Census Creates New Inflation

More whistleblowers are popping up about the hiring practices of the Census Bureau. It's been reported that the Census Bureau is hiring workers. They are paying them $18.75 per hour to count people. Before doing any counting, they spend a week in training.

Now, some workers hired and trained are saying that they have been fired, then rehired. This counts as another hire, but they don't count the firing as a job lost.

One of the whistleblowers said she's been fired four times and rehired. Another says he checks on the information that census workers turn in and his checking of the worker is checked again by another.

In another turn of events, whistleblowers are saying that number of people living in a house are being inflated. With the advertising going on telling people to fill in their census forms and to speak to census workers so that their community can get more money, it's not a surprise that some would inflate the number of people they have living in their house.

The census is a constitutional requirement with the purpose of apportioning representation in government. It is now being used as a way to make job creation look better under this administration.

Remember that Senator Judd Gregg was originally chosen to be the Commerce Secretary, after others who were chosen that owed back taxes or had other scandals brewing. But Senator Gregg decided not to accept the position after all, because the Census was being put under the control of the White House and taken away from the Commerce Department.

If this is being done by the Census Bureau, why shouldn't we think it's being done by other departments of this administration? If the Census Bureau says that they were hiring 1.2 million workers as they said in January, one has to wonder; does that figure include the firing and rehiring of the same people or will they say 'we hired 1.5 million workers, more than we anticipated.' ?

One thing is becoming more and more apparent. Obama claimed to want to change the way Washington works when he was elected. I'm not sure that he's changed the way it works, but he's certainly being more inventive in how he's corrupting the government.

Soon, they'll likely correct the problem, then get more inventive. They'll hire someone, fire them at the end of the day and rehire them the next day and waive the training requirement for past employees. They can really get the employment numbers way up that way. The Revolving Door policy?

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Obama: Incompetence and Corruption

Not even two years into this Administration and already there is evidence of Incompetence and Corruption with the Obama camp and yet the liberal media ignores it.

Remember hurricane Katrina? Of course you do. Anytime liberals start talking about Bush, they bring up Katrina. Bush declared the gulf coast area, including Louisiana, a disaster area three days before the hurricane made landfall. Yet the Governor, Blanco at the time, didn't follow suit until 12 hours prior to the hurricane hitting and nobody could even find Mayor Nagin. Following the hurricane it took five days to get water to the Superdome.

The press was all over this, showing pictures and complaining about Bush flying 2500 feet above New Orleans, but not on the ground for a couple of days.

Now we have an oil leak. We are in the 35th day since the explosion. It took ten days for someone from the administration to get down to the area. Yet, they claim they've been there since "day one". You can always tell the talking points when everyone from the administration and everyone in the liberal media uses the same line. In this case, the same line is "Day One".

Yesterday, the administration had a photo op. Secretary Napolitano and Secretary Salazer were there. They made their speeches after listening to some of the residents in the area speak about how this has affected them. First Napolitano spoke. Her assurances were that BP is at fault and will be held accountable. She also called the gulf an ocean, but this is not big news since she's already proven herself incompetent in the Arizona matter. She also pointed out that this was her fourth trip.

Next up was Governor Bobby Jindahl. He made one reference to BP oil being responsible. But then he listed off his requests for various items to help with the possibility of a clean up. He provided dates of his memos. In one particular case, he's been asking for booms. Millions of feet of booms. He's not received what he asked for. He also asked for a permit to build a barrier island to stop the oil from hitting the marshlands. The administration is "studying" this. Yesterday, Jindahl said that he didn't care if they put him in jail, he's ready to go ahead and start this without the permit.

Secretary Salazar spoke next and he talked about how this was BP's fault, but offered no solutions other than to say how many times he and Napolitano have been to the gulf. Salazar said they were holding BP to the cleanup and even mentioned putting their boot on BP's necks and then saying that if BP didn't do the job, they'd push them out of the way. Then what? Is Salazar going to stop the leak?

Senator Dick Durbin spoke and he repeated the bashing of BP oil and how they'd be held accountable, but again, no solutions to the current problem.

The only one with a plan, with an idea to try to stop the oil from spreading or moving into the marshlands was Bobby Jindahl. The Democrat speakers all pounded their chests and said that they'd hold BP accountable.

Why should we believe that? There is about to be a new law in Arizona take effect. John Morton, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Customs Immigration and Customs enforcement, says the Federal Government may not prosecute referrals from Arizona under their new law. However, if Bobby Jindahl takes it upon himself to start building the barrier island without the permit that the administration is dragging its feet on, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they arrest and prosecute Jindahl.

The Obama Administration is concerned about affixing blame in the oil leak catastrophe, but they offer no solutions. Their concern is with how Obama looks in this crisis. The only one that is offering solutions is Bobby Jindahl. We can now add Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar to the list of incompetents in this administration. Janet Napolitano, who didn't read the Arizona bill, but says it's not good, and who thinks that a question about the strength of the borders is an unfair question, and who thinks the gulf is an ocean is the first incompetent. Then there's Attorney General, Eric Holder who also didn't read the bill in Arizona, but is considering legal action to stop the bill. With three cabinet members being incompetent, and they were all appointed by Obama, that reflects on Obama's incompetence. Speaking of incompetence, do I really have to talk about Vice President Joe Biden?

I also mentioned corruption. I have two examples here. First, is Joe Sestak. Sestak just beat Senator Arlen Specter in Pennyslvania, the one that Obama backed. During the primary campaign, Sestak stated that he was offered a job in the White House if he would drop out of the Senate race, making Specter the lone candidate on the Democrat ticket. There's just one problem with this. It's illegal!

For Sestak to be offered a job in the White House, the offer would have had to come from Rahm Emmanuel, the Presidents Chief of Staff, and with the permission of the President. This is an impeachable offense!

This sounds an awful lot like the selling of the Senate seat in Illinois vacated by Obama following his election. It causes me to re-think about whether or not Obama was involved after all, in the sale of the seat he once held and not that it was just Rod Blagojevich the former Governor who was impeached for selling that seat.

In recent days, since Sestak's victory in the primary, he's been asked about the offer he received from the White House. He's playing word games. He's claiming that he's got integrity for bringing it up, but he has not said to whom he spoke. He's been pressed on Meet the Press (surprise!) and he was pressed by John King on CNN on his new program (again a shocker). But his answer is that he said everything with integrity. However, he will not name the person that offered him the job. So much for integrity. He's now trying to protect the White House.

Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs (another of the incompetents in this White House) was asked. After a few times of dancing around the question, he now says that the lawyers have looked at it and decided that they were satisfied that things were done properly.

If everything was done properly and nothing illegal happened, then why aren't they saying who said what and with who's knowledge? Where's the transparency? Where's the honesty?

Finally, there is the attorney general of Connecticut. Richard Blumenthal has claimed in many speeches over the years that he was in Vietnam. He experienced the people spitting on them as they returned. The problem is that he never served in Vietnam. He was in the marine reserves, but never left the United States. To his credit, he did serve and apparently where he was needed and I have to admit that where he served, not one Vietnameze penetrated the toys for tots program that Blumenthal worked. But he did not serve in Vietnam as he has claimed.

Since this revelation, he has gone from being a shoo-in to fall below 50% in the polls and the Connecticut Senate seat may now go to a Republican making 13 real possibilities for victory for the Republicans in the Senate.

Where are the Democrats? They have not backed away from Blumenthal. On the other hand, what could they do? If they bring back Christopher Dodd, who is retiring probably due to his own corruption problems with his sweetheart deal on some real estate as well as his activity with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they will likely lose. With this scandal involving Blumenthal, it appears that they will likely lose.

