 million Americans without health insurance. We got 7 million. 

Now the lies are coming home to roost. It is possible that in June the Supreme Court will dismantle Obamacare. But what about Congresswoman Lummis' husband? He's already lost his life after the back and forth of whether or not Obamacare covered him. 

Ms. Lummis said she isn't saying that Obamacare was responsible for her husbands death, but is she right? He died of a massive heart attack in his sleep. He'd been having chest pains. But didn't have a test his doctor recommended because he was told he didn't have Obamacare. 

Stress can cause strains on the heart. Could the strain be enough to cause a heart attack? We'll never know in Wiederspahn's case. But his is not the only story to come out with problems of coverage since Obamacare was implemented last year. 

Thankfully, it doesn't appear it reached the panel, also known as the "death panel". If it did, could he have been punished for daring to be a Democrat married to a Republican? 

How many others signed up for Obamacare as Wiederspahn and his wife, a representative in the House did, but don't have the platform to talk about it as Cynthia Lummis does by virtue of her position as a politician? 

When lies have the possibilities of creating problems in others lives, and possibly even ending them, you have to wonder why the government is hiring and paying millions of dollars out to a man that advises others and is advised by politicians to lie. Is their ego to make a name for themselves more important than the lives of those they are supposed to represent? 

If this was the only story that reflects badly on the government running health care, it could be seen as an aberration and given the benefit of the doubt. But just a few months ago, we heard how the Veterans Administration was allowing American Veterans that fought for this country, to die for lack of getting to the doctor to have treatment for ailments that they have due to their service to this nation. 

This President and his minions have lied about the health care plan. They've lied about the immigration executive order, they've lied about Benghazi, about the IRS, about fast and furious. These are just the lies we know about at this point. What will we find out next? 

This reminds me of what former President Ronald Reagan said were the most dangerous words in the English language. "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." 

You're welcome to comment. 

Brett

Gruber Correct: American Health Care Voter is Stupid

Now there’s a headline that if in a major publication could create a stir. It is true, however. In 2009 when President Barack Obama took office he immediately created conflict in politics by signing the stimulus package. That event led to the formation of the Tea Party. That was February 2009. Obama had been in office barely a month and already the Republicans were making progress for the next election. Not because of them but because of Obama, the House and the Senate, all controlled by Democrats.

Following the election, the Democrats held the majority of both Houses of Congress. With the Independents, like Bernie Sanders from Vermont,  and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut they were just one seat away from having the 60 votes needed to block filibusters.

Along came Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania. He saw that he was going to lose the primary in his home state so he changed parties and became a Democrat. He became the 60^th vote that would get Obama’s health care legislation through.

Then, Senator Ted Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts who had been suffering from brain cancer, died dropping the Democrats down to 59. This made them one short of the cloture vote.

 A temporary replacement (Paul Kirk) was appointed The Democrats now had their 60 votes again. They voted and the law passed 60-39. A special election was to be held for the seat vacated by the death of Senator Kennedy. Scott Brown ran as the Republican in a heavily liberal state. He ran as the 41^st vote against the affordable care act, also known as Obamacare. The amazing thing is that he won the race. Obamacare was dead….almost.

There was one way it could still go through. The House, who had been working on their own bill need only pass the Senate bill that had passed after abandoning their own version. If it went to a markup, the Senate would have to have a vote on it and with Scott Brown elected in Massachusetts, they wouldn’t have the filibuster proof majority and the health care plan would be dead. The House, which only needs a simple majority, which they had, voted on the bill and it passed. 220-215. Again, not one Republican voted for the bill.  

Here is where Gruber is correct. The American people did not vote on Obamacare. The people don’t get to vote on individual pieces of legislation. They only vote for the Representatives in each house to represent them. It is the members of the House and Senate that vote on legislation.

Not one Republican voted for Obamacare to become law. Each and every vote for the law was cast by a Democrat. Each and every Republican voted No on the bill. So you see, Jonathan Gruber is correct. They only needed to fool the voters for the bill, which were all Democrats.  

Do you need an example of the stupidity? How about the then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D) from California who said, “We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It".

Now there are two very liberal Democrat who are showing buyers remorse on the Obamacare plan. Senator Chuck Schumer (D) of New York and outgoing Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. If only they hadn’t been stupid when they voted for it.

The American voters are the smart ones. Since Obamacare, liberal Democrats have been losing seats in both Houses. The stupid voters that Gruber ended up describing was every Democrat representative and Senator that voted for the bill. 280 of them. They are after all the only ones that did. Although, there was one more, but he didn't vote on it, he signed it. 

