CDC Now Says Ebola is Easy to Catch

As each day passes we hear more and more about Ebola that is different from the previous day.

The outbreak apparently began in Africa. Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. At about the same time that it was beginning in West Africa, our borders were being breached by “children” coming from South America through Mexico and they were bring scabbies, lice and other things then put on buses and shipped around the country.

Concerns began here in the United States about whether or not Americans had to worry about the Ebola virus. The Obama Administration said we didn’t have to worry about it. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) said that Ebola was very difficult to contract.

A doctor and nurse were brought here from Africa after they had contracted the disease. The discussion turned to it being caught by bodily fluids, then by contact with the skin, but still claimed to be very difficult to contract.

The discussion turned to whether or not we should close our borders and the Obama Administration, in a rare moment of consistency, said they wouldn’t ban travel from Africa.

A man in Texas was admitted to the hospital with Ebola and died a few days later. Two nurses then exhibited signs and were quarantined. Again, the discussion turned to the ease of contracting the disease with the CDC and the administration saying it is very difficult to get the Ebola virus.

Several states decided that they would force quarantine on anyone that traveled here from Africa. New Jersey was one and a day later, Governor Chris Christie reversed that decision.

Another woman was considered at risk in Maine and was in a forced quarantine, but she’s fighting it. Still the CDC and the administration said it’s very difficult to contract the disease.

Thousands are dying in Africa but we’re told it’s difficult to spread the Ebola virus.

Then yesterday, the New York Post reported that the CDC had issued a statement saying that Ebola can be spread by something as simple as a sneeze and that it can remain active on doorknobs, tables, chairs, etc. It won’t last as long in warm air, but in cold air it can remain contagious for a day or longer by simple touch.

The common cold is spread by coughing and sneezing. Just look at classrooms across the country. Kids come to school and sneeze and within a few days, many children have a cough, and sneeze. Ebola seems to be just as easy to spread now as the common cold.

That doesn’t sound like it’s difficult to contract. Can we trust any statement put out by this administration and its' agencies? 

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

*************UPDATE**************

The CDC has updated their website by removing information regarding droplets on doorknobs, one day after the New York Post publishes the information regarding sneezing and droplets on doorknobs being a way to spread Ebola. 

Election Time: Here we go Again

It’s election time again and as seems to be the case each election, there are problems. In Cook County Illinois a voting machine was changing votes for Republicans to a vote for Democrats. The election is actually Tuesday, November 4 but Illinois is one of the states that has early voting.

A Republican candidate, Jim Moynihan, showed up to vote and cast his vote for himself and found that the machine had switched his vote to his opponent. It also switched his vote for other Republican candidates to the Democrat party.

Republicans talk about voter fraud and the need for photo id to register to vote and to vote. Democrats say there is no need as there is no voter fraud. We almost never hear of solutions to voting by machine. I can’t remember there being a case where the Democrat cast vote was switched to the Republican ticket. Maybe it’s happened, but I don’t remember it being reported.

There are questions that naturally should come up from the discovery of this “error” with the voting machine but I didn’t see them asked on the two sites that I read about this story. My first question would be; ‘how many people used that machine before it was discovered and how many of those ballots were cast and then changed by the machine?’ My second question would be; “since these machines are only used at election times, and there aren’t that many elections during a year, why aren’t the machines serviced and tested prior to each election to make certain that they are working properly when they are needed the most?’

Another question; “if a machine, like this one, has a calibration problem, why wasn’t the calibration discovered prior to the election?’ Also, ‘how can we depend on these machines with each and every voter if the machines calibration malfunctions in the midst of a day of voting?’

I have said several times over the years that they should do away with the machines and go to paper and pencil voting. There are only two problems then. Problem number one: The pencil might break. If that happens, get another pencil but at least the pencil isn’t changing the vote.

Problem number two: Finding people that are capable of counting one ballot at a time to get an accurate accounting of the votes. I don’t think it would be that difficult to find eight or ten people that can count to ten and stack up ten votes apiece, in one county.

Maybe the Democrats are partially right. Maybe there is no voter fraud on the part of a person. Perhaps the machines have formed an alliance to commit voter fraud and it’s not the fault of any human being at all. But this phrase keeps popping up in the back of my mind each time I try to think that. “When pigs fly.”

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder?

A few days ago, a topic was discussed on a program. The topic was about the City of Houston issuing subpoena’s to five pastors requiring them to turn over any sermons, notes and communications regarding homosexuality. I was just beginning to write here about that when the program I was listening to brought it up, so I stopped writing it. All of a sudden, it took a weird turn.

                           

A caller to the program said that the DSM had found that homosexuality was a mental disorder. He was starting to say something else but the host cut him off and said that the DSM had changed their position and decided that it wasn’t a mental disorder. The gentleman again started to say something and was again interrupted. This happened three or four times. The caller even mentioned that he was being interrupted and hadn’t finished saying what he wanted to say. A comment was made even by my daughter about how she didn’t know what the man was going to say because he was being repeatedly interrupted.

I had no idea what or who the DSM was, and naturally didn’t know what the caller was about to say. So, during the commercial break, I did a quick search and found out that the DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It’s published by the American Psychiatric Association.

Apparently, sometime in the 1950’s they determined that homosexuality was a mental disorder. I can’t even pretend to understand how they came up with that diagnosis. However, in 1970, gay activists protested the APA’s convention in San Francisco. They continued to pressure the APA over the next couple of years and in 1973, the APA held a vote on their determination of homosexuality being a mental disorder.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of psychiatry, but I would think that they would have a medical basis or scientific basis for any position they take. Something more tangible than “feelings” because everyone has different feelings about different things. After all, they are called “doctors”. This decision however, seems to be based solely on political pressure. I have seen no full research that definitively says that homosexuality is a mental disorder but I also see no full research that says it’s not a mental disorder.

