Obama Digging the Ditch Deeper

One of President Obama's seemingly favorite lines is that the Republicans, or President Bush, drove us into the ditch and now they want the keys back.

The truth is that if we're in a ditch, regardless of how we got there, the ditch is deeper under Obama than when he first got into the car. In Michigan we get deep snow at times. When you get stuck, you're not supposed to gun the car because all you do is dig yourself a little deeper making it harder to get out. You're spinning your wheels.

Obama has done exactly that. He's been spinning his wheels and digging us in deeper. Unfortunately, he's using our money to spin his wheels. I'm one that doesn't believe that his policies and stimulating programs caused us to avoid a depression. The only thing stimulating to his stimulus package was the money sent to Africa to teach them now to clean up after intimate relations with their partners, and that stimulation wasn't for the United States, it was for the guy getting soaped up.

In fact, I believe that the growth we've had, slow as it has been, is due to the free market system we live in. Obama's policies have only held that growth down but the free market is strong and still managed to improve the economy, albeit slowly.

In recent days, we've heard Obama say that there is no such thing as "shovel ready jobs", yet that's what he was advertising when pushing the stimulus plan a year and a half ago.

Today the National Debt Figures came out. Since Obama took office, the National Debt has increased by $3.039 Trillion Dollars. Does that seem like a lot to you? Well, I looked it up. Since Obama likes to blame the Bush administration, I thought a comparison might be in order.

On the day that George Bush was inaugurated, the National Debt was $5.727 Trillion Dollars. On the day that he left office, the National Debt was $10.626 Trillion Dollars. The debt grew by $4.899 Trillion dollars in the eight years Bush was in office. Compare this to the $3.039 Trillion Dollars in 18 months under Obama. From January 20, 2001 to October 19, 2002, the exact same time frame between Bush and Obama's time in office, the debt grew by $522 Billion dollars. Obama has raised the debt 5 times more than Bush has in the same time frame!

This made me wonder about between the time Bush took office and the Democrats took office in 2007. In those six years from the time Bush took office leading up to when the Democrats took over Congress, the debt was raised by $2.951 Trillion Dollars. Compare that to the two years that the Democrats controlled Congress. They raised the debt by $1.95 Trillion Dollars in those two years. In two years time the Democrats controlled Congress before Bush left office, they more than doubled what it took Bush to do over the previous 6 years!

Average that out and during Bush's first six years, the debt increase averaged $491 Billion dollar per year increase. In the first two years of the Democrat control of Congress, the average annual increase in the debt was $975 Billion Dollars. Average Obama's increase in the debt over the past 18 months and his average increase to the debt is $2.026 Trillion Dollars!

The Obama administration spent $787 Billion dollars on the stimulus package. This doesn't even include the "Cash for Clunkers" program. They now claim that if they extend the Bush tax cuts to the rich, it will cost us $700 Billion over the next ten years. What Obama spent in 18 months, will take ten years to spend by extending the tax cuts to the rich, if you accept their argument that tax cuts cost money. By extending those tax cuts, the economy will grow. There is no argument there. They only say we can't afford it. The $787 Billion that they spent on the stimulus didn't work. This was supposed to keep unemployment no higher than 8%. It's now hovering at 10% and it's been the longest period (14 months) of unemployment above 9% since the 1930's.

As I've said before, tax cuts don't cost money. They generate revenue for the Federal Government. The problem is that when the Feds get money, they spend it. They don't cut spending, they increase spending to higher figures and even higher than the increase they get in revenues.

It's hard to believe that they call the Tea Party extremists. The Tea Party is calling for spending to be reined in. They are calling for lower taxes not more taxes. History supports their positions. History does not support the Democrats positions.

While the debt growth under Bush and the Republicans was not something to be proud of, when it's compared to Obama and the Democrats time, it's the difference between buying a clunker and a cadillac.

This information released today on the debt shows that it's not Bush that drove us into the ditch. In fact, we plowed into that ditch and Obama not only kept us there but buried us in deeper. While the free market has tried to improve the economy, Obama and the Democrats have done everything they can to turn that ditch into a deep canal.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

National Debt January 20, 2001 $5.727 Trillion Dollars

January 2, 2007 $8.678 Trillion Dollars +$2.951 Trillion

January 20, 2009 $10.628 Trillion Dollars +$1.95 Trillion

October 19, 2010 $ 13.665 Trillion Dollars + $ 3.037 Trillion

Racist, Incompetent Obama on the Run

There are many advantages to long drives that I take. I get to think about different things as well as hear different stories and viewpoints and of course, remember the recent past.

Coming up on the mid term elections, it's easy to get bogged down with all of the different ideas, worries and anticipation of things to come as well as to wonder what will happen with new things coming.

In the last 18 months, Obama and the Democrats have owned the government. At first, they didn't have a filibuster proof majority, but with the likes of Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe from Maine as well as Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania, he may as well have had the filibuster proof majority. In February, with the help of the three Republicans mentioned, they passed the stimulus package that nobody read. Shortly after, Specter switched to the Democrat party and gave them their filibuster proof majority until January of 2010.

Still, even with the super majority, they couldn't get the health care bill passed. At least not matched up with the House. But then, Scott Brown won in Massachussets of all places. So the Democrats in the House had to resort to passing the Senate bill, which they didn't want, to get it passed because Brown would have voted against it, killing the health care bill. So despite the American people being against this health care bill, it passed and the President signed it.

A recurring comment about the stimulus bill is that it saved us from going into the second great depression. There is no proof of this. In fact, it's pretty well established even by many liberals that the stimulus failed. This means that the free market system, despite the hindrance of this administration worked. The free market system, or what was left of it, worked enough to move the economy forward while the Democrats claim it was them that saved us from a second depression.

Slowly, we're learning about all of the new taxes in the health care bill. Rates are going up rather than coming down as promised. Doctors are announcing that they won't stay in business once the health care bill is in full effect.

In the past two weeks another lawyer from the Justice Department has testified that this administration has made it a policy to not go after minorities that commit fraud within the election process. This administration is the one that dropped the ball with respect to the New Black Panther party members that were standing outside of the polling area with billy clubs. One was sentenced to not being at a polling place for two years. Just in time for the next Presidential election. That's sort of like saying to a kid who screws up at basketball practice on Monday and you ground him until the next Sunday...just in time for next Monday's practice.

Of course, we really don't need to be reminded that this administration has filed suit against a state (Arizona) for daring to pass a law that will give them the responsibility of reining in illegal invaders, saying that it's the feds responsibility despite the feds not doing their job.

On top of all of that, Obama is out telling "black folks" that they must come out and vote to keep his agenda going. When was the last time you heard anyone tell "white folks" to vote. What do you think would be the story line if someone did say that?

People are excited about the upcoming election because of the promise to repeal the health care bill. There were two so-called experts I heard on my drive. One said that 97 House seats were in play and 92 of them were Democrat incumbents. The other said that 86 seats were in play and 80 of them are currently held by Democrats. If either of these were off by even 10%, this will be very close to breaking the record for changeovers set back in the 30's.

So, what happens when the elections are over and many of these tea party backed candidates get into office and they don't follow the party line of doing things as they've always been done? This could be another two year battle for the next election where the tea party grows even more and the tea parties continue leading up to the 2012 election.

It's really beginning to look like the next two years are going to be even louder than the past two. The good news is that Obama won't be able to run roughshod over the Republicans like he's done this past 18 months. The biggest question to be answered in the next two weeks is will the Senate go to the Republicans.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

South Fulton Tennessee: Shame and Embarrasment

In South Fulton, Tennessee a man burning trash in a burn barrel had the grass catch fire. He grabbed his garden hose and tried to put the fire out in the grass but it got the better of him and spread. An hour later, it had spread to the house and the house started burning.

When the owner couldn't get control of the fire in the yard, he called the fire department. The fire department wouldn't respond. It's not because they couldn't respond. They WOULD NOT respond. Their reason was that the owner hadn't paid his $75.00 fee for the year.

The fire spread even more beyond the man's house to a field of his neighbors caught fire. Luckily for the neighbor, they had paid the annual fee of $75.00. So the fire department responded to that call. They put out the neighbors fire, but then watched as the first house burned down. They didn't just leave. They watched!

When asked, the Mayor of South Fulton said that they had to draw the line somewhere and decided that this was where they would draw that line.

What you may not know is that this is not the first time that this has happened. It happened several years ago, in the same city..or rural area.

Why wasn't the fee paid? The husband said he'd just forgotten about it. The wife said they just hadn't paid it yet. My question is, who cares? There was a simple solution. Put the fire out and then bill for the expense of doing so. Fight it out in the courts if you must, but you don't allow someone's house to burn down for any reason.

We have a long history in this country of neighbors helping neighbors. That help came in many forms. It could be a food basket for someone that is having a tough time financially. The better known is probably the barn raising. A man needed a barn and the neighbors would come over and put a barn up. The next guy that needed a barn would get the same help and it would spread.

I've read several of the stories written about this and watched the news report on the local television station. Each of them said that the firefighters weren't to blame because they were following the orders of the Mayor and the City Manager. I disagree with this. If a firefighter is there, the right thing for him to do is to help put the fire out despite the orders from "on high". At some point, morals have to come into play. Anyone that was there and didn't help or at least try to help to put the fire out was guilty.

The reports also say that the community is upset about the entire affair. But they were also upset a few years ago when it happened before, yet nothing was changed.

I'm beginning to think that we should get used to this. The health care plan recently passed will leave us with rationed care. Money was spent to create and save jobs, but you can't count how many jobs are saved and it certainly didn't create any jobs.

This event was on the local level and involved a fire. We are in for more stories like this if we don't change things and change them soon. This is a government, albeit local, that decided that this couples house had a worth of $75.00. Due to that $75.00 not being paid, they refused to put out a house fire. Suppose someone had been trapped inside. Would the fire department still in effect say "best of luck to you" instead of responding with a human life at stake? Are they really going to put a worth of a human life at $75.00? The answer is likely to be yes. After all, they didn't show up because of the lack of a small payment. Why would a human life cause unfeeling government officials to show up? I didn't see nor hear that question being asked of the Mayor or anyone else. Even if the question was asked, could we trust their answer?

I think we couldn't. In Bay City, Michigan last year, a man died from the cold because his electricity was shut off. So why should we expect South Fulton to do any different if a human life was at risk?

I hope that the people of South Fulton remove the Mayor from office. I hope they remove the City Manager from office. I hope that they replace the fire departments firefighters. Then, if they do, they need to change that law that was put in place in 1990.

Every person that was at that fire is guilty of inaction. They might as well have brought hot dogs and had a weinie roast for all the good they did standing around watching.

I certainly hope that the American people can see that government at all levels must be held accountable for their actions and inactions. This family was wrong for not paying their bill. But that is no excuse for allowing a home to burn to the ground, leaving this couple homeless.

In the military, a soldier must follow orders. However, if an order is illegal, the soldier is obligated to not follow those orders. The fire department, the fire fighters, all are obligated to not follow the orders that they were given.

I'd much rather defend myself against insubordination if I were a firefighter knowing that I helped save someone's home, than have to face this couple after my having not even lifted a finger when I could have. Even if these firefighters had not succeeded in saving the couples home, every attempt should have been made. It is not just their job, it's their responsibility. There is no excuse for what happened here.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Two Years of Trash

In August, a rally was held in Washington DC. Nearly 500,000 people were in attendance. This rally was led by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin was a featured speaker.

Last week, another rally was held and this one was led by Steven Colbert and Jon Daily. There were nearly 100,000 people in attendance.

Two rallies. Two different perspectives. Two sides of the aisle. One liberal, one conservative, and it could be argued that the rally with Beck and Palin was not political, but nobody can really take politics out of it when Beck and Palin are the leaders or lead speakers.

Yes, there were less at the liberal rally last weekend. By a large amount. However, the liberals did leave a longer lasting impression. Not by their words, but by their trash. Fast food wrappers, water bottles, SEIU signs, pamphlets, food remnants. One of the cleanup crew called the Lincoln Memorial a landfill.

The WWII Memorial was filled with trash.

I don't think it's in dispute that the liberals, progressives, socialists, whatever you want to call them, are fanatics over global warming, or global climate change, if you prefer. That is their issue. They have passed cap and trade through the House. They want to move to electric cars, solar ceilings and end the use of oil. They've even gone so far as to say that anyone that doesn't believe in global warming should be prosecuted for disagreeing (see Robert Kennedy, Al Gore,etc.).

Yet, plastic wrappers, paper cups, cardboard signs, plastic bottles, candy bar wrappers, styrofoam cups, pamplets were all strewn about Washington DC following the rally this weekend.

If these liberals are so concerned about the environment, shouldn't they be the ones picking up after themselves? If the Conservatives are so uncaring about the environment, shouldn't they be the ones that are leaving the mountain of trash behind?

This is a repeat of the Obama inauguration. Remember the trash left behind that followed? This sounds an awful like the parent that tells his/her child "do as I say, not as I do."

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

********************CORRECTION***********************

In this posting, I made a mistake and said that the liberal rally was the Steven Colbert and Jon Daily rally when in fact it was the One Nation rally. The Colbert/Daily rally is later this month. Thank you Cindi O for pointing out my mistake.

Hopefully, we'll not have the same trash issue at the next liberal rally.

Brett

Trouble Brewing for Republicans and Country

I fear the Republican leadership has not learned the lessons of their losses in 2006. In 1994, the Republicans ran on the Contract with America. They won, they followed through. Their ten bills were all voted on as promised. Not all passed, but they weren't promising passage. They were promising a vote on ten issues that the Democrats previously refused to bring to the floor.

Following completion of the Contract with America, the Republicans slowly grew into a well oiled machine. They also got fat and sassy. They started spending more and more. They were rejuvenated abit with the election of George Bush in 2000 and passed two tax cuts, but their well oiled machine was cracking as evidenced by their inability to make the tax cuts permanent. They then fell into the Washington trap of spending more than they had, despite record revenue coming into the Government and they wandered into the Sex, Drugs and money scandals. They were beat bad in 2006 and again in 2008.

These past two years, they did nothing to improve their position. There are two things that have brought them back. The Democrats gave them a gift that can never be repaid. They passed the stimulus package which enraged the American people. This brought about the Tea Parties. Not Republicans. All the Republicans did was vote no on it. They had no power to stop the Democrats. But the Tea Parties rose up around the country. Cap and Trade (or Cap and Tax) passed the House. Again, against the will of the people. Obamacare passed, again, against the will of the American people.

The Democrats, in effect, created the Tea Parties. As if that's not enough, at Town Hall meetings around the country, Tea Party people, and Americans not affiliated with the Tea Parties, showed up and expressed their displeasure with the Democrats passing these various laws. They were ignored. They were made fun of by the press and they were dismissed out of hand by the Democrats. Rather than listen to the American people and the Tea Parties, the Democrats closed their town hall meetings or stopped having them altogether. The beneficiaries of the Tea Party's? The Republican Party.

Tea Party candidates started cropping up all over the country. Those speaking with the tea parties were backing some candidates and not others. Bob Bennett for instance, was considered getting fat and sassy and arrogant and he was booted out. His replacement, backed by the tea party is likely to be the next Senator. Marco Rubio in Florida was beating Governor Charlie Crist so Crist left the Republican party and became an independent. He's now trailing by double digits.

The Republican Party backed a man in Kentucky. The Tea Party backed Rand Paul. Paul won decisively. And on it went. Senator Boxer is in trouble in California, Senator Murray in Washington, Senator Feingold in Wisconsin and so on.

But two recent events show that the Republicans are acting arrogantly or as elitists. Senator Lisa Murkowski was beaten by Joe Miller in Alaska. Miller is the Tea Party backed candidate. The worst event was in Delaware. Christine O'Donnell beat Mike Castle. As O'Donnell was giving her victory speech, the National Republican Senatorial Committee said they would not back her in the race for the Senate. They backed off the next day and gave her the maximum amount allowed under the law, but their initial reaction was childish at best. How dare the people of Delaware choose someone other than the Republican choice for Senate??

Karl Rove said on Hannity's television show that O'Donnell cannot win. Charles Krauthammer said on O'Reilly's show that she has a one in ten chance of winning and that it was wrong to choose the conservative over the moderate in the northeast.

When did the people become the lap dogs of the Republican party? The Republicans are taking the gift that the Democrats and the Tea Parties gave them and are trying to hand it back to the Democrats. The Republican Party exists because of the American people, not the other way around.

But they don't appear to understand that. Mike Castles goal should have been to defeat the Democrat nominee in Delaware. If the people chose his opponent to defeat the Democrat, then it is his responsibility to back O'Donnell or to leave the Republican Party or to just sit down, shut up and enjoy the retirement. Instead, Castle blamed his loss on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin. He also refuses to back O'Donnell. Refusing to back her is the same as endorsing the Democrat opponent. Does Mike Castle believe that O'Donnell is not a good enough Republican? Who cares? The people chose her. The people that would have backed him had she not run, decided she was the better choice to represent their interests against the Democrat. I wouldn't be surprised if Castle decides to run as an Independent or as a write in candidate.

Which brings up Alaska. Lisa Murkowski lost to Joe Miller in the Republican Primary. Yesterday, Murkowski decided to run as a write in candidate. She's not satisfied with the choice of the people of Alaska. So she's putting herself back into the race despite the people telling her they wanted Miller rather than her.

Bob Bennett was bitter and let it be known when he was ousted. Castle is bitter and refused to show any class by congratulating the person that beat him out by the will of the people. Murkowski is doing the same thing in Alaska.

Bennett had moved to the left in his Senate career and the people he represented didn't like it. Castle has always been moderate to liberal. Crist is a moderate who actually hugged Obama during the stimulus passing, and Murkowski is a moderate who was not put into the Senate by the people. She was appointed by her daddy and she won an election during the Bush years. Now that her dad is out and Bush is gone, she can't make it on her own, within her own party, so she's trying to force her way in.

The people are choosing more conservative candidates to replace the moderate and liberal people that have been there or in other positions. But the moderates and/or liberals can't face this. The Republican Party is not reveling in the more conservative candidates, they are retreating from them. They are retreating from the people that put them there. They are showing that they believe that they need to fool the American people, then once in office govern the way they want and not the way their voters want them to govern.

If these Tea Party candidates win, and a sizeable amount of them probably will, we could be seeing a battle within the Republican Party over what direction the Republicans take the country. Will the new Tea Party victors have to buckle under to the Republican establishment or will they change the direction that Republicans go and pretty much reinvent how Washington works?

If the establishment portion of the party controls, the Republican victories in November will not last. If the Tea Party Senators and Representatives hold their ground and aren't afraid to stand up to the establishment, we could see many more Tea Party candidates in 2012 and watch the party go more conservative.

If this battle becomes a messy battle that goes on for two years, the Democrats could take over once again and we'll be back to all of the same problems we have today with Democrats running roughshod over the people and the people not being able to do anything about it and the Democrats not even attempting town hall meetings, let alone canceling them.

The Republicans, both the establishment and the Tea Party Senators and Representatives, have an opportunity to set the direction of this country into very prosperous times, both financially and through national security or they can have a playpen fight that leads this country into extremely tough and dangerous times.

Nobody likes to lose, but if you must lose, lose graciously when you've lost. Everybody likes to win, but win with humility when you win. If you lose without the dignity and class, such as Mike Castle, Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist, and others you run the risk of destroying more than just your reputation.

Mike Castle didn't accomplish making a point about how good or bad O'Donnell is or isn't. He only proved that he has no respect for the people that he depended on for that victory. He's proven that the best man for the job in Delaware was actually a woman. Christine O'Donnell. Murkowski proved that in Alaska, the best man for the job was a man.

These candidates are supposed to be running to represent the people. Those losing candidates only proved that they were in the race to represent themselves and didn't give a rip about the people.

The Republican Party had best learn that they too are there to represent the people. If they choose to only give lip service to the people until they get in power then represent themselves, they'll only prove that they aren't worthy of holding any decision making positions.

I really like Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer, but the things they said following O'Donnells victory were not only wrong, but stupid. Do they think that Chris Christie, the new Governor of New Jersey is a mistake because he's more conservative? You don't improve an area by replacing liberals and moderates with liberals and moderates. Apparently, the people of Delaware understand it. Why can't Rove and Krauthammer?

If Mike Castle was a shoo in to win in the general election, but he's beat by who the people consider a better candidate, then why isn't O'Donnell considered a shoo in?

I wonder if the Yankees make it through the playoffs and are expected to win handily in the World Series but get beat will Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer then say that it's a mistake?

The Republican Establishment had better grow up quickly and understand the will of the people or they will find they no longer exist. Then God help the country.

The Democrats provided a gift to the Republicans and the American people. If the Republicans really want to give a gift in return, I'd suggest that they take a page from Obama's list of gift giving. Send them a DVD set of classic movies as Obama did for the Prime Minister of Britain. Or maybe a recording of their speeches as Obama gave to the Queen of England. But don't give them the country.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Democrats See The Light or Running in Fear?

For the past eight years, all we've heard out of the Democrats is how President Bush passed tax cuts for only the rich. When they are shown charts of what people paid in taxes prior to the tax cuts and following the tax cuts showing the savings those tax cuts did for EVERYONE, they claimed it wasn't true and that only the rich got the tax cuts.

But they are now in danger of joining the ranks of the unemployed. So they have changed their minds, seen the light or admitted their false talking points were false. They are now saying that they want to extend the "tax cuts" for the middle class and only raise the taxes on the rich, although there are now 32 Democrats that are saying they don't want any tax increases on anyone during a recession.

How can you extend tax cuts for those that didn't receive a tax cut in 2001 and 2003? Answer, you can't. Why isn't the press asking them how they could say this after so many years of denying there were any tax cuts except on the rich?

A couple of days ago, I mentioned in the midst of another posting on here that we had $823,000 from the stimulus being used to teach African men how to clean their genitals following sexual activity.

Here in Michigan, we have a Representative named Mark Schauer. He was the only person in the country that claimed to have read the stimulus bill before voting on it. Everyone in the country knew that he was not telling the truth, but he continued to say that he'd read the entire bill before voting on it. Of course, he's a liberal Democrat. If you look at Nancy Pelosi, you're seeing Mark Schauer in drag.

Well, I have a question for Mark Schauer. If you read the entire bill, then you knew that the stimulus bill would pay to teach African men, in Africa, how to clean their genitals. How could you vote for something like this?

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

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