The hearings should be extremely interesting over the next couple of days. It would be fun to see the Republicans jumping all over the Mr. Gruber for calling Democrat elected officials stupid.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Common Sense: Ferguson Burns

In August a police officer shot and killed an 18 year old man. What made this national news is that the police officer is white and the 18 year old man is black and a witness, a friend and companion of the 18 year old man, claimed that his friend raised his hands and said don’t shoot after being shot in the back.

There are three things that set off the riots in August in Ferguson Missouri. The officer was white. The man was black. The report was that the black man was shot by the white officer In the back. Of those three things, one of them was not true. The 18 year old man was not shot in the back! His companion, lied!

The day after the incident, the 18 year old man’s family came out. Michael Brown’s mother said he was a good boy and that he was to start college in the coming weeks. Pictures were shown on national television of a teenage boy. However, that teenage boy, an 18 year old man, was 6’5 and weighed just under 300 lbs.

Over the next three months, the officer said nothing publicly. Al Sharpton, who was not there, said plenty. Jesse Jackson, who was not there said plenty. Both charged for their time. Jackson took the opportunity to raise money from the protestors and the rioters. Sharpton wanted to charge the Michael Brown family for his services.

A rallying cry was created. “Hands up; Don’t shoot!”

A few days following the shooting a video emerged from a store. It showed Michael Brown stealing some cigarello’s from the store. It also showed that when the clerk tried to approach him at the door, that Brown said something to him and pushed him back into a rack of what looks like various types of potato chips and then walks out the door.

The evidence showed that the officer was telling the truth, the friend of Michael Brown, Dorian Johnson, was lying.

The lie is what became the narrative in most of the news programs. Riots erupted in Ferguson.

The prosecutor, rather than saying that there was no cause for charges against the officer, Darren Wilson, decided to turn it over to the Grand Jury. Witnesses were called and at least six of the witnesses told the same story as Officer Wilson. While the other witnesses didn’t tell the same story as each other and in some cases, such as with Dorian Johnson, the stories changed. One of those witnesses finally admitted he wasn't even there and was only repeating what he'd heard on the news.  Officer Wilson was not indicted. One of the things discovered in the grand jury was that Brown’s hands never went up and he didn’t say “Don’t shoot”.

Once the grand jury came out with their non-indictment, the riots started again. Police cars were set on fire. Businesses were burned to the ground.

The above is pretty much already known by everyone. So where is the racism?

Our justice system is not perfect. But it is the best in the world. Through police work, testimony and forensic evidence just about every detail about the incident is known. Nobody can tell us what Michael Brown was thinking when he decided to attack officer Wilson in his car. That may be the only thing we'll never know. 

But we know from the forensic evidence and from the video in the store that Michael Brown was not the innocent boy that was portrayed. He robbed the store. He was walking in the middle of the street. The officer did tell him and Johnson not to walk in the middle of the street.

Wilson was not found guilty of any wrongdoing because he’s white and Brown was black. He was not indicted because he did his job correctly. He was not indicted because Brown robbed the store. Because Brown fought for Wilsons gun. Because he charged at Wilson and not with his hands up.

So why were they rioting? Is it because a black man was killed? He died because of his own actions. So how is the officer guilty? How does that justify people burning their neighborhood? How does that justify people stealing from stores in their neighborhood after breaking in? How does that justify burning down businesses in their own neighborhood?

Do you need to buy some meat for the week? You’ll have to find a way to the next neighborhood to do your business because you burned out the meat market! Do you need to get your hair done? I guess you’ll have to find another place to set an appointment because you burned down your salon in your neighborhood.

If someone is breaking into your house and you call 911, will you complain when the dispatcher says, “we’ll have an officer out as soon as possible. It may take a few minutes longer because he has to ride his ten speed since four police cars were burned up in the riots.”

Will you complain that someone is shooting up  your neighborhood with a gun stolen from one of the police cars that burned up?

We’ve all heard the talk about black on black crime. We’ve all heard the talk about how there is a disproportionate number of blacks in prison.

It’s time for people to start taking responsibility for their own actions. If you want less people in jail, get them to quit committing the bulk of the crimes. If you want less people dead, tell your kids to quit shooting their friends and neighbors.

It is a lot more difficult for a black child to live beyond his twenties than it is for a white child. 90% of the black people that are dying prematurely are dying at the hands of other black people. Not at the hands of white people. Not at the hands of white police officers.

One of the first things you might want to consider is that we’re all Americans. Not African American. Not European American. We are AMERICANS! You divide yourself into other groups, black or white and it’s no wonder we have differences based on skin color.

Get your kids home and in bed at a reasonable hour. It worked for my parents. It worked for my children when they were with me. Get your kids in school every day and demand that the teachers teach and if the teachers don’t teach, get new teachers. If your kid refuses to learn, punish him or her, not society.

The civil war was over in 1865. Slavery lost, freedom won. After 149 years, blaming slavery isn’t going to work. Rosa Parks fought for a bus seat in 1955. Freedom won. The civil rights act was passed in 1964. It’s been 50 years. Freedom won. If you’re going to keep whining about how you’re not given anything after 50 years of having equal rights that ship has sailed. It’s time to start joining your rightful place in American society and quit whining that someone else is holding you back and then setting your town on fire.

You have never been a slave.  Your parents have never been a slave. There’s very few, if any, who’s grandparents were slaves.

If you want to stay out of jail, stop breaking the law. If you want your children to stay out of jail, teach them to obey the law. Start looking at other human beings as viable people and have respect for human life. Maybe less will die violent deaths. If your kid acts up, punish them and no that doesn’t mean abuse them. It means teach them right from wrong. Take away their I-pods, their cell phones, and maybe even ground them for a week. 

Stop following people blindly. When President Obama says something stupid, start realizing he’s the President, not a savior, nor a civil rights leader. When Al Sharpton starts ranting and raving in front of large crowds, he’s not a motivational speaker. He’s inciting a riot. Motivational speakers tell you that you can improve yourself by believing in yourself and working towards goals. Rioters advocate violence.

Michael Brown would be alive today if he would have raised his hands and said “don’t shoot”. The St. Louis Rams players have it wrong. The Congressional Black Caucus had it wrong. But then, had he just obeyed the law by not walking in the middle of the street, by not robbing a store, and by not charging a police officer with his 6’5 inch, 298 lb body.

Michael Brown’s step father was caught on video at the riots screaming “Burn this b**** down”. Someone should have stood up to him and said, “NO!” Had common sense been employed, Ferguson might not have burned and Michael Brown might still be alive, and the New York Times wouldn't have published Darren Wilson's home address. 

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

The Power of the Veto

There is a power that is constitutional. Usually the power is in the Presidents hand. It can also be a power wielded by Congress. In the next Congress, that power could be used by either the President or the Congress to their advantage depending on the issue. That power is the veto.

Here’s how it works. Congress writes a bill, it passes both Houses and then moves to the Presidents desk for signature, or veto. Should the President veto it, the only thing that is left for Congress on that bill is to override the veto.

To override a veto, it takes a two-thirds majority of both Houses to pass it. It is not the 60 votes in the Senate that many think. Under the new Congress coming in, the Republicans hold 245 seats and may gain a few more as tight races are cleared up. In the Senate the Republicans hold 52 seats and will likely gain two more and possibly three. Let’s just go with the two right now.

Now that bill that the President vetoed comes back to the Congress. To pass the House they will need two-thirds or 290 votes to veto. So the Republicans would need to come up with an additional 45 votes over what they currently have. So they will need 45 of the 190 Democrats to vote with them on the veto.

In the Senate, 67 votes are needed to override a veto meaning the Republicans are 13 votes short. They need 13 of the 46 Democrats to side with them to override the veto.

As we all know, much of what is done in Washington is not just about passing a law, but it’s for show and/or for use in the next campaign for re-election. Passing a good law is secondary.

Let’s assume for a minute that the Republicans come up with a law, perhaps immigration reform that even the polls may say is acceptable. It passes the House, then it passes the Senate (which means that 6 Democrats would have to sign on as well). But when it arrives at the President’s desk, he vetoes it.

The bill then comes back to the Congress. The Republicans then schedule a vote to override the veto. They should then put on a massive media campaign that they have passed a law, the polls are with them. It’s now up to Democrats to join them to get this law passed.

There are some different perspectives to look at. First, the Republicans. If the override fails, they have an issue for the next election. They can then go on the campaign trail and say their opponents voted against immigration reform that the people approved of.

Second the Democrats. Before the vote, they must consider if they can defend voting against it, or should they vote for it even if they have some problems with it, but overall it’s an acceptable bill for them to be in favor of. If they join the Republicans, they now have a campaign issue to help them in the next election.

Should 45 Democrats in the House and an additional 7 Democrats in the Senate join the Republicans, they have in effect rendered the President irrelevant. Our Congress, both House and Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, have now come together to put the government back into the hands of the Constitution.

For the remainder of the Presidents two years in office he will have to seriously consider vetoing a bill and his reasons for it. If he’s just using the veto pen because it’s a Republican bill, more Americans will see he is just being partisan.