I’m leery of anything put out by the science community mainly because of Global warming which has been changed to Climate Change since they got caught fudging the numbers and allowing political correctness or pressure. Or even a more current example of Ebola and the constant changing of stories by the CDC and the politicians.

At this point, it seems the only thing certain about homosexuality is what each person thinks is the cause or desire of the homosexual person…in other words an opinion that everyone has. Nothing seems to be factually based. People base their ideas of homosexuality on how they were raised, or their religious beliefs or maybe even their own sense of the topic or their own desires.

I may challenge your opinion and always hope my opinions are challenged but I’ll not cut off your opinion which is why I always end these writings with…..

Your comments are welcome.

Brett

Afraid of Tough Topics

There are many views on some topics that cross both Conservative and liberal viewpoints. Topics that many seem to be afraid to deal with any longer. One of those topics is abortion. Radio talk show hosts seem to be afraid of this topic and refuse to even discuss it. Many have taken the position of Neil Boortz when he had his radio program.

Neil Boortz would stop anyone that brought up abortion or even mentioned it in passing when discussing another topic and seeming to tie them together. It’s as though you’re not permitted to have an opinion on abortion, nor to even suggest you have an opinion about it. I believe it’s cowardice to avoid a topic just because so many people are adamant in whatever their position is on the topic.

In many campaigns for office abortion is used as a way to put down the other candidate. The liberal may say “my opponent wants to regulate your wombs” or the Conservative may say “my opponent wants you to allow death to a baby after the baby has viable organs but prior to leaving the womb”. Nobody delves into the actual thoughts on abortion but rather tells you what the other person thinks or will do even though they really don’t know what the other would or wouldn’t do.

I have run into this when talking with people. Friends, family members and others. Well, if you’re scared of hearing about abortion, you might want to stop reading right now because I’m going to talk about it here.

First, there is the identification of whatever belief you have. I call myself Pro-Life. If someone believes that abortion should be an option, I’d call them Pro-Choice. If you tell me that I’m anti-abortion, then I’ll play your game and call you anti-life. That only makes it a name calling match and not a real discussion.

We know how pregnancy starts. It begins with an act of sex or it can begin with artificial insemination. I can’t imagine anyone choosing to be artificially inseminated to get pregnant, then choosing to abort. I guess there could be some reasons, but it would seem very odd to go to that expense and trouble only to give up.

The act of sex is a choice. The choice can be made by two people or by one person. If it’s made by two people, and a pregnancy occurs, something that they engaged in created a new life. If done within a marriage or within a permanent relationship, it is MY BELIEF, that the couple stand up and take responsibility for their actions. If the pregnancy is an accident, I would think it’s a happy accident. If it comes at an inconvenient time for one or both of the parents, they should adjust to what they created and take responsibility for their actions and the results of those actions. If they choose to abort because of inconvenience, they can do that, but it is MY BELIEF that they are not taking responsibility for their actions and because of that, a life, that is too young to make decisions, let alone voice decisions, gets no say in THEIR life. I have a difficult time reconciling how someone can choose to end a life because of their own inconvenience or disruption to their lives. Do they not consider the disruption to the life they have created? If the baby could voice its’ own opinion what would it be? Who stands up for the baby?

Regarding teenagers engaging in sex, they know it’s possible that a pregnancy could occur. It may not be high on their thoughts as they are beginning to have their fun, but there may be consequences to that fun they are about to have. Ending a life is not taking responsibility for their actions. They can choose to raise the child or they can choose to put the baby up for adoption. The life for the baby may not be the ideal life, but it’s still a life with possibilities. If abortion is chosen that baby’s chance at life is gone with them being able to choose.

In the case of rape, again, I realize a life was created by a violent act. The choice has been taken away from the mother to be, but for her to take away the chance for that baby to have a shot at life removes the possibility of something good coming from something bad.

Many also argue that it’s the mothers choice. After all, it’s her body. I disagree and I may be in the minority on this but it’s MY BELIEF that once she shared her body, the results of their act together makes both of them responsible for the decision. If either of them chooses for the baby to be born, that baby should be born. If the mother wants the baby but the father doesn’t, the mothers argument prevails because she’s choosing life for another as well as her own. If the father chooses for the baby to be born, but the mother doesn’t want it, then again, the baby is given the chance at life. The exception to this is in the case of rape. A rapist gets no say in any decision regarding the baby. He gave her no choice in the act, he gets no choice in the decision. However, he will contribute financially to the raising of that child and will never be given access to the child.

Notice that in each case, I said “MY BELIEF”. It’s not me dictating, it’s MY BELIEF. If you think differently, that’s fine for you as MY BELIEF is fine for me.

Having said all of that, I admit that I have an inconsistency in my belief both morally and intellectually. If my wife was to become pregnant, at my age, I’d be shocked but still follow through on it. However, if the life of my wife were in danger of being lost due to the pregnancy, in that case, I would choose the life of my wife over that of the baby. In effect, I’d be choosing abortion. Thankfully, I never had to make that choice.

If you think I’m wrong in my choices on all of the options above, that’s your prerogative. But if each of those were my choices, those are what I would choose regardless of the hardship a new baby might present. I will not choose abortion out of my convenience. I will not take the choice away from the baby that cannot speak for itself with the one exception I gave. Those are MY choices.

If you choose differently, and ask my opinion, that’s what you’ll get. However, if you don’t ask my opinion (and I can’t imagine anyone asking me my opinion other than my own kids asking if they ever run into that situation) then you are entitled to your opinion without scorn from me. For those of you that don’t know, two of my children are daughters and right now they are aged 18 and 17. I only hope they never have to make that decision and I believe that with how I raised them, I have a pretty good shot at not having my children run into that decision.

My choices, my beliefs, are taken away from me when the government chooses to fund those that want an abortion. My tax money goes to the government just as yours does. If you’re going to get pregnant and for whatever reason you decide to abort the pregnancy, it is wrong for even one fraction of a penny of my money to pay for your decision to do something that I don’t believe in. They were YOUR actions, pay for YOUR OWN decision but don’t force me to pay anything towards a decision that I would not make.

Notice that I said it is wrong. I didn’t say it might be wrong, I said it IS wrong.

If you believe in abortion or even choice, that’s your belief. You would only be wrong in your  belief if you try to force your belief on me or begin putting me down for my belief. But my belief is not forced on you. Abortion is legal. So if you choose abortion, it’s between you and your conscious or your God.

If you want to discuss abortion, I’m all for it, but don’t put me down for my beliefs, and I won’t put you down for your beliefs. I will listen to your side of the topic and in return you should listen to my side and neither of us should be disparaging the other person for their beliefs.

To avoid a discussion on abortion on the talk shows, such as Neil Boortz and others, only tells me that the moderator cannot moderate. He/She must be incapable of asking tough questions on each side to challenge that other persons belief and understand that people believe different things for different reasons, and those reasons are very likely very good reasons from the mindset of each side.

If we’re going to be afraid to talk about a topic, people will never be able to choose without giving thought to other possibilities. They won't realize or even understand they have options. All because people are afraid to talk, reasonably and without rancor and understanding about tough topics. When people say, 'it's my way and there is no other way' it's not Conservative and it's not freedom. 

This only creates flawed legislation and I’m really tired of hearing politicians say “it’s not the best solution, but it’s a start.” We are the greatest country in the world. We ought to be able to come up with the best solutions rather than kicking these topics down the road for whatever is popular at the time. The only way to do that is to discuss and debate them without despising the other side. Try some understanding. If you listen, you might learn. If you talk constantly, you are only dictating and not hearing.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Democrats Pointing Fingers Already....at Themselves

The Democrats are pointing fingers for their losses in this years election before the election even takes place. According to “The Hill”, some are blaming Harry Reid, the Majority Leader.

They are blaming Obama’s low approval rating, low Hispanic turnout, centrist messaging, the media, social media, among others. Not one of them is blaming themselves for their own records, their own policies. Nor are they blaming themselves for legislating and making policies for their own elections and not for what’s good for the people that they represent. They even blame their core voters that don’t bother to vote in mid-term elections.

I think it’s interesting that they single out Hispanic voters. First, it’s the Democrats that scream about profiling, yet when they talk about Hispanic voters aren’t they profiling? Second, are they talking about Hispanic Americans that are here legally or are they talking about illegal aliens voting?

There’s no question any longer about their tactics and policies based on elections and not on the Constitution. For example, the Sunday talk shows were full of what Obama will do about ISIS and what he’s recently done. It seems many of the pundits are saying that the bombings of ISIS are for show and accomplishing little to nothing and they believe that when the election is over, ISIS will not be stopped.

What of the Republicans? I have heard very little message from them. They seem to be just sitting back and trying to take advantage of the peoples disgust of politicians. Had they laid out their ideas, Conservative ideas, I doubt anyone would be saying the Democrats “could” lose control of the Senate. It’s more likely that the pundits would be questioning if the Republicans would be getting double digit gains in the Senate.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

The USA is in Disarray

How can one man, one party be so wrong, so often, and so quickly after commenting?

The Economy and bi-partisanship

Obama is inaugurated in late January 2009. He tells Congress to get him a stimulus bill and he’ll sign it on Presidents Day. Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House. They pass a $780 billion bill and call it bi-partisan. Zero Republicans in the House vote for it and only three in the Senate vote for it. One of those three is Senator Arlen Specter who a short time later changed parties. Obama signed the bill two days after President’s Day so he could have that photo op in Denver. His photo op was more important than his word.

Obama and the Democrats say unemployment will not exceed 8%. It jumps to 10.2%. Unemployment begins running out so those that drop off are not counted as unemployed any longer and Obama and the Democrats tout the bill as reducing unemployment. Cash for Clunkers is a massive failure. The stimulus package didn’t stimulate. This has been the slowest recovery in history.

Immigration reform and bi-partisanship

Candidates always make promises and then don’t deliver. Obama promised immigration reform in his first year. He promised Gitmo to be closed within the first year. Obama had a strong advantage to his agenda. He had a Democrat House. Republicans could stop nothing. He had a Democrat Senate, just shy of having a filibuster proof Senate. Yet, immigration reform was not touched. Gitmo is still open today. Now Obama promises he will do some immigration reform himself by executive order, but not until after the election so that he can hopefully save a couple of Democrat Senators their seats and not lose as many seats nationwide as it appears he will.

At the moment, there is bi-partisanship on immigration reform. Most Republicans don’t want what’s being proposed and most Democrats do. Obama blames Republicans for immigration reform not happening, which is bi-partisan, so he’s going to remove the bi-partisan from it and issue executive orders. If this “MUST” be done why didn’t he do it when he had full control of both Houses of Congress? And remember, for a brief time, after Arlen Specter changed parties, he had a filibuster proof Senate and control of the House. If this “MUST” be done, why are Democrats in danger of losing the election causing him to delay what “MUST” be done until after the election?

Scandals, Transparency and bi-partisanship

Fast and Furious, NSA, IRS, Benghazi, solyndra, voter discrimination/intimidation by the New Black Panthers, The VA scandal, and more. There is no transparency. Documents are requested and not forthcoming. Computer are mysteriously crashing at the IRS. Border agents and American Citizens are killed at the border by cartels using guns provided by the US Government under Fast and Furious. Benghazi was a terrorist attack, but the administration claimed it was due to a video (which nobody had seen).

There is only one place in the Obama administration where transparency has been frequent and obvious. After being promised that the TSA (Transportation Security Agency) new screening process and X-Ray machines would be immediately destroyed upon a person being cleared to get on the plane, it only took a few days for it to come out that those X-rays showing body parts were being saved and admired by TSA agents and in one case a TSA agent was teased about his lack of girth after passed through the machine and that created a physical altercation.

Grandmothers were hand patted and groped. Children were groped. Men and women’s private areas were molested. Disabled people were embarrassed to have their disabilities and prosthetics and other extremely private remedies, such as colostomy bags exposed for all to see, but those that truly looked the part of a possible terrorist suspect were not given a first look, let alone a second.  

Health Care and bi-partisanship

In March of 2009, despite polls showing 67%-75% of the American people against the government take over of the health care system, both Houses of Congress took up what is now known as Obamacare.

The Democrats could not get it through the Senate because they didn’t have a filibuster-proof Senate. Then two events happened. Senator Arlen Specter changed parties giving the Democrats the needed 60 votes so that Republicans couldn’t stop anything.

The House didn’t matter because a simple majority as all that was needed and the Democrats had control. They didn’t need any Republicans to pass anything. Any Republicans voting with them would only lead to claims of bi-partisanship.

However, Senator Ted Kennedy died of his brain cancer taking away that needed 60^th vote. Being from Massachusetts, the special election would likely put another Democrat in the seat Kennedy held, so it would just be delayed. A special election was held and people from around the country helped the Republican, Scott Brown win the election. He ran as the 41^st vote against Obamacare which in effect would kill the bill. It is clear now that Browns election was to prevent Obamacare from being passed, because he lost the seat in the next election when Obamacare was no longer on the table.

There was now only one way to pass the Obamacare bill. The Democrat House wrote the bill and passed the bill without one Republican voting for it. The only way for the Senate to pass Obamacare was to vote straight up or down on the House bill. No changes. That way, they too only needed a simple majority, and that’s exactly what they did. There is nothing bi-partisan about it. Not one Republican in either House voted for the bill. That is not bi-partisan.

 Current Events

We’ve had illegal aliens coming across the border and this administration has been sending them out to every state in the country. 35 year old adults claiming they are childen and this administration believes them and puts them in schools. Criminals coming across the border and committing murder here of American Citizens. First it was lice and scabbies but they said it would be contained and not be a problem. Now we have Ebola that they said wouldn’t be a problem, yet in todays news, there are many cases that are suspected of Ebola around the country.

Obama claimed ISIS was Junior Varsity. They marched from Syria into Iraq in a quick and orderly fashion killing anyone that didn’t join up with them, then after Obama called them JV, they take the heads off of a couple of Americans.

Each time Obama downplays an event in the news, it’s a matter of days or even hours it becomes a major catastrophe. But then, it’s no wonder he doesn’t know anything since he rarely attends intelligent briefings.

It’s easy to understand why the USA is in disarray.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

They're heeeere!

A little blonde girl standing in front of a television set showing static (we used to call it snow) says, “They’re heeeere.” I believe it is from the movie “Poltergeist” in the late 70’s or early 80’s.

Unfortunately, that line now fits in today’s current climate. This week a 54 year old woman was killed by a man that was fired. She was beheaded. This was not in the desert of the middle east. This was in Moore, Oklahoma! Apparently, by a man that converted to Islam while in prison.

In another story, two men in Texas were tortured and one died by a drug cartel at the border.

In yet another story there have been over 100 people with terrorist ties caught crossing the southern border illegally into the United States.

You have a bees nest hanging from a tree near where your family has their picnic table in the backyard and close to the swing set your children use every day. You grab a rake or a shovel and knock the bees nest down and tell your family, “stay away for a couple of hours until the bees go away.”

Where do the bees go? They go off nearby and start building a new nest. Maybe they go to your neighbors yard or maybe just a different tree in your own yard. Had you placed a large bucket of water on the ground for the bees to fall into, you’d have killed many of them. Or sprayed the ground then sprayed them with bee killer when they fell, you’d have killed them. No fear of them coming back.

Obama has decided to attack ISIS in the Middle East. He’s bombing them but refuses to put boots on the ground. Not only that but he announced what he was going to do before he did it. At least when you knock the bees nest down you didn’t send them a certified letter telling them to duck. Obama is hitting ISIS with a rake.

Terrorists are pouring across our border. Obama is going to announce unilateral amnesty after the election. Apparently, he thinks you and I are too stupid to realize he’s going to hang a big welcome sign across the southern border and still vote for those that agree with him. He’s not even hitting border security with a rake, but rather is raking the grounds so the illegal aliens won’t stub their toes as they cross the borders.

Three Americans have been beheaded in the past month. Two of them by ISIS in the Middle East and one American woman in Oklahoma. Terrorists have been caught at our border, but have all of them? The Obama administration has done nothing but lob some bombs with advanced notice to ISIS and nothing to protect our borders.

Since when did attacks on Americans here and abroad, become such a tough decision on how to handle it?

By contrast, here’s another way it was handled in the past. September 11, 2001 four planes were crashed. Two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and one in a field in Pennsylvania due to heroes on board the plane. Nearly 3,000 people dead in less than an hour on our shores. On October 7, 2001 President Bush began bombing and sending troops to Afghanistan. It took him less than a month to decide and set in motion going after the terrorists that attacked us.

He didn’t worry about how it would play out in the polls. He didn’t wring his hands or sit in the corner sucking his thumb worrying about what to do next. He didn’t worry about whether or not his fellow Republicans would get re-elected. He moved the most massive military in the world to the other end of the world and started enacting the plan his military advisors had drawn up and he did it in less than a month!

What is so hard about making a decision when you’re being hit? It’s simple really. Either you sit back and wait for more or you fight back. If someone doesn’t like you, you get away from them. These terrorists don’t like us. So we should get away from them. But we’re opening our doors and saying “Come on in, make yourself at home.” They are killing our people, but we’re not making them pay for their actions any longer.

I know longer think we need an adult in the White House. I’m now convinced we need a man with a set of values, set of principles, and even some common sense in the White House. Obama clearly is not that man, and Joe Biden is not the man and even Hillary Clinton is not that man.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Where were you.....

We all have times in our lives where someone can ask, “do you remember where you were and what you were doing on…” this date or that date or when this happened or that happened?

Some of us have several of those dates and events. My own that stand out are a small handful. I was in the second grade when President Kennedy was assassinated and I remember someone coming down to our class from the office to make the announcement. We didn’t have intercom speakers making announcements in those days.

I remember being at home during the Detroit riots and looking to see if I could see the red glow from the flames. I remember being in the sixth grade when Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, and then just a few short weeks later when Bobby Kennedy was killed in California. A year later, playing baseball out back and then coming in to watch Neil Armstrong step on the moon. I was working in a gas station that August day when President Nixon resigned.

Presidents fall from one thing or another and others stumble but get right back up, like when Reagan was shot. Civil rights was front and center for several years and they had violence, but it was localized each time. Those leaders too fell. Political wannabe leaders, and then amazing events.

September 11, 2001 was the first attack on this country in my lifetime. I was in a hotel in Virginia and came down for the Continental breakfast. Standing there drinking coffee when the first tower was hit and I turned to the guy next to me and said “how can a pilot be flying over New York and not see he was headed for huge building?” Then a few minutes later as we were watching another flew in to the other building and I said “we’re under attack”. Then there was speculation the Pentagon had been hit. A couple of women sitting in the lobby were crying. I called home.

When it’s all said and done, nearly 3,000 dead. Four planes, four targets and three direct hits. Because of the first three hitting their targets and passengers on the fourth knowing about it, they did what the government and the military couldn’t do. They took the plane back from the terrorists.

A surprise attack that wasn’t expected and in the span of minutes citizens, not part of the government, not part of the military, took their plane back from the attackers and saved countless lives on the ground at either the Capitol or the White House.

This country had not seen this sort of attack on its shores since the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

When this happened, my son was 11. My daughter was 5 and my other daughter was 3. It makes me wonder, if these things are what I remember in my lifetime, how horrific will the things be that they will remember when they reach my age and say “do you remember where you were and what you were doing the day that…….”

You’re welcome to comment and encouraged to share you own stories.

Brett

Wishy Washy President Obama = Dead Americans.

The Obama Administration is wishy washy at best. Think that’s too harsh? Ask me what I really think about these people.

It’s just been discovered by Judicial Watch that the federal government has put a warning out of an imminent terrorist attack on the southern border (link below). This threat is from Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS).

In addition, the drug cartels have taken over regions and even the U.S. Border patrol has ordered their officers to avoid the most crime infested areas because it’s too dangerous and patrolling them could cause an international incident.

In the Daily Beast (link below), there has been a debate going on between Obama and his national security bureaucracy about how, where and whether to strike ISIS. In light of this debate Obama came out and said “we don’t have a strategy yet”.

First of all, perhaps he ought to talk to the military. I’ll bet they have a strategy. They plan for all sorts of contingencies and even if they didn’t, they are the experts. They would have a strategy within a few short hours and probably less and ready to implement it.

The debate seems to be going on between politicians. Obama’s department heads. Leaving it to this bunch, they will not get it done. They seem to be afraid of protecting this country. Some are upset that we can’t find allies to help us in the middle east. Does this really surprise them? Why would any country offer help to a President that is afraid to defend his own country?

This should not be a surprise to anyone. Obama always puts out mixed messages. He tells the world that he sent in special forces to rescue hostages only to find that they had been moved. Why would he advise our enemy that we’d tried something and failed? Keep your mouth shut and try again.

Now he tells them we don’t have a strategy for dealing with ISIS and the very next day we’re put on alert for an impending attack on our southern border by ISIS.

We are the United States of America. We have the strongest, brightest and best military in the world. Americans don’t hide behind trepidation. We stand up. When one of ours is killed, we go and kill more of them. But not under this President.

Under this President, an American is beheaded and he talks big, then says we don’t have a strategy and no friends in the region to help us so James Foley murder goes unanswered.

We liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein and instead of finishing the job, Obama brings the troops home despite being warned that if we don’t finish, Iraq will be a mess. Welcome to the mess created by Obama.

James Foley was beheaded and Obama was mocked and made fun of by ISIS and he does nothing but sit in a room debating and unable to decide despite reasons given from both those that want justice and those that don’t want to fight. All he has to do is make a decision and turn the military loose. But he claims they have no strategy.

Second, since when do we back away because an international incident may occur if our border patrol does its job?  We armed the cartels under fast and furious. You want to avoid an international incident? Arm our border patrol better than you armed the cartels. If there is an international incident, it will be caused by the Mexican drug cartels not by our Border Patrol. There would be no one left over there to complain about an international incident. We don’t back down when Americans are killed….until now, under President Barack Hussein Obama.

With all of these illegal aliens coming across the border it’s been warned by many that terrorists would be coming across with them. Again, this is Obama’s doing. His administration has gone so far as to advise some of these illegal aliens to claim that they were abused by their spouses so that they can stay here. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. It’s just an excuse for them to use so the authorities won’t send them back. But they really aren’t sending many back anyway. How many times have we heard that dangerous criminals from these other countries are being turned loose in our country?

Mr. President. If you want to eliminate ISIS for what they are doing to tens of thousands of refugees in Iraq and for the beheading of an American, there is a simple solution. You send the might of the American military over there. Give them orders to shoot ISIS soldiers and to keep shooting them until they run out of ISIS members.That's how and where. "Whether" was answered when they took off James Foley's head. 

Mr. President, if you want to eliminate the border threat, enforce the laws on the books regarding our borders and actually send those that come here illegally and ship them back. If the cartel crosses the river into Texas, shoot them. If they sneak over and kill Americans and run back home, send the soldiers in and tell them to keep shooting until they run out of Cartel members. If President Nieto of Mexico has a problem with that, tell him to police his own country and eliminate the problem or we will.

Mr. President, if you can’t lead, call a former President for advice and follow it. 

You’re welcome to comment

Brett

 http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/386694/judicial-watch-feds-bulletin-describes-threat-imminent-terrorist-attack-southern

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/28/why-obama-backed-off-more-isis-strikes-his-own-team-couldn-t-agree-on-a-syria-strategy.html#

Does your Vote Count? Are you sure?

Voting season is coming up once again. Have you ever wondered how your vote is counted? If your vote is counted? If your vote is counted accurately?

Voting is not a Right. It’s privilege. It’s also a duty if you want a say in your representation at the various government levels.

During my voting lifetime which began forty years ago, I have voted in various methods. Paper ballots where you put an X next to the person’s name or the proposal or millage you’re voting for or against. There were the booths where one lever closes the curtains and a wall of levers next to each candidate and item and even a lever to automatically vote for everyone in one party or the other. Then there were the punch cards where you poke a hole for you vote. Computers with touch screens where you only need touch what you’re voting for and it’s recorded.

For the past two elections, my precinct has had a two sided scanner. You color in the  bubble on your ballot, then slide it into a scanner and it records your vote.

But how do we know that our vote is counted accurately on any of these methods of voting? Are we to just trust our elected officials? Trust is something that is earned. Has our government earned our trust?

Remember the election of 2000. More specifically the Florida debacle that dragged the election out for 35 extra days. Ballots were gathered up and brought to a central location within three counties and officials were counting them by hand. Who can forget the judge, with glasses on his forehead holding a ballot up to the light to try to figure what the voters intent was. That election gave us pregnant chad, dimpled chads, swinging chads, tri-chads and so on. Just as they get their recount done, another batch of ballots is miraculously found and need to be counted.

We have a government that does not trust its citizenry yet they expect us to trust them. Quite often when there is lack of trust we find that it’s because the one not trusting actually has something to hide.

The past two elections, I decided to ask questions about my vote counting. The latest was on August 5 of this year in the primary here in Michigan. After filling out my ballot, I then walked over to the machine and fed my ballot into the scanner. As it was sucked my ballot in, there was nobody within ten feet of the machine except for me.

I turned and asked if I get a receipt for my vote showing who and what I’ve voted for. I got two of the most dumbfounded looks that I’ve ever seen. I was told that the machine had my ballot in the storage bin and it automatically counts it as it’s scanned. So I asked how I was to know that it recorded my votes the way that I voted. The answer was that it was automatic and they are verified. I then said, “there was nobody near the machine so how can you verify it?” I was then told that if the number of voters didn’t match up to the count on the machine, they’d have to recount them by hand.

I had to push this just a little bit further. So I said, “there is one office that has two people running for it. I refuse to vote for the one because I disagree with them completely and I refuse to vote for the other because he has done just the opposite of what he said when running the last time. So the numbers won’t match up. So how do I know that someone won’t look at my other votes and determine that I would have voted for this one person and I must have accidentally missed it?” The answer: “We wouldn’t do that.”

There is one other new feature this year. Now as you’re going through the line from one worker to the next, one of them asks for your drivers license and they run it through the track on their computer as though it were a credit card. It’s reading the magnetic strip on the back. I asked if they are seeing my health records and driving record on there? He smiled and said no. I should have asked if I could see what’s on there because frankly, I don’t know what’s on that magnetic strip. Whatever is on there, I don’t think that some guy working an election line that is either retired in his everyday life or maybe works at Fords, should be seeing my personal information. So I guess I have my question for the next election in November.

I should mention that I live in a remote area. When I went in to vote there was only one other person there voting. I would probably be more annoying to them if they were busy and trying to answer my questions. 

We go into cast our vote and they are gathering information on us, and we are trusting them to count our ballots accurately, and record them just as accurately and we have no way of verifying that they are doing as they should be. Can we really trust these election officials that don’t trust us?

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Who's In Charge?

Who is in charge in Ferguson, Missouri? It doesn't appear to be any good citizens of the small town. It doesn't appear to be the administration of the town. Nor the police. 

Following the shooting of Michael Brown, the police would not release the officers name, fearing for his and his family's safety.  During the day they had and have peaceable protests, but at night it's a different matter. It's not about Michael Brown at night. It's more about stealing by looting the stores. Throwing things at the police, such as molotav cocktails. 

Isn't the motto of the police to "serve and protect"? Ok, so they want to protect the officer and his family. But then they changed their position. They released the officers name. CNN broadcast his address and even filmed in front of his house. The police also released a video of Michael Brown stealing some cigarellos and pushing the store clerk or owner into a rack as the owner tried to stop him. 

Following the release of the video, the attorney for the Ferguson Market and Liquor store where Brown stole the cigarellos held a press conference, according to KDSK news. The press conference was not to verify or deny the events on the video, although it did verify it with what they said. The reason for the press conference was because of fear. 

The attorney told the press that the owners wanted to make it clear that they did not report the incident to the police and that they did not offer the video to the police. They did not "snitch". The police asked for it and they had to hand it over. Basically, they were saying 'please don't hurt us, we tried to keep it quiet.' 

According to the Washington Post, the owner said, ““It’s very dangerous,” he said. “They kill us if they think we are responsible. People don’t understand that.””

The owner pleaded with them not to use his name in their reporting. 

This reminds me of the movie "Escape from New York". The criminals run the town. Everyone else serves them. 

The police, and the governor seem to be backing down and giving in to these looters. Although, on Monday, there were 57 arrests and only four of them were from Ferguson. That wasn't the case before this incident, but it's added to it. Nobody in authority has taken charge. 

So it appears that the answer to Who's in Charge, is the looters, while the business owners and law abiding citizens (if there are any in Ferguson) cower in the corners thankful to only get robbed and not being killed by the thieves. 

You're welcome to comment. 

Brett

Are we Really that Stupid?

Ten days ago it was reported that a police officer had shot and killed an unarmed 18 year old black kid. His parents appeared on camera and said they were taking him to sign up for college classes on Monday but now they can’t. Not only was the “child” unarmed but he raised his arms as though to surrender. This bit of information set off day time protests and nighttime rioting.

We have a justice system in this country. It’s not perfect, but it is the best. Even corrupt officials haven’t taken away from it being the best system. However, it does take time to  see if there is a case and then to put it together. Witnesses must be interviewed, credibility checked, and evidence gathered. But the people of the area can’t wait. They act on what they originally heard without regard to the actual events.

We now know this 18 year old unarmed “child” was six feet four inches tall and weighed just under 300 pounds. We also know that ten minutes before he was shot he took some cigarellos from a convenience store and when the store owner tried to stop him, this kid pushed him into a rack. What is striking is that the store owner looked like the kid and the kid looked like a bully on the video.

The kid, Michael Brown, left the store and was walking in the street with his friend who also had been in the store. A police officer drove up and told the two of them to get off the street and on to the sidewalk. The kid, Michael Brown, then went to the police car, reached in and punched the officer breaking his eye socket. They apparently fought for the officers gun and it fired while in the car.

Brown ran off and the officer followed in pursuit. Brown stopped, turned and put his hands up. Then apparently started running right at the officer. The officer had drawn his weapon when Brown started to run and yelled out “freeze”. When Brown then turned with his hands up and started running towards the officer, the officer fired six shots into Brown. Brown fell dead three feet in front of the officer.

The protestors and rioters either don’t believe the story or choose to believe what they originally heard or they are opportunists and took advantage of the easy pickings of the stores by looting them.

Originally, when the rioting started, the police and the governor wouldn’t release the officers name. They feared for his safety. Then they acquiesced and made his name public. Does that mean the officer and his family is now safe?

Brown was not unarmed. He was armed with nearly 300 lbs and a 6’4 inch body. He was strong and he was dangerous. The reason we know he is dangerous is because the officer was punched by this “kid” and has a broken eyesocket.

In Michigan, one of the University of Michigan football players was walking on July 18 at or near a bar. He was bumped by someone passing by. He says he was taunted, but the video shows he was bumped and turned and sucker punched the guy. The man he punched had his jaw broken in three places. That football player was just kicked off the team.

Across the country, we hear of people passing people, strangers on the street, and just all of sudden sucker punching them. Young people and the elderly. They seem willing to punch anyone just for the fun of it.

Monday night, the Washington Redskins played a football game and the players ran out on the field with their arms raised, ala Michael Brown. This was their way of protesting what happened in Ferguson, Missouri.

These professional football players are college educated. You would think they would have a basic understanding of how the law works in this country. You’d think they’d know the entire story isn’t out there yet.

On February 25 this year, I wrote about the NFL threatening to pull the Super Bowl out of Arizona next year if the governor signed a law that had been passed. I decided then that if the NFL can dictate laws by withholding their product, then that product is something I wouldn’t participate in, even if it means just not watching their games on television.

Football season is here and I haven’t watched the exhibition games. Soon they’ll be playing on Sunday afternoons and I won’t be watching. I won’t even have it on the TV as I do things around the house. I will watch college football if I want to watch football this year.

How can so many college educated people in a huge sport such as football be so stupid? How can so many people, including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson be so stupid to immediately go and lead protests when the facts aren’t out? Jackson was even trying to raise money during his speeches and it’s been reported that Sharpton wanted to be paid by the family of Michael Brown to come to Missouri.

We have had Americans killed at the southern border of this country. So what is Obama doing? He’s plotting how to do an executive order to allow more of this. Obama pulled us out of Iraq despite being warned that Iraq would fall apart. Today, a video was sent showing that ISIS has beheaded an American in response to the air strikes Obama ordered when he took back a bridge.

How can this President be that stupid? How many Americans must die at the hands of our enemies before he grows a pair and defends Americans and American interests?

Finally, we elected this guy not just once, but twice. Are we really that stupid?

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

A Bitter Republican Victor:

Representative Justin Amash embarrassed himself following his victory in the primary on August 5. The sad thing to me is that I don’t think he even realizes it. The challenger in the primary was Brian Ellis, a west Michigan businessman.

Brian Ellis seemed to back the Core Curriculum for schools, and had some other ideas that caused question into whether he’s conservative, moderate or even a liberal Republican.

Amash has been supported by the Tea Party and has bucked even the establishment Republicans. He apparently leans more to the Libertarian view than Republican and certainly not Democrat.

The campaign was very contentious. It was a classic example of what’s wrong with politics in this country. Ads were run by each campaign but not one was heard where the candidate advocated for his own position and what he would do for his district. They were all about the evils of the other guy. There was nothing positive about themselves only negatives about the other guy.

When you’d hear an ad if you heard the candidates voice, the opponents name was mentioned. You usually didn’t hear the candidates name in their own ad until the end when they approved their message.

Amash refused to debate Ellis saying his campaign was not a serious campaign. The guess is that Amash is afraid to debate his opponents so he implies that the other candidate is not worthy of his time although he had no problem paying for advertising telling everyone the ills of Ellis. Ellis ended up with 43% of the vote. That sounds like a serious campaign to me. 43% of the voters in Amash’s district considered Ellis serious enough to vote for him.

Don’t make the mistake that I was in favor of Ellis over Amash because you would be wrong, but in the interest of full disclosure, I have no stake in race other than that of all Americans because while these candidates represent their districts and only answer to them, all Americans are affected by these candidates. I am not in Amash’s district. I had decided a week ago that Amash is who I’d have voted for if I were in his district.

Amash put his arrogance and ungraciousness on full display on election night. Brian Ellis called Justin Amash to concede the election to him and wish him well. Amash refused to take his call, instead choosing to let it go to his voicemail.

Then in his victory speech he was not humbled by his victory to represent Americans in the people’s Congress. He chose instead to take the low road by saying the following:

“To Brian Ellis, you owe my family and this community an apology… for your disgusting, despicable, smear campaign,” Amash said toward the end of his victory speech. “You had the audacity to try to call me today after running a campaign that was called the nastiest in the country. I ran for office to stop people like you — to stop people who were more interested in themselves than in doing what’s best for their district.”

The only place that I’ve been able to find that said that Brian Ellis’ campaign ran the “nastiest in the country” is from Amash himself. I have yet to find anyone else say it. But Amash wasn’t done with just Ellis. He also had some unkind words for former Representative Pete Hoekstra. Hoekstra had been a Representative for 18 years and then ran for Governor of Michigan and for the United States Senate, losing the first to current Governor Rick Snyder and the latter to Debbie Stabenow.

 “I want to say to lobbyist Pete Hoekstra, you’re a disgrace,” he said. “I’m glad we could hand you one more loss before you fade into total obscurity and irrelevance.”

Hoekstra’s crime? He endorsed the man that Amash considered not a serious candidate.

Representative Justin Amash should have been happy he won his election and shown some class and a little humility in victory. Imagine what he’d have said had he lost this election. When Amash was first elected there were positive hopes and he was a man to keep your eye on. Now, he appears to be someone you don’t want to let out of your sight.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Enemy of the State?

Representative Luis Gutierrez is a Democrat and an elected Representative from Illinois. He is a strong proponent of immigration reform.

On Saturday, in Los Angeles, Gutierrez told a crowd in Spanish, that he has assurances from President Obama to be generous and broad in stopping the deportation of “our people”.

He also said, “We need to raise our voices, make ourselves citizens, sign up to vote and punish those who speak ill and criminalize children who come to our border,".

These comments by the Representative creates questions. Who is “our people” to Rep. Gutierrez? Is he an American? Was he born here or did he become a citizen after immigrating here. If he came to this country, did he do so legally? Of course, one big question is how can a Representative of The United States advocate “punishing” Americans who have a differing opinion? Then there is also the question of who criminalized the children who come to our border?

When Gutierrez was elected to be a Representative in the United States House, he had to take an oath. The oath is as follows: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

 

Isn’t an illegal alien a foreign enemy? They are coming here illegally. Violating our laws as their first act in coming to this country.They aren’t just aliens, they are “ILLEGAL ALIENS”.  By taking up their cause against our laws, doesn’t this make Gutierrez guilty of not supporting our Constitution?

Those against illegal immigration, of which I count myself as one, are now being threatened with punishment by a Representative of The United States. Yet, our Constitution says that we have the freedom of speech. Perhaps Representative Gutierrez ought to read at least the first amendment to the Constitution he gave an oath to support and defend.

If he really wants to blame someone for criminalizing those coming to the border illegally, not just children, but all that come here illegally, he ought to take a look at who wrote the laws that he seems so willing to be ignorant about and ignore. The laws were written by lawmakers. His predecessors. People that held seats in the House, Senate and a President that signed them. That’s how it’s done here in this country. As a Representative, he ought to know this.

So where did Gutierrez come from? Well, he was born in Lincoln Park, Illinois. He is an American citizen. So who is “our people” to him? He went to school in Illinois. His parents are from Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States and those born there since 1917 are considered United States citizens, but this doesn’t apply, even if it mattered, to Gutierrez because he was born in Illinois. Gutierrez didn’t even go to Puerto Rico for the first time until after his freshman year in high school and he didn’t even speak Spanish until he went there during his high school years.

He returned to Illinois and attended college at Northeastern Illinois. So, who exactly does he mean when he says “our people”?

It’s obvious to me that Gutierrez doesn’t have any respect for the laws. After all, he’s willing to reward people for not following our laws in coming here. He’s not in favor of enforcing the current law so why should we create a new law? If there is something he doesn’t like about the new law or if the law doesn’t give him enough of what he wants, will he still advocate for people to violate the law claiming that it’s a broken law that he helped to write?

When does giving an oath mean something to these elected officials? The definition of oath as intended for those supposedly holding the public trust is: a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words and something (as a promise) corroborated.

Representative Gutierrez has clearly not intended to honor his oath. His word cannot be trusted. He wants to punish people that he represents for daring to have a different opinion from his and from those wishing to see the current law enforced. He’s on the verge of calling for insurrection or revolution. He’s putting other Americans at risk by telling “his people” to punish anyone that speaks against his position on an issue. Representative Gutierrez is not fit to be a Congressman in the United States of America.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett