The Answer is: Obama is THAT bad!

The first Presidential Debate took place last Wednesday. Leading up the debate the question most often asked in the media was ‘does Romney need to have a knockout punch to have a chance to compete with Obama for this years election?’

The pundits got so bad that they started comparing previous campaigns and that only three challengers had ever won the first debate and then gone on to win the election. But everything was on Romney to do excellent, but even if he did, Obama probably wouldn’t be beaten.

It’s now five days later. Romney didn’t just beat Obama, he annihilated him in the debate. But the Obama group has made excuses. First, they didn’t say that Romney had won. Then as it became apparent that the rest of the nation (with the possible exception of Geraldo Rivera who was surprised that everyone said it was one-sided for Romney where he thought Romney barely beat Obama) knew that Obama looked incompetent during the debate, they started blaming people. First, Romney lied on everything he said; then they tried to float the idea that he’d cheated by bringing illegal notes to the debate; then Obama hasn’t debated in four years; then, in Al Gores case, it was the altitude in Denver; and today they are blaming Senator John Kerry who was the Romney stand in for Obama’s debate practices, saying that he wasn’t as aggressive as Romney turned out to be.

Not one politician. Not one pundit. Not one commentator, has said that the reason might possibly be that this country is in trouble and that Obama’s policies the past four years have failed.

Here’s a quick review:

1.     Obama and the Democrats along with just three Republicans (one of which was Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania who subsequently changed to the Democrat Party) passed the stimulus package one month after Obama took office.

A.    The stimulus sent money to Obama donors like Solyndra (bankruptcy).

B.    It also sent money oversees (how does that stimulate our economy).

C.    They said unemployment wouldn’t reach 8%. It hit 10.2% before starting to drop and it stayed above 8% for over 43 months.

D.    The deficit has surpassed $1 Trillion per year.

E.    The debt has gone to $16 Trillion in the past three years from the $7 Trillion when he took office.

2.     Cash for Clunkers: This cost the American Taxpayer $24,000 per car.

3.     Takeover of the Health Care Sytem, which was the best in the world. 70% of the people in this country still don’t want that plan. Not one Republican voted for it and due to Scott Brown’s election to the Senate, the Democrats had to pass it under special rules and games or it would have failed.

4.     Terrorist attack in Arkansas. One serviceman dead, another wounded.

5.     Terrorist attack at Ft. Hood. Now being called work place violence rather than a terrorist attack.

6.     Border patrol agent shot and killed by guns supplied to drug cartels by the US government under a program called Fast and Furious.

7.     A terrorist attack in Libya blamed on a video that nobody had seen and now known that it wasn’t just an uprising but it was a planned attack that the administration knew of before it happened and refused to give protection. The Ambassador was killed. An Act of War.

We’ll probably never hear from the press that the reason that Obama lost the debate was because there is no way to defend his incompetence of the past three plus years, but it sure seems to me that that’s the reason for the one sidedness of the debate.

Romney was not my first pick to be the Republican nominee. In fact, he wasn’t even my fifth pick. I don’t like him. But it could have been anyone up  there against Obama and they’d have won because Obama’s record is one of incompetence. Just about every decision he’s made has been wrong. Now they are wrong in blaming everyone but where the true blame lies with Obama’s loss in the debate. Obama lost it because he’s been wrong about nearly everything he’s done and said for the past four years. How do you defend that record in a debate? Romney didn’t have to be good. Obama is that bad.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

WAR!!! ho hum

I sit in disbelief at our so-called leaders and those that want to lead. One day before the attack on the United States Embassy in Libya where the American Ambassador was killed, Governor Mitt Romney said that the United States is safer today than it’s been.

Is he not aware of how porous our borders are? Does he have no clue about how terrorists can and probably are slipping in here across the southern borders?

I have not said anything about Romney other than that I don’t consider him Conservative. I know that he likes to claim to be, but so did Senator McCain four years ago.

Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry. He’s for abortion running for Governor, but he’s against abortion now. He’s for government health care as Governor, but says he’ll repeal it on the national level. But then again, he’s now saying there are parts he’d like to keep. There are other issues he’s gone back and forth on, but we all know them. He is what is convenient for the office he’s running.

The only saving grace for Romney is that he’s running against possibly the worst President in American History. Romney could grow into the job. There were many questions about Ronald Reagan when he was running against Jimmy Carter and he turned out to be the standard bearer for Conservatives and possibly the best President of the 20^th Century. Romney may turn out that way after moving into the White House.

President Obama, on the other hand, seems to show no interest in protecting American interests. Following the Ambassador being killed, his first comment was about how the US doesn’t condone videos mocking other religions. Killing an Ambassador of the United States by the country he’s serving in, is an act of war! The Presidents job is to show outrage at the host country. Obama’s response was more like “I’m sorry some idiot in our country dissed your religion, but can you help us bring the murderer to justice?”

A good President would be in touch with the Libyan Government, get the facts as they state them,  and then tell them we’ll be investigating to see if this was government sanctioned and if so, there would be serious ramifications shortly.

But what else should we expect from this President who went on the apology tour to start his Presidency, removed our troops from Iraq and set a deadline for removal of our troops from Afghanistan before the job is done?

At the DNC convention, they left out Jerusalem being the Capitol of Israel, and didn’t mention God in their platform. When called on it, they held a vote three times to get the outcome they wanted and then forced the outcome they wanted when it’s clear they didn’t have the 2/3 majority they needed to correct the platform. One week later, Obama refuses a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nentanyahu.

Also at the DNC convention, behind Senator John Kerry, they showed naval warships. After all, Kerry served in Vietnam. But the naval warships they posted pictures of were of the Russian navy.

We have no leadership in Washington and we seem to only be getting half leadership if and when Romney is elected.

George W. Bush was elected in 2000 and took office in January 2001. He had a plan to get the two sides of the aisle to at least work together even if begrudgingly. He had plans for the economy and strengthening our military. But he was forced to change his plans less than 8 months later when we were attacked on September 11, 2001. It took him less than 30 days to answer that attack by starting the bombing of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.

In contrast, the previous President did next to nothing. Following the attack on the Khobal Towers and other attacks, he bomed and killed a janitor. He did bomb Iraq for four or five days during impeachment, but did nothing following the attack on the USS Cole.

We can only wonder what a President Romney would do had this happened on his watch and unfortunately, we can only wonder which criminal court Obama will try to have the murderer of our Ambassador tried in.

The only thing Obama has accomplished is to see the demonstrations spread in the middle east. Now it’s Yemen. What country over there is going to be next to attack our embassy?

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Fistful of Make My Day

The Republican National Convention is now complete. The final three speakers of the night were Clint Eastwood, Senator Marco Rubio and Republican Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.


Marco Rubio has proven himself to the country to be a terrific speaker and thinker the past two years as the nation has gotten to know more and more about him. He didn’t disappoint again last night.

Mitt Romney has been somewhat of a dichotomy (at least to me) the past few years. But he gave a very good speech last night and showed that he is more of what he was described as by those speakers preceding the final three, than many of us ever knew him to be.

But, Clint Eastwood seems to be one of the big stories today. Eastwood has been a movie star for all of my life. From the character Rowdy Yates on Rawhide, to the cowboy with the flat brimmed hat and the cigar in his mouth, to Dirty Harry and his best known line of “make my day”. Eastwood is now 82 years old.

His one foray into politics was for two years as Mayor of Carmel-by-the –Sea, California, and was appointed by Governor Gray Davis to oversee the parks and recreation department. He’s a registered Republican but has supported some liberal causes as well as liberal candidates in addition to Republicans and Conservatives.

Last winter, he narrated an ad for Chrysler during the Super Bowl saying it was halftime in America. That was February 2012. Six months later, he spoke at the Republican National Convention. A lighthearted talk, a bit comedic but in typical Eastwood style with a straightforward, short message.

Many thought it was a message indicating that the bailout was a success of President Barack Obama and encouraged by the Obama Administration. People were up in arms, if they were Republican or Conservative, but Democrats and liberals were happy with it.

Below is a story that appeared in the LA Times on February 8, 2012. It’s more of an editorial than a “report”. I put a couple of cuts from the story below the url.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 8, 2012

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-eastwood-rove-20120207,0,4416240.story

Apparently the bulb-headed Pillsbury Doughboy of the political right thinks he’s man enough to pick a fight with America’s most virile octogenarian. Go ahead, Karl, make his day.

Then again, anyone who picks a fight with Clint Eastwood can't be that smart.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Anyone that picks a fight with Clint Eastwood can’t be that smart.” If you believe that Clint Eastwood is the various characters from his movies, then I’d have to agree with that statement. But then, Eastwood is an actor. He says lines written by others in his movies.

Eastwood is an advocate for staying healthy. He is a non-smoker. Yet he smokes those cigars in some of his movies. Do we really believe he rides around in a pick up truck with a monkey that punches the bikers when Eastwood says “right turn Clyde” as he does in the movie “Every which way but loose”?

But now Eastwood is at the Republican National Convention. He ad libbed his remarks last night. Some light comedy on his part when talking to an empty chair representing Obama.

How did the same LA Times feel about it? We do have to say feel because once again, it’s opinion and not reporting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-critics-notebook-republican-national-convention-20120831,0,7934066.story

By Mary McNamara, Los Angeles Times

August 31, 2012,

After six years, Mitt Romney is finally the Republican presidential nominee, but the man everyone's talking about is Clint Eastwood — who has apparently lost his mind.

Rambling so often that it appeared at least twice we had lost him, Eastwood studded his remarks with asides to an empty chair. "What? What do you want me to tell Romney? I can't tell him to do that," he said at one point. "He can't do that to himself."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we have the same paper, saying on one hand “Anyone that picks a fight with Clint Eastwood can’t be that smart.” Then saying on the other hand, “Clint Eastwood — who has apparently lost his mind.”

Eastwood, in his usual style, whether it’s because of how he is or has it written for him did say something between the comedy he gave. “I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we
-- we own this country. We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not
politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours. And -- so -- they are just going to come around and beg for votes every few years. It is the same old deal. But I just
think it is important that you realize , that you're the best in the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether you're libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go.”

When it comes to the LA Times, or Karl Rove or anyone else complaining about Eastwood’s performance in an ad, or an ad lib, one side is going to like, the other isn’t, but there is a line from yet another Clint Eastwood movie that seems to fit. It comes from “The Gauntlet.” The line is “Nag, nag, nag.”

You’re welcome to comment.



Brett

Arrogant Barry and the band of Court Jesters

I have been trying to think of an appropriate title for the current occupant of the White House and his co-horts he’s placed throughout government agencies. I thought of “Barry and his Merry Miscreants”. “King Obama and his court jesters”. I even considered “Massa O and his Overseers”. That one I sort of dismissed because liberals already call anyone racist that dares to question Obama, let alone out and out disagree with him. But it really may be appropriate in some ways.

In the last week, we’ve seen Obama and his minions play both sides of the fence when it comes to the law in United States of America. Here’s a quick review:

Monday, the Supreme Court declares the Arizona law constitutional regarding stopping motorists and if found to be suspected of being in this country illegally, they would be detained and turned over to ICE. Within minutes the Secretary of Homeland Security announces that they will not do anything about any calls coming from Arizona. The Supreme Court, the final arbiter in the land, has spoken but the Obama Administration doesn’t like it, so they won’t follow the law.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court declares that Obamacare is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause, but that it is constitutional using the taxing authority. Obama comes out within hours and says that the “Supreme Court (the final arbiter in the land) has spoken” and the debate regarding health care doesn’t need to be continually argued about.

So apparently, on Monday the Supreme Court spoke and nobody was listening, but on Thursday, the Supreme Court spoke and the White House decided to pay attention. Maybe the Mama’s and Papa’s had it right. “Monday, Monday, can’t trust that day”.

There was another event that took place on Thursday. The United States House of Representatives voted to hold Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress. Within minutes, the U. S. Attorney, Ronald Machen, said they would not pursue the charges. Does Ronald Machen sound familiar? I’ll remind you in a minute if you don’t remember.

The House of Representatives is a group of elected officials. Elected by the PEOPLE from all around this country. The Attorney General is not elected. He’s appointed by the President. It’s not an elected office but rather a seat that is entrusted with enforcing the laws of the land. The laws come from the elected officials who were put in place by the PEOPLE. Could it be bad law? Yes, Congress is not above making mistakes, but it is the law and it’s to be followed. However, when the appointed Attorney General only selectively enforces laws, as in Arizona, as in Washington, then the laws really mean nothing.

This isn’t the first time this attorney general has refused to enforce laws. Shortly after taking his seat in 2009, he refused to prosecute those that were impeding the PEOPLE’s ability to vote. I’m sure it’s not because it was blacks impeding the whites from voting against the black man running for office, nor because the attorney general is also a black man (he said sarcastically).

More recently, there was the discovered National Security leaks. The FBI is investigating but the Attorney General appointed two U.S. Attorneys to head an independent investigation. One of those U.S. Attorneys is Ronald Mechan. Remember him? I mentioned him above as the one that refused to act on enforcing the law when it came to enforcing it against his own boss. In the business world, there is something similar when you favor relatives over other employees that might be more qualified. It’s called nepotism. Or when you hire someone over another due to their ethnicity rather than their ability. It’s called Affirmative Action. But I’m sliding into other topics for another time.

Can we really trust a guy, Ronald Mechan, to make good decisions when he won’t follow the law when it comes to his boss? He is now showing that he doesn’t apply the law fairly and equally. So when the leak investigation is completed, how can we trust the results? We already know that the leak came from inside the White House. Should we expect the White House receptionist or maybe the tour guide or a janitor, will be implicated to protect someone more powerful?

In addition to Holder being held in contempt, the President has invoked Executive Privilege. For a man who said repeatedly that he would have transparency I can only wonder what could he be hiding that we don’t have a clue about yet.

So we know that those in this administration don’t have any regard for the elected law makers, which means he has no regard for the people because they chose these law makers. They don’t have any regard for the law if it doesn’t suit them at the moment. They don’t have any regard for the truth. They don’t have any regard for their employees. After all, a federal employee was murdered and the weapon found at the murder scene was found to be provided by the White House to the drug cartels. But then, this was JUST a border patrol agent and we already know how this President feels about securing the borders. It occurs to me that if the border patrol agent had been a black man, would Obama and Holder think it’s just another black man that died and they die every day or would they actually do something about the border wars because the drug cartels or illegal aliens have dared to kill a black man.

Ok, I went far afield here (partially on purpose). What it boils down to is that this administration is incompetent, corrupt, and has turned out to be even a bigger failure than was stated to be hoped for back in 2009. Obama has no interest in the laws, nor the people. He is only interested in himself and his own self preservation. Arrogance doesn’t begin to describe this guy nor his little group of henchmen.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Tyranny Beat Freedom...Today

I tend to shy away from those that think only doom and gloom when it comes to the future of this country. This country was started because of tyranny from a foreign leader. In the days since, we’ve had great times, great people and great events that led this country to greater heights. It all started with the Revolution. Declaring independence from a country an ocean away, which in those days was much more than a six hour plane ride.

The crown passed tax after tax. The most well known was the tea tax. Not only did the king tax the tea, but he also banned any other tea than what was shipped by England. When the colonists in Boston dressed as Indians and dumped the tea into the Boston Harbor and refused to drink the Kings tea, the king then bottled up the city and cut it off from the rest of the colonies. This was the coercive or intolerable acts passed following the tea party in Boston. The year of the tea party was 1773.

It is now 2012. 239 years later, another leader is telling us that we must buy health insurance or pay a penalty. They claimed it wasn’t a tax when talking to the American people, but when talking to the Supreme Court, they claimed it was a tax. In other words, the reason for the health care plan is based on a lie. You decide who was lied to. You, or the Supreme Court. The truth has been sacrificed for a leaders personal agenda.

For 239 years we have celebrated sacrifice in this country. From a man sacrificing a meal that his wife and children might eat. A woman standing between her family and a wild animal. Soldiers sacrificing their lives for the freedoms of this country and his fellow countrymen.

How many times have we heard of a soldier that has rushed into a hail of gunfire to rescue another soldier that was trapped or even injured? How many times have we heard of police or firemen rushing into danger to remove citizens from that danger? Sometimes sacrificing their lives that a loved one might live or even that a stranger might live.

Remember the Alamo. Over 180 men held off 3,000 soldiers of Santa Anna’s for 13 days buying Sam Houston the time needed to train and prepare his men for the bigger battle to defeat Santa Anna.  Those men gave their lives for what they believed in. By contrast, todays leaders are cowards and liars. 


Obama claimed this wasn't a tax, but then said it was. He said you could keep your insurance, but failed to mention that companies will cut their expenses by dropping the coverage and paying the fines each year. And on and on. 

Now we have a government that is looking to control the people of this country. The immigration question was decided on Monday and immediately, Obama directed his departments not to enforce the laws. Just ignore it. They won’t go after illegal aliens and if Arizona officials find them and report in to the Federal Government, they will not get satisfaction.

Health care has been upheld. Not the mandate based on the Commerce Clause but rather because the government has the power to tax and this health care plan is a monstrous tax increase.

The Boston Tea Party led to the American Revolution to eject tyranny from our shores. Here we are 239 years later and we’re faced with tyranny again. There are at this time two ways to fight this tyranny. Another revolution or at the ballot box. But ejecting Obama from office in the election will not be enough. If Democrats are left with 41 or more seats in the Senate, repealing Obamacare will be nearly impossible.

There are 23 seats currently held by Democrats in the Senate that are up for election. Connecticut, Hawaii, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Virginia and Wisconsin all have Democrats retiring or not running for re-election.

California, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia are all held by Democrats that are running for re-election.

Remember how Obamacare passed. Not one Republican voted for it. It was all Democrats. But Senator Ted Kennedy died and in the election for the replacement for that seat, Scott Brown said he’d be the 41^st vote against it. So instead of bringing the reconciliation worked out between the House and Senate to the floor, the Democrats knew they’d lose and instead decided to vote on the House plan without any changes. This simple little process, which is not the way the Congress is run, allowed the Senate to choose the House plan meaning a simple majority rather than the normal 60 votes needed under normal circumstances.

Rather than working with the Republicans and coming up with a compromise, as they claim they always want to do, they bypassed the Republicans and voted for Obamacare.

Should the Republicans take the House and the Senate (with the supermajority) and the White House, there are disadvantages. The Republicans can then do as they wish despite the wishes of the people. The last time this happened, the Republicans abused it and spent more and more money, proving that they were no more responsible than Democrats. It will be important for the people to hold their elected officials feet to the fire should the Republicans take both houses and the White House.

It is past time for the people of this country to start making sure that their elected officials do as they say and not get away with lying to the American people. If we can’t have that sort of revolution, we are in danger of the other kind of revolution as the years go by.

The American government fails at every business it attempts to operate. There is no reason to believe that they can manage health care any better than they handled the steel industry during the first world war.

If we don’t stop this at the ballot box, we will all be the subjects of the government rather than the government being servants to the people.

Today, tyranny has won the battle over freedom. We cannot afford to wait for 5 or 10 years for people to figure out that this is an impossible plan. We need to bring back freedom in this election, with a loud and sure voice.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Your Vote Means More Than Our Laws

The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) is an American legislative proposal first introduced in the Senate on August 1, 2001, by  Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch. It has not passed. It didn’t pass when the Democrats had the House and Senate and it’s been sitting ever since.

President Obama, in an election year, has now decided to implement parts of the Dream Act. It doesn’t matter that the bodies of Government required to pass laws aren’t passing it. King Barry is doing it himself.

Children that are in this country illegally will now be, in effect, given amnesty. Now, these children came here illegally by the actions of their parents. Their parents broke the law by coming here improperly. They brought their children. These children that are now here illegally by no doing of their own, are being allowed to stay.

The Obama administration is not going to enforce the current laws of this land when it comes to these children. I am not saying that these children of illegal immigrants should pay the price for their parents transgressions. However, they should be deported. Sent back to their homeland and if they want to be here, do so in the legal way. By the way, these “children” can be as much as 30 years old. At my age of 55, yes, they are children to me. But they are adults. They just weren’t responsible for the crime they committed by coming to this country illegally.

We have a process in this country. Congress writes the laws, and either passes them or doesn’t. If they pass a law, it then goes to the President for his signature or veto. This gives time for debate in each House of Congress, and allows for the Executive Branch (President) to weigh in on it with either his signature or a veto. But he’s not the final say. The final say belongs to Congress. If the President veto’s a bill, Congress can override the veto. This is another form of check and balance which is supposed to serve the people that have entrusted these elected officials with the power to decide these things for us.

What Obama has done with this action is to remove Congress and the law from this debate. He has chosen which laws to enforce and which ones not to enforce. It doesn’t matter if every single person in this country doesn’t want this. He’s thumbing his nose at every American by saying “you’re wrong, Congress is wrong and my way is the right way, so this law will not be enforced.” Isn’t that aiding and abetting a criminal? Isn’t that a violation of law?

Suppose I decided that my ex-wife should no longer have my children with her. So I keep my children and when the authorities come to arrest me for keeping my children away from her as the law states, I can say that I disagree with the law so they have no right to arrest me and she has no right to complain about me so I don’t let them arrest me.

Obama likes to say that the economy is doing so poorly (right after he says the private sector is doing fine) because the Republicans will not pass the law he wants. There are two sides to this debate. The House has passed 33 laws for a so-called jobs bill that the Senate Democrats have voted against with the blessing of Obama. Shouldn’t we now be claiming that the President and Democrats are the cause of the economies woes because they refuse to pass the House plans? What makes Obama’s ideas the correct ones? He’s already proven he’s failed with the economy following the Stimulus failure and who can forget the “cash for clunkers” debacle?

This is all about the election. Obama is in serious trouble in his re-election bid. So in recent weeks, he’s solidified the gay vote by coming out in favor of gay marriage and now he’s trying to secure the hispanic vote by stopping deportation of illegals.

In the past week, his justice department has been after the State of Florida for purging illegal voters from their rolls. In other words, dropping illegal voters so they can’t vote illegally. Do you liberals understand that? There are thousands in Florida that have no privilege to vote, no right to vote, and Obama’s administration is trying to stop the State of Florida from running a fair and honest election.

He’s got the hispanic vote already, so what has he gained other than to ignore the law of the land? He’s already got the gay vote so what has he gained by “evolving” into saying he believes in gay marriage?

But combining two of these, here’s what he has accomplished. Florida has a large hispanic vote. If he stops deporting (following the law) illegals in Florida, there is a chance that some of those illegals will fall through the cracks and vote for him and not be caught and have their vote thrown out. Those that are caught will claim voter suppression and blame the Republicans.

What everyone (conservatives and liberals) should be seeing is that there is a man that occupies the White House that is willing violate his oath of supporting the Constitution, and “possibly”(?) violate the law for his vote.

There is another possibility. If these "kids" are already working, will the administration then be able to say that the unemployment rate has dropped? 

Obama is not concerned about all Americans, he's concerned only about his re-election and to do that he has to divide the people into groups. Hmm, that almost sounds like a bias or another term for racist. Ok, well not "almost". It is. 

Voting for him is more important than the laws of the land.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Blame Bush. Can it Work?

This election is turning into Barack Obama vs. George W. Bush. But then, so did the last Presidential election. There is just one problem with this. George W. Bush and Barack Obama never faced each other in an election. Details, details. Obama is still running against Bush, and Bush is still not on the ballot.

Last week I posted the unemployment rates from the beginning of the Bush years through May of this year. I tried to show how the Bush years had full employment for the most part and for a couple of years, it was more than full employment. The purpose was to show that job creation cannot be compared by the numbers because if there is full employment, how do you hire still more?

Unfortunately, I forgot to point out something else about those years. The unemployment rate began to increase in 2007. In addition the economic growth rate began to decrease in 2007. Something else happened in 2007. In the election of 2006, the Democrats won both the House and the Senate and were sworn in in early January 2007.

So how does this relate to Obama blaming Bush? Well, the House and the Senate is not the only election in 2006. All House seats are up every two years and a third of the Senate is up every two years. But there are also state offices that are elected in the midterm elections. Michigan’s seat for Governor is one of those.

Prior to 2002, the Governor of Michigan was limited to three terms in office. In 2002 that changed to two four year terms. The Governor in Michigan prior to 2002 was John Engler, a Republican. He was finishing his third term. Taxes were lower, unemployment in the state was at 3%. Granholm ran and won her first term as Governor in 2002.

In 2006, she ran for a second term. Unemployment was soaring. Michigan had the highest unemployment rate in the country and it wasn’t showing any indication of stopping from going up. The state had begun to fall apart during Granholm’s four years. Her opponent in that election was Richard DeVos, the rich businessman best known as being the son of one of the two founders of Amway and very successful in his own right in business.

Granholm claimed that the states maladies had been caused by Engler and she had “inherited” his mess and she was still cleaning it up but that she needed four more years to finish the job. She didn’t run against DeVos, she ran against Engler. Engler’s years were successful and the state was thriving but she, and the willing press, claimed that it was falling apart because of her predecessor. In a state that is for the most part a liberal state, it was an easy sell. She was the bashed on female against the evil male millionaire who was more of the same of John Engler.

Granholm never faced Engler directly in an election. But she ran against him in the first election, even though the real opponent was Dick Posthumous the Lt. Governor. In 2006, she ran against Engler, even though her real opponent was Dick DeVos. This tactic gave Granholm four more years. What did she do with that four years? She increased the unemployment rate still higher. Michigan was falling apart.

Sound familiar? Barack Obama is running against Bush, who has never been the opposition on the ballot against Obama. Obama’s words? “I inherited a mess.”

Do not take blaming Bush lightly. Michigan is a perfect example why we should not take this tactic lightly however ridiculous it sounds. With Obama’s record the past three years, even Democrats should have been begging for Obama to be challenged in primaries. A serious challenge, not some convicted felon in Texas running in the West Virginia primary. Instead, Obama is running virtually unchallenged in his own party, so he sits back and claims it’s Bush’s fault for all of the problems in this country.

Each time I hear that Obama inherited the problems created by Bush, I think it’s silly that anyone would even consider this as viable. Yet,  it’s repeated by the press and the constant repetition has made it sound as though it’s a given.

Can blaming Bush work? The 2006 re-election of Jennifer Granholm in Michigan says it can work. 

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

False Praise Doesn't Bring Excellence

Please read the following two paragraphs in quotes:

“You are not special. You are not exceptional,” "Yes, you've been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble-wrapped," . “Yes, capable adults with other things to do have held you, kissed you, fed you, wiped your mouth, wiped your bottom, trained you, taught you, tutored you, coached you, listened to you, counseled you, encouraged you, consoled you and encouraged you again. You've been nudged, cajoled, wheedled and implored. You've been feted and fawned over and called sweetie pie. ... But do not get the idea you're anything special. Because you're not."


 "Think about this: even if you're one in a million, on a planet of 6.8 billion that means there are nearly 7,000 people just like you."
 A 'B' is the new 'C.' Midlevel courses are the new advanced placement."

Finally!! Someone that says it like it is, albeit rather bluntly. The quotes above are from a speech that a teacher gave to students at their graduation. The teacher is David McCullough Jr. His father is better known for his historical books he's authored.

I have three children. They are special to me. They aren't favored over their cousins by their cousins parents, nor are they favored over their cousins by their grandparents. I know that my parents think their children are special to them. They don't favor my brothers or my sister over me and they don't favor me over my brothers and sister. I would think that in this day and age of broken marriages and remarriages that step children would be speical to step parents, at least I hope they are. But beyond that, children are not any more special to any one as they are to the parents and possibly step parents of those children.

Teachers, government authorities (including those charged with protecting endangered children from harm), neighbors, relatives and friends will never consider children special over their own children.

Yet for the past twenty years, lip service has been paid to them. "Do it for the children". They don't necessarily care for the unnamed children. They care more for their agenda and use the children to achieve that agenda. I'm not saying that they purposely use the children and I'm not saying that they all don't care. So please don't fall into the trap of lumping everyone under one umbrella. There are the those that will go out of their way for children even though those children aren't their own. But there is always a limit.

This is also not to say that children shouldn't be encouraged. But not false encouragement. One of the old lines that's been used, especially when the "self esteem of the children" was the hot topic, was that if little Johnny said in school that 2+2=5, he was to be praised for trying and not told he's wrong out of fear that it would destroy his self esteem and he'd become a homeless bum destined to walk to the streets and sleep under bridges. There's just a little problem with that. Little Johnny may remember that he got it right when he said 5 as his answer, and then one day uses a calculator and finds that it says the answer is really 4. Does he then swear up and down that he's got a defective calculator? Does he then decide that a school teacher that should have been helping him learn, has actually lied to him? Does he then question whether anything he was told was the truth in those 13 years of school?

When he starts working and his employer wants something done in a certain way, and he does it wrong, does the employer now have to provide therapy for little Johnny after he's told he's doing his job wrong? What if the employer actually fires little Johnny? Not many employers are going to worry about a persons self esteem when his business is going under because little Johnny has never learned disappointment nor been corrected when he's been wrong.

When kids are very young and play sports for the first time, many of these organizations tell the parents and coaches that they aren't going to keep score. But guess what. The children do keep score!

I used to coach my kids in baseball. Both my son and my daughters. Parents were told by the league that they could not yell negative things at the players during the game. Even yelling out after a kid dropped a popup that he or she should keep their eye on the ball, was considered wrong and the parents would be ejected and banned for the next game. But, as the coach, I could say it to them. At one point, my son was playing second base and turned around late to tell the outfield how many outs there were, as he was supposed to do. But he did it late. While his back was turned, the pitcher pitched and the batter hit a line drive towards my son. It whistled right past his face as he was turning to face the batter. I don't know who was more scared. Him or me. Luckily, it missed him.

I immediately yelled at him to keep his eyes front. I yelled it quickly and loudly and with some fear and anger in my voice. One of the parents came over to me and said that I shouldn't do that because everyone heard it and it only embarrasses my son.

Suppose I did what that parent suggested and kept my mouth shut and let it go so as not to embarrass him again. He'd never know he made a mistake. If he didn't have the mistake corrected the next line drive might break his jaw, cheek or knock some teeth out.

Suppose it was that parents child and I said nothing and it happened again to their child and because I didn't correct that child when it happened the next time and they were seriously hurt, would the parent be so willing to tell me not to say anything so as not to embarrass their child again?

Kids should be encouraged to improve in whatever they choose to do, but to tell them they are doing great at anything when what they are actually doing is poor, only makes them be satisfied with less than adequate results in anything they do.

This teacher is one that had it exactly right. If you strive for excellence and don't achieve that excellence to begin with, you won't reach excellence because you have nothing to improve on when adequate is completely acceptable.

Children are special to their parents. They have special talents but they are not talented at everything. If those talents are not found because we're so busy praising them but not correcting the mistakes they make, we get constant mediocrity rather than occasional excellence.

I like to use baseball as the example with this. Take a look at the batting averages of the professional ballplayers. Someone hitting .300 is considered a very good hitter. But .300 for an average means that you're only successful three out of ten times. It's one of the few times that failing seven out of ten times is an acceptable outcome. Every 20 or 30 years we get a player that flirts with a .400 average and it becomes the headline near the end of the season. Everyone is watching to see if he can actually accomplish that great of a task. Even if he does, he's still failed six out of ten times and he'll get in the record books.

But baseball is a game. Imagine if you build cars for a living and seven out of every ten cars you build have the doors falling off as the new owner is pulling out of the dealership. How long do you think you'll keep your job?

To berate children isn't right, but to heap false praise on them or even praising them but not helping them to improve when there is room for improvement is not doing them any good at all. Mediocrity should not be praised. Giving a trophy to a team that hasn't won a game because the other teams got a trophy keeps that trophy from being a reward for excellence.

David McCollough Jr. has it right and I wish there were more teachers like him out there.

What did the kids say in reaction to his speech? Well, this is something that I believe the children should be praised for.

"For once someone told us what we need to hear and not necessarily what we wanted to hear," 
"Undoing all 'they've' done in on 10-minute speech. My faith in the world may have been restored," 

The kids seem to understand what was meant by this teacher. It's too bad that some adults don't get it.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Walker Didn't Survive, He WON!

The Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker (R), just won his second election in 18 months for the same job. He didn't survive the recall vote, as the news media is reporting. He beat his opponent by 7 points! That's not hanging on, or surviving. That's winning!

Walker first won election to the office in the 2010 election. He immediately set out to fix Wisconsin's deficit and other fiscal problems. In the process of doing this he made the unions mad by eliminating collective bargaining. So the unions set out to start a recall of the election of 2010.

The unions pumped in a ton of money from out of state as well as in state. One of the things that was eliminated was the unions ability to take the dues automatically from their membership. Now, the union members had a choice of whether or not to pay their union dues on their own. Tens of thousands did not pay their dues.

The media however, only talked about the millions pumped into Wisconsin by Republicans for Walker. They did not talk about the money from unions and Democrats.

There was another piece of news that came out yesterday. Michigan spent years at the bottom of the list in economic news. From 2002 until 2011, Michigan ran the highest unemployment rate, the slowest growth in the economy under Governor Jennifer Granholm (D). But in 2010 Rick Snyder (R) was elected governor of Michigan.

After spending 9 years falling to the bottom and reaching the bottom and staying at the bottom, it's taken less than two years and Michigan is now in sixth place in economic growth in the country!

You can draw your own conclusions about these two stories.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

What Creates Jobs?

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
2002	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	5.8	5.8	5.8	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	6.0
2003	5.8	5.9	5.9	6.0	6.1	6.3	6.2	6.1	6.1	6.0	5.8	5.7
2004	5.7	5.6	5.8	5.6	5.6	5.6	5.5	5.4	5.4	5.5	5.4	5.4
2005	5.3	5.4	5.2	5.2	5.1	5.0	5.0	4.9	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.9
2006	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4
2007	4.6	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4	4.6	4.7	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.7	5.0
2008	5.0	4.9	5.1	5.0	5.4	5.6	5.8	6.1	6.1	6.5	6.8	7.3
2009	7.8	8.3	8.7	8.9	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.8	10.0	9.9	9.9
2010	9.7	9.8	9.8	9.9	9.6	9.4	9.5	9.6	9.5	9.5	9.8	9.4
2011	9.1	9.0	8.9	9.0	9.0	9.1	9.1	9.1	9.0	8.9	8.7	8.5
2012	8.3	8.3	8.2	8.1	8.2

Don't you just love charts? Listening to the candidates about who creates more jobs, Obama or Romney, made me curious about some details we've always been told. Obama likes to say that he's created 4 million jobs and calls former President Bush a job killer, or that Bush created very few jobs in his eight years. 

Bush had eight years in office. During his first four years, his average rate of job creation was 0.51%. In his second term, his average rate of job creation was -0.84%. 

By comparison, Obama has been in office for just over 3 years. His average rate of job creation through 2011 (2 years) is 0.75%. 

If we stop there, the Obama team would be correct. They are creating more jobs. Bear with me a minute. I have a couple more numbers to throw at you and then I'll explain my thoughts. 

Since we can't fairly compare month to month, especially since Obama doesn't have the same amount of time as Bush had, we can only average out the figures. Each of the figures in the chart above are monthly unemployment rates. 

The average unemployment rate during the Bush years was 5.23%. 

The average unemployment rate during the Obama years was 9.15%. 

I have a few points to make on this and I apologize if you're not a statistical person. 

1. What effect does the change in tax rate have on unemployment? The tax cuts actually took place during the following year, and it does take some time for it to work it's way through the system to see the benefits or detriments of the change in tax rates. 

The average unemployment during 2002 was 5.3%. But in 2003, the average was 5.99%. Just using that, it would look like the tax cuts had a short term benefit to unemployment, if you want to consider six tenths of a percent as a detriment. However, there was another tax cut in 2003, which took effect in 2004. At the end of 2004, the average unemployment rate was 5.07%. If we use the same standard as above about it taking two years, then in 2005 the average unemployment rate was 5.08%. Virtually no change. But then look at 2006 and 2007. 4.22% and 4.61% respectively. 

2. What effect does spending have on unemployment? In 2009, Obama took office. In February of that year, one day following Presidents Day, Obama signed the stimulus bill. The average unemployment rate that year was 9.27%. 

However, I gave Bush a second year for the tax cuts to work their way through the system so let's do the same for Obama, after all, I don't want to be called a racist for not being fair to both. The average unemployment rate in 2010 was 9.62%. That's a four tenths of a percent increase. 

3. Which increases revenue to the government?  During the Bush years, following the tax cuts, the federal government brought in record amounts of income from taxes. During the Obama years, the revenues to the federal government have DECREASED. 

There is another comparison that is pretty important here. During the Bush years, he had a Republican House and Senate. During the Obama years, he had a Democrat House and Senate. 

With all Republicans, the tax rates were decreased, the revenue increased, and the unemployment decreased. With all Democrats, the revenue decreased, and spending exploded. 

This is not the first time this has happened. During the Reagan years, taxes came down, unemployment dropped and revenues to the government set record highs. 

This is what Democrats don't seem to understand. When the people have money, they spend it and they save it. When they save it, more investment is made. When they spend it, more businesses earn more money, allowing them to hire more people, invest more money and draw investments in their businesses. As the people make more money, they pay more in taxes even when they are paying a lower rate. Imagine if we lowed the business tax rate. Businesses would be able to hire more, they'd pay more in taxes because their businesses would be growing. 

Tax cuts don't need to be paid for but spending does need to be paid for. 

4. So why the difference in job creation? First of all, 5% -5.5% unemployment is considered full employment. I'm going to use just 5% to make it easy. 

Let's assume that we have a pool of 1 million people able to work. As mentioned earlier, the average unemployment rate during the Bush years was 5.23%. This means that of those 1 million people available to work, 52,300 aren't working. Obama has an average unemployment rate of 9.15% which means there are 91,500 workers unemployed and available to work. 

If each of those two Presidents were to find jobs for 10% of their unemployment pool, Obama would gain 9,150 jobs to his credit, but Bush, who gets the same percentage of 10% would only gain 5,230 jobs. 

By virtue of the fact that Obama has more workers available to create jobs for, it's simple math that he SHOULD be able to have higher numbers in job creation. 

Make no mistake, I'm not forgetting that many workers have been unemployed for so long that their unemployment has run out and they aren't counted in the unemployment rate now. I also understand that this wasn't a problem during the Bush years. After all, during just 2006 and 2007 the average unemployment rate was 4.42%. Bush just didn't have the pool of workers to draw from and the nation was not in the throes of a recession. 

Liberals will claim that Bush left a mess and Obama's numbers are actually caused by Bush, but if we were to look at economic growth (which is another topic for a later date), that argument falls by the wayside. 

What they won't tell you is that Bush warned us twice, with the last time being in 2005, that if we didn't rein in our spending, we'd end up with a huge economic mess and those problems would continue for years. Yet, the spending continued, and that includes Bush and the Republican Congress along with the Democrats. During the Bush years, the Republicans actually spent more than the Democrats ever spent. Unfortunately, since Obama was elected, the Democrats have regained that record and continue to add to it. 

It's not low tax rates that is the problem. It's the constant spending that is the problem. 

You're welcome to comment. 

Brett

Mitt (John Kerry) Romney

Apparently, former Governor Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee to run against President Barack Obama for President. He was not my first choice. In fact, there were many ahead of him as far as I was concerned. I'd have gladly accepted Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and even Rick Santorum before Romney.

I'd pretty much decided prior to the primary here in Michigan that it was a toss up between Gingrich, Bachmann and Cain. But then Bachmann dropped out I'd decided a couple of weeks before the primary that I'd be voting for Cain. But then he dropped out. So Gingrich got my vote. Romney only beat out John Huntsman and Ron Paul for me.

I am now supporting Romney and will vote for him in the fall. Romney is not a Conservative. He's actually the Republican version of John Kerry from 2004's election in that he was for something before he was against it. Gun Control, abortion, Government health care. Had Romney and Kerry been running against each other in 2004, we would not be able to tell the difference between the two. They even look somewhat alike.

So should I give up and just sit out this election? Nope. Not me. If we sit this election out we could get Obama for another four years. If anything is worse than getting Romney, it would be four more years of Obama.

I don't believe that Romney will repeal health care. He can't. He's not going to be in the Congress. He can only sign what the Congress sends. So if we want to get rid of Obamacare, we must have a Republican Senate.

Romney could be considered a great President, but not of his doing. Only if we have a Republican Senate and House so that Romney can sign what they send. Ideally, the Senate and House would be controlled by the Tea Party members. Spending would be cut. Romney will sign it. Obamacare would be repealed (If the Supreme Court hasn't already shut it down in June). Taxes would not be raised

I have no doubt that Romney will be good for the economy. I do have alot of doubts about his social policies. He seems willing to go along to get along, which is why I believe it's very important to get a Republican Senate which is at the very least, influenced by the Tea Party if not controlled by the Tea Party.

Even a failed businessman would be better than a man that has never had any business experience and Romney has not been a failed businessman.
Romney is not a Conservative, unless we stand him next to Obama. Except for the die hard Democrats, the one person that is probably thrilled to have Obama as President is former President Jimmy Carter. Obama makes even Carter look like a smart man.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Which Politician To Trust

This was a perfect week for showing the veracity of the two men running for President of the United States. It's scary to say the least, but we've always known that politicians aren't honest.

The week started with Vice President Joe Biden saying in an interview one Sunday with Meet the Press' David Gregory, that he supports gay marriage. For the rest of the day and on Monday the story was how Joe Biden had committed another gaffe by giving a belief without the White Houses permission. He'd gone off the rail.

However, the press actually asked spokesmen Jay Carney about President Obama's position on gay marriage and if he'd finally landed on a decision. The answer was that Obama was "evolving" on the issue. Evolving?

Do they really expect us to believe that he's not made up his mind before this? Apparently, his evolution completed within hours because it was announced that he does support gay marriage. So he's not evolving any longer. During those few hours after being questioned about it, it was speculated that he wasn't coming out with his view until after the election when it wouldn't matter what his belief was because people wouldn't be able to vote for or against him on that particular issue.

Within hours of Obama coming out, the question then was asked in the press if Mitt Romney's position on gay marriage would hurt him in the election. He hadn't been hemming and hawing on the topic. It's one thing that we do know about Romney. He is not in favor of gay marriage. For all of Romney's double positions on various issues over the years (was he evolving?), this is one issue he actually actually has a consistent position. But the press didn't ask if Obama's position would hurt him in the election, nor even help him, it was just whether or not Romney's position would hurt him.

I cannot remember the press asking what the American people thought other than to say that it's split 50/50. Well, before I get to Romney's veracity, let's look at what the people think.

We have 50 states in this country (I'm sorry for stating the obvious, but thought I should since Obama has confused the less informed that we have 57 states). There have been 6 states that have approved same sex marriage. However, not one of them was decided by the people. They were all decided in various legislatures or courts. There have been 30 states that voted to ban same sex marriage the most recent being North Carolina on Tuesday (which happened the same day Obama decided he was for it). The people chose to ban it. Even in California. There are more states with it on the ballot this fall.

According to the Williams Institute at UCLA 3.5% of the population is gay. We're having this discussion over 3.5% of the population!! Unemployment is officially at 8.1%. More than twice as many people affected than the gay marriage issue. The real unemployment rate (those that have dropped off the unemployment rolls because theirs ran out) is better than 16%. More than 5 times the people affected than the gay marriage issue.

The reason for this discussion is there are 1,100 federal benefits to marriage. In other words, the gay marriage crowd wants benefits from the federal government that they can't get because they aren't married in the traditional way of marriage.

But what of Romney's ability to be honest? A story came out that in 1965 Romney and four others had pinned down a kid at school and cut his hair possibly because he was gay. This was at Cranbrook Institute where Romney attended school in Michigan. When Romney was asked about this incident, he admitted he pulled pranks in high school, but couldn't remember this particular incident. Some of the others involved have claimed that this burdened their minds since it happened. But Romney doesn't remember.

I was listening to someone recently who talked about this and she said "if you did something like this, it would be memorable." I have to agree. If Romney did this once, I would think he would remember. If he did it more than once, I'd have to think that repetitive actions would be memorable as well. In other words, I don't believe Romney doesn't remember this. He may not remember the kids name or the day that it happened, but I don't believe that he can't remember doing this.

What I find interesting about this story, other than I believe Romney is lying about his memory, is that the story was held by the Washington Post. What were they waiting for? It's been stated that they held on to the story for a week. They chose this day to release it. One day after Obama decided to let the world know he's in favor of same sex marriage. In addition, this coming out put on the back burner another thing that Obama said when talking about the gay marriage issue. He also talked about the military personnel that are gay and serving. He didn't say they were serving their country. He said the military were serving him. 

Here's the quote: "When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” said Obama.


But this was put aside quickly because Romney acted a bully....47 years ago....as a high school student.

Let's see, how mature are high school students? In 1965, 18 year old kids couldn't vote. They couldn't buy alcohol or drink. Now that did change a few years later. 18  year olds were given the ability to vote and they did lower the drinking age to 18, but that was changed back to age 21.

18 year olds are still teenagers. Still immature. Still...well, evolving (although I prefer the term "maturing"). Emotions are still running wild at times. Even the body hasn't fully developed at age 18. Many will go off to college and have their wild drinking parties, chase men or women (and 3.5% of will chase the same gender as they are). Their only real responsibility is to attend school but now without parental supervision, but still having supervision.

So we have two men that seem incapable of being honest. Surprise, surprise.

You're welcome to comment. Encouraged even.

Brett

Prove Who I am? Are you nuts!!??!!

There has been an ongoing issue about vote fraud. It comes in many ways. It can be dead people voting. It can be people saying they are someone that they aren't but not proving it. It can be an illegal alien going to vote because they have a home address. It can be someone claiming that they are a celebrity when they aren't. Even cartoon characters have been registered to vote in different places.

More and more states are creating voter id laws. In short, they require you to prove that you are who you say you by showing a valid id such as a drivers license with your picture on it.

The Democrats are claiming that this is Republicans trying to suppress the vote. This may surprise you, but they are actually correct in this assertion. Allow me to explain. If you are a citizen of this country, whether born here or moved here and became a legal citizen, age 18 or older, you are eligible to vote in our elections. There are a few ways you can lose that eligibility to vote, but otherwise, you're not stopped from voting.

The votes that the ID laws suppress are the illegal votes. An illegal alien is not eligible to vote. A 10 year old is not eligible to vote. So yes, the ID laws being passed are to suppress votes. Illegal votes!

One of the Democrats that is against the voter ID laws, is none other than the Attorney General of the United States. His name is Eric Holder. He is the one that is charged with upholding the laws of this country.

Recently, a man showed up in Washington DC to vote. He had no ID, but it didn't matter because it wasn't a requirement in Washington DC to prove you are who you say you are. This man claimed to be Eric Holder. He was about to be processed through to vote when he said he should get his identification to prove who he is, but it was out in the car. The worker said it wasn't necessary, that he gave his name and address and it matched their records, so he could vote and not prove with an ID who he was. The man insisted and finally the worker agreed. The man said he'd be back with his ID faster than the worker could say "furious" referencing the fast and furious scandal regarding gun running by the government to the Mexican cartels.

Here's the problem. Eric Holder, the attorney general, who's name and address that the man gave as his name, is black. The impersonator is white.

The man that did this, was part of the group from James O'Keefe, who is the same man that did the videos exposing the ACORN group awhile back.

This should cause the liberals a real problem. By their own words, the man should have been permitted to vote despite him not being who he said he was. They'll naturally claim it was a setup because it was done by the O'Keefe group and brought to light on Britebarts site. But, regardless of who did it, and their reasons for doing it, this person should have been permitted to vote and have it count. Well, he would have been permitted to vote. He tried to help the election worker catch him at voter fraud, but the worker wouldn't bite at the help.

This same group (the O'Keefe group) are responsible for the new voter ID law in New Hampshire when they exposed that dead people had voted in a recent election. They also went to Minnesota and were going to vote at Tom Brady, the New England Patriots quarterback. Minnesota is now putting the voter ID law on the ballot to change their Constitution.

I wonder if Eric Holder minds that someone tried to use his name to vote. Had anyone checked the ballots following the election would they have found that Eric Holder had voted twice? Would they even care?

I also wonder if Eric Holder will still say voter ID laws aren't necessary after finding out that someone was impersonating him to cast their ballot...or his ballot.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Judicial Activism or Check and Balance?

President Obama, on the campaign trail, said that if the court strikes down the health care law, it would be what Republicans have railed against the past several years. Judicial Activism. The decision is due to be announced in June after the recent hearings.

Obama said "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," I think there are  a couple of things to look at in that quote. First, is the "Strong Majority of a democratically elected Congress".

We should remember that Congress. Let's start with the House. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker. It was March of 2010. Remember them walking into the Capitol with the throng of protestors that many of the Democrats passed through as though to throw their upcoming vote in the protestors faces? Remember the so-called spitting incident?

Remember Bart Stupak, who was the leader of a group of congressmen that were withholding their vote because they didn't want government funded abortions paid for by the bill? They got their promise of an executive order (not binding at all) before they would agree to vote for it. This put them over the top in getting it passed. Remember also that in the House there was only one Republican that voted for the bill. Representative Cao from Louisiana.

But a bill doesn't become law just from a House vote. The Senate must also vote on the bill. If they don't pass it exactly as the House passed it, it must go back to the House for another vote. To pass the House version, the Senate only needs a simple majority, or 51 votes. But if they make changes to it, they must have 60 votes to pass it before it goes back to the House.

Prior to the bill coming up, Senator Ted Kennedy died. A special election was held. A man by the name of Scott Brown ran on the Republican side and his campaign slogan was that he would be the 41st vote to stop the health care bill. Brown was elected to fill that seat in Massachussets. The health care law appeared dead.

But the Democrats got together. They decided they wanted the law passed more than to listen to the people that were in the majority against it and to negate Scott Brown. There was just one way to do that. Pass the House bill as is. Even if they disagreed with parts of it, they could "fix it later". That is exactly what they chose to do. They got their health care bill, despite many thinking it flawed. The law passed with trickery on the Democrats part because they didn't have a strong enough majority in congress.

Another thing to remember was the deals that needed to be made to get this bill passed. Money given to certain states to obtain their vote. The "Louisiana Purchase" for Mary Landrieux's vote."Cornhusker Kickback" for Ben Nelson's vote. Money given to Connecticut for Senator Dodd's vote.

Obama is playing word games and fast and loose with the facts. He's right in a way. The Congress did have a strong majority of Democrats. The House only needs a simple majority to pass a bill and they had a majority in the House. The Senate needed 60 Democrats and at times they had their 60 vote majority when Senator Arlen Specter switched parties. However, he did not have a strong majority of the Congress. He eked out a victory on health care.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the law, he's calling it "unprecedented" and "judicial activism". He may be right on this. However, the health care law is unprecedented. It just may be that an unprecedented action is needed to offset another unprecedented action. The takeover of the health care system is unprecedented. The judicial branch is an equal branch of government created to be a check and balance on the executive and legislative branches. When one branch does something unprecedented, would you not expect another branch to react in the same manner at times?

I'm not much on Science. I tell my kids that I can't be much help to them with Science because about the only thing I get right with Science is the spelling of it. There is one thing that I've learned though and it's physics (science) and pretty basic. For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Congress set a precedent. Why shouldn't the Judicial Branch set a precedent if needed?

Obama has already taken on the Supreme Court once in a State of the Union speech which led to Justice Samuel Alito mouthing out "that's not true" on camera to Obama's words. I believe this too, was unprecedented. Not just for a justice to be caught mouthing disagreement but also for a President to attempt to dress down a Supreme Court in the State of the Union speech.

This case has worked its' way through the system. It's been upheld and shot down and even called Unconstitutional by one judge. It has earned it's place at the Supreme Court where it will be judged. To try to change the facts about how the law came to be and to make excuses for how it failing, if it fails, before it fails, seems more like he's trying to influence the outcome.

You're welcome to comment.


Brett