There is one other perspective. If the bill is not a great one, and the veto holds, Congress will then have to, If they are serious about any bill, will have to do a better job of writing that bill. They will actually have to do quality work rather than just doing anything to say they’ve done something.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Repubs Win. Now They Need to be Winners

Republicans have taken control of the Senate and increased their majority in the House. As of this writing, the Republicans have taken seats in Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, West Virginia, Iowa, and North Carolina. They have held on to Georgia (without the runoff that was predicted) and Kansas. They’ve also won in Louisiana but that will go to a run off in December before it’s completely decided.

They still have an outside chance at Virginia and Alaska’s polls haven’t closed yet.

The Republicans thus gained seven seats, and likely an eighth in Louisiana in December. If they manage to gain Alaska, that will make nine.

They also held on to Governors in Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida.

But how did they win? It wasn’t due to their message. It was more that they were the recipients of the voters choosing against President Obama rather than choosing the Republicans.

There will be 32 seats up for election in the Senate in 2016 along with the President. Only nine of those seats in the Senate are Democrat held seats. Of those, Mark Kirk in Illinois, John McCain of Arizona, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and David Vitter of Louisiana would seem to be the most vulnerable. McCain because he’ll be 80 in 2016, Kirk because Illinois is a Democrat state as Wisconsin may be left leaning.

Of all of those running, the only one with a complete message and plan was Ed Gillespie in Virginia, but not much attention was paid because everyone thought Mark Warner would win easily. Now it’s too close to call. Gillespie has an outside chance at winning.

If the Republicans take this election as a message that the American people have chosen their message, they’d better review what their message was. If they want to maintain control of the Senate in two years, they will need to come up with definitive plans on what their agenda will be.

They’d best have a position and ideas on immigration (which they will likely be tested with in weeks), the economy, eliminating Obamacare after 2016 and a solution to how to handle ISIS and to protect this country from terror attacks. If they don’t, or they choose to believe that they were chosen on their merits this time, they will find themselves back in the minority in the Senate in two years and possibly not get the White House.

The American voters seemed to have made a choice this time between holding Obama responsible for all of this nations ills or blaming the Congress with it being a toss up between Republican and Democrats and the Republicans just got lucky that Democrats were blamed more than the Republicans were.

The Republicans in the Senate better find a way to work together between the establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans and then work with the Republican held House.

One thing that is likely to help them is Obama being what he is, the American people will likely find out that the so-called party of “no” isn’t the Republicans but that Obama is the one that can’t and won’t work with the Republicans.

The Republicans had better drive their ideas home and their differences with Obama, in the press often. They have to make the American people understand their positions and how they will benefit people. If they don’t, Obama will not only get the last word, he’ll be getting the only word. That word will be that the Republicans are at fault.

They will likely hold hearings now on the IRS, NSA, Benghazi and Hillary’s role, Fast and Furious and the other scandals, but that shouldn’t be the only thing they talk about. They’d best look to the future as well as holding those accountable for the past.

They won the election, now they need to win the future for the American people to be the winners. 

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

CDC Now Says Ebola is Easy to Catch

As each day passes we hear more and more about Ebola that is different from the previous day.

The outbreak apparently began in Africa. Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. At about the same time that it was beginning in West Africa, our borders were being breached by “children” coming from South America through Mexico and they were bring scabbies, lice and other things then put on buses and shipped around the country.

Concerns began here in the United States about whether or not Americans had to worry about the Ebola virus. The Obama Administration said we didn’t have to worry about it. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) said that Ebola was very difficult to contract.

A doctor and nurse were brought here from Africa after they had contracted the disease. The discussion turned to it being caught by bodily fluids, then by contact with the skin, but still claimed to be very difficult to contract.

The discussion turned to whether or not we should close our borders and the Obama Administration, in a rare moment of consistency, said they wouldn’t ban travel from Africa.

A man in Texas was admitted to the hospital with Ebola and died a few days later. Two nurses then exhibited signs and were quarantined. Again, the discussion turned to the ease of contracting the disease with the CDC and the administration saying it is very difficult to get the Ebola virus.

Several states decided that they would force quarantine on anyone that traveled here from Africa. New Jersey was one and a day later, Governor Chris Christie reversed that decision.

Another woman was considered at risk in Maine and was in a forced quarantine, but she’s fighting it. Still the CDC and the administration said it’s very difficult to contract the disease.

Thousands are dying in Africa but we’re told it’s difficult to spread the Ebola virus.

Then yesterday, the New York Post reported that the CDC had issued a statement saying that Ebola can be spread by something as simple as a sneeze and that it can remain active on doorknobs, tables, chairs, etc. It won’t last as long in warm air, but in cold air it can remain contagious for a day or longer by simple touch.

The common cold is spread by coughing and sneezing. Just look at classrooms across the country. Kids come to school and sneeze and within a few days, many children have a cough, and sneeze. Ebola seems to be just as easy to spread now as the common cold.

That doesn’t sound like it’s difficult to contract. Can we trust any statement put out by this administration and its' agencies? 

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

*************UPDATE**************

The CDC has updated their website by removing information regarding droplets on doorknobs, one day after the New York Post publishes the information regarding sneezing and droplets on doorknobs being a way to spread Ebola. 

Election Time: Here we go Again

It’s election time again and as seems to be the case each election, there are problems. In Cook County Illinois a voting machine was changing votes for Republicans to a vote for Democrats. The election is actually Tuesday, November 4 but Illinois is one of the states that has early voting.

A Republican candidate, Jim Moynihan, showed up to vote and cast his vote for himself and found that the machine had switched his vote to his opponent. It also switched his vote for other Republican candidates to the Democrat party.

Republicans talk about voter fraud and the need for photo id to register to vote and to vote. Democrats say there is no need as there is no voter fraud. We almost never hear of solutions to voting by machine. I can’t remember there being a case where the Democrat cast vote was switched to the Republican ticket. Maybe it’s happened, but I don’t remember it being reported.

There are questions that naturally should come up from the discovery of this “error” with the voting machine but I didn’t see them asked on the two sites that I read about this story. My first question would be; ‘how many people used that machine before it was discovered and how many of those ballots were cast and then changed by the machine?’ My second question would be; “since these machines are only used at election times, and there aren’t that many elections during a year, why aren’t the machines serviced and tested prior to each election to make certain that they are working properly when they are needed the most?’

Another question; “if a machine, like this one, has a calibration problem, why wasn’t the calibration discovered prior to the election?’ Also, ‘how can we depend on these machines with each and every voter if the machines calibration malfunctions in the midst of a day of voting?’

I have said several times over the years that they should do away with the machines and go to paper and pencil voting. There are only two problems then. Problem number one: The pencil might break. If that happens, get another pencil but at least the pencil isn’t changing the vote.

Problem number two: Finding people that are capable of counting one ballot at a time to get an accurate accounting of the votes. I don’t think it would be that difficult to find eight or ten people that can count to ten and stack up ten votes apiece, in one county.

Maybe the Democrats are partially right. Maybe there is no voter fraud on the part of a person. Perhaps the machines have formed an alliance to commit voter fraud and it’s not the fault of any human being at all. But this phrase keeps popping up in the back of my mind each time I try to think that. “When pigs fly.”

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder?

A few days ago, a topic was discussed on a program. The topic was about the City of Houston issuing subpoena’s to five pastors requiring them to turn over any sermons, notes and communications regarding homosexuality. I was just beginning to write here about that when the program I was listening to brought it up, so I stopped writing it. All of a sudden, it took a weird turn.

                           

A caller to the program said that the DSM had found that homosexuality was a mental disorder. He was starting to say something else but the host cut him off and said that the DSM had changed their position and decided that it wasn’t a mental disorder. The gentleman again started to say something and was again interrupted. This happened three or four times. The caller even mentioned that he was being interrupted and hadn’t finished saying what he wanted to say. A comment was made even by my daughter about how she didn’t know what the man was going to say because he was being repeatedly interrupted.

I had no idea what or who the DSM was, and naturally didn’t know what the caller was about to say. So, during the commercial break, I did a quick search and found out that the DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It’s published by the American Psychiatric Association.

Apparently, sometime in the 1950’s they determined that homosexuality was a mental disorder. I can’t even pretend to understand how they came up with that diagnosis. However, in 1970, gay activists protested the APA’s convention in San Francisco. They continued to pressure the APA over the next couple of years and in 1973, the APA held a vote on their determination of homosexuality being a mental disorder.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of psychiatry, but I would think that they would have a medical basis or scientific basis for any position they take. Something more tangible than “feelings” because everyone has different feelings about different things. After all, they are called “doctors”. This decision however, seems to be based solely on political pressure. I have seen no full research that definitively says that homosexuality is a mental disorder but I also see no full research that says it’s not a mental disorder.

I’m leery of anything put out by the science community mainly because of Global warming which has been changed to Climate Change since they got caught fudging the numbers and allowing political correctness or pressure. Or even a more current example of Ebola and the constant changing of stories by the CDC and the politicians.

At this point, it seems the only thing certain about homosexuality is what each person thinks is the cause or desire of the homosexual person…in other words an opinion that everyone has. Nothing seems to be factually based. People base their ideas of homosexuality on how they were raised, or their religious beliefs or maybe even their own sense of the topic or their own desires.

I may challenge your opinion and always hope my opinions are challenged but I’ll not cut off your opinion which is why I always end these writings with…..

Your comments are welcome.

Brett

Afraid of Tough Topics

There are many views on some topics that cross both Conservative and liberal viewpoints. Topics that many seem to be afraid to deal with any longer. One of those topics is abortion. Radio talk show hosts seem to be afraid of this topic and refuse to even discuss it. Many have taken the position of Neil Boortz when he had his radio program.

Neil Boortz would stop anyone that brought up abortion or even mentioned it in passing when discussing another topic and seeming to tie them together. It’s as though you’re not permitted to have an opinion on abortion, nor to even suggest you have an opinion about it. I believe it’s cowardice to avoid a topic just because so many people are adamant in whatever their position is on the topic.

In many campaigns for office abortion is used as a way to put down the other candidate. The liberal may say “my opponent wants to regulate your wombs” or the Conservative may say “my opponent wants you to allow death to a baby after the baby has viable organs but prior to leaving the womb”. Nobody delves into the actual thoughts on abortion but rather tells you what the other person thinks or will do even though they really don’t know what the other would or wouldn’t do.

I have run into this when talking with people. Friends, family members and others. Well, if you’re scared of hearing about abortion, you might want to stop reading right now because I’m going to talk about it here.

First, there is the identification of whatever belief you have. I call myself Pro-Life. If someone believes that abortion should be an option, I’d call them Pro-Choice. If you tell me that I’m anti-abortion, then I’ll play your game and call you anti-life. That only makes it a name calling match and not a real discussion.

We know how pregnancy starts. It begins with an act of sex or it can begin with artificial insemination. I can’t imagine anyone choosing to be artificially inseminated to get pregnant, then choosing to abort. I guess there could be some reasons, but it would seem very odd to go to that expense and trouble only to give up.

The act of sex is a choice. The choice can be made by two people or by one person. If it’s made by two people, and a pregnancy occurs, something that they engaged in created a new life. If done within a marriage or within a permanent relationship, it is MY BELIEF, that the couple stand up and take responsibility for their actions. If the pregnancy is an accident, I would think it’s a happy accident. If it comes at an inconvenient time for one or both of the parents, they should adjust to what they created and take responsibility for their actions and the results of those actions. If they choose to abort because of inconvenience, they can do that, but it is MY BELIEF that they are not taking responsibility for their actions and because of that, a life, that is too young to make decisions, let alone voice decisions, gets no say in THEIR life. I have a difficult time reconciling how someone can choose to end a life because of their own inconvenience or disruption to their lives. Do they not consider the disruption to the life they have created? If the baby could voice its’ own opinion what would it be? Who stands up for the baby?

Regarding teenagers engaging in sex, they know it’s possible that a pregnancy could occur. It may not be high on their thoughts as they are beginning to have their fun, but there may be consequences to that fun they are about to have. Ending a life is not taking responsibility for their actions. They can choose to raise the child or they can choose to put the baby up for adoption. The life for the baby may not be the ideal life, but it’s still a life with possibilities. If abortion is chosen that baby’s chance at life is gone with them being able to choose.

In the case of rape, again, I realize a life was created by a violent act. The choice has been taken away from the mother to be, but for her to take away the chance for that baby to have a shot at life removes the possibility of something good coming from something bad.

Many also argue that it’s the mothers choice. After all, it’s her body. I disagree and I may be in the minority on this but it’s MY BELIEF that once she shared her body, the results of their act together makes both of them responsible for the decision. If either of them chooses for the baby to be born, that baby should be born. If the mother wants the baby but the father doesn’t, the mothers argument prevails because she’s choosing life for another as well as her own. If the father chooses for the baby to be born, but the mother doesn’t want it, then again, the baby is given the chance at life. The exception to this is in the case of rape. A rapist gets no say in any decision regarding the baby. He gave her no choice in the act, he gets no choice in the decision. However, he will contribute financially to the raising of that child and will never be given access to the child.

Notice that in each case, I said “MY BELIEF”. It’s not me dictating, it’s MY BELIEF. If you think differently, that’s fine for you as MY BELIEF is fine for me.

Having said all of that, I admit that I have an inconsistency in my belief both morally and intellectually. If my wife was to become pregnant, at my age, I’d be shocked but still follow through on it. However, if the life of my wife were in danger of being lost due to the pregnancy, in that case, I would choose the life of my wife over that of the baby. In effect, I’d be choosing abortion. Thankfully, I never had to make that choice.

If you think I’m wrong in my choices on all of the options above, that’s your prerogative. But if each of those were my choices, those are what I would choose regardless of the hardship a new baby might present. I will not choose abortion out of my convenience. I will not take the choice away from the baby that cannot speak for itself with the one exception I gave. Those are MY choices.

If you choose differently, and ask my opinion, that’s what you’ll get. However, if you don’t ask my opinion (and I can’t imagine anyone asking me my opinion other than my own kids asking if they ever run into that situation) then you are entitled to your opinion without scorn from me. For those of you that don’t know, two of my children are daughters and right now they are aged 18 and 17. I only hope they never have to make that decision and I believe that with how I raised them, I have a pretty good shot at not having my children run into that decision.

My choices, my beliefs, are taken away from me when the government chooses to fund those that want an abortion. My tax money goes to the government just as yours does. If you’re going to get pregnant and for whatever reason you decide to abort the pregnancy, it is wrong for even one fraction of a penny of my money to pay for your decision to do something that I don’t believe in. They were YOUR actions, pay for YOUR OWN decision but don’t force me to pay anything towards a decision that I would not make.

Notice that I said it is wrong. I didn’t say it might be wrong, I said it IS wrong.

If you believe in abortion or even choice, that’s your belief. You would only be wrong in your  belief if you try to force your belief on me or begin putting me down for my belief. But my belief is not forced on you. Abortion is legal. So if you choose abortion, it’s between you and your conscious or your God.

If you want to discuss abortion, I’m all for it, but don’t put me down for my beliefs, and I won’t put you down for your beliefs. I will listen to your side of the topic and in return you should listen to my side and neither of us should be disparaging the other person for their beliefs.

To avoid a discussion on abortion on the talk shows, such as Neil Boortz and others, only tells me that the moderator cannot moderate. He/She must be incapable of asking tough questions on each side to challenge that other persons belief and understand that people believe different things for different reasons, and those reasons are very likely very good reasons from the mindset of each side.

If we’re going to be afraid to talk about a topic, people will never be able to choose without giving thought to other possibilities. They won't realize or even understand they have options. All because people are afraid to talk, reasonably and without rancor and understanding about tough topics. When people say, 'it's my way and there is no other way' it's not Conservative and it's not freedom. 

This only creates flawed legislation and I’m really tired of hearing politicians say “it’s not the best solution, but it’s a start.” We are the greatest country in the world. We ought to be able to come up with the best solutions rather than kicking these topics down the road for whatever is popular at the time. The only way to do that is to discuss and debate them without despising the other side. Try some understanding. If you listen, you might learn. If you talk constantly, you are only dictating and not hearing.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Democrats Pointing Fingers Already....at Themselves

The Democrats are pointing fingers for their losses in this years election before the election even takes place. According to “The Hill”, some are blaming Harry Reid, the Majority Leader.

They are blaming Obama’s low approval rating, low Hispanic turnout, centrist messaging, the media, social media, among others. Not one of them is blaming themselves for their own records, their own policies. Nor are they blaming themselves for legislating and making policies for their own elections and not for what’s good for the people that they represent. They even blame their core voters that don’t bother to vote in mid-term elections.

I think it’s interesting that they single out Hispanic voters. First, it’s the Democrats that scream about profiling, yet when they talk about Hispanic voters aren’t they profiling? Second, are they talking about Hispanic Americans that are here legally or are they talking about illegal aliens voting?

There’s no question any longer about their tactics and policies based on elections and not on the Constitution. For example, the Sunday talk shows were full of what Obama will do about ISIS and what he’s recently done. It seems many of the pundits are saying that the bombings of ISIS are for show and accomplishing little to nothing and they believe that when the election is over, ISIS will not be stopped.

What of the Republicans? I have heard very little message from them. They seem to be just sitting back and trying to take advantage of the peoples disgust of politicians. Had they laid out their ideas, Conservative ideas, I doubt anyone would be saying the Democrats “could” lose control of the Senate. It’s more likely that the pundits would be questioning if the Republicans would be getting double digit gains in the Senate.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

The USA is in Disarray

How can one man, one party be so wrong, so often, and so quickly after commenting?

The Economy and bi-partisanship

Obama is inaugurated in late January 2009. He tells Congress to get him a stimulus bill and he’ll sign it on Presidents Day. Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House. They pass a $780 billion bill and call it bi-partisan. Zero Republicans in the House vote for it and only three in the Senate vote for it. One of those three is Senator Arlen Specter who a short time later changed parties. Obama signed the bill two days after President’s Day so he could have that photo op in Denver. His photo op was more important than his word.

Obama and the Democrats say unemployment will not exceed 8%. It jumps to 10.2%. Unemployment begins running out so those that drop off are not counted as unemployed any longer and Obama and the Democrats tout the bill as reducing unemployment. Cash for Clunkers is a massive failure. The stimulus package didn’t stimulate. This has been the slowest recovery in history.

Immigration reform and bi-partisanship

Candidates always make promises and then don’t deliver. Obama promised immigration reform in his first year. He promised Gitmo to be closed within the first year. Obama had a strong advantage to his agenda. He had a Democrat House. Republicans could stop nothing. He had a Democrat Senate, just shy of having a filibuster proof Senate. Yet, immigration reform was not touched. Gitmo is still open today. Now Obama promises he will do some immigration reform himself by executive order, but not until after the election so that he can hopefully save a couple of Democrat Senators their seats and not lose as many seats nationwide as it appears he will.

At the moment, there is bi-partisanship on immigration reform. Most Republicans don’t want what’s being proposed and most Democrats do. Obama blames Republicans for immigration reform not happening, which is bi-partisan, so he’s going to remove the bi-partisan from it and issue executive orders. If this “MUST” be done why didn’t he do it when he had full control of both Houses of Congress? And remember, for a brief time, after Arlen Specter changed parties, he had a filibuster proof Senate and control of the House. If this “MUST” be done, why are Democrats in danger of losing the election causing him to delay what “MUST” be done until after the election?

Scandals, Transparency and bi-partisanship

Fast and Furious, NSA, IRS, Benghazi, solyndra, voter discrimination/intimidation by the New Black Panthers, The VA scandal, and more. There is no transparency. Documents are requested and not forthcoming. Computer are mysteriously crashing at the IRS. Border agents and American Citizens are killed at the border by cartels using guns provided by the US Government under Fast and Furious. Benghazi was a terrorist attack, but the administration claimed it was due to a video (which nobody had seen).

There is only one place in the Obama administration where transparency has been frequent and obvious. After being promised that the TSA (Transportation Security Agency) new screening process and X-Ray machines would be immediately destroyed upon a person being cleared to get on the plane, it only took a few days for it to come out that those X-rays showing body parts were being saved and admired by TSA agents and in one case a TSA agent was teased about his lack of girth after passed through the machine and that created a physical altercation.

Grandmothers were hand patted and groped. Children were groped. Men and women’s private areas were molested. Disabled people were embarrassed to have their disabilities and prosthetics and other extremely private remedies, such as colostomy bags exposed for all to see, but those that truly looked the part of a possible terrorist suspect were not given a first look, let alone a second.  

Health Care and bi-partisanship

In March of 2009, despite polls showing 67%-75% of the American people against the government take over of the health care system, both Houses of Congress took up what is now known as Obamacare.

The Democrats could not get it through the Senate because they didn’t have a filibuster-proof Senate. Then two events happened. Senator Arlen Specter changed parties giving the Democrats the needed 60 votes so that Republicans couldn’t stop anything.

The House didn’t matter because a simple majority as all that was needed and the Democrats had control. They didn’t need any Republicans to pass anything. Any Republicans voting with them would only lead to claims of bi-partisanship.

However, Senator Ted Kennedy died of his brain cancer taking away that needed 60^th vote. Being from Massachusetts, the special election would likely put another Democrat in the seat Kennedy held, so it would just be delayed. A special election was held and people from around the country helped the Republican, Scott Brown win the election. He ran as the 41^st vote against Obamacare which in effect would kill the bill. It is clear now that Browns election was to prevent Obamacare from being passed, because he lost the seat in the next election when Obamacare was no longer on the table.

There was now only one way to pass the Obamacare bill. The Democrat House wrote the bill and passed the bill without one Republican voting for it. The only way for the Senate to pass Obamacare was to vote straight up or down on the House bill. No changes. That way, they too only needed a simple majority, and that’s exactly what they did. There is nothing bi-partisan about it. Not one Republican in either House voted for the bill. That is not bi-partisan.

 Current Events

We’ve had illegal aliens coming across the border and this administration has been sending them out to every state in the country. 35 year old adults claiming they are childen and this administration believes them and puts them in schools. Criminals coming across the border and committing murder here of American Citizens. First it was lice and scabbies but they said it would be contained and not be a problem. Now we have Ebola that they said wouldn’t be a problem, yet in todays news, there are many cases that are suspected of Ebola around the country.

Obama claimed ISIS was Junior Varsity. They marched from Syria into Iraq in a quick and orderly fashion killing anyone that didn’t join up with them, then after Obama called them JV, they take the heads off of a couple of Americans.

Each time Obama downplays an event in the news, it’s a matter of days or even hours it becomes a major catastrophe. But then, it’s no wonder he doesn’t know anything since he rarely attends intelligent briefings.

It’s easy to understand why the USA is in disarray.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett