Is Obama eligible to be President?

There is a story going around that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to run for President due to either his birth, or his adoption by his stepfather. An attorney has filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in Philadelphia to stop Obama’s candidacy. This attorney claims to be a Hillary Clinton supporter. He claims he’s doing this because if he doesn’t, the Republicans will do this after Obama is nominated next week.

The attorney is claiming that Obama was born in Kenya. His parents had gone their prior to his birth, but wasn’t allowed to travel back because she was so close to giving birth. He also claims that there is a birth certificate in Kenya and that the one in Hawaii was falsified. The most interesting part of his reasoning for filing the lawsuit as he states it is because he knows the Republicans will do it. How does he know this? Are we now capable of predicting what others will do and then laying the blame at the feet of the other person based on what the first person ‘thinks’ the other will do?

He’s also claiming that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, because he was adopted by his step-father in India, that Obama is ineligible to run for President. So what we have is a Hillary Clinton supporter filing a lawsuit to stop Obama’s nomination one week following an interview of Bill Clinton where he said that Obama will be the nominee provided he’s constitutionally eligible. Does something sound fishy to you? Maybe a collusion between the supporter of Hillary and maybe the Hillary camp? I’m not sure if they are conspiracy theorists for doing this, or if I’m a conspiracy theorist for thinking that this may be a coordinated effort between the attorney and the Clinton camp.

I find it interesting to take it a step further, however. Let’s assume that the court finds that Obama is not eligible to run for President. Can we predict the next argument to come up in the Democrat Party? I’ll try. Will Joe Biden claim that he’s rightful heir to the nomination because he was named as the VP candidate? Will Hillary Clinton step and say she should be the nominee because she received votes at the convention (assuming that she does).

We already know that the DNC rules don’t matter after their debacle in Michigan and Florida. First they stripped the delegates. Then they cut the delegates in half and distributed them between Obama and Clinton regardless of the vote total. Now they are trying to get 100% of the delegates to be able to vote because the decision is made on how they’ll be doled out. All of this messing around with votes reminds me of Al Gore choosing only certain counties to count the votes in during the 2000 election. Perhaps the Democrats could make the bald guy with the large eyes and the glasses on his head holding the ballot up to the light to decide if it was a pregnant chad, hanging chad, or dimpled chad, for their poster boy.

Whatever the truth, and whatever the outcome of the lawsuit it’s pretty obvious that the Democrats consider these elections as being about the Democrats and not about the American people. I’m believing more and more that the next President will be the liberal John McCain and not the ultra liberal Barack Hussein Obama/Joe Biden/Hillary Clinton or whomever else they dust off to throw into place. I guess it could be weirder only if somehow John Edwards was to run and win. We’d be back to the Clinton years in a heartbeat with a first lady, first mistress and possibly more children.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Obama Turns Veepstakes into a Circus

With much fanfare, Barack Hussein Obama announced that he had chosen someone to be his Vice Presidential candidate. However, he wouldn’t say who it was. First, he wanted to let those on the short list that weren’t chosen that they weren’t chosen.
That move was a good move. It showed respect for those that knew they were in the running.

Then the press was in a frenzy. The afternoon anchor on CNN said to Wolf Blitzer when she interviewed him that she hoped that the information would come during her show. On the Situation Room, which lasts for three hours they kept teasing that they were expecting Obama at any minute. Then they interviewed their favorite people, including themselves, asking them if they knew anything, or heard anything.

Then the news came out during the day on Friday that Hillary Clinton wasn’t even vetted. This surprised the news media who have been speculating of the “dream ticket” for months.

The nightly news on the network stations were hoping the news would come out before their broadcast, then during their broadcast. On CNN, each program following the Situation Room were hoping it would come out on their hour. Finally, near the end of Anderson Cooper it was announced that the news wouldn’t go out until tomorrow morning.

All of this hype was silly. The games they played will make the actual announcement a disappointment. This is another example of Obama’s inexperience and lack of judgment. He didn’t judge the height of the news, nor the news cycles. He played a game and is stretching it out to the point that the news now will be anti-climatic.

The choice will probably be Joe Biden. If it was someone exciting or completely unexpected, it might be a good news story, but there just aren’t that many people in the Democrat Party that justifies Obama’s coy games. The liberal media will try to build it up for him, but they missed the big news day. Now it’s going to happen on the weekend when few are watching.

I wonder who will be fired for this farce. Maybe Obama will come out and say ‘I had to fire the PR guy for doing this. He’s just not the guy that I’ve always known, so I had to let him go.’

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Representative Tim Walberg-Up and Coming Leader?

I believe that one of the most important and exciting House of Representatives races is going to be between Representative Tim Walberg and State Senator Mark Schauer.

Tim Walberg ran against Representative Joe Schwarz in 2006 for the Republican seat. Joe Schwarz ran as a conservative but legislated as a liberal. Many in his district were upset by his voting and positions that he took which were in contrast to why they voted for him. In the primary of 2006, Tim Walberg ran as a Conservative against Schwarz who again claimed to be a Conservative.

During the 2006 primary season, there were two incumbent Representatives that lost their seats. One was Cynthia McKinney in Georgia (she of the slap a capitol cop fame) and Joe Schwarz. Tim Walberg was successful in ousting Shwarz! Schwarz has since left the Republican party.

During the past two years, Tim Walberg has stood up for Conservative positions and seems to have not backed down from his promises nor his Conservative beliefs. He has been strong in attempting to have drilling started in this country to lower our dependence on foreign oil.

He is running to retain his seat in his district in Michigan. His opponent is State Senator Mark Schauer. Schauer was a leader in getting the taxes increased in Michigan. Michigan is in a one state recession and it's getting worse since the taxes have been increased.

Tim Walberg has proven himself to me to be principled. He has worked for the people and I have seen no evidence of him working for his own self interests. Schauer is extremely liberal. If he was elected, he would be in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the liberals.

I believe that Walberg could very well be in a leadership position for the Republican Party and if he continues as he has the past two years, he would still be working for the betterment of the country as well as his district. I don't like the "it's his turn" order that the two parties seem to follow in their little clique. Tim Walberg is one that has not been sitting around doing nothing. He's been working. He could be one of those that brings the Conservatives back.

Having said all of this, I have decided to include Walberg's blog on the side panel of this blog site. I hope to keep his blogs running on the side.

The district he represents is a Conservative district. I hope that he retains his seat following this election and believe he will. When his new term starts in January, I hope to be one that holds his feet to the fire for the next two years.

I welcome your comments

Brett

The Veepstakes (Yawn) Has Begun

The Veepstakes has begun. The media is going nuts trying to figure out who the VP choice is going to be for Barack Hussein Obama. Will it be Tim Kaine or Joe Biden or Evan Bayh? Then there’s the hardliners like Wolf Blitzer that is still hoping for the so-called “dreamticket” of Hillary Clinton as VP.

The choice has been made. Obama will wait until he can get the most news out of it. The liberal media on CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS (do they still have a news department?), PBS, MSNBC will continue to speculate right up until the announcement. This keeps Obama in the news so he’ll hold off until there is some bad news and he wants to drown it out with news of his VP or to get the most news over the weekend leading up to the convention next week so he gets more than a full week of him being the top news story.

In an attempt to be fair with their coverage, they speculate on McCain’s choice as well. Their speculation is also geared to the left. Will McCain pick Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman and how good that would be to try to make inroads into the left base. When McCain does pick a conservative such as Romney, or Jindahl, they will then say that McCain is pandering to the Conservatives to try to shore up that base that he so desperately needs because the Conservatives hate McCain.

They’ve already started this in one way by making Rush Limbaugh the news when he said that if McCain picks an anti life VP or a Democrat (Lieberman) that the Republican Party will be split or even destroyed. You can almost read hope in their eyes as they report it this way.

In the meantime, Obama is out there whining and demanding that McCain recognize him publicly as a Patriotic American. Remember when Nixon said “I am not a crook”? Everyone knew right then that he was a crook. Remember when Clinton pointed his finger at us and said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”? Everyone knew then that he did fool around with that young girl.

Now Obama is speaking before veterans forcefully telling them that he is a proud American and demanding that McCain recognize him as a Patriot. This can only make one wonder what he’s trying to hide, ala Nixon and Clinton.

As it stands now, I believe that McCain is going to win this election. Regardless of who he chooses for VP, regardless of who Obama chooses as VP, McCain is looking solid. When Russia moved troops into Georgia (no liberals, Valdosta and Atlanta are not burning), it was McCain that said the right things. Obama hemmed and hawed.

In the “conversation” at Saddleback over the weekend, it was McCain that came off as firm and Presidential while Obama came off as wishy washy. Obama was losing ground to Hillary in the Primaries the last six weeks but he’d built up a large enough lead without Michigan and Florida that Hillary fell just short by the end of the season. Obama has continued that slide that he started in late April, early May, right into this campaign season.

The Veepstakes will be the topic this weekend until Obama announces, and then the convention will give him a bit of a bounce, but immediately following the Democrat convention comes the Republican convention that will wipe out Obama’s bounce and give McCain a bounce making September and October very nasty between the two candidates.

What led me to this point of view? The final straw was saddleback. On the abortion question Obama said “blah, blah, blah, above my pay grade, blah, blah, blah.” McCain’s answer to the abortion question was “At conception.”

In answer to the question on evil Obama said “Yes, there is evil in the world including on the streets in America, blah, blah, blah.” McCain’s answer was “Yes there is evil and the solution is to end it.”

The Veepstakes goes on, but the trend seems to be clear. Either way, the stories are always given a caveat of "the VP becomes what the President wants". McCain is the adult and will win. Obama is an empty suit struggling with getting the peach fuzz off of his chin.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Universities Want Drinking Age Lowered

College Presidents from nearly 100 universities including Ohio State, Duke and Dartmouth are asking lawmakers to lower the drinking age from the current 21 to 18. Their argument is that lowering the drinking age will lower the problem of binge drinking, not to mention underage drinking.

That last part is true for colleges. They won’t have as much underage drinking. After all, most college students are 18 or older. This will eliminate one of their problems. They won’t have the bad stories at their universities any longer of illegal drinking. It can’t be illegal binge drinking if drinking at age 18 is legal.

We could solve a lot of our crime problems by using this approach. For instance, if we raised the speed limit to 200 mph we’d no longer have speeders on our highways. We don’t have cars that go that fast, so nobody could break the speed limit.

We could tell people that they are no longer permitted to lock their doors and windows in their homes. This will eliminate the need for a breaking and entering law.

We could eliminate truancy laws. There are too many children skipping school. If we no longer have truancy laws, kids won’t be skipping school any longer.

We gave amnesty to the illegal aliens in the 80’s. That stopped people from coming across our borders illegally didn’t it?

We can stop spousal abuse if we just eliminate the laws on assault and battery.

I wonder why we didn’t think of these things before. When a crime is committed, eliminate the law and there is no more crime. Our prisons won’t be overflowing any longer. Our costs for housing prisoners and for even having prisons take up space on our lands would be eliminated.

With all of this in mind are we really going to continue to call our colleges and universities institutions of higher learning when they come up with reasoning like this?

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Should we Apologize to Black Americans?

There has been a position put out in recent years to apologize to Americans that are black. The apology is supposedly for the years that they spent in slavery. The time for this apology has long since passed. There are no former slaves left alive. President Lincoln emancipated the slaves during the civil war. That was over 140 years ago.

If symbolism is what they want to do, then we ought to be honoring the slaves all the way back to the founding of this country. The slaves from the onset of our country unwillingly gave up their right to the freedoms that our forefathers were fighting. It was decided during the debating of whether or not our forefathers would sign the newly created Declaration of Independence. Items were stripped, wording was changed in the Declaration before it was passed and signed.

The largest debate was regarding slavery. The Southern colonies would not sign the Declaration of Independence if the slaves were freed. It was already decided that for the Declaration of Independence to mean anything, that there was to be no colonies voting against the Declaration. It had to be unanimous. Compromise had to be made regarding the slaves. The one item that would hold it up was slavery. To create this new country, despite many arguments against slavery, slavery had to be kept alive to have the southern colonies agree to it.

During the war, slaves fought for and against the British. The ones that fought for the British were voting for life to continue as is. Those that fought against the British for the Patriots of the new country were in some way voting for the hope of freedom one day.

None of those slaves, nor the ones following the revolution, nor the ones that were alive during the Civil War are alive any longer. An apology really has no meaning because they aren’t here to accept or decline the apology.

However, those slaves may be honored. A way of saying thank you for their sacrifice in forming this country. Without their contribution of slavery (despite their not having a say in that sacrifice) this country would not have been formed.

There were many black Americans that made contributions to this country. In battle as well as in other ways, but they all made a sacrifice for the freedoms we now enjoy as Americans. For that, we should be honoring them. The role they played made them founding fathers as well as John Hancock, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and the rest.

We should be proud that we corrected the slavery problem by President Lincoln and Americans of the 1860’s freeing the slaves. Men, women and children all sacrificed for this country by their enslavement. Americans corrected the mistake of slavery by setting them free and we should be proud of that. Honoring the slaves for the sacrifices they made to this country makes more sense than trying to apologize to people that have been dead for so many years. By honoring their sacrifice, we are giving them a huge THANK YOU for their sacrifice that went for another near 90 years following the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Their contribution was as great in deed and greater in labor and we should thank them by honoring their memory.

I welcome your comments.


Brett

Democrats refuse to debate and turn the lights off on Republicans

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, adjourned the US House of Representatives. The Republicans opposed the adjournment. So after the adjournment, the Republicans kept talking about the how the Democrats are hurting the economy by not allowing debate on offshore oil drilling. Speaker Pelosi refuses to allow debate on offshore oil drilling.

The Democrats then shut off the lights and turned off the microphones. C-Span stopped broadcasting, but the Republicans refused to leave and continued to speak in the dark without microphones.

There were approximately 6 Republicans and aides still on the floor and the Republicans were still speaking. Other Republicans have started to come back to participate.

Representative Thadeus McCotter of Michigan said “This is the people house, not Pelosi’s politburo.”

Democrat aides were very upset with the Republicans and another aide asked the press if they were covering this. An Aide called the Republicans morons.

Apparently, the Democrats don’t want this covered because Capital Police were called to empty the press gallery, but stopped when Rep. Roy Blunt started answering questions from reporters in the gallery.

The lights came on when a Representative was playing with the keypad randomly and actually hit the password to get the lights and microphones back on. The Democrats turned the lights out again this time to cheers from the Republicans and they continue to speak.

The Republican leadership is now looking for a bullhorn to speak with in the House.

This could very well be a gift from the Democrats and make the Republicans competitive again this fall, if it continues and if the liberal media actually covers the event.

The reason for the adjournment? Democrats wanted to start their 5 week vacation. I wonder if they will complain about Bush’s vacation this year.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Obama could be the Sixth Black President

In light of the recent dustup where Senator John McCain said that Senator Barack Hussein Obama is using the race card, I decided to look and see if there were any other Presidential candidates that were of African descent that came close to being President. As this is something I had never considered in the past, the information surprised me.

Under our current Constitution we’ve had 43 Presidents. Of those, there are five that seem to have been black. If we go back further, we’ve actually had seven other Presidents and the first, John Hanson, is said to be a black man. For the purpose of this writing, I’m going to stick to the Presidents we’ve had under our current Constitution.

Several studies have been done. Dr. Leroy Vaughn, Joel A. Rogers and Dr. Auset Bakhufu all have written on this subject. Following are the five taken from the three historians listed.

President Thomas Jefferson: 3rd President of the United States. In 1867, Thomas Hazard wrote a book called “The Johnny Cake Papers”. In it, he quotes someone that was present during the 1796 campaign who said that a speaker said that Thomas Jefferson was “a mean-spirited son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father.” Samuel Sloan in his book “The Slave of Thomas Jefferson”, said that when Jane Randolph Jefferson died in 1776, Jefferson destroyed all papers, portraits, and personal effects of his mother. He states that Jefferson even went so far as to write to everyone that his mother had written to and requested that all letters written by his mother be returned to him. This is odd when you consider that Jefferson saved over 18,000 of his own letters and other papers for future references.

President Andrew Jackson: 7th President of the United States. According to the Virginia Magazine of History volume 29, said Jackson was the son of a white woman who married a negro following the death of her husband, which was long before Andrew Jackson was born. There is also information gathered by Joel Rogers that said Andrew had an older brother who was sold into slavery. Rogers says that when Jackson’s father died, his mother went to live on Crawford Farm which had negro slaves and one of them fathered the future President. In the book “Ordeal of the Presidency” by David Coyle, there is another account of Jackson’s brother being sold into slavery.

President Abraham Lincoln: 16th President of the United States. William Herndon was Lincoln’s law partner. In his book, “The Hidden Lincoln” he says that Lincoln’s father Thomas Lincoln, couldn’t be his father because as a child, he had mumps rendering him sterile and he was castrated. Herndon claimed earlier that Lincoln’s mother was of Ethiopian descent and that Lincoln had dark skin and coarse hair. Lincoln’s opponents in the Presidential race nicknamed him Abraham Africanus the First. J.A. Rogers quotes Nancy Hanks, the Presidents mother saying her son Abraham was the illegitimate son of an African man.

President Warren G. Harding: 29th President of the United States. President Harding is probably the best case for having a black heritage. Harding never denied it. He was called on by Republican leaders to deny the “Negro” history. However, President Harding said “How should I know whether or not one of my ancestors might have jumped the fence?” A white Professor of economics and politics at Wooster College in Ohio by the name of William Chancellor wrote on the Harding family history and discovered black ancestors on both of the Presidents parents sides of the family. It’s said that Justice Department agents bought and destroyed all copies of the book. Chancellor also said that the Presidents academic credentials included education at Iberia College. Iberia College was founded to educate fugitive slaves.

President Calvin Coolidge: 30th President of the United States. Coolidge admitted his mother was dark because of mixed Indian heritage. Dr. Bakhufu said that the New England Indian had mixed so often with blacks by 1800 that they weren’t pure Indians. The Presidents mothers maiden name was “Moor”. As “Negro” was used in America to identify black people, “Moor” was the term used in Europe for their identification.

While some of the information seems pretty thin evidence of our former President’s heritage, other seems pretty well informed and descriptive. First hand descriptions and research on family history seems more credible to me than why someone destroyed papers.

So while the liberal media (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS) all drool over Barack Hussein Obama being the first black President in history and doing all they can to get him elected, I’m convinced that there have been at least five other Presidents in our history that have been black.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Senator Ted Stevens (R) Alaska, Indicted

Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted. 7 counts in all relating to his renovations on his vacation home and apparently lying to investigators.



Ted Stevens is a 7 term Senator from Alaska. He's 84 or 86 years old, depending on whether you believe the headling on Drudge or the story Drudge gives the link.



I don't know, and we don't know if Stevens is guilty or not. We'll find out after his trial. This brings me to the character of those serving in elected offices throughout the country.



There have always been people of unsavory character in our elected offices. Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Governors, Mayors, Councilmembers and probably even a dogcatcher or two.



We also have elected officials that are consorting with unsavory characters and while they may or may not be guilty of participating with their friends, the people we associate ourselves with ought to be considered when we are running for office.



It seems, that we have more in the past 20 years than we've had in our entire history. I suspect that is because we always focus on the ones in our time rather than those that are long since dead and gone.



It is, however, incumbent on us to question all of our candidates regardless of whether the press will do it or not. Senator Barack Hussein Obama should be called on the carpet for his associations, his sweetheart deal on his home, his stance on schools when his own children are in private schools and so on. Senator John McCain should also be questioned hard on his immigration stance, his association with the Keating Five, his near change to the Democrat Party and so on.



We should also question the length of time these representatives of ours represent us. Ted Stevens is a 7 term Senator. That's 42 years when he completes his term, if he completes his term. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia should also be scrutinized.



I am not in favor of term limits. Unless those limits are placed on our elected representatives by a vote of the people. However, I am in favor of truth in advertising from these candidates.



In the past twenty years we've had Bill Clinton impeached, guilty of perjury which cost him his law license, and 80 plus members of his administration found to be corrupt in one fashion or another. We've had Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana indicted. Still on the job. Senator Larry Craig plead guilty. Still on the job.



A man or woman is elected to public office to represent the people. They are lent the public trust. When they abuse that trust, whatever charge they receive for events done in office, the penalty should be double that of American citizens for the same crime.



Ted Stevens may be innocent of the charges. However, if he's found guilty, he should be given the full measure of the punishment. I don't concern myself with the punishments of liberals that are found guilty. I expect liberals to be guilty of breaking a law.

Timetables

Several days ago, the Prime Minister of Iraq said that he would like to see a timetable of 16 months to begin for the removal of United States troops. The news media is playing this as saying that Senator Barack Hussein Obama was correct and that Maliki is backing Obama.

President Bush has said all along that timetables were not appropriate because it would signal to the enemy that they should sit back and wait for us to leave and then begin anew, their attacks on Iraq.

Things have changed, however. The war is nearly over. Victory has nearly been achieved (although I believe that victory has been achieved). There is very little al queda left in Iraq any longer. Those that haven’t been killed or taken captive, have been fleeing Iraq in droves. Iraq has taken over 10 of the 18 provinces and there is almost no threat of al queda left in Iraq. What is left, the Iraq security forces can take care of with limited support from the American military.

Wasn’t that the goal? Weren’t we supposed to stay there until the Iraqi security forces could control their own country? That’s what we trained them to do.

To call for a timetable now, or time horizons, seems to me to be appropriate. The Bush administration has always said that we’re there as guests of the Iraqi’s and that we’d leave when they said they could take care of themselves. That time seems to have come. This was inevitable. The only ones that seriously thought that they war couldn’t be won were the terrorists, al queda and the liberals. Newsflash: We’ve won!! It hasn’t been announced yet, but we’ve won.

So why would it be wrong to start planning for the withdrawal of American troops? It is easy for Obama to say ‘my time frame and calling for a timetable was correct.’ The dynamics have changed. He called for this timetable as the troop surge was beginning, which he said had no hope of succeeding. Now the surge has proven to be even better than predicted and certainly better than Obama said would happen.

There will likely be some setbacks as we withdraw. The insurgents, terrorists or whomever is still lurking will try a resurgence as we leave, but the point is that the Iraqi’s can now handle their own. There is no civil war. There is no quagmire. This is not Vietnam and never has been.

The United States should declare shortly that the war in Iraq is won and over and troops will begin coming home or being redeployed to Afghanistan. If Obama is going to play the game of “I was right, Bush was wrong” then President Bush should come out on national television and announce that victory has been achieved in Iraq; al queda is on the run and headed to Afghanistan and our troops will be following them into Afghanistan to put an end to the al queda infrastructure.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Oil Drilling will commence....after the election

Oil drilling in this country will begin soon. Not soon enough to solve the problems today, but soon.

It’s widely stated that the Democrats will win the House, Senate and White House in November. I don’t entirely agree with that, but let’s assume the prognosticators are actually right for once .

One real problem that we have in this country is the skyrocketing cost of oil. This causes some problems for Democrats. First, former President Bill Clinton vetoed oil drilling in ANWAR in 1996. The claim was the environment and that it would take ten years for the oil to get to the gas pumps, so it was vetoed and drilling didn’t take place.

However, in 2005, Hurricane Katrina drove oil prices up and gas prices at the pump followed in 2006. That is ten years after Bill Clinton’s veto.

Second , the Democrats ran on two things in 2006 to take over the House and Senate majorities. First they ran against the Iraq war saying they’d end it. Second, they ran saying they’d solve the oil problem and bring prices down at the pump. On October 20, 2006, the price per barrel of oil was $58.42. It’s now over $137.00 per barrel. They obviously didn’t solve the oil problem. Of course, they didn’t end the war in Iraq either as promised. One short note here. I believe that the reason the Democrats took over Congress in the last election was because of the Republicans spending habits. They acted more like Democrats than Democrats did and it cost them their jobs.

The Democrats are continuing to say that oil drilling is not what this country needs. They are locked into that position for now. However, it’s becoming more and more apparent that oil drilling is going to have to start to bring the price of oil down and with Iran ratcheting up their rhetoric and now testing their missiles showing they can hit Tel Aviv, it’s going to become more necessary for us to drill oil. Not to mention the increased demand brought on by India and China which will only increase.

The Democrats, if they win in the fall, will then shortly after taking office in January, change their position and start drilling oil. This will be done to save their jobs for the next election. They will then be able to say that they passed the oil drilling proposal and run on that for the next few elections.

In other words, the Democrats are hoping that nothing happens between now and election day that will force them to pass oil drilling legislation in the next three months. Before the election, it will be seen as a Republican pressure victory for oil drilling. After the election, it will be reported as the Democrats saving America from the evil middle east.

Politics drives the Democrats. Not what’s right or wrong, but politics. It’s always this way, but this seems to be one of the most blatant examples in many years. There is one way to assure we get more oil to the market. Elect Conservatives. Then hold their feet to the fire.

I welcome your comments.

Victory in Iraq is in sight. Where are the Democrats?

Over the weekend, it was announced that 15 of 18 of the benchmarks have been reached by the Iraqi government. Where are the Democrats?

During the past five years, we’ve heard how the Iraq war was a failure. A quagmire. Even Senator Harry Reid said that the Iraq war was lost. Then President Bush implement General Petraeus’ plan for the surge. The turnaround was nearly instantaneous. Leading up to the surge, Senator Hillary Clinton said that Petraeus’ recommendation of the surge stretched the imagination and that it wasn’t believable.

As it became apparent that the surge was not just working but more successful than even predicted, the Democrats, including Senator Carl Levin came out and said that the Iraq war couldn’t be won by the military, that there had to be a political solution and that the Iraqi government was failing and we should set time tables and get out.

I submit that there wasn’t much reason for the government to begin hitting it’s goals because the military hadn’t eliminated Al Queda from Iraq. The military success must come first, then the government has reason to hope that they would be successful and have a government that had the ability to last.

Now that the surge has produced such terrific results and al queda is on the run, the government has stepped up and met 15 of the 18 benchmarks. So where are the Democrats with their excuses as to why the surge worked and the benchmarks are being met?

Where is CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC asking them about the successes that Democrats said wouldn’t come?

We’ve almost won the war in Iraq. I’m really hoping that we can declare victory before the end of summer and President Bush can begin bringing troops home. Not on any artificial timetable, but on what President Bush said from the beginning. We’ll leave when we’ve achieved victory. We’ve almost achieved victory. It won’t be long now.

I welcome your comments

Brett

The Danger of the Supreme Court Ruling on Guns

June, 2008 the United States Supreme Court rules that Americans have the right to own guns. Did they have to do this and what is the danger of this ruling?

It is sad that the Supreme Court had to rule on this. It’s well stated in the Constitutions second amendment that Americans do have the right to own guns. It is necessary for our own defense.

It is unlikely that we’ll have to fight with guns to protect our homes from foreign invasion. It’s possible, especially with the threat of terrorism the past ten years, but it’s still unlikely that we’d need our weapons to defend our homes against foreign invasion. We have the best military in the world despite the fear mongers on the liberal side saying that our military is drained.

The Constitution was written following the Revolutionary War. The men that wrote the Constitution were very familiar with tyranny. Farmers and shoemakers and tinsmiths and blacksmiths and land surveyors took up arms to fight the most powerful country on earth for their freedom and the freedom of those that followed in the future. The designing of the Constitution was based on their experience with that tyranny.

If we look at the Declaration of Independence, they give us a reason why it’s necessary for the second amendment. “…That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying is Foundation on such Principals, and organizing its Power in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

What this means is that power is lent to the government by the people. When the government takes power from the people and claims it for itself, it is to the detriment of the people and it’s the people’s right and responsibility to claim that power back. Government takes power from the people by removing their freedoms. The right to own guns, bear arms, is one of those freedoms.

By taking away the right to bear arms, the government then has the ability to coerce the people who will find it much more difficult to exercise the rights and responsibilities stated in the Declaration of Independence.

So what is the danger of this ruling by the Supreme Court? The danger is that it shows our rights are dangerously close to being usurped by the government in each of the three branches of government.

Legislators at all levels are trying to regulate our right to bear arms. This case was about a Washington DC law banning citizens from owning guns for the past 33 years. We also know that there are many in the United States Congress that want to take away our right to bear arms. A prime example is Senator Chuck Schumer. In addition, we’ve had those in the executive branch that wanted to take away those Rights. President Clinton was one that wanted gun control laws. Senator Hillary Clinton, had she been nominated and then elected is another that would have been for a gun ban. Senator Barack Hussein Obama is another that has said he prefers gun control. Now he’s changed his position a couple of times, depending on the group he’s speaking to on any given day, so we’d have to assume he would ban guns.

Now we find out that the Judicial Branch is also looking to ban guns. We know this because the vote on the case of gun control was 5-4. We were lucky that one of the justices, who seems to go back and forth on our rights depending on the topic, voted for the Right to bear arms.

We are precariously close to losing our rights. One nomination away from the vote going the other way. If Obama becomes President and the wrong Justice retires or dies in office, that vote will go the other way and our rights are lost to us.

I could argue all day about how when the gun ban was put in place in Washington DC the crimes increased where guns were used. It’s an old line but it’s still true. If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Or the numerous places where gun carry laws have been passed and those crimes went down. However, that’s no longer the issue. The issue now is our government removing more and more of our rights and if they manage to get a gun ban in place, they will have disarmed us. This is a very real danger and it was pointed out very clearly in this ruling by the Supreme Court last week. It was a great victory, but it should also be a wake up call to all Americans. We’re one vote away from losing more rights, which means we’ll have less freedom.

The danger of this ruling should be a wake up call to us all. We are one vote from that tyranny that our forefathers fought against.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

My Letter to Representative Tim Walberg

Honorable Tim Walberg,

I am not a happy constituent. Not necessarily with you, but with the Republican Party. First of all, we have a Presidential candidate that is not a Conservative. My vote, which I hold precious, is being cheapened by having to vote for an inferior candidate that is liberal. Calling him less liberal than either of the Democrat candidates is no consolation.

I see no leadership in the Republican Party. I’d love to blame the news media for not putting out the Republican issues and positions, but I can’t. The Republicans have no message, no issues and no positions. Republicans were turned out in 2006 not due to the Iraq war, but rather because Republicans in Congress spent money like Democrats and President Bush didn’t veto those exorbitant spending bills.

First, we need a leader in the Republican Party. Since nobody holding the positions of leadership in the Republican party is stepping up to ensure some victories, or even one victory, this fall. It means the position is open. Step up and claim the position! If you wait for a handout of the position, you’ll be playing the game. It’s time that the Republicans did what they did in 1994 and put together a plan of action for this summer and fall and then go further than they did in 1994. In 94, they put together the Contract with America. They did exactly as they said they would. Then they became part of the Washington establishment. You don’t need to make friends with the press, nor with the liberals. Pick your issues and stand firm.

I have a few top issues that I believe should be burned into every Republican’s talking points.

1. End the war. Not in the way that the liberals want to end the war. End it with victory. Keep the force there that’s needed to hold the areas taken. Send forces in to the other provinces that are not under Iraqi control, hit them hard and turn it over to the Iraqi’s. Then tell the Iraqi government, quit dragging your feet and settle your problems now. If an end date is to be given, it should be between the Iraqi Prime Minister and the President. It should not be made public anywhere in the world.
2. Make the tax cuts permanent. We, in Michigan, cannot afford another tax increase by allowing the tax cuts to expire. We, in America, have gone through a boisterous economy over the past 7 years. The last six months have been sluggish, but it’s still a positive and will be growing stronger. This excellent economy we’ve been through the past 7 years is due in large part to the tax cuts. Make them permanent and then go to work on revamping the tax code.

3. Immigration reform. Amnesty didn’t work in 1986. If it had, we wouldn’t be dealing with it now. Protect the border. Keep the illegals from sneaking in. As we find the illegal aliens here, send them back. I don’t want to hear that we “can’t round up 20 million illegals”. This is America and we can do anything we set our mind to doing. Get that fence finished. Use the technology to watch the borders as well as the border patrol. We do not need another attack on this country.
4. Inspection of shipments to the United States. We need to start inspecting cargo coming to this country. We inspect fruit crossing state lines, it’s unbelievable t hat we can’t inspect cargo coming into this country. If you cross a state line to buy cigarettes because the taxes are lower in Indiana than they are in Michigan and you’re caught, you will be prosecuted. Yet we can’t inspect cargo? If another attack happens here due to open borders or uninspected cargo, the fault will lay firmly at the feet of the United States government. The President, EACH Senator, and Each Representative.
5. Social Security: It will be operating in the red in 2017 and it will be exhausted by 2041. This is a failed system! The current retirees must be taken care of through the current system. This can still be done. However, those still working would benefit more, and the system would be self sufficient without depending on the government if we were permitted to choose where we invested our money. The law could be written that everyone must pay into the system as it is now. But each person would be permitted to choose where their money should be invested to give them the maximum amount available for their own retirement supplement. If I want to invest my money in mutual funds, that should be my choice. I should be allowed to move the investment if I feel, or my advisor suggests, but the deposits would still be a requirement as under the current system. In addition, when I die, my family would receive that money as a death benefit. No more of the $255 token amount to my family should I die. They would get all that I’ve paid into the system.
6. Health Care: Get government out of the health care business. They have failed! Example; Medicare. It will be in the red this year and it will be exhausted in 2019. If this is what the government does with health care, they’ve failed and there is no reasonable expectation that they can handle a health care plan for all. Let the market work.
7. Oil Independence: Drill for oil in this country. Put the American people to work and their ingenuity. If we open several of the oil sites that we have available we’ll lower our dependence on foreign oil. We must then encourage Americans to find alternative fuels. Going with ethanol only increased the prices of corn chips, and taco shells, etc. It’s not the answer. Use the time we have by drilling for our own oil and lowering prices to find alternative answers for operating our cars, heating our homes and so on. Drill now and research now to find alternative power.

These are just seven items that I’ve put down as I’ve been typing this. These are all winning issues. When a candidate runs as a conservative they win. It’s been proven over and over. If you want to lose as a conservative, run in San Francisco.

We also need candidates across this country that have some self control. No more political correctness or being afraid to say what’s obvious because you’re talking about a colleague. Senator Larry Craig should have been forced out. Not due to his guilt or innocence, but because he pleaded guilty to cover it up. Representative Kennedy should have been booted out for driving drunk into a road barrier.

I consider Conservative Republicans have the right message and the right path. I demand more from them. So they should stand up for what they believe in and stand up forcefully. They should be told to keep their pants zipped and to stay out of and away from brothels, bars and escort services. I don’t want to hear of a spouse of another Representative or Senator picking up a prostitute ala Debbie Stabenow. If they are, they should resign or forced out of their elected office. That’s not what they were sent to Washington to do.

Unfortunately, Republicans are not articulating their message. It’s time for a leader to step and take control of the Republican party. If we continue as we’re going right now, we’re going to end up with a President Obama or a President Clinton. As it is, if we get a President McCain it will be Democrat lite and that to me is a slap in the face to the American people and the Republican Party. We will also end up with seats in the house that won’t amount to much more than a poker game and in the Senate we wouldn’t have enough to have a ping pong match.

I realize that I’m being very blunt. It’s probably not proper etiquette but at this point I don’t care. I don’t want flyers that come to me asking me what I think of the issues which is only a disguise for the collection of money or to garner votes or to reaffirm votes.

I’m not sending any money to the Republicans. None of them. I did that throughout the 90’s and the first couple of years of the aughts whenever I could. What have I gotten for my money? Nothing. It’s been a waste of whatever meager amount I could send when I could send money.

It’s time the Republicans started earning the expectation that I’d even open mail from them. I’m not sending it to Democrats, but I’m not sending it to Republicans that fail to do as they say. I’m also not interested in form letters as a response to this. If you really want to respond, the best response is to be the leader or find a leader that will make Conservatives follow the Conservative issues and protect this country from the coming storm that we’re sure to get from any of the Presidential candidates and to do it today. The only way to protect the American people from these candidates is to get Conservatives elected to the House and the Senate.

I’d apologize for the length and tone of this mail, but I really don’t feel sorry for stating the truth.

Sincerely,


Brett Young

Penalize the Vote...or Ballot Stuffing

On Saturday, the Democrat Party decided to give Florida and Michigan their seats back for the National Convention in Denver. Not all of the seats that they are entitled to, however.

The history on how this came about goes back to 2007. Florida and Michigan wanted a more prominent role in choosing the nominees for President. Florida has a Republican Congress and a Republican Governor, however, it was a Democrat that first proposed moving their primary up the order. The Democrat National Committee warned them that if they moved their primary to an earlier date, they would be penalized by not allowing Florida to seat their delegates.

Michigan also wanted to move their primary up earlier so they too could have more of a say in the nomination. Michigan has a Democrat Governor, a Democrat House and a Republican Senate. They too were told that they would be sanctioned with the loss of their delegates being seated at the convention. Florida moved their primary up to January 29 and Michigan moved theirs up to January 15.Please note that the people that decided to move the elections up were the Congresses of each state. It was not decided on by the people of the two states.

The Republican National Committee penalized the two states by removing half of their seats at the Republican Convention in September. The DNC removed all seats of both states for their Convention the end of August.So what we had was the RNC and the DNC both penalizing the voters of the two states for the actions of the elected officials. All of the Democrat candidates agreed to follow the DNC rules which included no campaigning in the two states.

From this point, I’m going to mostly confine my remarks to the state of Michigan because I’m in Michigan and a little more familiar with what’s happening and happened here.Prior to the Michigan Primary, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, along with Senator Joe Biden, former Senator John Edwards, and Governor Bill Richardson, all candidates, decided to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan.On January 15, 2008 Michigan held its’ primary.

Due to so many of the Democrat candidates removing themselves from the primary in Michigan, the state decided to add another unnamed candidate. They called this candidate “Uncommitted”. So if you were voting for a Democrat, your choices were Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich (who did campaign in Michigan despite the rules) and Uncommitted.Clinton won the Democrat primary. Her take from this victory was 73 delegates which represented the vote she received. The other named candidates have since dropped out of the race, but the votes they received were insignificant. Uncommitted however came in second place.

Let’s stop for a second and talk about what this has done in Michigan to this point. When Presidential candidates come to a state, they naturally generate business in the areas that are visited. Usually, this means visits to the Detroit area on the east side of the state, the Grand Rapids area on the west side of the state and Traverse City in the northern portion of the lower peninsula of the state. Citizens show up for these events. A chance to meet possibly the next President of the United States.

When they show up, they visit businesses in the area, which helps the economy of the area. This is especially important in Michigan which is currently in a one state recession and has been for nearly four years. The revenue generated from these visits wouldn’t do as much as the baseball All Star game a few years ago, or the Super Bowl game two years ago, but it does create economic activity in the area.

Let’s move ahead to Saturday, May 31, 2008. The rules committee of the DNC met to hear why Florida and Michigan should be permitted to seat their delegates. There were three proposals put forth to allow these delegates and how many for which candidate.The officials from the State proposed dividing the delegates up between the two remaining candidates based on exit polls from the primary. Their reasoning was that had Obama been on the ballot, Clinton’s victory would have been closer. They proposed that Clinton get 69 votes and Obama get the remaining 59 votes.

The Obama campaign gave their proposal which was to take Michigans delegates and split them 50/50 because Obama wasn’t on the ballot due to the primary not counting according to the DNC rules as stated prior to the primary.The Clinton campaign said that Clinton should receive her 73 delegates based on the vote. However, their exit polls showed that Obama only received 75% of the uncommitted vote, with the bulk of the remainder going to Edwards.

The DNC rules committee decided on the Michigan proposal. This took the actual votes that Clinton had won and removed four delegates from her, giving the balance to Obama who wasn’t on the ballot. This meeting was a farce. It very much reminded me of the election of 2000. We all remember that election. It took 35 extra days, and numerous court visits. Florida laws were tossed aside during this process and we were subjected to county workers holding ballots up in the air, staring at ballots and deciding how the voter INTENDED to vote based on whether the chad was hanging, pregnant or any of the other descriptions that they used. What it boiled down to was that elected officials were determining how people voted regardless of whether the voter voted that way or not.

This meeting on the 31st was much the same thing again. The DNC took delegates away from Hillary Clinton that she had earned by keeping her name on the ballot. She received the votes, but the DNC told some of the voters that their votes didn’t matter. That THEY have decided that it’s fairer to remove votes from Clinton and give them to Obama despite the fact that he chose to remove himself from the ballot. Again, this is reminiscent of the election in 2000 in Florida. The Gore campaign wanted a recount, but they only wanted a recount in certain areas. With each recount that was taken, both during that 35 day election process and every recount done since by various news organizations and others, Gore lost each time. Yet the Democrats, to this day, only talk of how they were cheated out of the 2000 election.

Getting back to the Michigan delegates, again, elected officials in the state moved the primary up. Not the voters. The DEMOCRAT National Committee’s rules committee decided to take votes away from the Michigan voters that chose Clinton and give some of them to Barack Hussein Obama, who chose not to be on the ballot. With each of these elections, the Democrats don’t seem to want the voters to decide, nor to follow the wishes of the voters. In addition, they stripped Michigan of half of it’s delegates. So even the votes that did come in, they only counted as half.I think it’s probably easier to say that the Michigan elected officials put the voters of Michigan in a precarious position in choosing the next president, and then the Democrats took some voters choices from them and gave them to a man that didn’t want to be voted for by Michiganders.

Wouldn’t this be the same as ballot stuffing?

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Is this the best the Democrats have to offer?

There is just one week left before the final primaries take place. While the Democrat race has been an historic one, it's also a bit disconcerting. Is this the best the Democrats have to offer?

I'm already unimpressed with John McCain. But this isn't about the continued boredom of the Republican Party and their eventual nominee. This is about the Democrats.

There are two candidates left. They seem to be tripping over themselves and the news media to see which of them can become the bigger fool.

Hillary Clinton. I'm hesitant to go back into the 90's and all of the scandals that she was involved in that we know of and the ones that she was probably in that we don't know the details. I just don't know that there is enough space on any computer, any website to cover all of that.

She came into the race as the inevitable choice of the Democrats. Now she is in a tight race with another Senator. Remembering how the Clintons were in the 90's, I don't count her out. I seriously can envision her taking this all the way to the convention and duking it out there. I can see her pulling a fast one and stealing the nomination away from Obama. In fact, I'm almost hoping for it.

Clinton has had her problems. First she said she was under sniper fire, which turned out to not be true. This past week, she said that she didn't understand the bellowing for her to get out of the race. After all, her husband didn't wrap up the nomination until June in 92 and Bobby Kennedy was killed in June of 68. So why should we be so surprised that the Democrat nominee hasn't emerged as of May of 2008?

Frankly, I'm surprised that there has been so much upset in the Democrat party over these words. They are, after all, true. She says something that is true and she's attacked by her own party over it. The same ones that backed her "vast right wing conspiracy" invention that turned out to not be true.

Hillary has enough problems. She has done nothing in the Senate other than to vote for the war in Iraq, then change her mind when it was time for her to run for President. She has no legislation in place. In fact, the only real thing I can remember off the top of my head of her time in the Senate is that she told General Petraeus that it would strain credibility to think that his plan of the troop surge would have any success....just before it became a raging success.

Her opponent is even less qualified. Barack Obama has ties to communists, socialists and terrorists. He's been a Senator for three years and done nothing. He attended a church for 20 years, but apparently didn't hear his Pastor say anything negative about the United States, nor any of his racist rants. I guess it pays to miss church at times, although I don't know how he knew which days to skip church.

This weekend alone was enough to show how inexperienced, incompetent, and unaware of history he is. Memorial Day; he was giving a speech and said he could see some of the soldiers in the crowd that we were honoring on Memorial Day. To do this, he'd have to have had dead soldiers in the audience. Memorial Day is a day to honor the fallen. The men and women that have died in service to the United States. Those that gave the ultimate sacrifice.

Then he followed that up the next day by saying that his great uncle was one of the first Americans to liberate Auschwitz. He used this story as a way of talking about how we need to take better care of the soldiers when they return home and have seen things that humans have done to other humans. He said his great uncle had gone to the attic and stayed for six months, not leaving the house.

Here's the problem with his story. First, Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians. Not by the Americans. Now if his great uncle was a Russian, his story just became believable. But apparently, he wasn't Russian. That would open up a whole new can of worms.

Second, this was a family member that was talked about in the family because he had been in Germany and had supposedly brought home photo's.

Barack Hussein Obama's just lost credibility. So the press had to go into overdrive to fix their candidates problem. Within a couple of hours, the real story came out. His great uncle had actually been to another camp and did take part in the liberation of that camp, but it wasn't Auschwitz.

Here's the problem. Shouldn't Barack Hussein Obama have known as he was telling his story that something was wrong with it? Shouldn't have had known as soon as he started telling it that Auschwitz was actually liberated by the Russians? Any candidate for President of the United States should know that simple fact.

Since Obama's great uncle was so upset upon his return, and refused to go out of the house for six months, and this was enough of an important story for Obama to use, wouldn't you think that he'd get his facts straight. Especially such a simple fact that nearly any high school student should be able to get correct.

Another aspect is that if his great uncle was so upset about this, why would Obama bring it up? It's a personal story in his own family, and if it's true that his great uncle wouldn't talk about it, why would Obama talk about it for him? Even the press didn't talk to that uncle. They talked to another uncle, who is a brother to the one in question apparently because the great uncle involved still doesn't like to talk about it. Yet, Obama throws an incorrect story out there for his own benefit despite the privacy his great uncle prefers on that topic.

This reminds me of when he claimed his grandmother made racist statements when he was a boy and it made him cringe. His grandmother can be known as a racist, his great uncle described as needing mental health care. If it weren't for his facts being all wrong, I'd have to question if there is something genetic that should keep him from being President.

Obama and Clinton are the number one and number two liberals in the Senate. Both of them act like it. They promise all of this spending that they are going to do, in addition to surrendering to the terrorists and what they don't talk about is who is going to pay.

There is one answer to both questions. The American people will pay for their spending programs that they are promising and the American people will pay when the terrorists decide to strike us again after being emboldened by the liberals in their surrender.

If either one of these two are elected to the White House, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton will likely be two very happy former Presidents. Right now, it's a toss-up as to who is the worst President in history. A case can be made for both of them. If we elect Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, either one of them could give Clinton or Carter a run for their money at being the worst President in history.

Republicans run trying to emulate President Reagan (the best President of the 20th Century) while the Democrats trot out candidates to alleviate Former Presidents Carter and Clinton from being the worst President in history.

Unfortunately, this is the best the Democrats have to offer. Although, it's probably fortunate for McCain. I'm afraid he'll be the worst Republican to be President from the day he takes office.

I guess that says alot. I'm willing to vote for the worst Republican over the worst possible President we could have.

I welcome your opinions and comments.

Brett

Why is it rare for a Senator to be elected President?

Need I say more?

Where are the Republicans?

Not just where are the Republicans, but where are the Conservative Republicans? The liberals are talking about windfall profits taxes, bringing the troops home from Iraq immediately after the election, letting the Bush tax cuts expire if not repealing them immediately after the inauguration in January. What have the Republicans said about all of this? Zero, zip, nada. NOTHING.

Can you name the Republican National Committee Chairman? Can you name the leading the Republican in the House? The Senate? I would venture to say that not many can.

Finally!! A Republican stands up and calls the liberals to task. President George Bush, in and address to the Knesset in Israel said that Appeasement has failed throughout history and even gave the example of the Republican Senator from Idaho in 1939 saying that if only he could have spoken to Hitler before his march, it might have prevented it.

Do we need to be reminded of what terrorism has done in the past 16 15 years? The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. There were no less than 7 other attacks on this country during the 90’s under President Clinton. What did Clinton do? He passed on the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden. He passed on three opportunities to take bin Laden into custody. His final act was to do nothing after the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000 when they knew in early December who was responsible.

President George Bush was in office less than 8 months when we were attacked on September 11, 2001 and 3,000 American civilians were murdered. In less than 30 days, President Bush took the fight to them.

A year and a half later, after intelligence from several countries, including our own intelligence agencies, showing that Hussein was working towards weapons of mass destruction, he gave Hussein a time limit to give it up. When Hussein didn’t, Bush took the war to Iraq with the Senate’s and the House’s blessing. You can look up the resolutions voted for by the House and Senate authorizing war. It wasn’t just due to the intelligence on WMD’s.

We are now 8 months from President Bush’s final day in office and he stands up and talks about appeasement from the liberals. The liberals are up in arms. I have seen just one Republican (not counting Senator McCain) speak out about this statement. Senator John Kyle asked why the liberals are so upset about this statement when their names weren’t mentioned, leading him to believe that they must have taken this personally. His quote was “Me thinks thou doeth protest too much”.

The liberals are claiming that President Bush is politicizing the war on terror and that it’s beneath the dignity of the office. That he’s injecting himself into the presidential campaign. Yet, they don’t complain that Senator Durbin compared the troops to pol pot, the gulags and the nazi’s. Yet Hillary Clinton is upset that President Bush would dare compare a Democrat to the nazi’s.

Thank God President Bush has finally stood up for America. Unfortunately, the rest of the Republicans with the possible exception of Senator Kyle and Senator McCain, are sitting on their hands, offering nothing and giving absolutely no reason to vote for them like a scolded child placed in a corner for punishment.

It’s time the Republicans, ESPECIALLY the conservative Republicans get off their dead backsides and start standing up for their beliefs of lower taxes, less government, secure borders and the ending of illegal immigration as well as the deportation of those already here illegally.

They lost the election in 2006 not because of the Iraq war, but because they spent money like Democrats. They need to put it in writing and put their names big and bold next to their assertions and promises that they will not only address these issues but to bring them to a vote on the floor. They blew it in 2006 it’s up to them to correct their errant ways and they’d best start doing it loudly and clearly immediately. If they don’t get their priorities and principles in order and start showing it loud and often, they will be doomed to failure in the fall and that dooms this country to four years of higher taxes and more terrorism.

Cowardly acts, like pulling the troops out of Iraq without winning will only lead to more terrorist attacks on our soil. Remember, under President Bush, we have had ZERO attacks since September 11, 2001. This will end if the Coward Barack Obama is elected President. This will end if the Coward Hillary Clinton is elected President. We need the Republicans to start standing up and stating what they are for and proving to us that they are going to follow their conservative principles to avoid an all out war on terrorism in our own back yards.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

We are NOT in a recession

The news has been inundating us over the past couple of months that we're in a recession. They have claimed that because of the housing crisis the recession is on us. Well, the numbers came out on April 30. Once again, the news is wrong.

A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. In the fourth quarter of 2007 the economy grew at 0.6%. Since there was growth in the fourth quarter, we cannot officially be declared in a recession until at least June 30, 2008. If the growth rate had come in at a negative growth at the end of March (reported on April 30), we still can't be declared in a recession until the end of June, which would be reported in mid to late July.

However, the economic numbers came out on April 30 for the first quarter. Once again, the economy grew at 0.6%. Anemic? Yes. Slow? You betcha. But it's still GROWTH. So this now means that we cannot be officially declared in a recession until at least the end of September, reported in Mid to late October.

The news has cited as their main reason for declaring that this is a recession is that their polls say that people feel like they are in a recession. This report that came out in April should prove to you that reporting people's feelings is not the same as reporting the facts.

One of the first indicators that we're headed into a recession is the unemployment rate would jump. It hasn't. The unemployment rate did increase from 4.6% to 5.1% over a four month period, but that's not a significant jump. If we were to see unemployment jump to 6% in a two month period and then a little higher after that, it would be a good indication that things are getting worse. However, the unemployment rate just dropped to 5% in April. Another indicator is consumer confidence would drop. It did drop. Then it went up. Then it came down again. Then up again.

With the stimulus package that was passed and the checks having started going out this past week, I believe that the economy will get a needed boost. The question then becomes, will it be enough to boost the economy into performing well after all of the checks are distributed? Since these checks will be distributed over the next few months, it is unlikely that the economy will see a drastic downturn before spring of 2009.

It is interesting to note that these problems with the economy have come about since the election of 2006 which is when the Democrats took over Congress. It appears that since that election, people are more cautious with their hiring, their spending and their savings. We know from history that tax cuts stimulate growth in the economy and tax increases cause a constriction in the economy. Since we also know that Democrats look to raise taxes, it makes absolute sense to me that the slowdown in the economy has a direct correlation to the election of Democrats to the Congress in 2006.

Again, it comes down to the Ownership Society vs the Community Society. When people have their own money to make their own choices with, the economy thrives. When government confiscates more of that money and tells people how they must spend it, or spends it for them, the economy constricts.

We are facing massive tax increases on January 1, 2011. If the Bush tax cuts are not made permanent by then, the Democrats will have put a horrendous tax increase on us. Income, Capital Gains, dividend and death taxes will all increase substantially. I refer you to a previous blog on here that shows this in more detail.

The good news is that at the worst, the economy cannot be declared a recession until October of this year and that's not likely now.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Community Society vs. Ownership Society

In the recent past, politics has become very polarized in this country. It began on a small scale with Ronald Reagan, but really escalated during Bill Clintons years in the White House and then became even more bitter following the 2000 election for George W. Bush.

George Bush ran on being a uniter. I believe this was a mistake. To be united, both sides must be willing. Once one man declares he will unite the two sides, the other side, if unwilling, can only make him look bad by being obstinate on everything that comes from the White House.

This trend of the past seven years has narrowed down much of the debate between the two sides to two very distinct positions. One side believes that government has the solutions. That government can move the country for the people. The other side believes that the solutions reside within the people. The classic liberal vs conservative. This is also known as the Community Society vs the Ownership Society.

See the following chart comparing the Community Society to the Ownership Society:


Community Society ***********Ownership Society

Government-Social Security ***Your personal account
Government Medicare and Employer Health Care*** Health Savings Accounts and Individually owned health plans
Employer Pension Plans ***Your Individually owned Savings Accounts
Your Personal Savings ***Your Enhanced Savings through Consumption Tax

The above chart is enlightening. Government believes that retirement responsibility
should be through Social Security and forcing employers to provide pension plans.
While the Ownership Society believes that people can save for their own retirements,
do a better job of it and provide themselves a higher and better prepared income for
retirement.

Social Security was begun in the 1930’s under the leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
However, even President Roosevelt said that it should become privatized. In addition,
he said that Social Security is only meant as a supplement to whatever people do on
their own.

Social Security money was moved from it’s own Trust into the General Fund which then
allowed Congress to borrow the money. Pension plans were taken by employers when
they ran short of funds. This happened in Germany in the 1980’s and then spread to the
United States.

In two instances of forced savings by government and employers, both have failed.
Congress in one instance, and employers in the other. Yet ,government feels they can
do a better job for people’s retirement than the people are able to do for themselves.

As we know now, Social Security will be operating in the Red starting in 2017 and will
be exhausted by 2041. The only thing said to this point is that for Social Security to
continue beyond 2041 is to reduce the benefits by 30% in 2041 or taxes would need to
be increased. So if you’re receiving $1,800 per month, it will be reduced to $1,260 per
month in 2041. By the way, if you that’s beyond your lifetime, think of this. People born
in 1976 are the ones first affected. Those born in 1976 turn 32 this year!

Then there is health care. Take a look at the next chart:


Community Society -Health Care- Ownership Society

Opposes Individual Accounts ****Favors Individual Accounts
Mixed feelings on “Cap Adjustments ****Opposes Tax increases
Favors “locked box” on Trust ****Favors Wage to price indexing

Favors Universal Health Care Coverage ****Opposes Universal Health Care Coverage

Costs imposed on employer/individual/government*** Favors Free Market Health System
Tax subsidy for small employers ***Tax deductions/credits to purchase health insurance.
Expand Medicaid & SCHIP ***Encourage State initiatives
Drug Price Negotiations ***Expand HSA’s
Pay for coverage thru Medicare Restructuring/expired ***Limit SCHIP

Again, the Community Society advocates government as shown in the chart above.
Let’s look at how well the government has done with the health care they do have now.
Medicare will be operating in the red during the year 2008. That’s THIS YEAR!!
Medicare will be exhausted in the year 2019. Those born in 1954 will be put onto
Medicare but there will be no money to pay for it. Do we really want to turn our health
care over to the government that hasn’t been able to run the health care system they do
have successfully?

They will put the costs on the employer, the individual and the government. Government
doesn’t earn any money. They only confiscate it. So while they will be responsible for
writing the check for the health care, they’ll get the money to write those checks from
employers. The employers won’t pay for this out of the kindness of their hearts, so
they’ll collect the money from the employee. That’s you and I.

The ownership society advocates people finding their own health care and paying for it.
There are plans out there that not only pay for health care, but also help the people
save money within their health care plan. Again, the solution found within the people
and not from the government….AND IT’S AFFORDABLE!!

Finally, there is tax reform. Again, the community society wants to increase taxes. The
Alternative minimum tax has affected people in ways that weren’t planned, but the
Community Society says to reduce it, maybe eliminate it, but not without making it up
somewhere else.

They are willing to reduce SOME of the capital gains, but not all and they want to raise
the death tax.

The ownership society wants more and more to move to the Sales tax, also known as
the Fair Tax. They want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and they want to reduce
and/or eliminate the Estate Tax. See the chart below.


Community Society -Tax Reform- Ownership Society
Eliminate/Reduce AMT ***Consumption tax
Some cap gain reductions*** Sales (Fair) tax
-Business startups*** - VAT
First $250 ***Make Bush Tax Cuts permanent
Raise the Estate Tax Exemption Level ***Eliminate/Reduce Estate Tax

So what happens if they let the Bush tax cuts expire? The answer is, on January 1, 2010 our taxes will increase. I’ve posted the following before, and I’ll do it again. This comes from www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes during the 1990’s *****Taxes under Bush
Single making $30 K- Tax $8,400 **Single making $30k-Tax $4,500
Single making $50k- Tax $14,000 **Single making $50k-Tax $12,500
Single making $75k- Tax $23,250 **Single making $75k-Tax $18,750
Married making $60k-Tax $16,800** Married making $60k-Tax $9,000
Married making $75k- Tax $21,000 **Married making $75k-Tax $18,750
Married making $125k-Tax $38,750 **Married making $125k-Tax$31,250

It is mind boggling that the Community Society can get away with saying that the rich got the tax breaks while the poor didn’t when looking at the facts.

If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, we’ll all be getting an income tax increase less than one year after the new President takes office. In addition, if the new President is to take on Social Security we can expect yet another tax increase. If they take on Medicare, we can expect another tax increase, and if they work on health care, we can expect a huge tax increase to pay for “free” government health care. One thing is certain, nothing is free. By the way, Happy Tax Freedom Day. From January 1, 2008 until today, you've been working to pay your taxes. Today, you begin earning money for yourselves.

If the tax cuts are allowed to expire, tax freedom day will move back into May.

Power is in the people, but "loaned" to the government.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Educate the Children

Is Homeschooling a viable choice?

This writing focuses on three aspects of education.

1. History and results
2. Socialization –The ability to interact in society
3. Who’s to blame?

History and Results

In the early days of North America, children were schooled at home. Governor Bradford did not hop a school bus in the morning and head off to school. Nor did George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and so on. They were taught at home. I don’t think many would disagree with me that these were some of the finest minds in history, and we of course know that some of them created possibly the finest documents in history. The Declaration of Independence , the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the United States. Many of that era did go off to apprentice with others. Again, one to one training.

The first organized public school didn’t come into existence until the 1850’s in Massachussetts. Even coming into our own lifetimes. How many of our parents and/or grandparents attended a one room school house in the early 20th century? Drive the countryside. You’ll see many one room school houses now being used as child care centers, or historical monuments.

Homeschooling became more popular and began to grow in the early 1970’s. It’s always been around, but it began to grow significantly in the 70’s. Today, there are 4 million children being taught at home and that number is growing by 20% per year.

There are several reasons given for the growth in homeschooling. Parents want their children safe. Parents don’t want the liberal agenda of the public school system. The majority are for religious reasons. In 1962, God was removed from the public schools.

Beginning in 1962, SAT scores plummeted. Teen pregnancies, drug abuse, pornography, sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, suicides and illiteracy immediately rose by 200%.

More recently, textbooks are missing information or have errant information in schools. One textbook says the atomic bomb caused the end of the Korean War instead of WWII. Another says that 53,000 American deaths came from WWI rather than the 126,000 Americans who actually died. Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are relegated to six lines in textbooks.

Abortion is taught as a part of birth control while homosexuality, masturbation and premarital sex and adultery are taught as normal parts of life.

Safety is a big issue in the news in recent years. An elementary school in Washington DC suspended recesses due to the drugs and violence taking place no the playground until they could allow the children to have their recesses in a pit surrounded by police.

In light of this information is it any wonder why more and more people are choosing homeschooling over public education?

So what are the results of the past forty years of homeschooling compared to public and private education? Is homeschooling successful?

Here is an excerpt from a recent study of homeschoolers: "According to a report published by the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, homeschool student achievement test scores were exceptionally high. The median scores for every subtest at every grade were well above those of public and Catholic/private-school students. On average, homeschool students in grades one to four performed one grade level above their age-level public/private school peers on achievement tests. Students who had been homeschooled their entire academic life had higher scholastic achievement test scores than students who had also attended other educational programs."
One interesting facet of the study noted that academic achievement was equally high regardless of whether the student was enrolled in a full-service curriculum, or whether the parent had a state-issued teaching certificate.
The study states, "Even with a conservative analysis of the data, the achievement levels of the homeschool students in the study were exceptional. Within each grade level and each skill area, the median scores for homeschool students fell between the 70th and 80th percentile of students nationwide and between the 60th and 70th percentile of Catholic/Private school students. For younger students, this is a one year lead. By the time homeschool students are in 8th grade, they are four years ahead of their public/private school counterparts."
Do we really need to analyze that? It’s there in black and white. The performance of homeschooled students exceeds that of public and private education. A parent, that does not have a state-issued teaching certificate is just as high as those with the teaching certificate.

Another aspect of education is the tremendous waste of time in schools. A homeschooled student will participate in their education for 2-3 hours per days. In my own experience, my children averaged 3 ½ hours per day. Yet in the public education system they waste more than two hours per day on lunch, recess and class changing.

Socialization

It was Theodore Roosevelt who said, "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society."
Many homeschoolers share this sentiment when it comes to public schools, believing that the moral relativism, violence, peer pressure, drugs and promiscuity found inside their gates provide an inadequate setting to properly socialize their children. Yet 92 percent of superintendents believe that home learners are emotionally unstable, deprived of proper social development and too judgmental of the world around them, according to a California study by researcher Dr. Brian Ray .

The facts of this research are interesting, but what’s even more interesting to me is that 92% of superintendents believe that home learners are emotionally unstable, home learners are emotionally unstable, deprived of proper social development and too judgemental of the world around them. I really don’t care what superintendents “believe”. I am more concerned with the facts.

Let’s look at the socialization of the children. Most children are eligible to begin their kindergarten year if they turn age five by December 1. The parents may begin their child’s education the following year if they choose if the child is four at the beginning of the year, but turns five before December 1. Immediately, we’re told that all four and five year olds will begin school in early September. All of the four and five year olds are put together in the same grade. They will be with 25 or 30 other four and five year olds. The following year, they will be in the first grade with all five and six year olds. The second grade will be all six and seven year olds and that follows right on through their senior year in high school.

Lunches and recess are divided into sections. Kindergartners might be mixed with first or even second grade students. The third fourth and fifth grade students will each their lunch abit later and be on the play ground after the younger students are back in class. This also happens in middle school and high school. So the closest these children come to interacting with others that are not their age are at recess and lunch, and then only limited to within a year or two of their own age.

Homeschooled children aren’t limited to this age restriction. They will eat lunch with their parents, or guests that stop by, or in restaurants with people of many ages.

After 12 years of being confined to your own age level in public schools, you’re now turned loose on society in your chosen career. Look around at your own workplace. Is everyone the same age as you? The chances are you’re working with people that are older than you and younger than you. As you age, you’re not moved to another section confined to all 30 year old colleagues, and then 40 year old colleagues. You may gravitate to those of your age group for friendship, but you’ll be working with and dealing with people of various ages and lifestyles.

From an early age, children of homeschooled parents are mingling with, conversing with, and participating with others of various ages and various walks of life. Homeschooled students are actually more socially aware than those in the public education system.

So where do these children get their interaction with others? First, they get them in society. The libraries, where they spend a lot of time. 4H is very popular among homeschoolers as is boys and girls scouts. For sports, there are city athletic leagues and regional athletic leagues.

In recent years, more and more groups of homeschoolers are banding together for education and activity purposes. Spelling bees, science fairs, debate clubs, sporting leagues. From my own personal experience, I know that homeschool groups participate against each other in various groups as well as against the public and private school leagues. Lansing has a group. Grand Rapids has a group, Battle Creek and Kalamazoo have groups. All of this just in the mid and west Michigan areas.

Dr. Thomas Smedley believes that homeschoolers have superior socialization skills, and his research supports this claim. He conducted a study in which he administered the Vineyard Adaptive Behavior Scales test to identify mature and well-adapted behaviors in children. Home learners ranked in the 84th percentile, compared to publicly schooled students, who were drastically lower in the 23rd.

Dismantling the stereotype that home learners spend their days isolated from society at kitchen tables with workbooks in hand, NHERI reports that they actually participate in approximately five different social activities outside the home on a regular basis.
Furthermore, researcher Dr. Linda Montgomery found that 78 percent of high school home learners were employed with paying jobs, while a majority engaged in volunteering and community service.

Research presented at the National Christian Home Educators Leadership Conference divulged that homeschool graduates far exceeded their public and private school counterparts in college by ranking the highest in 42 of 63 indicators of collegiate success. They were also ranked as being superior in four out of five achievement categories, including socialization, as they were assessed as being the most charismatic and influential.

Boston University says, "We believe students educated at home
possess the passion for knowledge, the independence, and the self-reliance
that enable them to excel in our intellectually challenging programs of study.
More colleges are even having their own admissions policy's for children that are taught at home.

One more item that I saved for last, partly because I wasn’t certain how to present it and partly because it applies to both the success rate and the socialization in homeschooling is that of race.

As mentioned, homeschooling has been increasing since the 1970’s, but what of the minorities. This too has been growing of late. More and more blacks are electing to homeschool their children.

I have no statistics, nor do I have any research to cite as to why minorities, mostly blacks, are slower to come around to the homeschooling boom. I only have an opinion at this point. Prior to the 60’s, and even moving into the 80’s, the black people in this country had to work harder to succeed. They were hindered until the civil rights actions of the 60’s and as with all things, it does take some time to improve ones circumstances.

We all remember or have read about how black people were banned from white schools, drinking fountains were segregated and they were just treated at worse than second class citizens. So as they increased in their learning, their opportunities and their success, more and more have come to join the homeschool movement. A

As bad as public education is, the inner city schools are even worse. Detroit is graduating less than 40% of their students. Many cities around the country are having graduation rates decline and that is hardest hit in the inner city schools.

The Blame Game

We all know there are problems with education in this country. Just open any newspaper or watch the news on television. Schools are constantly running out of money. They need millage elections to raise money to replace buildings, build football fields, put in a pool, get new computers and a myriad of other reasons.

Children are not learning and the answer of the NEA and the teachers, administrators, and Federal, State and local governments is to throw more money at the schools. For over 20 years, we’ve been throwing more money at the schools and still they continue to decline.

Liberals and Conservatives blame each other. School boards blame the economy, regardless of how the economy is performing. Teachers and Administrators blame the parents. Parents blame the teachers. BUT NOBODY ACTUALLY SOLVES THE PROBLEM.

We can go back to the ruling in 1962 that took God out of education and see that all bad things increased while all good things decreased. Perhaps we could blame that. Or we could blame the relaxed standards of education over the years. Or maybe we could blame government interference for forcing indoctrination to government is good, home is bad, or for taking on the feeding of the children through the school lunch program or breakfast program. Or we could blame the parents for using the schools as nothing more than a baby sitting facility. Or we could blame the schools for taking on the role of babysitter and being accepting of poor performance by the students.

Again, this is my opinion. No statistics or studies to back it up. Just my opinion. I blame two groups of people. The parents and the teachers. Not one more than the other, but both equally.

I blame the parents for turning over more and more power to the schools and accepting that they have little to no effective input at school boards or with the government. Parents have just turned over the lives of their children to the school systems without holding the schools accountable. They’ve entrusted their most precious possession, their legacy, their children to strangers and if there is a problem, they in effect, say “ well, they are the professionals, they know best”. I think the studies above have proven that these so-called professionals don’t know best.
I also blame the teachers as much as the parents. These teachers are with the children for 8-9 hours per day. They have our children for 1/3 of their day. We have our children for 2/3 of our day, and of that more than 1/3 they are sleeping. The teachers are also aware of the school board side and the government side of education. The teachers should have the character to stand up for the children and their education. They should know what is best for the children in their care regarding education. They should not be following the school board because the school board chooses to implement something. They should have more say or take more say in the education of the children in the public school sector. If teachers are going to be considered professionals, they should have more input into what is taught in school and not be worried about losing their jobs if they speak out about something that is wrong.

Since parents and teachers haven’t taken back the schools and the education system from the various government bodies, there is but one choice a parent can make if they truly care about the education of their children. That choice is homeschooling their children.

Homeschooling is more successful. All studies to date have shown that parents teach their children better than those with teaching certificates and that homeschooled children are better equipped to interact in society than public school children.

I believe that the public education system can never be better than homeschooling children, however, I also believe that public education can be a very strong second to homeschooling with some immediate restructuring of the public education system. I base my opinion on the studies, and the statistics.

My opinions are up for debate. However, the statistics and studies are no longer debatable. There have been too many over too long of a period of time for them to be in error. My opinion, based on the studies and statistics and NOT ON FEELINGS, is that homeschooling is the best form of education in this country and that public education (or government schools if you prefer) is the worst form of education in this country.

Do not take my word for it. Do your own research (or your own home education if you will). You can google the information that I’ve provided in this writing and verify for yourself what I’ve said. I started off by typing in Homeschool vs Public school on the google search line. From there, it snowballed and found a lot of information. It’s your choice. You can choose to believe the myths of anti socialization within homeschool students or you can read and find that the actual anti-social behavior is found to be in public education.

Public schools and the government have a habit of saying “our children’ when talking about the students, but your children are in fact, your children. They don’t belong to the schools nor to the government. The teachers are just entrusted with the teaching of the children. When the education system is failing, and it is, it is our responsibility as parents to either hold the education system accountable or to see to it that they are educated to the best of our ability. Our ability has been proven to be superior through homeschooling to that of the public education system.

Brett