Time for the NRSC to go

The Republicans in Delaware spoke loudly and clearly tonight. They chose Christine O'Donnell over Congressman Mike Castle.

As she was taking the stage for her victory speech, the National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC) announced that they would not give her any financial assistance at all. Not one dollar. This was broken by Bret Baier on Fox at about 10:30 pm.

Do these people in the NRSC not understand what's happening out here where the real people live? The Tea Party Candidates are not just giving a good showing for themselves, they are winning! Maybe someone needs to explain to the NRSC what is happening.

The people (remember the people? We are the ones that Congress is supposed to represent) have finally gotten fed up with the Washington Elites. We're not just fed up with Democrats. We're fed up with all POLITICIANS!

For years, a person has been elected to Congress making great claims that sound good when standing on a stage at a town hall meeting or while standing in your driveway asking for you vote, then they get to Washington and feel that they are above it all know better what's best for people than the people do.

This is what gave us taxes many years ago. This is what gave us housing for those that aren't responsible enough to qualify for loans. This is what gave us government interference in all aspects of our lives.

The people have always asked "what can you do? We elect them based on their promises, then they break their promises and serve themselves rather than those they represent and we can't get them out." Then we got the Democrats in the House, the Senate and the White House. Nobody could stop them doing anything. The votes weren't there. The Democrats either had a filibuster proof majority or the Republicans had a couple of Republicans in name only such as Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter. Now, I guess we can add Senator Voinovich from Ohio to that list.

Because of the Democrats and the "Rino's", we have a stimulus package that failed. We have Cap and Tax passed in the House. We have the federal takeover of the health care system which the Democrats don't even talk about during this campaign because they know they screwed the people.

These things have caused the American people to wake up and march in good weather and bad. To hold "Tea Parties" all across the nation. To have Americans that aren't professional politicians to run for office. Not only did it work, but it continued.

Senator Bennett from Colorado is gone. Joe Miller is now the Senate nominee for the Republicans in Alaska. Scott Brown (even though he's likely a Rino) is now the Republican from Massachussets. Gone are the likes of Murkowski, and now Mike Castle.

A perfect example of waste by the Democrats was just put out today. $823,000 was spent from the stimulus package to teach Africans, not Americans, but citizens of Africa IN Africa how to clean their genitals following sex. How in the heck does that stimulate OUR economy? I can see how it could stimulate Africans, although it's not likely their economy that's being stimulated, but how does it stimulate the American economy?

This is what the people have stood up against the past two years. Waste in government. Moronic performance by those in government.

NRSC stands for National "Republican" Senatorial Committee. Whomever is in charge of that committee needs to take a good look at the title for Christine O'Donnell. She is now the "Republican" nominee for the United States Senate representing the state of Delaware.

If you can't do what your title suggests, you might want to consider a new career. I was at a Speedway gas station earlier today. I saw a "help wanted" sign. While I hesitate to suggest any position that means you handle money, it may be your only hope of taking on an honest career because you're certainly failing at the current job.

I don't know much about Christine O'Donnell. I understand she's had some problems in the past with finances and schooling. What that tells me though is that she is an American Citizen that is fed up with Washington as usual. Apparently, the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats at understanding who they are supposed to represent. The PEOPLE.

The PEOPLE elected O'Donnell. If the NRSC financially backed Mike Castle during this primary, then guess what. The scorecard is now, O'Donnell one, NRSC ZERO. If O'Donnell wins in November, her record will be Two to ZERO. If she loses, her record will be 1 win, 1 loss. But the NRSC's record will be ZERO wins, 2 losses.

If that's too difficult for you at the NRSC, I'd recommend that you take a math class. First grade level ought to be good enough, but I'd avoid government schools if I were you. It may take you two years to understand simple math.

Whatever O'Donnells' personal life miscues were, I hope she beats the Democrat nominee without the NRSC and not just by the skin of her teeth, but by an overwhelming margin. If the NRSC hasn't figured out by then that they are irrelevent, they ought to get it after a victory like that.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Idiots and Cowards

A Pastor of a chuch in Florida had planned to burn the Koran on Saturday, September 11 as their statement regarding the attacks on September 11, 2001 and apparently included the recent events of the mosque being started near ground zero, the site where the World Trade Center Towers once stood.

Yesterday, he announced that he was stopping the burning ceremony because a local Imam had negotiated a deal to allow this Pastor to fly to New York and discuss moving the mosque with the Imam in New York. He said he had witnesses that the local Imam had said the mosque would be moved.

Within literally minutes of his press conference, the story started falling apart. The deal was less than announced, then it was reported that the Imam in New York knew nothing about it. Then Donald Trump had made an offer to buy out one of the parties that own the building, and so on.

The press then began calling the Pastor, Terry Jones, a crackpot, nutcase, publicity hound, and a few other names. This was CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. They were all calling this guy a clown that was seeking to get publicity for himself.

Are they right? Could be. But who gave him this publicity? This is a simple answer. The Press. The very people complaining that this guy is an idiot seeking to make a name in the press are the ones that gave him the platform. They turned this coming event from a small church, to a local story, to a national platform, to an international event.

This event, that has not yet taken place, then was picked up by the Muslims around the world. Imagine that, the press reports on someone they now call a crackpot and are amazed that the Muslims around the world are now burning the American Flag and threatening to kill Americans around the world, including here at home.

Don't get the idea that this is just about the idiocy of the press. They were just the beginning. As we moved closer to the anniversary of the attack on this country, the State Department put their embassies around the world on alert.

General Petraeus said that if this burning took place, it would put American soldiers at risk. Hillary Clinton came out and said the same thing. Then President Obama said the same thing.

As if that wasn't enough, the Pastor, according to the press, said that he would consider dropping the plan if someone from the White House or the Pentagon would call him and talk to him. But the idiocy didn't stop there. Defense Secretary Gates actually did call him apparently at the behest of the Obama Administration.

The burning of the Koran was ill-conceived. Like the placing of the mosque near ground zero, it's perfectly legal to do this, but it is not a wise idea. Consider this. You're driving along and you come to a railroad crossing. There are no gates to stop you. The flashing lights are going signifying that a train is coming, but there are no gates for you to drive around. You're expected to do the safe thing and stop when you see the lights. You take a look and think you can still get across those tracks safely before the train gets there. So you speed up to beat the train to the crossing. If you make it, you were right. You had the time. But if you don't make it and you end up hit by the train or you hit the train, now it becomes a matter of you not driving safely and causing an accident.

Putting that mosque up is legal. But it's not sensitive. Burning the Koran is legal. But it's not sensitive. If you want sensitivity from one group, you must be prepared to display sensitivity when you come to that crossroad.

Yet again, the idiocy doesn't stop there. Why is the administration getting involved in this? Like the incident in Cambridge, Massachussets when Obama called the police stupid, without knowing the facts, resulting in the "beer summit" on the White House lawn the administration had no business getting involved.

These radical muslims want to kill Americans. They don't care where, they only care that they kill us. To think that stopping this Koran burning is going to save American lives is not even reasonable. Granted, this story has fired up the muslim radicals and maybe they'd have not been ready to kill on Saturday where now they are more dedicated to the idea, but make no mistake, given any opportunity, their goal is to kill Americans.

With Obama getting involved in this, he's only made it even more of a news story than it was before. Obama showed his cowardice by getting involved in this story. Did he really think that he could stop radical islamists, TERRORISTS, from killing Americans by begging a Pastor of a chuch with 50 members to not burn a Koran?

Usama bin Laden had it right when he said that America wouldn't have the stomach for a long war. We're bombarded daily with reports that Americans are tired of the war. Obama has even set deadlines for leaving Iraq (since past and as predicted the fighting has increased), and for Afghanistan.

The terrorists, whether they realize it or not, have just won a small victory over the American people, the press and Obama. Terror doesn't have to come from an attack where people die. To be successful, they only need to change our reactions, what we do and instill fear in the American people, be it for a long period or a short period. This event has accomplished that very thing.

The administration is now walking on egg shells. They are sitting in fear that something will happen on Saturday. With their record of four attacks (Arkansas, Fort Hood, Detroit and New York) in their first 13 months, they should be walking on eggshells.

This country, the greatest nation in history, is being run by a bunch of cowards. The events in this country are being reported and commented on by a bunch of idiots. As for the people of this country, we have over 350 million people. You're going to have a small percentage of nutballs out there. Maybe this Pastor is one of them. Now we have another in Witchita, Kansas who says he will have a Koran burning, and a Baptist church that protests at soldiers funerals planning the same thing. Another guy in Wyoming who says he'll burn a Koran on the Capitol steps.

The President and his administration, the Pastor in Florida, and the press have turned this into an incident that has the terrorists fired up. Maybe it's good. Maybe it will bring some of these cowardly terrorists out in the open where we can get them. But when we have an administration that is looking to appease the enemy rather than eradicate them, I can't see much good coming from this. Time will tell. Unfortunately, those doing the telling in the press are just as big of idiots as those giving credibility to people they consider publicity seekers. Don't look to Washington for any solutions. The great appeaser will only apologize again for this country.

Obama, the press and these book burners, have caused me to have to warn those I care about, the same warning I gave immediately following the attacks nine years ago on September 11, 2001. Be aware of your surroundings. You should always be aware, but we'll all have to heighten our awareness.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Democrats Proposing Tax Cuts? Must be an Election Coming

In December 2008, Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas, a Republican proposed a payroll tax holiday. The economy was falling apart. The election had just passed and in one month, Washington would be in the hands of the Democrats in the House, Democrats in the Senate and the head liberal Democrat in the White House, Barack Obama.

At that point, there was nothing the Republicans could do in the House. In the Senate, they could only filibuster because they had one vote to stop a filibuster. Of course, they had RINO's (Republican in Name Only) Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine and Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania who were always a danger to cross over and stop any filibusters.

The Democrats proposed a stimulus package. They claimed that we were losing 22,000 jobs a day and the stimulus would stop it. Obama wanted it on his desk by Presidents Day. Without reading the bill, it passed the House, then the Senate. Collins, Snowe and Specter crossed over and the Senate passed the bill.

Gohmerts proposal? It never saw the light of day, despite the idea that it would create 6.2 million jobs.

It's now September. A year and a half following the stimulus. The stimulus hasn't worked. Jobs have continued to disappear. The Tea Party sprang up and have been going on all over the country for nearly two years. Democrats are in deep trouble this election. Even they are admitting that they are about to lose the House and they are even thinking that they may lose the Senate. The "experts" and pundits are saying the Republicans could gain 47-49 seats. Personally, I'll be disappointed if they only take 70 seats away in November.

Now it appears that some Democrats have gotten "religion". This week, Obama is going to speak on the economy. It's been reported that he's going to propose a payroll tax holiday. Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, in the very first paragraph I mentioned Louie Gohmerts plan. A payroll tax holiday.

Will this work? Yes, for a time. But that question can apply in so many ways. The payroll tax holiday, as Gohmert proposed it, will work for a time. It will stimulate the economy. It will create jobs. It will spur the economy on and it will put money back into the markets which is now sitting on the sidelines because businesses aren't putting money in the economy fearing the coming increase in taxes in January.

But there are questions that go along with this proposal. Will they include with this payroll tax holiday, extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone? If not, then it won't work for more than a short term fix. The length of that term is based on how long they put the holiday in for. If it's just three months, it won't do much because people will know that their taxes will go up three months later.

Supposing for a moment that they extend the Bush tax cuts, or even (be still my heart) make the Bush tax cuts permanent, the payroll tax holiday will work, but again, only to a point. It will not be a long term fix unless Congress also cuts spending. If they continue to spend as they are, the tax holiday will eventually dry up. Likely it will be after the holiday is over.

Increasing taxes does not raise revenue for the government. It only stops people from spending money, which reduces economic activity, which means less money being earned by taxpayers, which means less money coming in to the government.

Tax cuts ALWAYS work. President Reagan lowered taxes. That created the longest period of economic growth in history. It also nearly doubled revenue coming into the government. President Bush cut taxes, twice. Those tax cuts generated more revenue to the government and in several quarters, the government took in record amounts of revenue. A record which still stands.

Alas, all good things come to an end. When you cut taxes and generate more revenue, Congress gets excited. They see more money at the ready and they are ready to spend it. We all know that they are very good at spending money. Eventually, those expenditures wipe out the benefits of the tax cuts. We are then left with fighting over how best to spur on the economy. So again, tax cuts are considered, but nobody is talking about what spending they can cut.

If we get these tax cuts, the payroll tax holiday and the Bush tax cuts either being extended or made permanent, the spending will increase and we'll be back in this position again within a couple of years.

There is another aspect to whether the tax cuts, payroll tax holiday or extension of the Bush tax cuts will work. The only reason that this is being proposed is because Democrats are in serious trouble. This is a last gasp attempt to hold on to their seats. It's probably too late, but the Democrats will say that they are showing that they are flexible by putting the final touches on the stimulus in an effort to spur the economy. The plan likely won't be felt until after the first of the year (depending on when the "holiday" starts). However, it will be a selling point for the Democrats in their campaigns to be able to say that they passed the tax cuts.

They may save a few seats, but it's so late in the campaign, that too is unlikely.

The Democrats have proven one thing that we've all known, though. The best chance the people have at getting good government is to survive until two months before the next election. After two years of ignoring the people's desires, they now must depend on those people that they ignored to keep their jobs. If it's campaign season, the hot topic is lowering taxes. I wonder how desperate the Democrats have to get to start proposing a "fair tax".

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

CNN's Obama/Mosque Strategy Plays Out

On Monday, I did something I almost never do. I watched CNN. First was the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. I only flipped it by there in passing but found something very interesting.

Wolf had a female on who walked the streets of New York. They still call them reporters, but you'll have to decide if they are still reporters. I don't think they are. I don't know the woman's name.

This woman, on camera, walked the two blocks between Ground Zero and the proposed Mosque site. She showed some businesses between the two places. Most of the businesses she pointed out were bars, clubs, and strip joints. The implication was what's wrong with a mosque when they have these types of businesses there. She also pointed out a Catholic church.

There were many scenes of tall buildings where you couldn't see ground zero. At least twice they pointed the camera down a street and said that ground zero was down the road and to the right. She even walked behind a block and showed how you can't see ground zero from there, even though she had not yet reached the site of the coming mosque.

Later, I turned on John King USA. Again, the discussion turned to the mosque. This time, King turned to the big screen television on the wall that he likes to play with. He put a graphic on the screen showing a circle of the area around ground zero. He had color charts to show where and how many bars are in that circle. Strip clubs. Even churches. Then he widened the circle to include more bars. Again, the implication being that there were these businesses and even said businesses such as this, but then backtracked on his statement abit saying 'unless you like bars'.

Later King had a guy named Cornell on his panel. He's a regular on the program and a Democrat strategist. Cornell began saying that the Republicans were injecting race into this because we're not at war with Muslims, but with radical Islam.

King also had another man on his panel who was Muslim and backing the mosque. This turned into a debate about race and racism.

Still later on another program I flipped it by CNN again and this time saw James Carville and his message was that Americans outside of New York were not interested in the mosque going up two blocks from ground zero and again, the discussion about bars and strip clubs in the area.

CNN seems to have developed a strategy to back Obama's words this past weekend which seem to have Obama in hot water, by showing that the Mosque is a church and why shouldn't it be permitted there when there are some businesses that involve drinking and girls stripping.

Ed Rendell, Gerald Nadler, James Carville and others all seem to think that the attack on New York didn't affect the rest of the country. They are saying they are in disbelief that Americans in the heartland would vote this fall with any thought of the mosque.

If you'd like to know how MSNBC is handling this story, you'll have to check it out for yourself. I've gone as far as I'm going to go watching CNN. One spoiled evening is all I can take even if it is fun watching these liberals on CNN going through all sorts of contortions to justify Obama's stupid remarks.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Is It Difficult Being Conservative?

Many have claimed that politics has been very polarizing. The claim by many is that this has worsened over the past twenty years to the point that if one side says that it's Monday the other side will say it's Tuesday.

It is true that politics is all about "gotcha". But has it really gotten worse in the past twenty years? Has one side cornered the market on the truth? Several stories have come to light or come to a head in the past few weeks that have brought these thoughts more into focus.

The overall big news of the day recently has been the coming tax increase on January 1, 2011. The Bush tax cuts expire on the final day of 2010. The question becomes, does government extend the cuts, make them permanent or do nothing and let them increase?

With the elections coming, they are now talking about extending the tax cuts. If they don't vote on this before the election, do you really think they will extend them after the election? It boils down to them making their decisions based on their need to get re-elected. Naturally, if the Democrats maintain their majority, the liklihood of those tax cuts in any form will take place. If the Republicans take over the tax cuts will likely be passed, but then it must go to the President for signature. Will he become the new "party of no" and veto it?

Yesterday, the Congress was called back for a special session to vote on a $26 Billion bill to save teachers jobs. Much of this money is going to unions. This was nothing more than a campaign fundraiser disguised as saving jobs for teachers. That money will now end up in the coffers of many Democrats.

The Republicans got fat and sassy leading up to the elections in 2006. They spent money as if there was no tomorrow. They lost.

One topic has brought this all into focus for me recently. The mosque in New York near ground zero. I've listened to Sean Hannity for several nights. He believes that this mosque shouldn't be allowed because of what happened on September 11, 2001. There's just one problem with this. In our Constitution there is a line that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:"

We must follow the Constitution. If we don't, the Constitution becomes nothing more than a worthless piece of paper. Yes, it's wrong for them to put this mosque there. But it's not Constitutionally wrong. It's not illegal. It is morally wrong, but not legally wrong. If the rule of law means anything, it must mean something even when it works against our beliefs or even offends us.

Doing the right thing means doing it even when nobody is looking. It's wrong for this Imam to start a mosque at that site. It's also wrong for Hannity to rail against them doing this and wanting to find a lawmaker that will prevent it by some legal means from going in there. Putting this mosque there is the wrong thing to do though. But that's a moral choice, not a legal choice.

I believe that our politics has been more polarizing the past twenty years than it has prior to that. However, there were other times when it was just as bad and possibly even worse in our history. For instance John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jacksons campaigns. John Quincy Adams won the first time in a back room deal. The next election Jackson came back hard and the two of them participated in one of the most contentious elections in our history.

I believe it is difficult being Conservative and more difficult than being a liberal. It's easy to spend other people's money. It's difficult to resist spending that money. It's easy to see someone suffering and give them a handout. It's difficult to look for other means of help for them without forcing expenditures of the people's money. It's easy to take over people's freedom and use confiscation (taxes and tax increases) or eminent domain to give people what you think they need. It's more difficult to give a minimum to help them to their feet and watch as they try to build on that assistance and make a better life for themselves so that they too can help someone out with a hand up.

Republicans are not good at pointing this out. It's not sexy. It's not as heartwarming as giving someone something for nothing. In the Declaration of Independence it says we have the right t0 "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It doesn't say we have the right to happiness. We have the right to PURSUE happiness.

The people have tried to point this out to the poltiicians through the tea parties. The people got fed up and are in effect saying that Washington is not representing the American people. The stimulus bill was passed without being read, and against the wishes of the American people. The health care plan was passed without being read, and against the wishes of the American people. Arizona has passed a law that the people agreed with and the government is challenging that law in the courts, against the wishes of the people.

The politicians answer to the tea parties? Some are jumping on the bandwagon. Some are serious. They are taking what the people are articulating, that the politicians couldn't articulate, and they are working with the tea parties. Others are bad mouthing the tea parties (the people) because it goes against what they have had as a vision for this country. Still others are creating fake tea party candidates that are really liberals trying to divide the vote on the right because they know they are in trouble. This has been shown in Pennsylvania and Michigan and was exposed with one guy over the past weekend who showed up with a racist sign at a tea party rally and then later was at a Democrats event without the racist sign.

Any parent can tell you that it's difficult to see a child make a poor decision or choice and have to assist them in correcting that mistake whether financially or by example. Yet we all make choices in our daily lives. Some correct, some incorrect. We either correct our mistakes, hide from them or make excuses and look for someone to get us out of it so that we don't have to deal with it ourselves.

I keep coming back to always trying to do the right thing even when nobody is watching. It's a tough standard to live up to, and we're all going to fail at it. But we'll fail much less than we succeed if we continue to live by that standard.

As I've been writing this, it's been reported that a Democrat in New Hampshire has said that he "wished" Sarah Palin had been on the plane that crashed killing former Senator Ted Stevens in Alaska on Monday.

Politicians, once elected, hold the trust of those that they represent. They are there to work for the people of their district, state and country. They are not supposed to be there to satisfy their own personal desires. Unfortunately, the majority of them seem to be there to get their names on schools, bridges, libraries, roads and anything else they can have their names seen for years long after they are gone. To do this, they have to spend money and donate or assign it to those entities. They are using the peoples money to put their names out there.

Again, they are in it for personal gain and not doing what needs to be done for those that they represent. We need new people in there and then hold their feet to the fire so that they don't fall into the usual trap of self aggrandizement. If they fall into that trap, they must go in the next election and we need to try again. Not by party, but by person and their stated goals for when they are elected.

It is tough being Conservative. We must have standards. We must have the courage of our convictions and not be afraid to make mistakes and then correcting those mistakes. We must not turn our lives over to others to control. We must not try to control the lives of others that we have responsibility for, but rather be partners or guides (in the case of children). The best leaders have always led by example.

The mosque does not belong in New York across the street from where the World Trade Center towers once stood. But we also have to realize that in this country, we have a constitution that says we won't make laws regarding the creation nor prohibition of religion. There is another way to solve this problem. I don't know what it is, but we have alot of ingenius people in this country. The American people can figure out a way to get us out of this economic mess better than the government can. The American people can also figure out a way to deal with the matter of the mosque. All we need is for government to get out of the way and allow the American people to do what we've always done best.

Final set of examples. We had four attacks on September 11. Two flew into the World Trade Center. One into the Pentagon. The government didn't stop them. One crashed into a field in Pennsylvania saving many lives in Washington DC. That one was stopped by passengers. Americans. Heroes.

The underwear bomber on Christmas last year wasn't stopped by the government. He was stopped and held by passengers and flight attendants. The Times Square bomber wasn't stopped by government. It was discovered by a t-shirt vendor. A citizen. The government didn't prevent the shooter at Ft. Hood from killing and wounding 33 people.

The more we turn our lives and our freedoms over to the government, the less we follow "doing the right thing even when nobody is looking". Can we really trust the government to do the right thing even when nobody is looking? Let's ask Charlie Rangle. Maxine Waters. Mark Souter. Mark Foley. Bill Clinton. Richard Nixon. William Jefferson. Let's ask those that have raided Social Security and left behind an IOU that will never be paid back. Let's ask those that tell us we need to pass health care so that we can find out what's in the bill rather than looking at it to see if it's worthy of being passed in this country.

It's always easy to have power over someone else and tell them what to do, how to spend their money, or how to live their lives. It's more difficult to guide kids so that they do what's right on their own or to not interfere with those you're responsible for. To watch them be a partner and enjoy that partnership rather than hold whatever power you have or may have over their heads. Government fails at this partnership and abuses the power they have. Yes, some people abuse it as well. People can be left behind. Unfortunately, government can't be left behind. But it can be changed to the way the founding fathers intended and the Constitution states.

So from my point of view, being a liberal is easy. Control others. Take from others. But Conservativism is difficult. Standards, I believe, are higher and it's always harder to live up to standards than it is to live with no standards.

I'd rather have it be tougher where I can succeed and be happy or fail and make amends and earn the forgiveness of those that I care about and again, be happy, than to take the easy way out and not have to do anything and let some stranger(s) in Washington DC guide my life and freedoms.

Ok, off my moral high horse for today.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Michigan/Ohio Primary: August 3rd

On Tuesday, August 3, Michigan voters have the opportunity to select their candidates for this years election in the fall.

The current Governor, Jennifer Granholm, is term limited, so she will not be on any ballots this year. Michigan was in a recession prior to the nation being in a recession. While the rest of the nation was going through the best economic period in 25 years from 2002 through 2006, Michigan suffered, and still is suffering, through it's own recession. The unemployment rate nationwide was at 5% or less during that time but Michigan was languishing under Granholm and the unemployment rate grew from 3% when John Engler left office to over 14%!

Today, liberals favorite line is to talk about the national recession being President Bush's fault. This is right out of the Granholm playbook. She has been blaming Engler from start to finish. Even as recently as this past weekend in an interview on CNN. In the meantime, Governor Granholm is one of the two least liked Governors in the country according to recent polls.

The Democrats have two contenders. Virg Bernero, the current Mayor of Lansing who announced his candidacy within days of being re-elected to Mayor and Andy Dillon, the current Speaker of the House in Michigan.

The Republicans have several candidates. Congressman Pete Hoekstra and attorney General Mike Cox, along with businessman Rick Snyder, Sheriff Mike Bouchard, and state Senator Tom George. Recent polls show the moderate Snyder with a slight lead over Hoekstra and Cox. George is buried at the bottom.

Mike Cox has a history of not being able to control his anger and has some baggage with possible infidelity. In addition, there are stories that he may have been involved wth a cover up of a party where the death of a young girl took place at the manoogian mansion, residence of the Mayor of Detroit, at the time Kwame Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick, son of Congresswoman Kilpatrick is now serving a prison sentence, although not for that event.

Pete Hoekstra and Mike Bouchard are the two Conservatives. Pete Hoekstra seems to have the western part of the state locked up, while Bouchard is very popular on the east side of the state with a large population. Bouchard ran unsuccessfully for Senator a few years ago.

The personal choice here is for Pete Hoekstra.

In District 1, which covers a large part of Northern Michigan, there is a bit of a controversy. Bart Stupak (D) is currently the Representative there. Many even outside of Michigan will remember that it was Stupak that held out on the health care vote until he could get a commitment on abortion not being funded by the Federal Government under the health care plan. When he got the commitment and an executive order, he agreed to vote for health care, pushing it over the top. In the six months since that vote, abortion is once again going to be funded by the Federal government in certain areas.

The controversy in that area, as well as some other districts and for Governor, is regarding the recent entry of a group calling itself the Tea Party. They are now a registered party in Michigan. However, there is more and more information coming to light that indicates the Michigan Democrat Party, Mark Brewer in particular, are behind this to try to split the vote of Republicans in Michigan.

The Democrats in that district have been fighting over abortion and the pro-life candidate apparently has dropped out because the Democrat Party in the area wouldn't back her, wanting a pro-abortion candidate.

District 7 which covers southern Michigan from the Dexter area, through Jackson to Kalamazoo and includes parts of Lansing currently has their Representative, Mark Schauer. Schauer has been controversial in the area. Early on, he held a series of town hall meetings pushing for the bailout. He is the only representative in the country that has claimed to read the entire bill before voting on it despite everyone in the country knowing differently.

He has refused to hold open town hall meetings following that series because the Tea Parties began popping up. His "town hall" meetings from then on, were targeted at select groups, such as seniors, medical personnel and one town hall meeting over the phone where everyone was screened. Schauer is running unopposed on the Democrat side.

On the Republican side, there are three that are running. Tim Walberg, a conservative and former Representative who was beaten by Schauer in the 08 election. Brian Rooney, who moved to the area prior to the filing for his candidacy, and the son of the owner of the Pittsburg Steelers and brother of a Congressman from Florida. Marvin Carlson, a businessman from Ann Arbor.

This is really a race between Walberg and Rooney. Carlson has done little advertising and received little coverage. Rooney has said that he intends to continue the earmarks because the rest of the congress will continue with earmarks. Rooney claims to stand up on principle, but then backs down when it comes to earmarks. For this and because Rooney moved to the district for the election, the choice here is Tim Walberg.

Unfortunately, our two Unites States Senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, are not up for election this time around.

I urge you to look into your candidate in your area and choose carefully. As a Tea Party attendee to several of the tea parties in the area, my choice is to go with the Conservative in each office, however, this doesn't mean that if my choices are successful that I'm going to trust them. If they turn into the Washington DC politician, I'll be looking for a replacement for them when the next election rolls around. In the 7th District, this seems to be the way it's gone. No incumbent has been re-elected in that district since Nick Smith left the House.

Primary day is Tuesday, August 3, 2010. Don't forget to go and vote. If you shirk your duty to choose who is going to represent you, you could end up with a government auto company or a government health care plan, or loss or reduction of your medicare, or more bailouts. VOTE!!

If you'd like to talk about your Representative choices in your area, please feel free to add it here.

Your comments are welcome.

Brett

Obama Admits that he can't do the Job

President Obama, in a speech to Immigration rights advocates at American University, admitted that he's not up to the job. He said that "our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won't work."

This issue has been brought to the forefront with the passage of SB1070 in Arizona that starts on July 29 of this year. Arizona is doing something about the invasion of illegal aliens by passing their law that will require law enforcement to check on the legal status of anyone they come in contact with while doing their duties where there is a reasonable suspicion they may be illegal aliens.

The Presidents words received a warm reception in front of the crowd that heard what they wanted to hear at American University. This is Obama's forte'. He will give speeches in front of vetted crowds to avoid any disagreement being heard by the microphones.

Obama turned his speech into a partisan speech saying that he was ready to take this on. Democrats are ready to take this on and some Republicans but that he needs Republicans to back it or it won't fly. Again, he takes words, and twists them to blame the Republicans even while giving a sideways compliment to former President Bush. He even said that he "believes" Americans want comprehensive immigration reform.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform is nothing more than code words for amnesty. This was done in 1986. If it was to be done once and for all, then, why are we dealing with it now? It was tried again in 2007 and nearly passed. It was on its' way to passage when the American people stood up, called, faxed, E-mailed their members in government and told them that's not what they wanted. It died at that point with even a dozen Democrats joining the filibuster.

The American people want the borders secure. The polls show this in overwhelming numbers. They don't want amnesty, again, by overwhelming numbers. But Obama says that securing the borders won't work.

We've had two events that happened with illegal aliens. I've spoken about both on here in the past. In 1954, President Eisenhower directed that the border patrol begin rounding up illegal aliens, putting them on trains and boats and sending them deep into Mexico. This caused the numbers of illegal aliens in this country to drop dramatically. Not because they rounded them all up, but because they rounded up enough and kept rounding them up that those not yet caught left on their own. This same thing is happening in Arizona before the law takes effect. There have been reports that many are leaving Arizona and headed to California, Texas and even as far away as New York.

The second event was in 1986 under President Reagan when amnesty was granted to approximately 3 million illegal aliens. Now we have anywhere from 11 million to 20 million illegal alien invaders in this country.

Obama claims that securing the border won't work. Yet he gave the border states 1,200 national guard....or he's going to give them that many sometime in the next few weeks. Why send the national guard if it's not going to work?

But even beyond the logical question of why is he sending them if he doesn't think it will work, he chose to give this speech on July 1. Four days before Independence Day. This makes me think back. The American Revolution. There were battles in the Continental Congress about what to do about King George and his excessive taxes without us having any representation. It was decided that we'd fight for independence. We were losing the war. It would have been easy for the Patriots to fold their tents and go home.

Soldiers were serving without pay, without proper arms, clothing, and ammunition. The signers of the Declaration of Independence gave up their wealth for the cause. They didn't quit. They didn't say it wouldn't work and hide. They fought and they eventually won!

I think about the settlers that moved west in wagons across the Rocky Mountains to Oregon. They gave up their homes and lives for a better life in a new territory. They didn't give up. To give up meant to die.

I think about my own lifetime in the 1960's when President Kennedy said that we will put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. Man was just exploring space for the first time and he's talking about putting a man on the moon in less than ten years. We didn't say that we couldn't, but instead we worked towards that goal and in July 1969, Neil Armstrong took that first step on the moon.

But now we have a President that says that we can't protect our own borders. A rancher is shot and killed in Arizona and Obama runs for cover. A police officer is killed by an illegal alien in Texas because the head cop wouldn't enforce the laws regarding illegal aliens. That head cop was just last week appointed to deal with illegal aliens by Obama.

Throughout our history, we've had great men and women do things that people didn't dream could be done. They didn't say "I can't" or "we can't" or "it won't work" or the problem is just too big to handle so we can't do it. They found a way and they did it.

Independence Day is about accomplishing the impossible by defeating the most powerful nation in the world for our own independence. Our own protection. Our freedoms. Yet, Obama says "it won't work" when it comes to dealing with illegal immigration. If our founding fathers had this defeatist attitude we might still be subjects of the "crown" in England.

Obama has admitted that he can't do his job. It is, after all, his responsibility to protect the borders of this country. Not to give a haven to drug runners and post signs warning people that they are entering a dangerous part of the country.

We don't need immigration reform. We need the laws enforced. The first act of an illegal alien coming to this country is to break our laws. If we give them amnesty for breaking our laws when they first come here, why should we expect them to follow our laws once here?

Obama wants punishment on the employers that hire illegal aliens, but he wants to give amnesty to those being hired. If he stopped the invasion of the illegal aliens the employers, American citizens, wouldn't be hiring illegals. You can't hire what's not there. Why is he so anxious to put employers in jail, but allow those that have already committed a crime to get away free?

It's very disappointing that we have a President with a defeatist attitude about this country. Unfortunately, the Republicans, Senator John McCain in particular add to this problem by saying secure the borders FIRST. This too is wrong. It should be secure the borders, period. We don't need a comprehensive immigration reform bill. We need leaders that will actually do their job and enforce the laws that they have passed. Unfortunately, we have a President who is more interested in capitulation than he is in following and enforcing the laws of this country. He's admitted that he can't handle the job, so it's time he just locked himself in the oval office and not come out until January 2013. Or to park himself on the golf course. Without him and his defeatist attitude, we can get more accomplished in this country.

Obama admits he can't do the job. So hand him his golf clubs and tell him we'll pick him up in 2012 and help him pack his bags and move him out and get someone in there that can and will do the job.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

I Can't Be Out of Money, I Still Have Checks Left

Congress is working on appropriating $30 billion for the Afghanistan War to pay for the coming surge. The hold up is that Democrats are pushing for billions of dollars to give to school boards around the country to save teachers jobs while the Republicans are saying they want a clean bill for strictly the war.

This administration and this congress have thrown money everywhere. They've bailed out banks, financial institutions, car companies, fannie mae and freddie mac (which needs another $1 Trillion), as well as giving money to massage parlors, strip clubs, prison inmates and more. They haven't worried about it because they have control of the printing presses and can make more money. Not earn, but make.

But the Democrats aren't worried. After all, the Bush tax cuts, which produced the largest growth in the economy in 25 years, are about to expire on December 31, 2010. So beginning January 1, 2011 everyone's taxes will increase. They think that they'll collect more money because of those tax increases. What they will do instead is plunge us into another recession, the so-called "double dip" recession. Tax revenues, which set records for income following the tax cuts, will decrease. Unemployment will increase. Bankruptcies will increase over the record levels they are setting this year. The need for people to be dependent on welfare will increase.

We can no longer afford the spending that this Congress and this President are doing. Democrats seem to think that as long as they can print money and still have checks in the checkbook, that they can continue to spend.

If you think people are suffering now, hang on. The suffering hasn't even begun to start yet. It's about to get much much worse. There are solutions, but this Congress and this President either don't believe it, or don't care and are looking for the destruction of the free market system.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Obama and the "F" Word

General Stanley McChrystal was the subject of a story in Rolling Stone magazine written over a period of time. His top advisors and aides were also quoted and those quotes are embarrassing for General McChrystal and President Obama. However true it may be, General McChrystal should not be calling the Commander in Chief and his staff "wimps" or calling Vice President Biden "Bite me".

McChrystal was wrong to make the comments because his commanding officer is President Obama. Imagine a private saying something about General McChrystal in the press along the same lines. It is inappropriate and undermines the authority of General McChrystal just as McChrystals comments were inappropriate and undermines the authority of Obama. Like it or not, Obama is the Commander in Chief. The position he holds is to be respected even if the man himself is not respected.

Having said that, Obama spoke for a few minutes today and at one point said "...whatever decision I make.....". He's just let the cat out of the bag. If he's thinking about a decision and saying that it's a possibility, it's going to happen. McChrystal will be fired.

Apparently, McChrystal has apologized to everyone but the President. I suspect he intends to voice his apology in person with Obama tomorrow. At the same time, McChrystal should resign his position and I think he will. From all I've read, McChrystal is an honorable man and has been a heroic soldier over the years. This tells me that he knows he was wrong in saying what he said and the honorable thing for him to do is to resign his position.

This is where Obama is likely to fail. It wouldn't surprise me abit if Obama comes out and says he's relieved McChrystal of his command even if McChrystal resigns. Where Obama has already failed is that he has no control over his military. He doesn't command respect and he's not getting that respect. It's a shame for McChrystal but he must resign.

This is just the latest in a series of failures by this President. Staying with McChrystal for a moment, President Karzai of Afghanistan is reported to have to called Obama and asked him to keep McChrystal on because he cannot get along with the U.S. Ambassador. Why does Obama keep an ambassador that can't get along with the leader of the country that we're trying to get on our side in defeating al queda?

Of course, there is the failure in the gulf. It's now been discovered that THIRTEEN countries offer the United States assistance in the oil leak and they were turned down. Even half of those countries offering different ways to gather the oil may have prevented the oil from reaching the shores of the United States. Obama failed when it came to getting all of the help he could to protect the beaches, the estuaries, the bayou. He also failed in getting the booms out there. He left a company in Maine holding all of these booms that could have helped with the oil heading to our shores. Obama failed.

Then there is the failure to protect the borders. Obama has done nothing to enforce the borders. Two and a half weeks ago, he met with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. He promised to get in touch with her (through his staff) on his decisions regarding the border. That two weeks came and went, however, on the day that he was supposed to get in touch with Brewer, the interview turned up of Hillary in Ecuador saying that the Obama administration was going to go to court to try to shut down the new Arizona law. Obama failed to follow through on his word to be in touch with Governor Brewer and had one of his lackies (Clinton), announce it.

Obama also failed in sending troops to Arizona. He met with the Republicans and Senator Kyl and Senator McCain both told him that they needed 6,000 troops on the border. Obama said nothing. But once the meeting was over, it was announced that he was sending 1,200 troops to the border. That was a month ago. Still no troops and it's said that even if they do show up, they'll be desk jobs. Not actually working on the border.

Obama failed with the stimulus plan. It's not worked. So he blamed former President Bush. Obama failed with Health care. Oh yeah, he got it passed after the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback and the perks for Connecticut and others, but he failed to listen to the American people who clearly said they didn't want Obamacare. But that's exactly what we've got.

Obama failed last year with the troop surge in Afghanistan. The military requested more troops in August last year. In December, Obama finally decided to send more troops, but only 30,000. Military casualties have increased.

Last, but not least is the four terrorist attacks on our soil since Obama has become President. One in Arkansas where one soldier was wounded and one died. Two is Fort Hood where 13 died and 33 were wounded. Third is the underwear bomber on Christmas Eve and the fourth was the Times Square bomber in May. These are all going to be tried in criminal courts as is Khalid Sheik Muhammed, the one behind the September 11, 2001 attack on this country. The Times Square Bomber is the only one that is a citizen of this country and as such is entitled to a criminal trial, although because he's claimed the attack was part of the war, an argument could be made that he should be in Guantanamo Bay (another failure of Obama who said it was close in one year which expired January 22, of this year).

Obama's "F" word isn't the one that VP Biden said into an open mike at the time of the health care signing. Obama's "F" word is FAILURE.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

It's Time For Obama to Man-up

It is time for President Obama to man up. Actually, it's past time, but we can't get a person to do something in the past. We can only move forward, so it's time for the President to act like a man rather than a little kid.

The explosion in the gulf has turned loose massive amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Three days following the explosion the Dutch offered the United States some skimmers to help clean up the oil. They were told no thank you.

Two weeks following the explosion, the Governor of Lousiana, Bobby Jindal sent a request to the Federal Government to allow him to start building berms to protect the shoreline from the oncoming oil. It took until late May for the Feds to say "you can have six" but not 30.

The only thing we've heard the President say during this time is that BP is at fault. BP will be held accountable. This is going to be a major environmental disaster and we need to pass Cap and Tax. We need climate change legislation.

The President is acting like a little kid saying "Johnny threw the ball through the window, spank him mommy." In most families, the first thing that gets done is the window gets replaced, then the punishment is meted out. But not with this President. He spends his time blaming BP. Meanwhile the oil is still flowing in the gulf.

Mr. President. BP will still be at fault six months from now. They will still be at fault a year from now. PLUG THE DAMN HOLE. Then worry about meting out punishment. After all, that's what our court system is for. The only thing you've accomplished is driving BP's stock down. Tell me something. How will BP pay if they go bankrupt before this hole is plugged?

The priority is to plug the hole. BP has been working on it. The government should be putting someone there to oversee the work being done. That person should have an idea of whether the work being done has a legitimate chance. He should be making sure that BP is doing as they say and verify all of their actions. If BP is not doing the job, then the President has the power to shut BP down. All he has to do is gather some experts, from other companies if necessary, and when he's dissatisfied with BP, shut them down and immediately move in the experts and let them take it over and plug the hole.

He should also be waiving any restrictive laws that hinder any help we can get in cleaning up this mess, such as the Jones Act. He should be inviting any and all help to clean up the oil. We are the first to go to the aid of other nations when they have a disaster. We were there for Haiti. We were there in South America after the earthquake there. We were there when they had the tsunami a few years back. Why are we being so arrogant to refuse help when offered during our disasters?

Again, it's a simple process. He can designate someone to handle the cleanup. Gather the offers of help and remove any hindrances in our laws that would hinder this. He doesn't have to do this personally, he should have someone appointed to do this. These press people keep trying to compare Obama to Reagan as a communicator. They could have added another comparison by claiming that Obama was great at delegating authority and having them report to him.

Obama also has a Justice Department with an investigative service. They could investigate this quietly and arrange for any prosecution, quietly, and filed their charges, which there is likely to be, when the other priorities are done. There is no need for him to threaten BP. They are still working on this. Why keep harping on how you're going to hold them responsible and that they will pay without due process? He gives terrorists access to the court system, why not shut up and let the court system handle BP when it's over?

We are now 57 days into this and NOTHING has been accomplished. Oil is still leaking. Oil is now on land more coming. For the past couple of weeks, the press has been asking 'Is this Obama's Katrina?' The only thing that accomplished is to get Obama down to the gulf for some photo ops.

Now, in an effort to get the Katrian correlation dropped, he's trying to compare this to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This doesn't compare in any way to the terrorist attacks, unless terrorists blew up the oil well. If terrorists did blow up the oil well, then Obama is extremely slow in getting to the bottom of it and making them pay for their actions.

Remember what happened on September 11, 2001. Four airplanes were hijacked and three of them flew into buildings. It was an attack by terrorists. President Bush knew within hours that it was Usama bin Laden that carried out the attack. In less than a month, Bush started bombing Afghanistan. October 7, 2001.

In the past 57 days, the closest Obama has gotten to anything with the gulf other than photo ops, is to play golf. If this was really like "9/11" why is he playing golf? Why is he taking two vacations during the first month the oil spill was going on? This is reminding of the comments liberals made following 9/11. They wished that Clinton was still President so that he could get all of the accolades that Bush was getting. If that's what Obama wants, then there is no hope he'll get his priorities straight. The attacks on September 11, 2001 were planned in advance. The oil spill was apparently due to shortcuts to save money.

Obama should quit worrying about how he looks and start caring more about how the beaches are going to look beause he didn't hop on this as quick as it happened.

Many of the liberals are now saying that it's wrong for Conservatives, Republicans and Independents to complain about Obama not doing what needed to be done because we are supposedly against big government. There is something that you liberals should learn right now before another disaster happens and this President sits on his hands. Government has its place. Protecting our borders. Protecting our country.

This oil spill is out in the gulf. The gulf is not a state, it's part of the area controlled by the government. This oil spill is affecting so far, three states and is about to move to a fourth. One governor cannot deal with the spill because he can't make decisions for his neighboring states. Alabama has to decide what's right for them. Bobby Jindal hopped right on this and said he needed berms to keep the oil away from the land. Will it work? We don't know for certain, but he decided it was his best option and nobody has presented a better solution, so for him to decide to do it to protect his state is exactly right. If he fails, it's not going to be because he was sitting on a golf course, working to keep the press out so they can't see his scores. If he wants to go into a partnership with Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi, he has that ability.

But the President is responsible for all five states that border the gulf. His job is to not just look out for one state, but the country. The governors only take care of their own states.

Tonight, the president is going to address the nation from the oval office. I'll bet that he uses this speech to tell America how it's necessary to end our need for fossil fuels and move to "green" technology. Great idea if it will work. But the problem is that the technology is not there yet. Our immediate problem is that we need oil for our everyday lives now.

I'll bet that he also uses tonights speech to push for Cap and Tax legislation. It's not needed. We don't need our rates going up with higher taxes on energy companies that will be passed on to the consumer.

Whatever he comes up with, you can be sure that it will be nothing but blame. He'll blame BP and threaten them. He'll mock the Republicans somehow and he may even blame President George Bush. But in the end, you can bet that it will involve more regulations denying freedoms, shuffling government agencies and it will cost us more in taxes.

The way this president has performed for the past 57 days, I'd just as soon have him use his speech tonight to resign. The only thing that worries me about that is that Joe Biden would be an even worse president than we're getting right now.

This speech should be used to build up the American spirit. Asking the public to come up with ways to move us away from oil and on to whatever else will power us. Wind, solar, hamburgers, it doesn't matter. We have innovative people in this country that could and someday likely will come up with solutions to our dependence on fossil fuels. But, it's not there today.

Man up Mr. Obama. Take responsibility for your inaction in preventing or at least trying to prevent the oil from reaching our shores. Get your priorities straight and quit whining about how terrible BP is. Everyone has been blamed except for Obama. Even George Bush has been blamed for this oil leak.

There is one bit of good news if there can be anything good about a disaster. Come November, Obama is going to be a lonely man. He's going to get up the morning after the election and find out that there aren't any liberals left in Washington DC....except for him.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

ARIZONA SUCCESS!!!

The new Arizona law seems to have caused a mass exodus from Arizona and the law hasn't even taken affect yet. Those that are leaving Arizona are illegal invaders as well as some Americans with Hispanic descent.

The Arizona law doesn't take affect until July 29, 2010 but schools are reporting a huge decrease in students being enrolled. The areas in which the illegal invaders do most of their business has reported a marked drop off in business.

The Department of Homeland Security estimated that illegal invaders reached a peak in 2008 at 560,000. That dropped off to an estimated 460,000 in 2009. The report from schools and from businesses, is not official, but is a good barometer of what's happening in Arizona.

The question is, where are they going? It's not believed that they are returning to their homeland. Not in the numbers that are leaving Arizona. There have been reports that they are moving to California, New Mexico, Texas and even New York.

This began happening shortly after the law was passed. The law makes it illegal to be in the United States and requires all Arizona police officers to request legal status of those they come in contact with due to some other legal contact, such as speeding or a traffic accident, when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person may be an illegal invader.

This is similar to what happened in the 1950's when President Eisenhower ordered that all illegal invaders be rounded up and put on trains with a destination deep into Mexico making it very difficult to get enough money to return to the border, let alone cross it. When that was put in place and started to be implemented, the illegal invaders left on their own rather than be shipped to the deepest part of Mexico.

The Arizona law isn't as tough as the policy implemented in the 50's. Arizona will be required to get in touch with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for processing the illegals to ship them back home. Once this law goes into effect, we'll then have to see what ICE does as they have threatened to not enforce the law. It should also be stated that the Federal law regarding illegal invaders is much more stringent than Arizona's soon to be law. But the Federal Government hasn't enforced it. In addition our Federal law isn't anywhere near as stringent as Mexican law if you or I were to just visit there, let alone go there without permission and break their laws.

While the Arizona law will greatly enhance Arizonan's safety and security, the unfortunate aspect of this is that to avoid being caught, the illegal invaders are leaving for other states for the most part. They are doing it before the law is enforceable. In a strange way, this is abit confusing. An illegal invaders first act upon entering this country is to violate our laws. Yet, they are now leaving to avoid being caught violating a new law in one state.

On the other hand, California is now going to get a good portion of those illegal invaders. This is somewhat fitting because some California cities, most notably San Francisco and Los Angeles are boycotting Arizona for passing this law. Now they'll get a good portion of the illegal invaders.

I wonder how long before California decides that they must find a way to get them out of California. After all, the children of these illegal invaders will be enrolled in California schools. More state tax money spent on the increased number of children. These illegal invaders will be using hospitals that must take them, again, requiring more money from the taxpayers. How long before California, now in the top three as far as budget shortfall and unemployment rate, will have to come up with a similar to law to get them out of California?

Arizona is to be congratulated on their success with their new law that does not even begin until July 29. Attorney General Eric Holder better hurry up and read the law and sue the state before the rest of the states must follow Arizona's lead to save their economies, and citizens from harm.

If the illegal invaders return the same way they came, maybe they can pick up the garbage on the way back that they left on their way here.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Politicians Injecting Themselves into Sports

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm along with Representative John Dingel and Senator Debbie Stabenow have interjected themselves into the sports world.

Unless you were just born in the past two days, you've likely seen, heard and read about the perfect game that was pitched by the Detroit Tigers pitcher, Armando Galarraga on Wednesday. With two outs in the ninth inning, facing the last batter the umpire called the runner safe when it's clear to even blind men that he was out by a step. This is not even in dispute any longer , not even by the umpire that made the errant call.

There are three parts to this story. Politics, sports and government controlled business politics. So if you don't like to read, this may be a good time to close out this blog post. It's bound to be fairly long.

I'll start with sports since this is what led to the creation of government interference. I have been a baseball fan since I was about 10 years old. Not just the performance but the records, the rarity of events, and the uniqueness of the game itself.

Baseball is a game where if you're a hitter, success is defined by failing 7 out of 10 times. It's the only game where one of the defensive players plays outside the lines of play (in other words, out of bounds). It's also the only game where causing the ball to land in the stands is rewarded. It's the only game where the coaches dress in players uniforms.

Early on in baseball, gambling was rampant. Baseball put a stop to it by appointing a commissioner who said that if you gambled on the game, you would be banned. If you know of players that are gambling and don't say something, you will be banned. The commissioner's position is that of protecting the integrity of the game. Keeping it pure from corruption both illegal corruption and the game itself being corrupted.

You can argue that they have failed in the past. Sure, they banned the 1919 Chicago White Sox for gambling and created the name Black Sox Scandal. That caused the Commissioners position to be created. Players that gambled were banned from baseball. But in the 60's and 70's and even the 80's they had problems with substance abuse. First alcohol, then drugs. Players were suspended, fined but not banned. In the 80's and 90's and even to today, the main concern is performance enhancing drugs. From my point of view, this remains a problem.

As for the game itself, we could argue all day about the Designated Hitter Rule and we'd both have good arguments on it. The same thing with how the All-Star players are selected.

But when it comes to the actual playing there are some things that are rarities. For instance, nobody has hit over .400 since Ted Williams in 40's. That's failing 6 out of 10 times. The Home Run record was 714 in a career and it was accomplished by a fat man that didn't look anything like an athlete, in Babe Ruth. That was finally broken by Hank Aaron. Babe also held the record for Home Runs in a season at 60 until 1961 when Roger Maris hit 61. But the Commissioner put an asterisk next to the record because Maris hit his in a 162 game season where Ruth hit his in a 154 game season.

There are statistics on everything in baseball. Highest batting average. Oldest player to win the batting title. Youngest to win the batting title. Most consecutive games a player has gotten a hit. Most errors committed at each position and most errorless games played at each position. Who hits best with two strikes on him and who hits into the most double plays.

Pitching also has its' uniqueness to it. A man stands above everyone else on a mound and throws a ball between 90 and 100 mph at a guy holding a stick 60 feet six inches away. You would think that the odds were in his favor and you'd be right. Remember, a successful hitter fails 7 out of 10 times. But one of the most difficult things for a pitcher to do is pitch a complete game and not allow any hits. What's even more difficult for a pitcher is to pitch a complete game, and have his teammates not commit an error and for him not to give up a walk to even one batter. That means the pitcher faces 27 batters in a game and only 27 batters and gets each one of them out by either striking them out or them hitting the ball to one of his teammates and they get him out. Just to give you an idea, to date, there have been 266 no hitters since 1875. 21 of those have been perfect games, meaning 27 batters up, 27 batters out and there were only two years that two of them were done in the same year. The first time was 1880 and the second time it was this year. The first time it was done, they both took place in JUne about a week apart. The second time was this year, both in May. This would have been the first time that three were done in the same year and all three would have taken place in one months time. Another record for the books.

One thing that seems to happen in every no-hitter, is that at some point during the game a player makes a great play that preserves the no hitter for the pitcher. It's one thing to throw a no-hitter, but you must have help from your teammates and there seems to always be at least one great play, or something lucky that keeps the no-hitter going.

On Wednesday, Armando Galarraga pitched for the Tigers against Cleveland. Each batter he faced failed to reach base. At one point, a ball was hit off of his foot and went straight to the third baseman who threw the runner out. There's the luck that happens.

In the ninth inning, the first batter hit the ball deep to left centerfield and the centerfield ran after it and made a great over the shoulder catch. There's the great play. The final batter is the one we've all seen. Called safe despite getting there a step after the ball for the 27th out. But the umpire called him safe.

As far as I'm concerned, Galarraga pitched a perfect game. Hopefully, this long dissertation helps you understand, if you don't pay attention to baseball, how difficult, rare and special this game was for this pitcher.

The umpire admitted that he blew it. He even said "I ruined that kids perfect game". In the two days since that game, I have not heard one person on radio, tv or in person say that the runner had beaten it out for a hit. Even GM gave Galarraga a brand new car for his perfect game.

There is only one way to overturn an umpire's ruling. The Commissioner of Baseball could do it. Bud Selig is the Commissioner and he has decided against overturning the umpire. If he did, it wouldn't affect the outcome of the game. The only things it would affect is the batter would not be credited with a hit. The following batter would not be credited with an at bat, and Galarraga would be given credit for the perfect game, which he did pitch.

Now the politicians. Today, Governor Granholm declared that Galarraga pitched a perfect game. Senator Stabenow and Representative Dingel are saying that they will introduce resolutions saying that he pitched a perfect game. To top it off, yesterday, Robert Gibbs said during his press briefing that he hopes the Commissioner will overturn it. When he was informed that Selig had just decided not to overturn it, Gibbs quipped that he'd have to see that an executive order was created to get it done.

Their hope is that the Governors proclaimation and the Congresspeoples resolutions would entice the Commissioner to overturn the umpire's call. This is meant to apply pressure to the Commissioner.

This is not governments place. First of all, Major League Baseball is a private business. It's not a government run business. This seems to be a lot of arrogance on the government's part to not just think but force a private business to do something based on their beliefs even if against the private businesses opinion and rules. Do we really want government applying pressure to business for governments benefit?

I believe that Commissioner Selig should award Galarraga the perfect game. Whether he does or not, I will always see it as a perfect game. But, if government applies pressure and then baseball follows through, what will the government apply pressure to next and in what business? They've already taken over General Motors. Again, not the governments place to take over a private business. While I may agree with the Governor, the Representative and the Senator that this was a perfect game, it's wrong for government to proclaim it and force baseball, by either proclaimation or embarrassing them into it to decide for it.

The next time Government wants private business to do something, and issues a proclaimation, resolution or executive order, what's to stop them?

Lastly, there is GM. They gave a car to Galarraga for his gem. If they do this for perfect games all of the time, that's fine. I have n0 problem with someone being rewarded for something they've done well and in baseball, this is perfection. But there's a line here. GM is now owned by the citizens of the United States. Is it proper for a government run company to be giving away cars that are now owned by the American people?

I don't care if Galarraga is paid a couple of million dollars a year. He excelled in his profession and if someone wants to reward him for it, I'm all for it. But, it's not the governments place to use taxpayer money to reward anyone. Since GM is owned by the taxpayer, I fall on the side of not awarding him a car. Now if it was Ford or Toyota, a private company, that rewarded him with a new car, that would be proper.

What makes baseball the perfect game to me is the imperfection of the human element and still players overcome the odds and perform. The imperfections of an intricate game is what makes baseball what it's been. Armando Galarraga should and is holding his head high for his achievement. He pitched a perfect game. He doesn't or shouldn't need government to tell him. It would be great to be recognized by Baseball for his achievement, but deep down, what really matters is that he knows it and he knows the rest of the world knows that he pitched a perfect game. If you really want to be technical, he pitched more than a perfect game. In a game where 27 outs are needed in 27 at bats, Galarraga got 28 batters out in 28 at bats. Another record. Government interference is not needed, nor is it their place.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Can Obama Avoid the "Obama's Katrina" Title?

Since the explosion in the Gulf of Mexico on the oil rig which killed 11 of the workers, much has been said about the lack of activity by the White House in the region.

It took ten days for the administration to get down there for even a visit. Since then, Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano and Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar claim they have been there four times. Everyone speaking on this topic in the White House and the liberal media have claimed that the White House has been engaged since "day one". They haven't said it in a roundabout way, they have said exactly "day one".

It is looking as though the leak may be stopped today. However, yesterday, alot happened. James Carville, a Democrat activist and his wife, Mary Matalin rode with Governor Bobby Jindahl and returned extremely upset. They were saying that the government has not been doing it's job. Carville has actually been saying it for a couple of days. The part that caught my eye was that they all said, to a man, that while they were out in their boat looking at the damage from the oil in the marshlands was that they all said that they didn't see any boats. None. Where is the clean up? Where is the work being done to protect the shoreline?

Now granted, there is nothing that Obama, Napolitano nor Salazar can do to stop the leak. Their presence actually just interferes with the work that needs to be done. They also are not going to get their hands dirty by doing actual cleanup work. But there are things that could have been done.

First, there is the leak. It is right that BP continue to work to close the leak. They are the experts and have the know-how or at least the best ideas on how to close the leak. It's also right that BP work to clean up the oil that has already spewed out and spread across the gulf. If they don't get directly involved, they should be having someone on sight to see what's being done because they are going to have to pay for it.

Obama cannot be blamed for the leak. He didn't cause the explosion. However, he does have a role to play. In fact, he's required by law to play a role. It's his responsibility to act on this disaster that affects the citizens of this country. Yes, it does have an effect on the American people. There are the businesses that are affected by this. American businesses. Then there is oil itself. The oil from the gulf helps keep us from depending on foriegn oil in even larger quantities.

So what should have Obama done? First of all, from the minute that he first learned of the explosion, the first question is "was anyone hurt?" The second question is, "what is the damage?".

There are only two reasons to delay a response. First, if he found out late at night, he should wait until morning and see what's progressing with the coast guard. His first responsibility was to get information from the coast guard on the status of the situation. Upon learning that oil is spewing he should have appointed someone to go to the area for onsight management. That person should be giving updates periodically, at least once per day, although likely more the first couple of days. He should also have been in touch with the Governors of Texas, Lousiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida and asking them for their ideas on how to protect their shorelines. In other words, how can the Federal government assist the states?

Once it was known that the problem was going to be an ongoing problem for awhile, he needed to get the government assets at the ready. They did start getting the booms out there to protect the area, but as early as one week following the blast, Governor Jindahl asked for approval for different things needed. They have gone unanswered even to this day. Some are being studied. In other words, tied up in bureacracy.

Obama should then have gone to the gulf, seen for himself the devastation approaching and remember, they could see the oil coming. He could then have been the hero by looking at it, listening to the governors and then prioritizing the response. He could have stood up and said "I'm waiving the approval process. We need to get this done to protect our shores." Remember, he's the President. They are his shores as much as they are Jindahls and the people of Louisiana.

He could easily have stood up with his appointee and said "so and so is my eyes and ears and he's been directed to oversee the events taking place here and to keep me informed on a daily basis."

He could have gathered the top people in their field of oil drilling in deep water and had them all put their minds together to find a way to stop the leak or capture the oil or both. Even if he'd said he was appointing someone to sit in on all strategy session for stopping the leak, it would have at least kept him abreast of what was going on.

Would this process have plugged the leak faster? We'll never know. Could there have been other mistakes made and dragged it out longer than today? Maybe, but we'll never know. One thing we do know for certain is that he'd have displayed leadership and actually been involved even if not with his own two hands.

He should have also had someone appointed to oversee the cleanup of the oil that had already leaked out and was headed for the shorelines.

There is one more thing he could have done that would have shown real leadership. He should not have pointed the finger at BP. Stating the obvious is ridiculous and did nothing to solve the problem at hand. It's also premature. What don't they know? They don't know, even today, if this is all BP's fault. In fact, I'm willing to bet that it's not just based on the information that has been gathered thus far.

While Obama and every Democrat that's spoken on the subject has pointed fingers at BP, they have not come up with any ideas or done any work. It's as if they want this oil to reach the shores, damage the eco system to great extent and then use that to vilify BP Oil.

The only thing he's accomplished is to have it brought out earlier that he was the biggest recipient of donations from the oil companies including BP. This is just like Goldman Sachs. Once it was decided to blame them and prosecute them, it was revealed that he was the biggest recipient of donations from Goldman Sachs.

Now we know that there was shoddy work done on the oil rig by BP, but we also know that some of it was gotten away with because the government oversight didn't do the proper inspections. Apparently, they have been spending too much time surfing porn on the internet and not doing their job with their government inspections that may have prevented this disaster.

Obama should call for an immediate investigation into BP Oil, the government oversight agencies that gave the permits without the inspections, and the companies that are involved with BP Oil on this. Yes, that include Haliburton and transocean.

The only government person that has stood up and offered solutions or possible solutions is Bobby Jindahl. He did the job correctly and was only stopped by the Federal Government in his ideas.

Obama had at his disposal the wherewithall to work on this. He's a "community organizer". Why didn't he apply his "organizational" skills to set up a way to manage this?

Even if it didn't work, he'd have at least been hands on with an idea and an attempt. People can respect someone who does something, even if there are mistakes made. But they don't tolerate sitting on your hands and doing nothing other than pointing your finger at others.

Obama has failed. Anything he does now, is too little too late. This is not Obama's Katrina. This is much worse than Katrina was. Sure, the loss of life is way less than the hurricane, but the damage done to the shores that could have been lessened, if not stopped, is worse than anything that Katrina was. Obama was elected to be a leader. Not to be the little boy who said "it wasn't me, it was them."

BP Oil needs to be held accountable for their part in this disaster. But then so do the inspectors that didn't do their job. So does anyone else that didn't do their job in this matter. We're looking at years of lawsuits and legal actions between BP, Haliburton, Transocean, the states affected and the federal government. Not to mention the environmentalists that will get involved and of course, the families of the 11 dead workers on the rig.

Obama is starting to remind me of Midas. Everything he touches turns to disaster. The environment, the borders, the terrorist attacks, the treatment of the Prime Minister of Israel, the economy, health care. How can this man talk about Cap and Trade with a straight face?

Just a little bit of leadership would have been good. At every turn, Obama proves that he is incapable of leading. But he's great at pointing fingers. He's even pointing his finger at Bush, blaming him for this. Senator Christopher Dodd blamed Bush on Don Imus' program.

Remember the old poster of Uncle Sam pointing his finger saying "I want you"? Now it's Obama pointing the finger saying "I blame you".

You're welcome to comment.

Brett