The hard part with both Sestak and Blumenthal is deciding whether or they fall into the category of corruption or incompetence. I tend to lean towards them being both corrupt and incompetent.

But, Republicans shouldn't get too excited. Representative Mark Souder from Indiana resigned last week because he had an affair with one of his female staffers. In South Carolina, a blogger is claiming that he had an affair with a candidate for Governor. There is no proof yet and she is denying it vehemently. But it underscores the need for transparency and honesty that needs to be displayed by the Republicans as well this campaign season.

I do give Souder credit for bringing it out first and resigning immediately. Maybe he just found out that he was about to be caught and beat the story coming out by resigning, but it appears at least, that he did this out of guilty conscious.

There are too many games being played by politicians. Word games as well as clandestine games and as we can see, this is not the time to be doing this. The Tea Party is the American people that are fired up against wasteful spending and corrupt politicians. There seems to be alot of politicians that are out there that are going to lose their jobs not just because of poor performance (incompetence), but because of wrong doing (corruption).

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Obama Loses, Country Wins

Another election day, another repudiation of President Obama's excessive spending and attempts eliminate the American way of life.

In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln did not reach the 50% level so she must face a runoff later this year for the Democrat nomination for the seat she currently holds.

In Kentucky, Rand Paul handily defeated his opponent who was backed by the Republican establishment. Trey Greyson was backed by Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. But the people, the ones who do the deciding, chose Paul as their next Senator. Yes, it was just a primary, but Paul is the likely victor in November.

Pennsylvania is one of the more exciting primaries that took place. Senator Arlen Specter, who changed parties because he didn't think he could win against a Republican challenger, lost to Representative Joe Sestak in the Democrat party primary. You'll have to forgive me for my elation over this one.

Arlen Specter was never more than a moderate in the Republican Party and really I've always considered him a liberal in the Republican Party. He has always spent alot of time talking about himself. During the Waco hearings back in the 90's, how many times did we hear him talk about being a former prosecutor? How many times did he talk about being a former prosecutor during the various Supreme Court nominee hearings over the years and how many times did he repeat that on various news programs over the years?

When he left the Republican party, he said that he didn't want to put his 29 year record up for review to the Republican voters. Of course he didn't. He was always Democrat lite.

If he couldn't beat a Republican in the primary, how could he expect to beat a Republican in the general election? He'll be facing the same guy. Well, no he won't. He couldn't win the Democrat primary either. In addition to losing, he was backed by President Obama. Obama did a commercial spot for him saying that he "loves" Arlen Specter. That turned out to be the kiss of death politically for Specter. This makes Obama, o-4 since he was elected. He backed Corzine in New Jersey. He backed Deeds in Virginia and he backed Coakley in Massachussets. Christie is now Governor of New Jersey, McDonnell in Virginia and Brown in Massachussets.

The final election was not a primary in Pennsylvania. Instead it was a special election to fill the seat vacated by the death of John Murtha. Marc Critz, a former Aide to Murtha was running against the Republican, Tim Burns. The district is 2-1 Democrat voters over Republican voters. This should not even be a contest. But leading up to the election, many thought that Burns might beat out the Democrat.

Critz ran saying he wouldn't have voted for the health care bill and that he wouldn't have voted for Cap and Trade. In other words, he ran against Pelosi. I have to wonder, did he advise Murtha to vote against these bills? The only thing that Critz proved is that to win, you must run as a conservative. He ran away from Washington and he barely won. Yes, I said "barely". Remember, that district is 2-1 Democrat. He got just 53% of the vote.

There is one disappointing aspect to the primaries. The voter turnout was just 20%. Yes, it's a mid term election and they generally don't get a high turnout. But, with the Tea Parties that have been going on all over the country, I thought the turnout might be a better number. Also, the weather in Pennyslvania was really bad. It was rainy and cold all day.

Recently, it's been reported that there are over 100 seats in play for this years election in the House of Representatives. It's expected to go overwhelmingly Republican in the fall. To be assured of this, we're going to need a larger turnout than what's been displayed thus far. Remember, November is usually cold and gray.

Those that are showing up are showing their displeasure with Obama and Pelosi and Reed. They are showing that the ones that are "extreme" are actually on the left from Obama down to the lowliest Democrat.

The losses mounting up for Democrats is fun to watch even with the low turnout. People are rejecting Obama all over the country. There are still more primaries to go before the election in November. This could be a very fun summer. As primary after primary shows, the County is winning and Obama is failing.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Recommended Reading for Liberal Democrats

During 2009 there were three pieces of legislation that passed the Democrat controlled House, Senate and White House. First there was the stimulus bill in February of last year. The bill was completed, printed out and distributed to members of Congress at 3:00 in the morning. At noon, they began the vote. Nobody read the bill. Well, one did claim to read it, but he's just laughed at. Unfortunately, he's my congressman.

Then later we had a Cap and Trade bill. Also known as Cap and Tax or Crap and Tax. Again, the bill wasn't read before the vote. Luckily, it only passed the House and hasn't yet passed the Senate.

Then there was the Health Care bill. Another 2,400 pages and again, nobody has read it. We're still learning what's in the bill even now, two months after the bill passed.

We also have the admission by Rep. John Conyers (D) that they don't read it when he said it was silly for people to expect Congress to read all of these bills before voting on them.

Then in April a ten page law was passed in Arizona. President Obama claimed that if you have brown skin and go with your child to get ice cream, you were in danger of being picked up for being illegal. Obviously, he didn't read those ten pages before commenting.

Attorney General Eric Holder said that he was looking into a lawsuit to stop the bill. Homeland Security Secretary said that asking her questions about the safety of the border in Arizona was an unfair question to Senator Lindsey Graham, in a hearing.

Yesterday, in a hearing, Holder was asked about the law. He admitted that he hadn't read the bill. Today, in another hearing Napolitano admitted she hadn't read the bill.

The highest law enforcement officer in the country threatens a lawsuit and hasn't even read the bill. The person charged with protecting the borders (Homeland Security) admits a day later that she hasn't read the law. The bill is TEN PAGES!!! I read it. It took me about fifteen minutes to read the bill and I read it while answering my phone for work.

Following all of the bills for spending money during the past 16 months since Obama was inaugurated I was beginning to think that we should require that our candidates for office learn how to balance a checkbook before being allowed to take office. Now, I'm convinced that we should require that our elected leaders at least pass the third grade so that we have a pretty good idea that they know how to read.

We have a President that knows how to read. He reads very well, with good timing, good inflection, and can probably make a simple reading of "Go Dog Go" sound exciting although, he does run into problems with big words like Corpsmen. He prounces it "corpse men".

On the other hand, his employees seem to be unable to read even the title of "Go Dog Go".

Napolitano has yet another problem. Hers seems to be that of common sense. It was all over the news, and probably talked about at the White House, that Holder said he hadn't read the Arizona, ten page bill. Napolitano had to know that she'd be asked about Arizona law. To make matters worse, prior to becoming Homeland Security Secretary, she was the Governor of Arizona. Anyone with any common sense would have to figure, even guess, that someone was going to ask her about the bill in her hearing coming up the next day. Any reasonable person would have obtained a copy of the bill and at the very least read it before falling asleep the night before the hearing.

I don't think that Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano should resign. They shouldn't be given that opportunity. They should be fired. Not just now, but IMMEDIATELY!.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft was laughed at in the press for holding Bible meetings prior to starting the day at the Justice Department during the first months of the Bush Administration in 2001. Whether you think that's funny or not it does prove one thing to me. At least he knew how to read!

It might behoove Obama to have everyone in his cabinet show up for work fifteen minutes early for a brief class on reading. Is "See Spot Run" still in publication? I'd recommend Aesops Fables, but I'm afraid that Obama would struggle with the pronunciation of Aespops (for any liberal Democrats reading this it's pronounced EESOP).

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

The Mouths of Babes

What is going on with education in this country? In California, on Cinco De Mayo day, five students wear shirts or headbands with the American Flag on it and are told to remove them or turn them inside out by the Vice Principal. When they refuse, they are sent to the Principals office. They are again told to remove or turn them inside out or face suspension. The claim was that it would be incendiary to wear these on Cinco De Mayo.

Also in California, a young girl was drawing an American Flag with the words "God Bless America" in the center of it. The Art teacher told her that it was an offensive drawing and was told to stop. Meanwhile, another student is drawing a picture of Barack Obama and this child is praised.

The young girls father showed up at the Principal's office for a meeting with the Art teacher. He asked what she found offensive about the American flag? He didn't get an answer. The teacher sat silent. The principal then ordered the teacher to apologize to the young girl.

In Ann Arbor Michigan, a group of students were taken to hear a Rocket Scientist speak. The problem isn't that the students were all black, the rocket scientist was black and the teacher was black. The problem is that the field trip was open only to black students. Whites were excluded.

Personal anecdotes are not my usual style of making a point, but this seems to fit. My high school years were from 1970-1974. This was at the end of the hippie era, in the midst of the short-lived(thank God) Disco, and prior to the yuppies. The war in Vietnam was coming to an end.

Dress codes were relaxed in those days. We had one student in particular that was pretty much a loner. I couldn't even tell you his name. But I can tell you what we called him. We called him "Reb". The way he got that name was because he had a blue jean jacket with the Confederate flag on the back of it. This was before everyone was calling it being racist.

Shortly after people getting used to him wearing that and him getting the nickname Reb (for Rebel or Johnny Reb), he began wearing the American flag. First on the front of his pant leg on his bellbottom jeans. Then on his back pocket. Wearing the flag on his clothes was bad enough to the teachers and administration, but when he sewed it on his back pocket, the teachers and administrators became upset. They claimed he was desecrating the American flag by sitting on it.

Notice, I said he was considered desecrating the flag. They didn't see it as patriotic, they saw it as desecration. The school system was actually trying to protect the flag.

In forty years time, we've moved from having the flag on clothing desecrating it, to having the wearing or drawing the American flag as being offensive or incendiary.

So what's happened? Well, in California, the school board held a meeting last night so that parents could voice their opinions on the issue. They had to move the meeting to a larger hall because so many people showed up. The school board shortened the time down from people being allowed to speak for three minutes, to two minutes per person. The Superintendent of the school system asked why people weren't at the meeting last month. The people voiced their opinions and a lawsuit is being considered.

In the situation with the art teacher, despite having been ordered to apologize to the young girl, she has refused.

In Ann Arbor, when the field trip students returned from their field trip, the students left behind at school booed the group returning. The group has since been disbanded and a lawsuit is being considered.

You can find on youtube another famous incident in the 1970's. On April 26, 1976 two muslims went on the field at Dodger Stadium and tried to light the American flag on fire. Rick Monday, the centerfielder for the Chicago Cubs ran up and snatched the flag from them saving it from from being burned.

It's a little ironic that it was two muslims trying to light the flag and that it happened in California.

By the way, Cinco de Mayo isn't a holiday. Not even in Mexico. It's a day that's remembered for the victory over the French in a battle over a small village. But it's not a Mexican holiday and it's not an American holiday.

Perhaps if schools concentrated on teaching rather than social issues and worrying about other people's "feelings" our school system in this country wouldn't be in such a shambles. Perhaps it should be required for teachers and school administrators to recite the pledge of allegiance before each school day. Our children seem to have it down pat. These children might also teach these school systems about racism. What it is and what it isn't. These teachers and school administrators could learn from our children. The children are making us proud while the education system is more and more of an embarrassment.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

The Passing of a Legend

On September 16, 2009 I wrote on this about Ernie Harwell. He was the voice of Tigers Baseball for as long as I can remember. Actually, I should say that he IS the voice of Tigers baseball, even though he's been retired since 2002.

Today, Ernie Harwell died. He was diagnosed with cancer September 3, 2009. He was 91 at the time. He, along with his family, decided against surgery. Ernie turned 92 in January. Today, surrounded by his family, he passed on.

I've put a link to what I wrote in September. If you want to get a taste of what Ernie was like, don't bother with what I wrote but rather, read the end of it where I copied what he wrote and used to say at the start of the baseball season.

Anti Government Rallies

Over the past year, we've heard the liberals say that the tea parties are anti government. They've compared the tea parties to Timothy McVeigh. They've claimed the tea partiers are racists and anti Obama.

The Tea Parties have been protesting the takeover of the health care system by the government, the excessive spending, the debt and deficit that's been doubled and quadrupled in the year and a half since Obama became President. They've protested the bailout, the not so stimulating stimulus and they've protested that our elected officials are not paying attention to their constituents.

Finally, they've claimed that the threats and vandalism that's taken place is being done by the members of the tea party protests. There have been some incidents of vandalism, but they ignore the fact that Republicans have been targeted as well as Democrats. They ignore that it's happening on both sides. The most glaring example is Representative Bart Stupak (D) of Michigan who says he was receiving threats both at home and at his office when he was holding up passage of the government takeover of health care and then gave one example of a distasteful phone call following his decision to support the government takeover of health care.

These Tea Parties and protestors have been labeled as anti government. Even President Obama, in his commencement speech at the University of Michigan on Saturday, talked about the anti government comments.

Last week, the Arizona legislature passed a law that is nearly identical to the Federal law regarding illegal immigrants (that I call Invaders). The difference is that Arizona laws requires law enforcement officers to ask about citizenship status when they come in contact with someone during the performance of their duties.

On May 1, rallies took place in several cities protesting the new Arizona law. Arizona is one state out of 50. In that one state, they have 460,000 illegal invaders living in Arizona, and more coming across the border each day. The federal government is not doing it's job enforcing their laws. The one responsibility that everyone can agree on is that the federal government is supposed to protect our borders. They are failing miserably at it. We have an estimated 12 million illegal invaders in this country that are driving on our roads, being educated by our schools, being cared for in our hospitals, all on our dime.

Crime has increased significantly in recent months as Mexico's drug war has spilled over into our country. Kidnappings, assaults, robberies all on the increase. Robert Krentz, an Arizona rancher was murdered a few weeks ago along with his dog. This was the final straw. If the federal government is not going to do it's job, then Arizona decided they'd pass their own law for their own state and handle the job themselves. They wrote a law nearly identical to the federal law and passed it. This law is supported by 70% of Arizonans.

What the rest of the country thinks about this is of no significance, but even 51% of the rest of the country supports Arizona's new law.

This brought out the protestors yesterday. They were holding signs of Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, depicting her as a Nazi. They were carrying signs depicting Sheriff Joe Arpaio as a hooded Ku Klux Klan member. They were screaming that Arizonan's are racist. In Washington DC, Representative Luis Gutierrez (D) Illinois was arrested for his protesting. He was with a group that was legally protesting in Lafayette Park, but then he crossed over in front of the White House and sat down, joining the group daring to be arrested. The dare was taken up and Gutierrez was arrested with the others (pictured above).

So let's narrow it down. These protestors in DC, Los Angeles, Dallas, New York and Chicago are protesting the law in Arizona recently passed by elected representatives of the people of Arizona. This makes these protestors anti government protestors. It's interesting that one of these anti government protestors is a lawmaker. An elected official. It seems to me that not only does this make these protestors anti government, but apparently, we have an anti government infiltrator within the government in the form of Representative Gutierrez.

President Obama made comments against the new law in Arizona. That would make him anti-government. So how can he stand up and say that it bothers him with the anti government talk and that the government is us, but then whine about the Arizona law?

Where are the liberals that complained about racist signs and ethnic references and references to naziism now that they are using the racist signs and nazi signs and KKK signs? Why are they not complaining that these people protesting the law preventing people from coming to this country illegally, are carrying Mexican flags? If they want to come here, why are they carrying the Mexican flag? Shouldn't they be carrying the American flag? After all, it's America that they want to come and live.

Finally, the really odd part of this is that the Tea Parties were made up of American citizens. The majority of people were against the so-called stimulus. the majority are against the government takeover of health care. They were protesting the government going against the will of the people. These protestors are protesting something that was favored by the people of Arizona and favored by the majority of Americans around the country.

There is a solution that liberals will not accept. In the early 1950's President Eisenhower faced a similar problem to todays illegal alien problem. Mexicans were pouring across the border at the rate of a million per year. Just like today. They were showing up and being hired by farmers because they would work for lower wages. Just like today (although it's not just farmers today). Democrats didn't want the borders closed. Just like today.

Eisenhower appointed an old friend from West Point as INS Commissioner named General Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing. The first thing that Swing did was transfer immigration officials that were with Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, who did not want the borders secured, to other parts of the country where they would have no effect.

On June 17, 1954, Operation Wetback (named for the Mexicans that came here across the Rio Grande) began. 750 border agents moved northward through California and Arizona through agricultural areas. Their goal was to round up 1,000 illegals per day. By the end of July (just a month and a half), 50,000 illegals had been rounded up. 488,000 left on their own fearing arrest. By mid July, they had expanded north into Utah, Nevada and Idaho and to Texas to the east. By September 80,000 had been taken into custody and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 left Texas on their own.

Those captured weren't just taken to the border and dropped off. That would be too easy for them to just turn around and come back. Instead, Swing put them on buses and trains and sent them 500 miles into Mexico before releasing them making it much more difficult for them to return.

This had a couple of results. First, the illegals were sent a long way into their country. It would be extremely costly for them to get back.

The shortage of illegals created more jobs for Americans, which also meant that the farmers and business owners that were hiring illegals in the past, now had to pay a fair wage or not get their work done.

Since there is a need for foreign workers from Mexico, one other thing was implemented. A guest worker program. The Eisenhower administration created the guest worker program where 400,000 Mexicans could LEGALLY come to this country and work for the American companies that needed their work done. Those jobs lasted 12-52 weeks.

For those employers that still hire illegal workers, charge them and fine them with stiff fines and even jail time. That discouraged and will discourage employers today from hiring illegals.

Saying that we can't stop illegal immigration or invasion is flat out wrong. President Eisenhower proved it could be done and he did it with less border patrol agents than we have today. Just in Texas, they arrested 80,000 and another half million left on their own and that was just in three months time. We have approximately 12 million illegal aliens here today.

It would take less than a year to end this illegal invasion, make us more safe, and create legal workers that are legal immigrants. The added benefit is that anti government protestors, like Representative Gutierrez could do more productive things with their time. Like perhaps not breaking the laws that he promised when he took the oath of his office.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Obama Takes 9 Days to Respond

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina came ashore in Mississippi. Three days prior to the Hurricane making landfall, President Bush declared it a disaster area.

Less than 5 years later, an oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico spewing the oil into the gulf on Earth Day. 5,000 barrels of oil per day is shooting up out of the earth into the Gulf.

During those nine days that the oil was flowing into the Gulf, President Obama was traveling around the midwest trying to sell Americans on Financial Reform and demonizing Wall Street. At the beginning of his campaign against Wall Street, the SEC said they were investigating Goldman Sachs.

In the midst of those nine days Arizona passed a law banning illegal aliens or foriegn invaders from Arizona. While doing one of his speeches in the midwest on Financial Reform, Obama became Anti Government claiming that the law was misdirected and claimed that this law will mean that if you're an illegal invader, and you take your children to get ice cream, you will be harrassed even though your ancestors may have been here for generations. This is a flat out lie on Obama's part, but it's interesting that he would lie and disparage the Arizona lawmakers making him one of those anti government domestic terrorists that they've been complaining about since the Health Care vote. Still the oil flowed.

Also during this nine days, Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano testified and when asked whether the borders were safe in Arizona, she said first that they were as safe as they've ever been. People are being murdered. Ranchers, officers of the law, and even some of the illegal invaders. In addition, kidnappings are running rampant. Senator Lindsay Graham pushed the question again and Napolitano said that the question was not a fair one. Still the oil flowed.

Finally, nine days after the explosion, we still don't know what caused the explosion, but Napolitano did do a flyover of the leaking oil rig where 11 people are presumed dead. The oil has reached the mouth of the Mississippi and the shores of Louisiana and Mississippi.

Animals are being covered in oil. The fishing season is upon the area and the fishermen are saying that this will ruin their businesses.

While this oil is flowing, let's take a look back again. It's August 2005. All eyes are on the Gulf of Mexico. There is a hurricane brewing. It's getting stronger. But we don't know if it's going to go to Mexico, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, or turn towards Florida and Alabama.

The hurricane continues to churn out in the gulf and grows stronger. Finally, nearly a week before the hurricane, named Katrina, actually hits shore, the tracking shows that it will hit anywhere from Louisiana to Florida. The presumed track is narrowing as the hurricane moves ever closer. The only question now is how far east it will turn in.

Three days prior to landfall, it's pretty well certain it's going to hit Louisiana and Mississippi. The experts are now questioning how large of a storm it will be, although it's known it will be a very large one. Just how large is in question. President Bush declares a state of emergency for the states on the Gulf Coast. He urges people to evacuate.

Twelve hours before landfall, Governor Blanco declares a state of emergency and tells everyone to evacuate. Mayor Nagin urges people to evacuate and opens the SuperDome to those that have no place to go.

The hurricane makes landfall in Mississippi. While it was a Category 5 in the gulf when it hits shallow water before making landfall the strength drops and it's a Category 2 when it hits land.

We all know what happened from there. People in New Orleans waited for the government to come and get them. 1,000 people died. 2,000 buses sat empty in a parking lot. Bush was called a racist for allowing so many black people to die. News programs showed the looting going on following the hurricane and they showed mainly minorities doing the looting. Again, racism was yelled out. Even Lewis Farrakhan jumped in with his conspiracy theory that Bush had ordered the levies blown up.

Liberals complained that it took President Bush two days to go to New Orleans. Yet, the hardest hit areas in Mississippi were rarely mentioned and not given the attention that New Orleans received.

Back to present day. Where are the news reports complaining that Obama has not been to the Gulf during any of the nine days since the explosion? Why has he not visited New Orleans? Is he a racist? Incompetent? Why has it taken nine days for Napolitano to fly over the region? Is the Federal Government ignoring New Orleans again?

Today, on the tenth day, Obama decides to suspend all new oil and natural gas leases off shore. It's an interesting response considering that there are 819 active oil rigs in the gulf and there have been over 6,600 rigs in the gulf.

Once again, the liberals are quick to accuse when Bush is President, but duck and cover for their President.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Arizona Fights ILLEGAL Invasion

On Friday, the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, signed into law a bill that is designed to put an end to the illegal invasion that has been going on in this country.

Many press accounts call it an Anti-Immigration law. Others are saying that it's discriminatory and will lead to racial profiling. It is not Anti-Immigration. It's anti invasion. The law does not state that if you're not an American you're not welcome. It says that if you're in Arizona illegally, you're breaking the law. There is a similar federal law. The difference between the two is that the Federal Government has done nothing to enforce the law.

In 2006, President George Bush with his new best friend Senator John McCain wanted a new immigration bill that included amnesty for those currently here illegally. They didn't call it amnesty, but it amounted to amnesty in that those here could work towards citizenship and remain.

The public outcry put a quick stop to this. They didn't want a reward given for committing a crime. Illegal aliens cost us big dollars. We educate their children, we pay for their health care, they collect our social security dollars, they get refunds on their tax returns despite not having paid any taxes during the year.

McCain even stood in front of a group of people offered them money for working in the fields claiming that Americans wouldn't do that job. He backed off in a hurry when a group of people stepped up and asked where to sign up.

The new Arizona law does not just go after illegal immigrants, who are in fact, invaders of this country, but it also includes punishment for employers that hire illegal invaders.

In 2006, the Democrats didn't want the new law to go after the illegal invaders but rather go after the employers that hire them. As if it was the employers sole responsibility for illegals being here. Now they are claiming that the Arizona law is akin to Nazi Germany where everyone had to carry papers on their person. It is already law that any foriegn visitors to this country carry their visas with them at all times.

This new law goes after the illegal invader. It goes after the employers that hire the illegal invaders. It also specifically prohibits racial profiling, which is something that I disagree with. It's highly unlikely that blonde haired blue eyed women are illegals from south of the border. It's also unlikely that they will have bright red hair and freckles.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Democrats reasons for allowing the illegal invaders to stay in this country is so that they can recruit new voters. The Democrats need the poor to vote because those that are satisfied with living off of government benefits have their best friends in the Democrat Party. It is really the Democrats only chance to come close to victory in coming elections.

The Democrats have one problem. The American people. In Arizona 70% of the people were in favor of this new law. Governor Brewer has been running at 46% in polls for her re-election. Since signing the law last week, she has jumped 16 points!

Boycotts are now being called for of Arizona. San Francisco has already stopped all travel of city employees to Arizona. Another California legislator wants Governor Schwarzenneger to stop all business transactions with Arizona. People are even calling for a boycott of Arizona Tea. Arizona Tea is a New York company! I'm more inclined to stage my own boycott of anyone that wants to boycott Arizona even though boycotts don't really work.

Arizona is not the first to enact a law like this. Utah already has one in place and now Texas is wanting the same type of law.

If California wants to complain and refuse to do business with Arizona due the law, the illegal invaders can just move a few miles to the west and cross in California. Then California can either welcome them with open arms or have the Arizona problems. How many citizens of California will have to die, or be kidnapped before they start looking at the same type of law as Arizona?

Remember Robert Krentz was murdered by an illegal invader who then fled back to Mexico. His dog was also killed. Why aren't the Democrats and PETA complaining about the death of the dog by the illegal invader?

I've long thought that retirement for me may be in Arizona. This law only makes the state of Arizona more enticing to me for my retirement years.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Tax Cuts Don't Need To Be Paid For

For the past eight years, and especially the last two years, all we've been hearing is that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich and weren't paid for. It's long since been debunked about the tax cuts only being for the rich. We already know that everyone benefitted from the tax cuts.

Oddly enough, it was the Democrats that made the point more clear than anyone else. They did this when they began saying that they were going to leave the tax cuts in place for anyone making less than $200,000 per year and end the tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 per year.

How can they claim that only the rich got tax cuts if they are now saying that they are going to leave the tax cuts in place for the middle and lower class? Or, do they believe that only the rich got a tax cut and they're just trying to do a sales job on the rest by telling them that they are ending the tax cuts on the rich?

The myth is that tax cuts need to be paid for. We have history to prove that this is untrue. In the 1980's, Ronald Reagan cut taxes. He lowered the top marginal tax rate down from 70%. This had the effect of raising tax revenue to the federal government. This continued for eight of the following ten years.

When President Bush lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003, the same thing occurred. Tax revenue rocketed up. How can this happen?

If you're earning $50,000 and you're taxed at 20% you pay $10,000 in taxes. But suppose your taxes are cut and you're only taxed at 10% on a $50,000 per year income. You now have $5,000 in your pocket. What will you do with it? Groceries? Pay additional on your house? Buy things that you don't need but want? Save it?

Most would do a little of all of the above. What each will do though is put it into the economy. They'll spend it at their local store. When they spend it, the generate the need for someone to work. You can't spend money at a store that's closed. So you've created a job. Some may travel, which generates the need for hotels. You'll need a desk clerk, housekeeping, maintenance. All of these are done by people working for pay. If they are working for pay, this creates income, which creates a need to pay taxes, which increases the tax revenue.

When you buy, you're being charged a sales tax in your state. Again, more revenue. If you save the money, you'll pay taxes on capital gains in addition to earning more money on your savings. Even if you save it at the bank, they have to make money on that money so that they can lend money to others, not to mention paying for the teller to do their job, the bank manager, and so on.

Tax cuts don't need to be paid for, they pay. Now imagine if the government actually decreased spending in addition to the tax cuts. That savings by not spending money, along with the increase in tax revenue due to the tax cuts, can now be used to pay down the debt.

Since Obama took over the Presidency, we've got record deficits and record debt. The deficit has been increased four times. The debt has been doubled. That's just in a year and a half!

Why are the Republicans letting the Democrats control the language on taxes and spending when these simple facts are backed up by history? The Republicans would look like hypocrites if they did this. They spent so much money from 2001 through 2006 that they could have made Democrats proud. The Republicans can only make themselves look bad when they start talking about pulling back on spending. It's a hit that they need to take and they need to make that point forcefully even at their own expense.

It's entirely likely that the Republicans will take over the House in November. They are on the verge of actually taking control of the Senate in November as well. If you believe Dick Morris, it's going to happen. They need to take these hits and show that they are going with a more conservative approach.

We elect these people to be good stewards of our money and to represent us in government. The people, for the most part, want reins put on spending and they want taxes lower. The people have it right. If this was left to the people, this country would be living within its' means and be thriving.

In Washington and in state capitols around the country, our elected officials spend our money, put us in debt by their own actions, then come to us and say 'we need you to pay more for our mistakes and our lack of control with your money'. So they increase taxes, thinking they'll pull in more money to the government when in fact, they are doing just the opposite.

Tax cuts don't need to be paid for. They pay us. As they cut taxes and our incomes remain more and more in our control, the country thrives and grows. Get this debt paid down and the deficit reduced or even balanced, and taxes can even be cut more giving more of the people's money back to them causing and even greater growth and sustaining a strong economy. Each time it happens, it works. We are the strongest economy when we are fiscally responsible.

Tax increases need to be paid for. Tax cuts pay for themselves and generate profit that may be returned to the people to create more economic activity, innovation, and t opay for education and make this the strongest country in the world.

Republicans need to take control of the message as well as the Congress.

Your comments are welcome.

Brett

School Sponsored Pedophilia?

The Lower Merion School District in Pennsylvania has now admitted that they took inappropriate photos of students from the laptop computers.

You may remember that on November 11, 2009, Harriton Assistant Principal, Lindy Matsko, reprimanded a student, Blake Robbins, a sophomore, for inappropriate behavior in his home. She apparently claimed that some candies the boy had on his desk were drugs. Blake told his parents about it and they immediately complained of the school spying on their son via a laptop computer the schools give to all of the students each year.

The school system claims they put the camera's on the computers for security purposes to retrieve lost or stolen laptops and that they are not spying on the students in their homes or anywhere else they take the laptops.

There are now new developments. The school district has now acknowledged that investigators recovered a "substantial number of webcam photos". The article which I read this philly.com, states that they expect to start notifying parents of photographed students soon.

In the past three years, there have been no less than 30 school teachers nationwide that have been convicted of having sex with students, and that's just the female teachers.

I hesitate to write about the school systems because of what I learned when my children were old enough to start attending school. But what's happening in this school system in Pennsylvania is not just about the quality of education. It started out as more of a story about the character of the assistant principal. Or maybe I should say lack of character. However, that has changed with these recent developments.

It is bad enough that a parent complained about a school laptop computer taking one picture of a student at home. Now it's turned into much much more.

The School Board President, David Ebby says that they will soon be notifying the parents of the other students who's pictures have been taken for them to come in and view them. He says that they hope to start that process shortly and adds, "the privacy of all students will be strongly protected." NOW they are going to protect the privacy of the students?!!? Shouldn't they have thought of this when they first decided to attach cameras to the laptops before issuing them to the students? This is akin to saying 'now that we've been caught, we're going to do things correctly.'

In motion filed by Robbins attorney it asserts that school system captured "thousands of images" including websites and excerpts from online chats. Apparently, some of these images are of students in their homes in various stages of undress. There are allegedly images of other family members as well.

To have pictures of students, under the age of 18 seems to me to meet the definition of child pornography! The school board, the administrators and the teachers should all be charged with child porn and if found guilty, put on the sexual predator list after they get out of prison.

The school district has commissioned an internal investigation and promises the results within a few weeks. Why are they investigating themselves? Why aren't the police investigating this. If I rob a bank, can I go and get my own investigators to look into whether or not I robbed the bank?

A couple of years ago, my daughter wanted me to go with her on a school outing. Yes, she's back in the system again. I called the school to make the arrangements for me to go with her. They said that before I could go, I had to have a background check performed on myself and provide them with the written report. This was just so that I could ride on the bus with my daughter to attend this particular event. When I asked why I was told that it had to be done because I would be on a bus with other children.

My response to them was that if that was their requirement, then I demanded a written background report on each of my daughters teachers. Naturally, they refused saying my request was "ridiculous". My reply to them? I said, "Duh". I drove myself to the event.

Our children are sent to school to be taught. In my childrens case, from the time they got on the bus in the morning until they time they got off the bus in the afternoon was nine hours. Seven of those hours are spent inside the building. It's bad enough that we have to worry about which teachers may or may not be dangerous to the well being of our children.

In Pennsylvania, it appears that those parents not only have to worry what their children are learning and whether or not there are predators watching over them, but the parents now must worry about what they are bringing home.

These schools, which I call "government schools" are slipping in their quality and have been for years. It is no longer the best education available. This school system is taking pictures of children at home. The website I mentioned showed a picture of this sophomore sleeping. Not in class. In his bed! I won't put that on here. Now we're finding out that it goes much much further than this.

Add to this the young high school girl in Massachussets who recently committed suicide because she was being bullied. Again, the school system failed. The bullying was reported by her and by her family. The school did nothing. Now there are six other young students being charged with various crimes. But none from the school system are being held responsible.

It's becoming increasingly clear that these school systems cannot be trusted with the care of our school children. In the State of Washington, children 13 and up can get mental and physical care through the school system without parental consent. Recently, a fifteen year old girl went to the school clinic. They took her to an abortion clinic where she got the abortion, then returned her to school to finish the day. Her parents didn't find out about the abortion until several months after the fact.

Is this why we send our children to school? To be bullied and have nobody in authority do anything about it? To have an abortion behind the parents back? To bring home computers so the school system can spy on children and their family members without consent?

The Lower Merion School District should fire the entire school board immediately. They should fire the assistant principal immediately. They should fire every adult that had knowledge or should have had knowledge of this, immediately and the city, state, or federal government ought to put all of them on trial for pedophilia and sentence them to the maximum time allowed.

Young Blake Robbins, the student who was originally reprimanded, and his parents are doing the one honorable thing in this entire fiasco. They are filing a class action lawsuit. Not just him, but any other students that were violated. I hope that includes any students that aren't involved but want to protect themselves from having it happen to them in the future.

It's not lost on me that the child's name is ironically "Robbins". I believe it was Christopher Robbins that was at the 100 acre wood where Winnie The Pooh is. Imagine someone actually doing something like this to Christopher Robbins.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

When the Community Leaders Don't, We Must

With the recession, that has been almost as bad as the one in the late 70's and early 80's, Flint has been dealt another heavy blow. It's gotten so bad that they are now tearing down empty houses and leaving the lots empty. They are going back to gravel roads in some areas of the city. They just can't pay for the upkeep of some of those streets.

On March 24, the city of Flint laid off 23 firefighters and 46 police officers. That's when the trouble began. Fires were started across the city. In the week that f0llowed more than 40 fires were fought in Flint. Five of them from midnight on the 25th of March until after daylight.

Suspicion is being floated that this is union thugs starting the fires. Mayor Dwayne Walling held a press conference about the fires and hinted that the fires were set because of the layoffs. In addition to the fires, the city has another problem.

There is a system called Mutual Aid where communities in surrounding areas help each other out when there are fires. Flint has help from Flint Township and the township gets aid from the city. Clio, Mt. Morris, Burton and others are in on this mutual aid to assist their neighbors. Some of them are now refusing to assist Flint since the layoffs. In particular, the city of Burton refuses to assist. The fire chief and the Mayor of Burton are in agreement that they will not assist any longer.

The City of Flint cannot afford to pay for the firefighters that they had, so they had to lay off police and fire to save money as they face a budget deficit in the millions. These layoffs add to the list of unemployed in the Flint area which has already suffered for years since the decline of the General Motors plants in the 80's.

The response of some of the surrounding communities is shameful to say the least. Especially if those cities are refusing to help because of the layoffs. It would be one thing if the mutual aid was heavily favored for one community over another. It's not fair to the taxpayers of Burton to pay for their firefighters to always be in Flint. However, that's not the case. Burton seems to be refusing to help because of Flint's choice to layoff Firemen. If this is what the City of Burton is doing, they are not taking into consideration the people that the firefighters are paid to protect. The citizens!

If these fires are in fact being started by union thugs or those in their employ, then it just shows they are no longer an organization to be proud. You may remember that it was a sit-in by a union in 1936 that caused the unions to realize that they are better served by banding together rather than being a bunch of local union groups. It would be another example of the unions trying to grab too much power but they aren't doing it by just refusing to work because they think their membership is being treated unfairly, but now they are putting the people they are hired to serve, at risk. Some of those houses that caught fire were occupied homes. Luckily, the people that lived in those homes escaped unharmed physically. However, two firemen have been injured in those fires.

When the unions put their concerns ahead of the safety of the people, the unions have outlived their usefulness. Their concern for wages, benefits and days off mean nothing when they are involved in hurting those they are supposed to be doing their jobs for.

This is just the beginning. This is just happening in a community right now. What happens when it starts happening on a national level? Perhaps it's time for people to start hooking up their garden hoses and watching out for their immediate neighbors. Keep an eye on your neighbors to ensure their safety and help out when they are in need. It's becoming more and more apparent that those entrusted with the public safety are too busy worrying about themselves and trying to prove their worthiness. Unfortunately, the tactics they seem to be using is only showing how worthless they are.

Many have probably heard about Flint and about the problems it's had over the years. But it's not going to end with Flint. It will happen in other areas that become depressed if the economic times don't change or return to the problems of last year. The next story could be in any State in the country. Including your own. When the Communities leaders and elected officials are looking out for themselves rather than those they are supposed to serve, it's time for people to start re-thinking their priorities in the leaders that they elect.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Death Threat from the Left or a Joke?

The Record of Bergen County obtained a memo put out by the Teachers Union in Bergen County, New Jersey (a regional office of the National Education Association) which seems to threaten Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.

The memo includes a closing prayer. The prayer says, " Dear Lord, this year you have taken my favorite Actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcet, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite Governor."

I will be very surprised if this shows up in the main stream media...or lame stream media..... today. But there are a few questions that this brings out.

First, does this constitute a death threat? After all, the media, when playing the tape of the woman that called Bart Stupak following his health care vote said that millions of people were wishing him ill health. This teachers union is not just wishing for Governor Christie's ill health, but actually wishing for his death. Doesn't that fall on a par with a death threat?

Secondly, it's prayer in a memo from the Teachers Union. Should the teachers union be invoking God and prayer in their writings?

Third, this governor has only been on the job for just under four months. How is it that they turn their ire towards him when he's trying to clean up the mess of the previous governor? Now, I realize that the liberals blame Bush for anything and everything that has gone wrong since the Revolutionary war, but with just four months on the job, I would think that if the liberals were intellectually honest, they'd have to blame former Governor Corzine for the problems in New Jersey.

The association president, Joe Coppola said, "the prayer was meant as a joke and was never meant to be made public." Does that make a death wish of another okay? That would be the same as a bank robber saying 'I didn't mean to get caught.'

When the tape was first made public following Bart Stupak's vote on health care, I said that what the woman said wasn't a threat, but it was pretty crass for someone to wish another ill will. This falls in the same category as far as I'm concerned. Asking God to strike down a governor is just as stupid as what the womans said that called Stupak's office.

On the other hand, there may be hope yet. At least the unions are acknowledging that there is a God. I wouldn't have believed that before today.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Bart Stupak Retires

Democrat Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan's upper peninsula has decided to retire following his stunt during the health care debate.

Stupak held out on the vote for health care until the abortion question was answered. The answer was an Executive Order signed by President Obama a day after the health care signing. The signing of the Executive Order did not receive the pomp and circumstance of the health care bill signing rally. Rather it was held in a closed office, shut off from the press with Stupak and a limited few others in attendance.

Stupak claimed that he had received threats, both at home and his office, for holding out on the vote for health care, but none were published. He claimed he also received threats following his changing of his vote for health care and one was published, which wasn't really a threat but more just a woman saying that millions of people wished him ill health.

Stupak says that his decision to retire has nothing to do with his health care vote. Instead, he's saying that he's retiring to spend more time with his family. This is what many figures that become controversial use as a reason for leaving their particular profession.

This seems to be the prevailing excuse for retirement in politics lately. Senator Byron Dorgan retired to "spend more time with his family". Representative Bill Delahunt announced his retirement in March to "spend time with his family". It, of course, has nothing to do with a controversy over his inaction regarding the death of three people.

Representative Charles Pickering (R) from Mississippi announced he wouldn't run again for Congress in 2008 because he wanted to "spend more time with his family". Later he filed for divorce from his wife.

It's not just limited to politics. Magic Johnson of the L.A. Lakers retired to "spend time with his family". Same with Karl Malone.

In Stupaks case, he's 58 years old. He's not retiring. He's leaving Congress but he's not retiring. He's now going to start up another business. Usually starting a new business means more time away from the family building that business.

His timing is suspect. The controversy over the health care bill. In addition the Tea Party Express announced that they are targeting Stupak this year and have been in his area in recent days.

Whether he's leaving to "spend time with his family" or not, the good news is that he's leaving Congress.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

The Tea Party

The Tea Parties are heating up again. Currently, there is a group traveling the country for 20 days and ending up in Washington D.C. on April 15.

The Tea Party started a year ago February during the Stimulus bill debate following a rant on CNBC where it was stated that the people ought to hold a tea party like from the original tea party in Boston leading up to the Revolutionary War.

They then started popping up in various parts of the country over the next week. 200 here, 500 there, then they had 5,000 show up in Florida for a tea party. This set it off and running and on April 15 last year, there were tea parties all over the country with hundreds of thousands attending. Carrying signs.

They continued throughout the summer. In August as lawmakers started having town hall meetings on the health care bill, they found out that there were many angry people out there that didn't like the idea of the government taking over health care. Many of these people were part of the tea party and many that weren't have since joined the tea parties.

They are now involved in this years election. Their goal is to replace those Senators and Representatives that wouldn't pay attention to them. In some cases, some of them are running for office. This leads me to my topic.

The Tea Party as a third party. Just about everyone you hear on the talking head programs at night all say that they are not looking to start a third party. This is a good thing. If they become a third party, they will dilute the Republican party and there were will be more liberals elected. This defeats the purpose of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party seems to represent the Conservative point of view. With the exception of Sarah Palin, they are looking to defeat John McCain in his Senate run against J.D. Hayworth. The idea is to replace a moderate Republican with a Conservative Republican. That is exactly what they should be doing. If they fail, they still have John McCain, who has been acting more like a Conservative since his loss in the Presidential election. But he has years of being a moderate and at one point, was asked by Democrats to switch parties.

I'm looking forward to the Tea Party playing a major role in this years election. I hope and believe that they will be successful in weeding out some of the Republicans that are not conservative and then to be elected against the incumbent liberal Democrat in the fall.

Assuming that the Tea Party is successful, and we do take back the House and the Senate, then what? My hope is that the Tea Party continues. This could be dangerous for Republicans. If they begin to act as Democrats or even as they did when the Republicans had control prior to 2006, this could come back to bite the Republicans. My hope is that the Tea Party continues and holds the Republicans feet to the fire. Should the Republicans get their "power" back and then start ignoring the people, continue to spend money, disregard the Constitution as the Democrats have, then I hope that the Tea Party calls them on the carpet and in the following election causes more Conservatives to run against those that claimed to be Conservative but then moved into the Washington ways. In other words, the people that we get elected had better come through as the people wish or we would work to get them out in the next election.

We don't want politicians that ride a wave, then once they get in, dump the wave and create their own waves. No more of putting a person in a leadership position because it's "his turn".

Term limits shouldn't matter. If a Representative or Senator is not doing his job, the term limits won't need to apply if the Tea Party stays active because the people, the members of the Tea Party, can and should continue their protests to get that politician out. The Tea Party has waken the people up. I hope that they continue and keep the people awake by going after those that don't do what they were elected to do.

There are 219 House Members that voted for taking over the health care. All of them Democrats. That's 219 possible victories for Conservatives to grab ahold of. In the Senate, there are 36 seats up for election. This is a chance to pick up 13 seats in the Senate while maintaining the Republican seats. Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Arlen Specter, Kristin Gillibrand, Charles Schumer, the seat formerly held by Obama and another formerly held by Biden. All of these could be taken. The most difficult seems to be Schumer, but if they'll vote out Gillibrand, why not Schumer as well?

Perhaps an unrealistic hope. But each of those Democrats voted to take away our freedom. Each of those Democrats voted to use parliamentary procedures to avoid the will of the people. Each of them has earned a place in the unemployment line.

The Tea Party is doing a remarkable job and hopefully it will translate into a massive overhaul in the November. But then, it would be wonderful if they'd continue even after the Conservatives take back our government and make sure that those newly elected officials follow through on what they were elected to do. Follow the will of the people.

You're, of course, welcome to comment.

Brett

Liberals "Act" Scared: To Avoid Town Halls?

Much is being made about how the Democrats are being targeted for their stance on the Governments takeover of Health Care. Some of these are real, and some are questionable. A brick was thrown through a window of Representative Louise Slaughters office in New York. Another was thrown through a Democrat Representative's office in Arizona. There have been a couple more incidents at Democrat party headquarters local offices in a couple of places.

This seems to have started last week when Nancy Pelosi paraded through the crowd on the way to the Capitol with other Democrat members of Congress. Representative Cleaver claimed to have been spat on. Another claimed that he was called the "N" word, and a few other incidents. They claimed that this happened as they passed through the Tea Party protestors. There's just one problem with this. Not one of those incidents is documented on tape or any other recording device.

Now think about that. When you leave your house to do your errands, you're taped driving down the road at various points. You're taped at the ATM machine. You're taped walking into a bank and other places of business. But these events supposedly happened amidst a crowd of thousands. Many of those thousands had cell phones with camera's, video capability and other recording devices, yet not one snapshot, let alone video recording has surfaced of these supposed incidents.

I was about to write about this earlier today (Wednesday), when I heard on CNN that they had a tape of a woman calling Representative Bart Stupak's office in Michigan, and the claim that it contained a threat. Finally! A recording of someone threatening a Representative. Maybe these politicians aren't lying after all!

Bart Stupak was interviewed last week prior to accepting the payoff for his vote and he claimed that he was getting these calls both at his office and at home. He said his wife finally had to unplug the phones at home and he was cutting off his voicemail system. But wait. Last week people thought he was going to be a no vote because he said he was going to be a no vote unless the abortion provision was put into the bill. So wouldn't that have been Democrats calling and threatening his wife?

Since then, he's accepted more than $726,000 for some airports in his district that have even less usage than the airports in Congressman Jack Murtha's district where he took millions of dollars prior to his death.

The recording that was released from Stupak was of a woman. She described him as a piece of excrement (I cleaned that up). She also said that millions of people across the country wish him "Ill" and then (here comes the claimed threat) that he will pay for this vote. I can over parse that statement by saying either he won't pay because Congress is exempt from the law passed on the rest of us, or by saying that he will pay at the polls in November, or that he'll pay both at the polls and then be subject to the taxes because he'll no longer be a member of Congress and have to pay the same as the rest of us.

So was the threat against his health or well being? Not necessarily. It wasn't that explicit. It could be taken as a threat that he's going to lose big time in the election.

A blogger put the address of a Congressman on his blog telling people that they should let him know face to face how they feel. The problem is that the blogger put the address of the Congressman's brother by mistake. This story grew when the Congressmans brother claimed he smelled gas in his house and it was discovered that someone cut his gas line. This was Congressman Pierello (sp) in Virginia. But then the Congressman was interviewed this morning (Thursday) and said that the gas line that was cut was the propane line to his brothers grill.

Again, I must refer to my own experiences. I no longer use a propane grill. But even when I did, I never used it IN my house. I quit using propane grills because I have children. One spring, after a particularly harsh winter, I had a leak in my propane gas line. The cold winter and warm spring caused the line to wear and leak. Again though, it wasn't in my house. It was in my yard. I couldn't chance lighting it up when my kids were around and having an explosion. Do people really keep their propane grills in their homes?

These stories stretch credibility beyond the limit. Now, I understand that someone faxed Stupak a picture of a hangman's noose. Where is this faxed picture? Why hasn't it been published? Faxes are supposed to have the senders phone number on them. Phone numbers are easy to track even if they aren't listed on the fax. So why haven't they reported that they arrested the person that sent the fax?

In another overblown incident. a group showed up for a demonstration with a coffin. The coffin represented the people that would be harmed by the health care takeover by the government. They them moved the coffin to the house of Representative Russ Carnahan and continued their demonstration. This is apparently being interpreted as a threat to the Congressman as though the coffin represents his future resting place. Yet, the coffin represents the people that will be harmed by the health care takeover by government.

Throwing bricks through windows of local party headquarters is wrong. But even those incidents were apparently done when nobody was there. Nobody was in danger. That's destruction of property and is illegal and should not happen. Those that do this should be prosecuted for their vandalism. But nobody has been in danger from those incidents.

Without concrete proof of these other incidents, I'm one that just doesn't believe that they are happening. The pundits commenting on this say they trust that they are true because they don't think a Congressman would lie about such a thing. How did these elected officials get that trust? They lied throughout this health care takeover debate. Why are they afforded the credibility now?

House Democrat leader Steny Hoyer said that for the Republican leader to not condemn these acts is the same as condoning them. One problem with that. Boehner, the Republican House Leader did get out there and condemn any illegal activities. The Democrats are now blaming the Republicans for these incidents because Boehner hadn't gone out again and condemned them.

The media is blowing these incidents up when there isn't any proof of them taking place. I watched about ten minutes of Rick's list on CNN yesterday. I now understand why CNN has only 12 viewers. Rick Sanchez is a waste of television time. His comments were as though all of this was absolutely true because the accusation was made.

Where was the news coverage when the movie was put out a few years ago about President Bush being assassinated? Where was the absolute trust of a political leader when they were saying "Bush lied, soldiers died."? Even the pundits have said that. Roland Martin, Gloria Borger, Campbell Brown, George Stephanopolous. All of them have said that in the past along with others. Add in Chris Matthews who had the tingle running up his leg and Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. All of them. Remember when liberal talk show host Randi Rhodes said that Bush should be shot?

The least trustworthy group of people in this country is no longer used car salesmen. It's politicians and lawyers. There is a reason that Nancy Pelosi has an approval rating of 11% and Harry Reid's is 8% and Congress' approval rating is barely breaking the 20% range. People don't trust politicians and with good reason.

The Tea Party protestors went to t0wn hall meetings last year and raised their voices. They were angry and they let it be known. But they did so on the issues. No threats. No vandalism. They did what all Americans should do. They held their elected officials feet to the fire for their actions which were against the will of the people. The problems didn't start until the Democrats brought in SEIU union members in to fend off and shout down those that had legitimate concerns about the direction this country has been headed.

Until there is indisputable proof of these incidents I just don't believe that they are true. So yes, I'm calling Representative Cleaver and Representative Stupak and Representative Clymer and Representative Stupak and Representative Pierello, all liars. Not disengenous, not mistaken. Just liars.

Send letters when you disagree with your Representatives and with your Senators and any other elected officials. Send them E-mails, and faxes and when possible, get in their face and tell them that they are going against the will of the people, but leave out the threats and intimidation and don't destroy property. We're right to gather and protest. We're right to disagree with the people that we put in office to represent us when they don't.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if this was all a ruse on the Democrats part to say that they aren't holding town hall meetings this spring because they fear for their safety. We already know they didn't want to face us prior to the vote because we'd give them an earful and make it harder for them to vote. Now they're likely to say that they aren't meeting with their constituents because they are afraid of them.

Apparently, Representative Dingell is failing at controlling the people if so many are against them.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

March 23 in History

I got really curious about the historic events of March 23 after the signing of the Health Care takeover by the government. So I looked back in history.

On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry shouted those famous words, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death".

In 1919, Benito Mussolini founded his own party in Italy.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan proposed the Star Wars Initiative which led to the downfall of the Soviet Union six years later.

In 1998, the movie Titanic, the ship that sank after hitting an iceberg, won 11 oscars.

In 2001, the Russian space station Mir, fell back to earth landing in the South Pacific.

Now, in 2010, 235 years after Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" the Democrats are saying "ok, death it is."

Maybe it's time for a new revolution. A loud, boisterous, revolution. Not fought with guns and knives, but with votes and logic and the CONSTITUTION. It's time for the Conservatives to fight back and keep fighting back until we've rid this country of the corrupt liberals that are currently taking control of a free America and turning it into a run of the mill country.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett