A Fugitive From Political Correctness

Us or Them

2011-09-27T07:43:00.001-04:00

Congress finally passed a temporary budget to get us through a few more weeks. As you probably know, the hold up was in funding FEMA. Some Conservatives wanted to offset funding emergencies with cuts in spending. Liberals argued that it wasn't fair to withhold much needed money to hurricane or tornado victims while Congress debated where the money should come from and which budgets to cut.

Surprisingly, I agreed with the liberals. Although I think government should have a limited role in our lives, we do need help during disasters. However, I also partially agree with conservatives in that we must have offsetting spending cuts to pay for it. The issue, however, is where we should cut our spending. Conservatives want to take money from green energy. I wouldn't mind cutting spending on that but this isn't the time or place. No, there is a much better area to cut spending to fund FEMA. The next time there is an emergency requiring federal assistance conservatives should ask the following question:

Do we provide billions in assistance to Americans in need or do we continue to provide the same amount to Pakistanis? I picked Pakistan as it's been in the news but you could substitute it for nearly any other country. Hell, we seem to give your money to just about everybody but you. If curious here is the listing of how much we gave other countries as of 2009: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1296.pdf

Why do we give $7 million to Ireland? Nice people but let England take care of them. Does anybody know where Kyrgyzstan is for we gave that country $43 million! In 2009 we gave over $11 trillion to the Middle East including that $1.2 trillion to Pakistan and $8.6 trillion to Afghanistan plus another $1.7 trillion to Egypt. Then there was the $1.2 trillion the US gave to Columbia in 2009. Why? And on top of all this largess is the copious amounts of your hard earned money goes to the United Nations. In 2009 we gave $589 trillion to this institution which takes our money while it frequently denounces our country, our ideals

We can't continue to do both, not in the current economic situation. And to add insult to injury, far too many of the countries we help would cheer to see our citizens in trouble. In fact they would be more inclined to assist in the United States downfall then to lend us a helping hand. So the question is as simple as do we help our own citizens or do we help some other country while our citizens go in need?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Fair Share vs. Paris Hilton

2011-09-21T16:27:00.001-04:00

I keep hearing the president tell us that the rich should pay their fair share to the government. But what is a fair "fair share" percentage? On the low end are the religious folks who say that their religion requires that they tithe so if 10% is enough for God it should be enough for Obama. On the hand, I have heard a number of progressive Democrats say that the rich should give half of all their income to the government.

The underlying thought is that the government can spend rich people's money better than they can. But is that true? Oh and by the way, for the do-gooders who think they are carrying on Robin Hood's job, they have it backwards. Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor. No, he actually stole the unreasonable taxes collected by the government and returned that money to the hard working folks who paid those exorbitant taxes. It is Republicans who more truly follow in Robin Hoods footsteps, not Democrats.

Now back to who can better spend rich people's money. For example, a lot of people might say that the government would do a better job spending the money of trust fund kids. You know, those filthy rich offspring who got millions and millions simply by having the right daddy. But isn't every parent's dream to provide for their children and give them a better life than they had? Well yes, but still, they don't need that much money, do they? Besides, everyone knows that trust fund babies have a tendency to throw away their money on fancy cars, luxurious homes, expensive wines, lots of jewelry, not to forget roomfuls of clothes and rows and rows of shoes and purses. Simply disgraceful! Unless, of course, you make the clothes or sell the shoes or repair the cars or provide the furniture.

Almost as bad as the trust fund babies are the wives of the filthy rich men. The antics of these housewives are all over TV. If they were the original wife, people might begrudgingly acknowledge their help over the years, be it at the office or raising the children. Trophy wives, though, are worse than trust fund kids for they dislodged the first wife who was there during the hard times and can simply enjoy spending all of their new husband's money. And when they are not on a shopping spree they are at the salon or spa or gym.

Oh right, we're back to spending money on services and goods. All that spending, all that money, fueling the economy, wouldn't you say? And it goes to people who work and who in turn spend their earnings on more goods and services. But the government would give a large part of the wealthy's "fair share" to people who don't work. You know, that take from the rich and give to the poor that Stalin liked so much. Sorry but I prefer that trust fund babies and trophy wives keep their money and spend it however they wish, thank you very much.

Rich men's wives, however, also have a tendency to throw away a lot of money going to fancy dinners and balls given by other rich people. When you or I give a party we might ask a friend to bring a bottle of wine or perhaps a dessert. Rich folks think nothing in spending tens of thousands of dollars for a seat at a dinner party. Oh wait, typically all that money goes to a charity, doesn't it? And then in addition to the ten or twenty-five thousand dollar a plate dinner they then have auctions to raise millions of dollars for a hospital or charity. On a lesser scale are all the golf tournaments, walk-a-thons and other charity events held every weekend for every illness and charity. Take away their money and lots of charities will be underfunded which will negatively affect the research to find a cure for AIDs or breast cancer or cystic fibrosis.

Then there are the rich men, themselves; men who worked hard and provided a new or improved product or service that consumers wanted and paid money for, thereby making the men rich, not to mention his stockholders, investors and even his employees.

These rich guys probably don't spend as much money as their wives or children in buying things as they are too busy working. Yet at that office or factory, these men hire thousands and thousands of people who's salaries in turn buy more products and services. Plus rich guys help other businesses. In a good economy they invest their money not only back into their own company but also into other companies as stocks or bonds or venture capital. Money that again fuels the economy with new businesses meaning new jobs and opportunities for the rest of us.

But you don't hear any of this, do you? No, all Obama says is that the government should take more money from the rich, some hypothetical "fair share" that the Democrats will determine. And when they take that money then the rich will have less to spend on products and services provided by the middle class. All those little boutiques, restaurants, shops, beauty parlors, gyms etc. who employ us middle class and we in turn buy more things with the salaries earned from catering to the rich. But once Obama has this money, well, watch those businesses disappear.

Jobs will disappear when the rich have less money to spend yet, we know how well the government is at creating jobs. They did such a stellar job with the stimulus funds so expect the same failure when they have rich people's money. Just watch as our high unemployment rate jumps even higher if Obama gets his "fair share" tax hike.

And you explain to my niece or any other child with cystic fibrosis why we would raise less money if there's a "fair share" tax. That fewer people would attend our charity events if the wealthy are forced to pay higher taxes. Sorry kids, with less research money, finding a cure to allow CF patients to live past their mid 30s will just take longer now. All because Obama thinks the government deserves to have rich people's money.

So the next time Obama or any Democrat starts to argue about a "fair share" tax tell them that the rich, including Paris Hilton or any of the Housewives from wherever, help our economy and our charities better than the government ever could.

Panic Time

2011-09-19T06:20:00.001-04:00

The Obama presidency is imploding. You know it is bad when ultraliberal James Carville writes an OpEd telling Obama that it is time to panic. He's right. Just this week Obama's administration has been hit with a number of potential scandals and one very embarrassing special election. And now only 43 % approve how Obama is handling his job as president according to a recent CNN poll and over half of those polled (53%) disapprove. But it gets worse for when asked how Obama is handling the economy just 36% approve and a whopping 61% disapprove. Yup, it sure is time to panic.

How angry and fed up must people be when a predominantly Jewish population who has had a democrat Congressman since the 1920's bypassed the Jewish Democrat candidate for a Catholic Republican? Wow. But as Obama's old pastor once so famously said "the chickens have come home to roost". In this case, the Presidents favoritism of the Arab Middle East, mishandling of Israel and rude behavior during Netanyahu's last visit is resulting in the disenfranchising of the Jewish voters. And even as Obama is losing his core base his administration is being rocked with scandals.

Yesterday the Chicago Tribune entitled "Obama's Solyndra scandal reeks of the Chicago Way". And they should know. So what happened? Solyndra, a company making a new kind of solar panels, was the pride of Obama's green initiative. In spite of warnings or the fact that the Bush administration turned it down, Obama rushed to push through giving Solyndra $535 million of stimulus money in 2009. This week Solyndra declared bankruptcy.

They are calling this crony capitalism meaning Obama is helping businesses who have helped him. Yup, typical Chicago politics. No surprise what with Obama picking Bill Daley as his Chief of staff earlier this year. What else would you expect from a Daley who is pictured below having a laugh with our president and the infamous ex Governor Blagojevich.

A new name in the news is George Kaiser. He is the wealthiest man in Oklahoma, a contributor to Obama's campaign and a major investor in Solyndra. The White House logs shows that Kaiser was at the White House nearly 20 times in the month before receiving the stimulus money. And he wrote the contract such that investors will be paid first, then the government. I guess we can kiss that half a billion dollars goodbye.

How did they blow through $535 million in less than two years? It could be the new factory that opened a year ago, the one in which Obama toured and gave a speech. Or maybe it's the fact that they made solar panels at $6 a piece and according to multiple sources sold them for $3 a piece. Even lemonade stand Susie knows that it is stupid to sell at a loss.

No wonder our economy is getting worse under Obama. His economic team, starting with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is clueless. (Remember that Geithner had been president of the Federal Reserve Board of NY during the initial bank melt down in 08-09. Some Wall Street insiders blame Geithner for worsening the economic collapse due to what he did or didn't do to help salvage banks.)

Again, Carville is correct in demanding that Obama fire them all, starting with the Treasury Secretary. Meanwhile, Obama's new economic plan is simply stimulus junior with no new initiatives. As the saying goes, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing again and expect different results.

Then there are the growing scandals, old and new. There is Operation Fast and Furious, the gun running debacle. The ATF, again under Geithner, came up with the ludicrous idea to sell guns across the border in the hopes of tracking them and arresting Mexican criminals. Instead the guns have been used in multiple illegal incidents including the deadly shooting of one of our border patrol agent.

And the scandals keep on coming. Keep an eye on LightSquared another company who's top man was a major Obama contributor. As the Washington Post put it: "The deal has been criticized not only for its 'pay to play' appearance but also because the LightSquared network would interfere with the part of the wireless spectrum that is used by Global Positioning Systems (GPS)." Now a top level Air Force General is saying he was pressured by the White House to testify that this system would not interfere with the military's usage of the current GPS system, when, in fact, it could.

The week ended with the publication of a new "insider's" book: "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President,” by journalist Ron Suskind. In addition to detailing infighting among top Obama advisors it also states that Obama's administration was an all men's club. At best women felt ignored and excluded, at worst, according to former White House communications director Anita Dunn, it was a hostile environment where women felt like "a piece of meat."

Today, many of the women are now backtracking on these remarks which is understandable, for in the book they claimed that the the men's club attitude and the instigator for the poor treatment of women came directly from the president. Oops, just one more Obama mis-step.

Last week was definitely not a good week for President Obama. I am also old enough to hear the echo of history as pundits and the media begin to ask what did Obama know about these scandals and when did he know it? To have this hit as he begins to campaign for the next election has even resulted in a few whispers of an acronym I haven't heard in 40 years. Can anyone say CREEP?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

My Fair American

2011-09-08T11:03:00.001-04:00

There has been a lot of serious talk about the president's speech tonight. It seems as if both sides are getting a bit heated. And that union leader went too far in his condemnation of conservatives. Even ABC news went after Obama for not denouncing the guy. What we need is to ease up a bit though I doubt if Obama could do it. Actually if he were as politically smart as he thinks he is he would start the speech today with the Pledge of Allegiance. Can you imagine the visual impact that would have? But he would never do that, it's too politically charged what with that"God" reference.

Anyway, on a much lighter note, as I listened to pundits debate about tonight I was suddenly reminded of one of the lesser known songs from My Fair Lady. The song is called "Show Me" and is sung by a woman who, well, let the lyrics speak for themselves and for how I feel about Obama and his job speech tonight: "Words! Words! I'm so sick of words! First from him, now from you! Is that all you blighters can do? ... Make me no undying vow. Show me now! Sing me no song! Read me no rhyme! Don't waste my time, Show me! Don't talk of June, Don't talk of fall! Don't talk at all! Show me!
Never do I ever want to hear another word. There isn't one I haven't heard! Show me!" You see why I thought of this song?!

I took another look at My Fair Lady and found that there is a more famous song from this musical which also applies to America today. It is the very first song in the musical in which Henry Higgins deplores the way the common Englishmen speaks. Turn it around for Americans and the Hispanics and it hits the mark with such lines as: "An American's way of speaking absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks he makes some other American despise him. One common language I'm afraid we'll never get, Oh, why can't the American learn to set a good example to people whose English is painful to your ears... Why can't all Americans learn to speak?"

I also discovered a song that is a good fit for President Obama by just substituting the word "spent" for the word "dance" . Here is a brief look at those new lyrics: "I could have spent all night, I could have spent all night and still have spent some more." Yup sounds like our President!

Of course the fun song "With A Little Bit of Luck" is perfect just the way it is (if you're union or maybe a progressive, that is). The first few lines tell it all: "The Lord above gave man an arm of iron, So he could do his job and never shirk. The Lord gave man an arm of iron-but, With a little bit of luck, With a little bit of luck, Someone else'll do the blinkin' work!"

There are other songs but I'll include only one more from My Fair Lady. Simply change the premise to be a song sung by people who voted for Obama but are now disillusioned. With that in mind the first stanza is also perfect as it is and nothing needs to be change: " What a fool I was, what a dominated fool, to think that you were the earth and the sky, What a fool I was, What an elevated fool, What a mutton-headed dote was I! No, my reverberated friend, you are not the beginning and the end." Oh yes, a perfect fit indeed!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

A Not So Big Job Plan

2011-09-03T09:37:00.001-04:00

Happy Labor Day Weekend to all of you who actually have jobs. For those without one, well, help should be coming soon if you believe that Obama will be announcing a new jobs plan to the Joint Houses next week. It has to be really big, right? Why else would the President ask to speak to both Houses, something usually reserved for the annual State of the Union, declaring war or some other monumental reason.

Except I've noticed something about our president. He doesn't really care. Remember this is the man who voted "Present" while in the Senate rather than care one way or another about an issue. Sure he gives great speech but take away the teleprompter and his passion is as solid as the smoke from his cigarette, wavering then disappearing entirely. Good thing for us.

What of Obamacare you ask. Sure, he wanted the Health Care Plan but not enough to sit down and work out a plan or even give many guidelines to the Democratically controlled House and Senate. I actually think we have it wrong, it is not so much Obamacare as it is Pelosicare. She and the still, but not for long, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were the ones who pushed this abomination through their respective houses. Obama just sat in the Oval Office letting his minions do all his work for him then he took credit for it.

This upcoming "big" speech on jobs is a great example. First it is way over due and yet this spring he finally realizes that it is one of the most urgent issues he has. Then he decides that this urgent issue isn't so urgent that it couldn't wait until everyone comes back from the August vacation. But wait. Now it so urgent again that it just had to be given next Wednesday. Oh, the Republicans have a presidential debate at the Reagan Library planned for months on that same date? Gee what a coincident. (Wink wink, nudge, nudge, let's mess with the Republicans).

Except for the first time in history, that I know of, a president's request to meet with both Houses was turned down. Some say that Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House was disrespectful to the office of the presidency. Maybe. But it could also be said that Obama was using his office to play politics and simply screw the Republicans.

It says something about the people around Obama that no one had the foresight to wonder what would be the ramifications if Boehner said no.

Is Obama and his team that arrogant or simply that stupid? So when Boehner did say no, they were basically left with their asses hanging in the wind and after much sputtering and posturing, the President's team said he would give his speech on Thursday, not Wednesday. In this game of political chicken it was Obama who blinked.

The thing is, the President could have won that petty fight if he really cared. If he showed he passionately believed he had to give that speech on Tues, not Weds and stood up to Boehner with the full force of the presidency behind him then Beohner would have acquiesced . But he didn't really care. It was just a political game and Obama was the one who caved once again.

Or Obama could have said he would give the speech on Wednesday but from the Oval Office not in front of Congress. Of course the problem with that idea is that this time around what he says isn't going to be as important as how it will look to the public. Obama wants to be seen angrily lecturing Republicans, looking all stern while he shakes his finger as they must sit there. On the other hand, he wants to camera to show the enthusiastic Democrats leaping to their feet applauding their wonderful leader. It's all a show folks.

When I said what he will say won't matter, well, funny thing about that speech. I just saw a clip where it showed Obama early this summer saying he would give a "specific plan" on creating new jobs, then mid summer he said he will present a plan but no more promises of details and now it is being touted as an outline with the full plan and details to be determined after he talks to the people. Wait a minute. Didn't he just have that bus tour to do exactly that? So now this "big" speech is nothing more than a campaign stunt; to screw the Republicans, make them look bad and himself good and then to set himself up for more campaign tours under the auspices of discussing jobs. Yup it's nothing but Obama once again stating one big "present" with nothing solid behind it at all. Personally I'm not even going to bother to tune in - turns out that by moving the speech to Thursday it is now up against the kickoff NFL season. Go Packers!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Cheaters

2011-08-13T09:41:00.001-04:00

When I was in school I always hated the teachers who would punish an entire classroom just because a handful of students misbehaved. I think this was my first glimpse that life wasn't fair. And I didn't like it one bit.

Unfortunately once grownup, the miscreants and cheaters became even more numerous and in some instances more flagrant in their behavior.

Except instead of a teacher, the authority they are trying to cheat is our government. And like my teachers of yesteryear, the government punishes all of us through new laws and taxes because of the few people trying to beat the system. Just think how many laws would be unnecessary if people followed even half of the ten commandments. Or what if everyone had to pay x% of their income or $100 whichever is greater. No loopholes, no excuses for the rich, and it makes the 50% who don't pay any taxes chip in a small amount, to be fair, of course.

What got me thinking about this were two stories in the news this week. First, more people are claiming SSI disability pay than in the past and the government is concerned and plans to investigate. The next day, completely unassociated with the earlier story, there was yet another headline about someone cheating the government of disability pay.

This time it was a fireman who was collecting full disability pay yet they showed clips of him participating in some kind of mixed martial arts fight. The government investigated and found him able to return to work. But his fireman's union disagrees and continue to pay him roughly $70,000 to not work!

People who abuse the system just infuriate me. As most know, I am disabled and it would be impossible for me to return to work. Yet because of all the past and current cheaters, I am being punished. I had to fight first our government then the insurance company for them to recognize that, yes, I really am disabled. Out of everything I went through, and I went through a lot, perhaps what bothered me the most was the accusation behind their actions that I, too, was a cheat and a liar trying to beat the system. Even now, I feel as if I have to defend why I really am disabled and apologize for not working.

The news story about the increase in disability claims actually blamed it on cheaters. They said this increase didn't make sense as the country is healthier than in the past. Yet I don't think that being healthy and being disabled are necessarily the same. I haven't had a cold or the flu in years; but I can't sit up, stand or walk for more than a few hours a day. Plus as everyone knows, the population is aging so of course there will be more disabled people.

Unfortunately, the government is predisposed to think everyone is like that fireman, out to beat the system. Now, all that will happen are more laws or requirements making it even more difficult for those of us who really are disabled to qualify for disability pay.

Life isn't fair. Thanks to the cheaters who abuse the system, we will continue to be burdened with unnecessary laws and harassed by the government and other people who wonder if we are cheaters, too. And I still don't like it one bit!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Not My Fault

2011-08-08T20:52:00.001-04:00

After a long weekend of silence the president finally came out of his office to discuss S&P's ratings downgrade. He might as well have stayed in his office for all the help he was. At one point I did start to get excited when he said "I have a plan.." thinking he was finally going to produce his own plan to reduce the debt but no, the whole sentence was "I have a plan on how to proceed." Gee thanks. And it seemed as if his great plan was for the committee proposed by the new debt bill to determine what to do. Why bother? He already has a plan from his first debt committee.

Last year he commissioned a bipartisan committee of primarily retired (I think) Congressmen to come up with a plan to reduce the deficit. And they did. Their 59 page Bowles Simpson report would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion while also lowering the tax rate! Unfortunately it had one fatal flaw.

This concise well thought out plan had the nerve to propose increasing the age for Social Security and making cuts to Medicare. So, true to form, the Democrats refused to let this plan even get out of committee. And yet during his speech Obama lectured Congress on the need for compromise. Maybe it's just the other side that needs to compromise.

For Obama, compromise certainly doesn't include any changes to his proposed fair share tax - you know the one where he sticks it to the rich to redistribute their wealth to the poor. Nope, no compromise on that but he did offer to look at "a modest adjustment to health care..." (and, in spite of the word "modest", I still got excited wondering if he actually cut back Obamacare?) "... like Medicare". Damn Disappointed again.

S&P dropped our ratings on Friday and the next day a memo must have gone to Democrats for by Sunday every liberal was calling the S&P move "the Tea Party downgrade". Of course, blame it on the Tea Party. I had hoped that the president would be above this type of petty politics. Not exactly. He didn't come out and name the Tea Party but he definitely insinuated them a lot.

At one point he talked about how defaulting on the debt was used as a bargaining chip which could do enormous damage. Another time he said the debt problem was "not due to a lack of a plan but due to lack of political will, the insistence in drawing lines and the refusal to put what is best for the country ahead of self interest, or party or ideology". Yup, that's the Tea Party, those terrible men and women with principles they believe in.

But why are liberals afraid of the Tea Party? Democrats still hold two of the three branches, not to mention most of the media. Republicans only have a majority in the House and within that are the small coalition known as the Tea Party. Out of all the men and women running the country or reporting on it the Tea Party is a very small group. And yet the President and every other Liberal are afraid of them and the media spends a disproportionate time bashing them. So why?

Thinking about this question I keep seeing the image of Toto pulling back the curtain and revealing the "great and powerful Wizard of Oz". That's the power of the Tea Party citizens. Ever since the mortgage crisis and stimulus bills people have been confronting their politicians and demanding answers. OMG. Citizens actually wanting to hold their representatives and senators accountable for their actions. How dare they. Well they dare alright! And we will continue to hold them accountable for fixing this debt mess.

As for the Tea Party politicians? Well let me quote a Democrat friend of mine. He recently said he didn't necessarily agree with them but he admired the fact that Tea Party politicians were willing to stand on their principles even if it meant not be re-elected next year. Wow. Too bad more Democrats don't feel that way.

One last thought. Every Democrat, including the president, was either blaming the Tea Party or else insinuating that Standard & Poors were wrong. These politicians adamantly stated that the US didn't deserve this downgrade or that S&P miscalculated. No. We did deserve this wake up call. But how typical of the liberals to either say the information was wrong or else blame it on somebody else. Never have I heard any Democrat own up to even a part of the downgrade. Sadly, not even President Obama showed any leadership. No "the buck stops here" with him. To them accountability is a dirty word. No wonder they fear the Tea Party!

*Double click on a graph to view them bigger

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

No Confidence

2011-08-04T17:53:00.000-04:00

I wasn't planning on writing this soon but the banker in me just had to bring up the new banking trend. Some of the biggest US banks began to inform their clients today on a new fee. In the past, if you had millions to deposit you looked for the bank that paid the highest interest rate, right? No more. Instead the new trend is to charge the customer a fee to deposit their money at the bank!

That's right, the rich, businesses or anyone wanting to deposit millions will have to pay for the privilege of banking at one of the bigger banks.

You thought the rediculously small interest paid on savings, money market accounts or CDs was bad - now customers and businesses have to pay the banks to hold their millions! You're better off putting it under your mattress.

I hate to admit this, but as a former banking consultant I can understand why banks are doing this. Basically there is too much cash floating around as investors are getting out of the stock market and real estate. In fact money is so prevalent that the Federal Reserve is charging the few banks that need to borrow money an interest rate of 0%. Yup, it is free to borrow but that isn't the problem, the problem is too much money.

Not to get too technical but banks have to balance out their Assets which are loans and cash on hand vs. their Liabilities of deposits and stocks.

Too much deposits and they can't make enough loans to balance it out. Businesses today are afraid to get new loans as the economy is uncertain and they are afraid of the future impact of Obamacare. There are few mortgages as no one is buying houses and the few customers who try for a loan are turned down as banks are being very strict. So banks can't turn the big deposits into loans today.

In today's economy, banks interest margin (the rates they collect on loans minus the rate they pay out on deposits)has been smaller and smaller. And now they can't even turn around and loan out the big deposits to earn even a small interest fee. Banks are making up that lost income by now charging customers a fee to hold their large deposits.

So I understand why this sort of makes sense from the bank's point of view. But I worry about the bigger picture. I don't like that we have all this excess cash. It is scary to think that people and companies are not investing in our future nor are banks helping out individuals or small businesses with loans.

Some analyst reviewing today's 512 drop in the stock market said it was a vote of no confidence in our future. I agree. For how can you blame anyone for shying away from investing in the stock market after the last few days of free fall and the jump in gold? Not to forget that Washington just agreed to more spending and more debt.

How do we turn our economy around? How do we give our citizens, and big and small businesses confidence in our future?

Unfortunately, does anyone truly believe our economy and unemployment will get any better considering who is in the White House? Or will confidence return only after we get a true leader? Preferably someone with real business acumen, someone who knows how to live on a budget like the rest of us do. Most of all, we need a leader who understands how to give Americans and American businesses the freedom to succeed or even to fail, then learn from it and come back stronger and wiser. Until then, add my voice in with all the others who are starting to shout "No confidence!"

Location:home

Debt Doldrums

2011-08-02T15:22:00.003-04:00

I am back. Or for those who hadn't noticed, PC Fugitive has been down for nearly a year due to technical problems. But switching from my PC to my new IPad and adding a blog app and I am finally back in business. Yeah!

The funny thing, however, is that even if I could write I am not sure how much I would have. It just all seems so redundant.

The Democrats want more spending and would increase taxes to pay for some of it while the Republicans, led by the Tea Party, want less spending and fewer taxes and to not raise the dent ceiling. But as we all know now, after months of bitter arguing the debt ceiling was raised, some new spending approved but thanks to the Tea Party there are no new taxes. Yet.

When the president gave a short speech about the new debt ceiling he primarily talked about how we would pay it off. Once again he talked about taxing the rich through new taxes, closing loopholes or taxing luxury items like corporate jets. It's probably a losing battle but let me try one more time to explain why Obama is totally wrong, again.

First, the United States top 10% wealthiest citizens pays 45.1% of all income

taxes. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html) This is more than any other industrialized nation. In France, the top 10% richest payed just 28% while in England it was 38.6% of all personal income taxes. So our richest citizens are already paying substantiously more than their counterparts yet the Democrats want to take even more money from them! We can't let that happen.

As for taxing luxury items, doesn't anyone remember the Carter years? Jimmy had the same idea except instead of going after jets he added a new tax on luxury boats. And guess what happened? The rich stopped buying boats and then all across New England's coast people were suddenly jobless.

No one bought boats so skilled shipmakers were let go. Docks that relied on docking fees were empty. The businesses that catered to the people who were now unemployed started to go bankrupt. So basically the only people hurt by that luxury tax were the middle class. And I don't know this for sure but it only figures that if fewer luxury boats were sold than even with the higher tax rate the government probably collected less tax dollars on the boats. Typical. Whenever the government tries to interfere they always make things worse!

So what is the solution? I have a few ideas (surprise, surprise) but plenty of time to talk about that another day. And now that I have my new iPad and blog app I have no more excuses for not keeping this up-to-date. So thanks for your patience and welcome back!

Location:Home

2010-11-01T22:50:00.006-04:00

I am back. Not only is the following entry my first time back in two months but more importantly it is my 300th PC Fugitive blog. Who knew I had so much to say? Then again we are living in interesting history making times. Over the years I’ve had some hits and some misses but most of all I’ve had a lot of fun. I hope you have, too. So I apologize for the two month absence and thank you for continuing with me all this time. And I have a feeling that the next two years should be a lot more fun than the past two years!

Mid-Term Miracles

2010-11-01T21:31:00.014-04:00

After tomorrow’s election there will once again be the refrain by liberals and the far left that Americans are stupid. This is what they said after the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections when their candidate lost. I never understood their reasoning. If the losing side wanted to win the next time around then they needed to convince the other side to vote for their man (or woman). So you would think that insulting the winning side by calling them stupid isn’t exactly the smart way of winning friends and influencing your enemies.

When Obama was elected four years later, surprise, surprise, suddenly the American people were very intelligent. They voted in the right man and life was good again. Not only did Americans elect Obama but the liberals hit the Trifecta, dominating the Presidency, the House and the Senate. Plus in the first two years, this new President picked two new politically correct Supreme Court Justices and if there were potential problems with other Presidential appointees then Obama just bypassed Senate’s consent and called them Czars. Oh life was good for liberals.

But a funny thing happened, the American people started to lose IQ points over the past two years, or at least thats what Democrats would have you believe. Even worse, the lower the IQ, the louder these people became. They had the nerve to not quietly sit back but to actually take action and without anyone’s help! They might have been better managed if they had kept to the Republican Party where old-timers knew how to squelch loud bothersome newcomers. But they even surprised the GOP by gathering under their own name – the Tea Party.

The Tea Party might have fizzled out after that first summer of discontent when they protested about Obamacare, disrupting town hall meetings with their sharp questioning. After the Senate and House still passed their health care plan, arrogantly ignoring a large and growing segment of the population, the Tea Party should have died out. They lost. Shut Up. Move on. But people didn’t move on. Instead they became angrier. Even worse for the politicians, they took names and took action.

The Tea Party nonetheless still could have died out if it weren’t for the actions of two people. They are not the founding fathers of the party but they were the nursemaids, nurturing and encouraging Tea Party enthusiasts. They gave it a legitimate platform and a voice. The first person of course is Sarah Palin; the darling of the conservatives and the laughingstock of the liberals. After being continuously embarrassed by the Mainstream Media (MSM) this woman had the audacity to not go away; just the opposite actually. By all rights, after the trouncing she got by the MSM and the truly awful Couric interview, she should have slunk back to Alaska never to be heard from again. Instead Palin left the relatively obscure position of Alaska’s Governor, wrote a book and hit the lecture circuit.

This is the first time I can recall that a politician refused to let the MSM win. Remember Dan Quayle? Probably not if you’re under 50. He was the first Bush’s VP and his falling out with the MSM was over the spelling of potato. He thought there was an e at the end. They hounded the man showering nonstop ridicule on him for weeks and weeks over a simple misspelling. They broke him and he disappeared, never to be heard from again. So give credit where credit is due – Palin refused to back down. Instead she and the Tea Party grew stronger together.

The other Tea Party nursemaid is Glenn Beck. Here was the ideal meeting of a man and a movement, each backing the other to untold fame and infamy. Glenn Beck did for the Tea Party what Pat Robertson did for the Moral Majority and President Nixon for the Silent Majority. And just like Palin, he has been totally villified by the MSM, and labeled extreme, even mad.

What did Beck do to earn the wrath of liberals? He told conservatives that they are not alone. That they shouldn’t feel disheartened by the news they hear each day from the MSM. Instead they needed to understand that if they banded together they would have the power to take over the country. In encouraging this group he also was forthright in describing the other side, the interweaving of liberal groups and people in DC, Hollywood, New York and now Chicago. In many ways, Beck turns today’s politics into a morality play bringing back old fashioned morals, religion and patriotism with clear cut heroes and villains.

On Tuesday November 2nd Americans are going to take a stand and say to the President and his party “No more”. The MSM will once again call these Americans stupid. And they are led in this chorus by none other than our President. In a speech at a small fundraising party last month in West Newton MA, Obama said: "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared, and the country's scared.” He went on to say that he faulted the economic downturn for Americans’ inability to “think clearly” and said the burden is on Democrats “to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling.”

Obama just doesn’t get it and that scares me. We are frustrated because Obama, Reid and Pelosi don’t listen to the majority of the country and we are afraid of what they will do next. Saying we don’t understand the facts isn’t helping. He is the one who isn’t understanding the situation. He has repeatedly said that perhaps part of the problem is that he could have better communicated what they were doing. OMG. This man does nothing but communicate. We heard you already Mr Obama and November 2nd is our reply.

I want to hope that he will then act like Bill Clinton who, when faced with a similar mid-term situation, became more centrix and worked with Speaker of the House Gingrich to implement bills that helped the country. But I doubt it. A recent speech had Obama calling conservatives “the enemy”. And he ended his speech in MA by predicting even more partisanship and gridlock in Congress. “I don’t anticipate that getting better next year,” he said at the fundraiser. “I anticipate that getting worse.” He said he needs Democrats in the Senate “because every bit of progress that we need to make is going be a matter of grinding it out.” Nice attitude, Mr. President. So much for bipartisanship.

One more thing. In addition to calling Tea Party candidates and their followers “stupid” you can be sure that the MSM and liberals will also label them “extreme” and they will endlessly worry about the future of our country after this historical midterm election. Funny. Although I have frequently been proud of my country, for the first time in a long time, unlike the media, I am not nearly as worried about my country’s future as I was yesterday.

The Tea Party - the Voice of the Silent Majority

2010-09-16T14:05:00.018-04:00

I find it very interesting to watch the evolution of the conservatives emergence into today’s Tea Party. The modern day revolt of the middle class began in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Your average folks out in the suburbs and farms were aghast at the chaos all around him. Everywhere they looked people were rioting – college kids burning draft cards, dope smoking (or worse) hippies, inner city riots were destroying and burning their own parts of town, women were burning bras and everyone was beginning to question the Vietnam War. The Silent Majority were stunned into silence by all that was happening around them.

While the Democrats were mired in the violence of their 1968 convention Nixon stepped out at the Republican convention to be the voice of the right . To rail against all these changes and try to stand up for the conservative values that were being carelessly tossed aside by other groups with louder voices. And when Nixon ran for a second term it was a rout with Nixon trouncing the very liberal McGovern with 97% of the electoral vote and 62% of the popular vote! The Silent Majority had spoken in full volume!

As everyone knows, Nixon let his power get to him, and resigned in disgrace. The Silent Majority was disillusioned by this betrayal and stayed away from the polls in 1972 thereby letting Jimmy Carter become the next president. Conservatives believed that under Carter's mismanagment the country continued to slide to the left and was headed for economic disaster, inflation and double digit unemployment. Finally conservatives shook off their paralysis after Nixon’s betrayal of their trust and began to pull together but this time under a new name and a true leader.

One of the few places the Silent Majority felt comfortable in speaking out was in their churches. Yet even that was being taken away from them by liberal ministers and priests who preached social justice and liberation theories. It was no wonder that conservatives flocked to the new TV televangelists who preached Christianity and conservative values. It was a message the right were starved for after two decades of liberals progressive actions.

The Silent Majority found their voices in their churches and became the Moral Majority. Ronald Reagan was their leader and conservatism was once again back in fashion. Not just lower taxes and less government but also a new emphasis on restoring some semblance of old fashioned values combined with a resurgence in American pride and patriotism.

Unfortunately, just as Nixon’s betrayal broke up the Silent Majority, it was the televangelists’ downfalls with women and taxes and unaccounted for riches that dismantled the Moral Majority. The end of Reagan's two terms was another factor in the lessening of the Moral Majority's powers.

Conservatives were then disappointed by the Bushes actions. Bush father’s increasing taxes after his “Read my lips, no new taxes” statement was his downfall and again conservatives weren't passionate about re-electing him. So we got Clinton who was actually good for the economy and conservatives didn't put up a huge fight, with poor candidates running against Clinton during his second election. But it was Bill's morals that concerned people and helped elect Bush W. After 9-11 everyone was behind how he handled the terrorist attacks on 9-11 and conservatives applauded his tax cuts. But Bush W. disenfranchised the right with his big government spending. This past president abandoned a primary conservative tenant of smaller government as he spent us into debt. As the economy became worse he spent even more to bail out banks and provide stimulus money. It was completely against everything conservatives stood for and they were dumbfounded by Bush’s betrayal.

When Obama was elected and began to spend even more money the conservatives felt hamstrung since one of their own Republicans had spent a lot during the last presidency. Democrats said conservatives were hypocrites if they complained about Obama’s spending after Bush spent, too. But Obama, Pelosi and Reid continued to push and push their liberal agenda finally passing a health care bill that no one understood and few people, other than the far left, really wanted. It was too much too soon. Finally, realizing that they were being blatently ignored by their own politicians was the last straw for the people.

This time around, conservatives and even many independents found their political voice with protests followed by confronting politicians during town hall meetings in the summer of 2009. People found their politicians to be so far removed from their constituency that they were no longer representing them. Getting no satisfaction from the current group of politicians, conservatives took the final step and entered the political realm with a vengeance. Faster then anyone anticipated, Tea Party candidates entered the mid-term elections with resolve to replace these old politicians and to everyone's surprise they had the votes to do so. They toppled big name Republicans who were RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only) such as in Florida and won what everyone thought would be unwinable elections such as the MA senate race to replace Ted Kennedy and this week’s Delaware Republican primary win by a Tea Party new politician. To date, Tea Party candidates have won Senate primaries in KY, AZ, AK, CO, NV and DE.

A new political force is being born right in front of our eyes. Yet Democrats continue to be contemptuous of this newfound group and even smugly pleased by the Tea Party’s foray into the mid-term election. Liberals don’t believe these conservative amateur candidates can win in a general election and so they feel that the Senate will retain their Democrat majority. But again, they don’t have a clue as to what is really happening. This is an explosion that has been building for 30 years. Not only have the people found their voice but they are stepping up and taking control. Nixon and the Bush’s betrayed them and there is no Reagan like leader in sight so the average guy is entering the political ring for the first time. And just as importantly, the masses are throwing their support to these Tea Party candidates. For example, this week’s Delaware primary typically had around 30,000 people voting – this week it had 57,000 voters with the majority coming out to support the Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell who actually beat the old time Republican politician. That is a huge difference in turnout for just a primary. As I said in an earlier blog, this is not a gentle tidal wave of change, this is a tsunami heading our way in November. Finally, the Silent Majority are truly silent no more.

How to Respond to Muslim Blackmail and Threats

2010-09-09T08:24:00.012-04:00

In 1983 President Reagan gave a speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando Florida. This is the speech in which he first called Russia an “evil empire”. According to Wikipedia, Reagan also made a case in this speech for deploying NATO nuclear armed missiles in Western Europe in response to the Soviet Union installing new nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe. Liberals had a cow. They were terrified that Russia would retaliate somehow. They thought that Reagan was rash to provoke the communists not only with words but then with the actual placement of nuclear missiles. Liberals moved the hand of the doomsday clock a bit closer to 12 as they anxiously worried that the USSR would retaliate against what Reagan said in that speech.

Luckily the Democrats weren’t running the country and instead we had President Reagan. This great leader presented a determined front and not once back downed when confronted with Russia’s blackmail threats to harm us if we didn’t remove our missiles or abandon the idea of a Star Wars defense or even arrogantly used terms like the evil empire. There was also a huge uprising from the UN and other countries but our leader, unlike the clamoring liberals, was not afraid of what anyone else might think of us; Reagan basically could care less and kept to his path of standing up for America. Of course we all know now that it was Russia who blinked in this cold war and the course of history changed dramatically including the fall of the Berlin Wall pictured left. But what would have happened if Reagan was fearful of Russian retaliation and, like the Democrats, worried that Americans might be killed and therefore gave in to Russia’s threats? How different might history be if Reagan didn’t have the fortitude to identify Russia for what it was – an evil empire that needed to be destroyed.

If this country had the guts to go toe-to-toe against a large country with nuclear weapons then why can’t we stand up to a bunch of street rabble with stones, homemade explosives and a few guns? Please understand that I don’t agree with Rev. Terry Jones who plans to burn the Quran in retaliation of 9-11. But this is America where he has the right to do this just as liberals and anarchists have the right to burn the flag. I hope the Reverend will decide that it is wrong but it would be more harmful in the long run if he backed down because of threats from Muslims worldwide.

I am deeply disappointed in General Petraeus for passing on the Muslims threats of harming our soldiers if Rev. Jones goes forward with his book burning. This is blackmail, pure and simple and the US should never back down to it. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that the threats were issued by street rabble rousers, probably the same Arabs who were cheering in the street after 9-11. We must not empower this group which is exactly what would happen if Rev. Jones backs down because of their threats. So shame on the General for even giving voice to their blackmail threats.

If we back down to their threats then we have established a very harmful pattern. For what will we back down to next? There is a lot of passion and anger over the building of the mosque in NY City. What would happen if General Petraeus gets on TV to tell us that Muslims are threatening to kill soldiers if we don’t let them build the mosque? Do we back down then?

Actually, the two events are very similar. Muslims can build the mosque in NYC but it would be wrong and insensitive to Americans while on the other hand Rev. Jones can burn the Quran but that also would be wrong and insensitive to the Muslims. The difference, however, is that Americans might protest in the streets about the mosque but it never would even occur to us to take to the streets threatening to kill Muslims if they don’t move the proposed mosques. Yet no one thinks twice about Arabs taking to the street in protest with burning effigies and threatening to kill us, this time because of the book burning. Why are they held to a lesser standard than we are?

Reverend Jones is wrong to want to burn the Quran but he is right when he asks when do we stop backing down to them. I also think that once again the mainstream media is slanting the news. I was listening to a local radio talk show and to my surprise all the callers were backing the Reverend. Like me, they didn’t agree with what he planned to do but believed he had the right to do it. And yet the MSM portrays only those protesting against the book burning. In fact the MSM is guilty of escalating the fear of retaliation if the minister burns Qurans on Saturday with the slanted stories they broadcast on their news programs. (It is also interesting to note that the Arab world didn't threaten us like this when Bush was president as I think they feared Bush who they saw as some cowboy who they didn't know what he would do next. Only now when Barrack Hussein Obama is president do they feel free to blackmail us...)

In the light of this standoff – the Rev. threatening to burn the Quran vs. Muslims threatening to kill our soldiers in retaliation if the Quarn is burned – I can’t help but wonder what would Reagan do? Just as Reagan believed the USSR was the evil empire, Rev. Jones believes that Islam and the Quran are evil. Perhaps I am wrong but if Reagan were our president today I can almost hear him state that America has freedom of speech which protects Rev. Jones. Though Reagan may disagree with burning the Quran, if the Middle East street Arabs actually harm one hair on a US soldier in retaliation then Reagan will bomb them back because nobody threatens our soldiers or tries to blackmail us. And if they do then they will regret it. {sigh} I do miss Reagan for instead of a staunch patriot who would stand up for America we have a conciliator and appeasement seeking President and General who apologize for this country and worry about what some thugs might do.. God help us if they manage to force Rev. Jones to back down to the street Arabs threats.

Postscript. Sometimes I amaze myself. I wrote this Weds. afternoon and set it aside as I became busy with other things. Then last night while I watched tennis the Imam in charge of the NY City mosque got on Larry King’s show and sure enough he threatened an explosion of anger and violence if America doesn’t let them build the mosque at that location by Ground Zero. I wish I had gotten this one wrong but here it is, the next threat. Forget the Rev. in Florida with burning the Quran. America is faced with these new threats of violence – now what? General what is your response – do we back down on this, too? And if so, what will come next? Or do we act like proud Americans and tell that Imam and the Arab street rabble that America does not and will never respond to blackmail and threats. Mainly I just wish somebody, anybody in Washington has the nerve, as Reagan did, to basically tell them to go to hell!

NYC Mosque vs. Thomas Jefferson

2010-08-31T22:32:00.010-04:00

Everybody agrees that our Freedom of Religion gives Muslims the right to build the NYC mosque. Everybody, that is, except Thomas Jefferson. This founding father knew that the time would come when someone would try to subvert and misuse our freedoms and here is his response to that:

A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger are of higher obligation.

This quote by Thomas Jefferson was used at the very end of a book by an Egyptian woman who immigrated to the US and converted to Christianity when she was 30. Until then she had been a Muslim in an Arab country, following the Sharia laws and living a life of fear and subjugation. The book, Cruel and Usual Punishment by Nonie Darwish is a fascinating insider’s look at the Islam religion, Sharia laws and how they came into being. But it was the author’s last chapter regarding America which I found to be both compelling and chilling.

You can almost hear the desperation in Ms. Darwish’s voice as she tries to convince the reader that Islam is not a religion of peace. For example, she states that there are 35,213 references in the Koran, Sharia laws and various Muslim scriptures basically advocating killing non-believers. Yes, the Old Testament is also rather bloodthirsty in places however the whole premise to Christianity is Jesus’ messages in the New Testament. He repudiated the Old Testament and taught that in the face of violence we should turn the other cheek and He gave us the Golden Rule. Islam, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. In the early parts of the Koran Mohammed was respectful of the “People of the Book” meaning Jews and Christians. As both Muslims and Jews were desert tribal people back then there was a natural affinity that is until Jewish tribes declined Mohammad’s “request” that they convert and join his tribe. Their refusal triggered a hatred of all Jews continuing to this day. From that point forward the Koran gets bloodier and bloodier in its suggested treatment of all infidels and apostates.

For Islam, this hatred of Jews has remained unchanged in the past 1400+ years. One example in Darwish’s book is that in 2005 the British House of Commons passed a bill aimed at curbing religious hatred. A delegation of prominent Muslims applied to have Islam exempt from the bill since followers of Mohammed must humiliate, hate, distrust, deceive and kill Christians and Jews. They therefore knew that readings from the Koran would be hate crimes under the new law as hatred of non-believers continues to be a central doctrine of Islamic scriptures. The scary part is that anti-Semitism is facing resurgence particularly in Europe which has experienced a large influx of conservative Muslims.

Ms. Darwish brought up an interesting and very relevant point about her former religion. In the US we strongly believe in separation of Church and State. Muslims, however, have intertwined Islam with the Sharia laws. You can’t have one without the other. The author then stated that historically, once Muslims start building mosques in a country they will next begin to push for acceptance of Sharia laws. This is already happening here and in Europe. We have all started to hear of stories ranging from taxi drivers refusing passengers carrying alcohol to Muslim women wanting to take their drivers license picture in full regalia with only their eyes showing.

But why are we letting them get away with it in the first place? Either it is a religion (Islam) or it is a political party with their own set of laws (Sharia). Darwish wondered what would have happened if Lenin had said that Communism was a new religion and began building Communist temples in the US under our Freedom of Religion. What is the difference? We must enforce separation of Church and State allowing Islam without Sharia. Muslims in America must obey our laws and recognize that this is a country where women are treated equally, daughters aren’t killed if they “dishonor” their fathers and we settle disputes in courts not with violence. And just as we forced Mormons to change their religion to fit in with out monogamous society so must we deal with any illegalities found in Islam/Sharia.

As the NYC mosque situation was hitting the headlines I was reading this book which made it that much more chilling. At the end of her book, Ms. Darwish, who lived her first 30 years in a conservative Arab country asks “the West to send a strong and firm message to Muslims everywhere. Muslims need to hear that the human right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is above the right of any religion that wants to take it away. Muslims need to hear the word ‘No’”.

Although Ms. Darwish ends her compelling book with Jefferson’s quote, on the next to last page is another timely quote:

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. – Author Unknown.

So which stage are we at and can we learn to just say 'No'?

Babies, Debt and Erasing History

2010-08-27T23:28:00.011-04:00

Times are not good. We are in the middle of a recession or maybe it’s a depression or a double-dip but a rose by any other name… People are hurting. Jobs are scarce. Businesses are closing since no one has any income to buy things. In fact there were two recent statistics that caught my eye. People are not having children and they have stopped running up their credit card debt. For once it seems as if the public is actually being responsible. Times really must be tough!

There was an Associated Press release out today that stated we had the lowest birth rate in 100 years with a current birthrate of 13.7 births for every 1000 people. (Although my family is doing their best to bring the number up and yes that is a picture of the newest addition David James Roberts.) Now I am simply quoting an AP report but it seems to me that it would make more sense to state the number of births for every woman or better yet every woman in the child-bearing age range rather than per person. It strikes me as being more than a bit silly to include men and children or even women pasta certain age. But as this is how it was shown then this is what I am stuck with – 13.7 births per 1000 people. In comparison, in 1932 the birthrate dipped below 20 births per 1000 people (another AP phrase so I don’t know the exact number). The lower birthrate today is not surprising considering there was no pill back then. The AP report mentioned another reason for our lower birthrate – fewer births by immigrants. Actually what they were saying is that our bad economy has deterred foreigners from moving here. I suppose that could be the silver lining in a very stormy cloud!

According to CNNMoney, the amount of credit card debt consumers are carrying dropped to an eight-year low and delinquencies continued to decline in the second quarter as consumers look to shore up their savings. The report goes on to state that credit card debt fell 4.1% to an average $4,591 during the quarter. This is the fifth straight quarterly decline and the first time since 2002 that credit card debt has dropped below $5,000. This is pretty amazing news. You would think that the high unemployment might lead people to depend more on their credit cards but apparently not. You can’t help but feel a bit optimistic about people and the future. In fact the politicians should take note that we understand we have to tighten our belts, deny buying and maxing out our credit cards and even hold off on making major life changes. Too bad Obama, Pelosi and Reid don’t understand this. No wonder people are mad – we are doing the responsible thing yet watch helplessly as our Congress continue to spend, increase our debt and make major life changes. Then again, a message may be coming their way in November.

In the midst of our deepening recession, there is one statistic that has not hit the news. Don’t you just know that if a Republican was in office that we would be inundated with reports about the increase in homeless families, overflowing shelters and touching stories about ex-servicemen living on the streets. But I haven’t seen a word about it – have you? Not even when temps were hitting record highs making living on the streets life threatening. I really had to search before I found even one recent story by a mainstream media outlet, in this instance CNN Money which stated that the great recession drove more families into homeless shelters in 2009. The report went on to say that 170,000 families needed shelter last year, up from 159,000 in 2008. I somehow must have missed all the coverage this summer by mainstream media about this growing problem.

Speaking of missing things, I had a strange experience that I just have to mention. For another story I wanted to go back and take another look at all the pictures from Michelle’s trip to Spain. Specifically I wanted to review the pictures of her surrounded by all the security men while she was shopping. When I first wrote that story there was a large selection including a picture showing a very bored First Daughter which I thought I might now use for another story. There was just one problem – all the pictures are now missing. I googled Michelle Obama Spain shopping and not a single picture remains. Oh sure, there are a few showing the First Lady with the King of Spain and even one of her getting off a plane but not one of her shopping. Now I am not going crazy as I know they had been posted during her trip since I used this one in my blog. But now? They are all gone, including the one I used. I’ve heard of revisionism history but this is a bit scary. I thought the internet was a place of freedom and yet somehow somebody, the Obama administration I assume, has managed to delete or hide or misplace these photos. Call me naïve but I didn’t know this was possible. I guess it is.

I couldn’t help but wonder if the Obama administration is truly rewriting history. So I tested out one more image – to find a picture of President Obama with Jeremiah Wright. There was one – that’s it. A lot of picture of just Wright but when I googled Jeremiah Wright and Obama only one picture remains and all other pictures from their friendship, going to his church and having Wright as his spiritual advisor are gone. Sort of like trying to find a picture of Obama with a cigarette even though he continues to smoke or even trying to find many snapshots of Obama on the golf course. Come to think of it, yes, there are a few pictures showing Obama golfing but I have rarely seen pictures of his golfing partner. Who are they and better yet, why is it that much of a secret? This secrecy is very scary. And these were just a few minor issues but I wonder what else is being kept out of the news or disappearing from the web. Why isn't there more of an outcry about this and where are the determined journalists and photographers who have the courage to take these pictures… and keep them on the web for history’s sake.

Another Strange Florida Election

2010-08-25T08:50:00.002-04:00

Florida elections, oh my. There is just something about Florida elections that end up resonating across the whole nation. Our primaries Tuesday were no exemption as we had a billionaire, a multi-millionaire, career politicians, a Tea Party hero, at least one honest to goodness crook, multi millions spent on nasty ads with some sleazy politics thrown in, too. What fun!

In the Senate race, only Democrats had a choice between former state trooper Kendrick Meeks and billionaire Jeff Green. No matter how much money Green poured into his campaign voters simply couldn’t get past his sleaze factor. Green had made his money by betting against our housing market and while people were losing houses he was raking in the money. In this race, the nice guy did finish first and by a wide margin winning 57% to Green’s 31%.

This Senate race is now set between Meeks (D), Rubio (R) and Florida Governor Crist who dropped out of the Republican primary to run as an Independent when he realized that lose, and badly to state senator Marco Rubio. This relative newcomer was a Tea Party candidate before there was a Tea Party. It doesn’t hurt that Rubio is a good looking, charming, second generation Cuban-American who is living the America dream and has become the poster boy for the Tea Party.

No one was surprised when Crist declared himself as an Independent. His leftish tendencies were starting to show what with his much publicized hug with Obama and what killed his chances as a Republican was his acceptance of Obama’s stimulus money while other Republican Governors were refusing it. Although pleased that Crist dropped out of the Republican primary, many Republicans were concerned that the Republican vote would be split between Crist and Rubio which would open up the way for Meek to win. I now believe the opposite will happen.

This summer the new power couple seemed to be Obama and Crist as the news constantly showed the two of them side by side and deep in conversation as they strolled down Florida beaches after the BP oil spill. Not only had Obama sent a couple of top aides to assist Crist but the Governor showed a complete lack of respect for his former party when he refused to return campaign money.. These former supporters are enraged that their money, donated initially to a Republican candidate, is now being used by that candidate to further far left issues.

Based on all of this, I think that instead of splitting the Republican voters with Rubio, Crist’s leftward turn means that he and Meek’s will now split the Democrat vote while Rubio garners all the Republican voters and becomes our next Senator.

And why should non Floridians care? Because if I am wrong and Crist does win he will join the Democrat party and be one more Senate vote for Obama. But the race for Governor is even more important nationally particularly with the upcoming 2012 presidential race. Just think of the importance of Florida in the 2004 and 2000 presidential elections. The new Governor of Florida could once again be a pivotal player in 2012.

In the gubernatorial race, Florida Republicans did have a clear choice between two very different men – career politician Bill McCollum and multi-millionaire Rob Scott. McCollum was backed by all the big name Republican politicians while Scott admitted to criminal charges and yet against everyone’s predictions Rob Scott won the Republican primary. How did this happen?

Bill McCollum, who has been around for decades, is from my District in Florida so I remember him as far back as when he was a Congressman helping to impeach Clinton. I never really liked the man although for less than lofty reasons – he just looks like such a dork. For years now I have tried to recall who McCollum reminds me of and I finally came up with it. For those of you over 50 you might remember the old TV show My Three Sons in which the youngest son, Ernie, is a rather geeky looking kid with a chipmunk cheeks, large thick glasses and a goofy smile. (And how I can pull that name out after all these years but can’t remember the important things my teachers tried to teach me is beyond me!)

Anyway, not only does McCollum look geeky but he always seemed so earnest, prim and rather humorless. To be fair to him, I think he has been a very patient man, doing whatever the party wanted him to do, including his current stint as Florida’s Attorney General. By all accounts McCollum should have won the Republican primary for Governor. And he would be celebrating his primary win if it hadn’t been for Rick Scott entering the fray.

If you live in Florida, you would know that Rick Scott made his millions in the healthcare industry. Not only was he the CEO of the largest network of hospitals but he also has the dubious distinction of having quit just before the healthcare chain was fined $1.7BILLION in Medicare fraud case. No doubt about it, this man was crooked and all he can say is he’s learned and moved on. So it was the kind of election where you held your nose and voted for either a professional politician or a crook.

To everyone’s surprise, the crook won. Why? Yes it was partly due to Scott’s vast pocket having poured nearly $40 million into his campaign. But it was the content of the ads that swayed voters when Rick Scott hopped on the Tea Party bandwagon and rode it straight across the finishing line. As soon as a new Tea Party issue surfaced, Scott would have an appropriate ad espousing the far right views and criticizing McCollum be it the Arizona immigration law or the NYC mosque issue.

National pundits have been saying for a while that people are angry at the Obama administration and even career politicians on both sides. They have been predicting a tidal wave of change as voters throw out the old and vote in conservative politicians. Yet I have worried that perhaps analysts have overstated this or that Republicans might get too cocky and sure about themselves and might ultimately lose in November. After Florida’s primary I no longer am the least bit worried. If voters are willing to vote in a known crook then their anger at the current group of politicians can’t be overstated. In fact instead of a projected tidal wave electing Republicans in November it will be more like a tsunami obliterating everything in its path and revealing a brand new landscape when it is finished.

Greg's Idea of a Gay Bar for Muslims

2010-08-12T14:56:00.019-04:00

Like many Americans, I am disgusted that plans continue to go forward to build a mosque next to Ground Zero. However, this week, I heard the funniest and cleverest retort to the proposed muslim mosque. Instead of giving you bits and pieces I am going to let you read the entire article by Greg Gutfeld from his blog The Daily Gut. Enjoy!

MONDAY'S GREGALOGUE: MY NEW GAY BAR
So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it's all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them? Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing.

I'm announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. (In a later follow up Greg added that this non-alcoholic section will offer 42 virgin drinks.) The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

My place, however, will have better music.

For investment information, contact me at dailygut.com

Don't you just love it? And since Monday he has received some legitimate property offers and a lot of media attention from both the left and the right. For updates see his website at http://www.dailygut.com/.

I learned about this when I saw him interviewed on one of Fox's talk shows. Perhaps the best part was in the discussion of what to name this gay muslim bar. Since most names suggested aren't printable then use your own imagination to think of a name.

Since Monday, Greg actually went so far as to twitter the Cordoba House, the muslim group behind the mosque and they twittered back a reply "You're free to open whatever you like. If you won't consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you're not going to build dialog." Huh. Maybe they should stop to consider the sensibilities of Americans. And if they won't then perhaps I'll see about renting office space next to the gay muslim bar to house offices for a new muslim version of the Working Women magazine geared to professional Islamic career women. :-}

Not Exactly Your Average Summer Vacation...

2010-08-05T20:50:00.015-04:00

The First Lady and youngest first daughter, Sasha, are currently visiting Spain. At first it sounded as if it would be a nice mother-daughter trip. In my mind I imagined the twosome visiting old historical places and turning the vacation into a semi-educational trip. Why not? It’s a perk that goes with being the wife and daughter of the President of the USA and it wouldn’t be the first time a First Lady took a child overseas. I recall images of Hillary and Chelsea or the Carters and daughter Amy taking trips around the world visiting orphanages and hospitals. And it doesn’t hurt our image for the world to get a glimpse of the First Daughter doing good deeds. At least this is what I thought until I read an article on the NYDAilyNews.com all of which I confirmed via other sources.

It turns out that the mainstream media swallowed the line fed to them by the White House that this visit was "a private, mother-daughter trip with longtime family friends". First this “trip” is only for four days. That’s not a trip but a long weekend. Plus what few reporters have dared to mention is that this “private” mother-daughter trip includes not a handful but 40 of Michelle’s closest friends. Who has 40 close friends? And I’m sure Sasha will get a lot of private time with her Mom with all these people around. Yeh right.

This entourage along with approximately 70 Secret Service agents flew first class in Air Force 2. When they landed in Spain there were an additional 250 Spanish personnel waiting for them, which means that roughly 360 people accompanied this private mother-daughter trip. A picture of them shopping shows the First Lady and Sasha surrounded by the massive security detail. (And, again I wonder, must Mrs. Obama always bare her shoulders? Doesn’t this woman own any shirts or dresses that have sleeves?)

While in Spain they will be on the very chic Costa del Sol on the coast of southern Spain. There they will stay at Hotel Villa Padierna a 5-star hotel nestled in the hills above the resort town. Their luxurious hotel has been described as “posh”, "trendy" and “a millionaire’s playground” overlooking the coast. Oh great, just what a nine year old needs. Yet the First Lady and her 40 closest friends reserved 60 rooms at this elegant resort, more than a third of the 160 rooms available. The price? Room rates are as high as $2,500 for a room per night to $6,500 per night for a villa which includes 24-hour butler service, and private pool and garden. Gee, I wonder which type of room Michelle will have….

I’m sorry but this just doesn’t seem right. Not when the rest of the country is suffering with no end in site. Even more importantly is that this lavish spending is not a one-time incident. Remember their $70,000+ date night? And on their recent vacation in Maine they had the gall to fly their dog up in his own plane! They justified this by saying Bo was accompanied with other staffers but still why even bother with the dog at all? This might be acceptable if they were going to be in Maine for a few weeks but all my research points to their being in Maine for a weekend! I keep hoping I have this wrong for who would fly a friggin’ dog in another plane to join the family for what, just 3 days? Surely the First Kids could go without their dog for a few days and I bet they could find someone in the White House to walk Bo while they were gone. But sadly, for our country, this is a true story.

What makes all of this so disgusting is that the Obama’s try to portray themselves as an average couple. In a recent ABC interview Obama said that they are “not that far removed from what most Americans are going through." He also said "it was just a few years ago that we had high credit card balances, we had two kids, thinking about college. We had our own retirement accounts, wondering if we were going to be able to get enough assets in there." Oh right, just your run of the mill couple struggling to make ends meet in this deepening recession.

Our country may be drowning in debt, the economy is not bouncing back and unemployment is still high, but I'm sure everyone feels better knowing that our leader has been relaxing with his rounds of golf. In fact what reporters have managed to keep quiet is the fact that Obama has played 41 rounds of golf in the past 18 months for a total of about 200 man-hours. That’s the equivalent of twenty five eight-hour work days, or five work weeks spent hitting a little white ball which is reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned! For comparison, Bush2 played just 24 rounds of golf in his 8 years and he was seen as being a lazy, elitist, frat boy. So what does this make Obama? And did you know that Bush2 stopped playing golf entirely in October 2003 out of respect for the soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq? On the other hand in the nine weeks from April 2, 2010 – May 22 Obama played eight rounds of golf. Even after 11 people were killed in the greatest environmental disaster to hit the US, our current president managed to get in a round of golf every weekend but one. Comforting, isn’t it?

Speaking of the environmental disaster, why couldn’t Michelle and Sasha, along with their 40 best friends have picked a resort on our Gulf Coast? The Gulf is nearly clean of oil now, a fact which I think is a real miracle and a sign that the earth is a lot tougher and more resilient than environmentalists would have us believe. Anyway, the Gulf may be nearly back to normal but our tourist trade is hurting badly and sure could have used the boost a 4-day vacation by the First Lady. Hell, they could even have flown the damn dog down, too.

So while the rest of us worry and suffer as our country falls apart, our country's leader repeatedly relaxes on a Country Club’s lush golf course while his wife and her 40 closest friends spend the taxpayers money in a posh resort in Spain. Not surprising that some conservative media, after learning of the First Lady’s recent trip, are beginning to call Michelle the “material girl” or worse – a "modern Marie Antoinette". Oh well, on the bright side, thanks to Michelle’s anti-obesity campaign at least we don’t have to worry about the First Couple lecturing us to ”let them eat cake”.

The View vs. The Boy Scouts

2010-07-30T06:50:00.014-04:00

Once again the President forgot that he was the President of the United States of America. He managed to totally strip the dignity of the office by spending an hour on The View. Remember when the country once thought it outrageous when MTV asked President Clinton if he wore briefs or shorts? Today, however, I have heard hardly a whimper over Joy Behar asking a sitting President his opinion of Snooky, some girl from the Jersey Shore tacky reality show. And this is the man who is the leader of the greatest country on the earth.

Obama’s supposed strategy behind being on The View was to try to regain his popularity with woman, especially independent females. I just heard that the typical viewer of The View is a 59 year old female. Makes sense since younger women are at work, not watching day time TV. The other unstated goal of doing this show, this week, was to stop all the news coverage from AZ over illegal immigrants.

Whatever the goal, I think doing this show was a major mistake. It’s not that he got bad press, per se, but rather he could have garnered better press with a larger audience by doing something else. In order to be on this talk show he passed up the chance to speak in person at the Boy Scout Jamboree celebrating their 100th birthday. You can’t get any more Norman Rockwell than a photo op of the President with a group of Boy Scouts. Sure, Boy Scouts don’t vote, but their parents do. And instead of targeting only women, as he did with his appearance on The View, spending time with Boy Scouts would have helped shore up his image with a larger group of women and men.

Based on his past choices, I can only conclude that this was too middle class for Barack. Boy Scouts probably have the same place in his mind as the gun toting, bible loving, beer guzzling middle class he discussed so derisively during the campaign. Boy Scouts aren’t PC while The View is. In fact, he has made poor decisions like this starting within hours of being sworn in. Obama is the first President in 50 years to not attend the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball, snubbing dozens of Medal of Honor vets. He did, however, find time to go to 10 other balls, many of them filled with Hollywood and music celebrities rather than just our own war heroes.. But Boy Scouts and vets, don’t feel too alone; google Obama and “snub” and you get over 4.6 million hits!

Now every President gets more requests then they can handle but for this President there is an unsettling trend in what he does vs. what he snubs. Boy Scouts should feel honored to share a long list of people and nations snubbed by President Obama including Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu, the entire country of Spain, former Prime Minister of England Gordon Brown, French Prime Minister Sarkozy, all US veterans by skipping a traditional laying of the wreath at Arlington Cemetery on Memorial Day and D-Day rememberances, a lunch with the King of Norway along with other standard events normally attended by Nobel Prize winners, Indonesia, NASA, wounded vets by skipping a visit to an overseas hospital in favor of a trip to the gym, all DC churches as he has yet to find one to attend regularly, even the prestigious Grid Iron annual dinner claiming he was “too busy”. Yet this President found the time to go on an hour long daytime talk show and answer Joy Behar’s question about Lindsay Lohan prison sentence. Yeh, seriously, she asked him about that.

Anyway, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that Obama does not share the same American experiences that most of us live. You may have disagreed with Clinton's politics but he understood middle America, hell, he was middle Southern America. Reagan and Bush2 also knew what was important not just in DC or New York or Chicago but out in the boonies. But Obama simply doesn’t understand the importance of our long-standing allies, or the reverence for churches and synagogues, soldiers and veterans, NASA and even the Boy Scouts. He did not grow up among these old fashioned symbols and values of the America of our parents and grandparents.

Is this a black/white thing? I don’t think so as there are a lot of African American soldiers and Boy Scouts and church attendees. No, instead I think it is an elitist attitude combined with the types of community he served as a community advisor, not to mention spending his formative years in Jakarta. But go out into the sticks, the suburbs, the farms and the small business and you will still find the America honored by Norman Rockwell. Or go to a Tea Party and you will meet Americans who still believe in truth, justice and the American way of life. An America that still respects the police, honors their parents, prays in their churches and synagogues, salutes the flag, tries to live within their means, educates their children to believe in these things just as their parents taught them and, even in this bad economy, hope that their children might have a better life.

And the scary truth is that Obama doesn’t get this. He doesn’t seem to understand these values and their importance to our lives. So when he came charging in with his speeches of hope and change we didn’t understand that it wasn’t the hope and change that many people had anticipated. It couldn’t have been, for he was starting from a different set of values, a different way of looking at America than most of us. But now we know better. While we are stuck with him for two more years we should at least make sure we have a new Congress, one that will block his more progressive changes and try to maintain the America we love.

Meanwhile Boy Scouts, don’t feel too badly for getting only a short taped speech from Obama instead of a visit for your big event. Instead you should be proud to be included with the great men and women, many true heroes, who have been snubbed by President Barack. And as a former 7-year Girl Scout, I want to wish a very Happy Birthday to all Boy Scouts - may you have another 100 years teaching honesty, character, pride, self sufficiency and all the other wonderful things you teach to the young men of tomorrow.

Short Retort - Obama Can't Drive in Fl

2010-07-20T07:07:00.007-04:00

It just occurred to me that our President would not be able to obtain a drivers license in Florida. No, this isn't the start to some joke. It's true. Starting this year, in order to provide some legitimacy to a drivers license when used as an ID, the state of Florida, is requiring all drivers to provide the following: a copy of your birth certificate, your SS card, two Residential proofs of ID (such as bills sent to your address in your name) and your marriage licenses or any other forms if you changed your name. It is causing all kinds of problems as people show up without any of this info and after standing in lines at the DMV are only to be told that they can't get their license renewed without this information.

I just googled about this to double check something and just as I thought, this isn't only a Fl law- this is a new Federal Law. Obama won't be able to get a new drivers license in his home state of Hawaii or anywhere he moves to in 2012. Now I have never been a "birther", although I admit to sometimes wondering why he doesn't just produce a birth certificate and shut up the fringe right. But as far as I know he has yet to produce his birth certificate, correct? That being the case then he might have a problem should he ever want to get a new drivers license. Good thing he is the President and leader of our country and doesn't have to be bothered with the laws that his countrymen must obey. He's got the Secret Service to drive him around for the rest of his life and it is doubtful if he will ever step onto a commercial airplane where your drivers license is needed as proof of ID. For if Obama was a regular guy like the rest of us, he might find himself in big trouble without that birth certificate.

Deny, Deny, Deny

2010-07-16T08:32:00.021-04:00

I once read that lawyers are trained to tell people who are in trouble to always “Deny, deny, deny.” It seems as if our president has mastered this lesson when he was studying to become a lawyer at Harvard Law school.

Take the NASA incident. First NASA administrator Bolden states that Obama wanted him to reach out to the Muslim community. After getting some negative feedback, the White House issued a statement defending this initiative. More negative feedback occurred. Then on Monday, Press Secretary Gibbs says that the White House denies that Obama ever gave that directive, adding that NASA administrator Bolden misspoke. Nice. Of course what Bolden said is true! Having NASA reach out to Muslim’s is so bizarre that it would never occur to Bolden to make up this story. Nor would this man lie about what President Obama, his boss, said to him. Besides, why would Bolden even be on the Arab network Al Jazeera last month if it weren’t to discuss the Muslim outreach program?

But this isn’t the first time Obama has denied and lied. Remember when he said he barely knew the disgraced Illinois governor until picture after picture was produced showing the two of them together? Or how about his State of the Union pledge that jobs will be his #1 focus only to immediately ignore jobs in favor of passing a health care plan? To help recall other lies I googled ”Obama Lies” and was amused to find 13.4 million hits including an Obamalies.net website dedicated to this topic!

In Obama’s defense, he is not the only politician to live by the “Deny deny deny” philosophy. Remember when Bill Clinton first denied that he had sex with that woman? Or how about his earlier denial of “not inhaling”. John Edwards tried to deny his affair and “love” child. Perhaps the most serious and reprehensible denial was President Nixon’s infamous “I am not a crook” statement. And it's not just politicians who deny wrongdoing. There are many a story about corporations (most recently Toyota for example), celebrities (Mel Gibson?) and other famous men/women we once admired (hello OJ) who have lied and denied they did anything wrong.

I think people lean towards denial the minute they can talk. Find a child standing next to a glass that he had clearly just broken and ask what happened and the child would invariably reply “I don’t know”. When asked point blank if they had broken the glass many children would make a lawyer delighted with their repeated denial of breaking the glass. Children must be taught to tell the truth even if they are told otherwise when they are older.

But wouldn't you think by now that politicians would realize that denying never works and in fact makes life more difficult for them? Besides, Americans have a soft spot for the man or woman who stands up and says “Yes I did that”. Just as you would quickly forgive the child who confessed that they broke the glass, you would forgive the politician who seemed genuinly sorry for his/her actions. But by lying, it only serves to keep a story alive as the press continue to dig for more evidence to prove that the politician was lying. The biggest lesson learned in the Watergate scandal was that it wasn't the wiretapping but the ensuing cover-up that brought down President Nixon.

In this case, instead of lying and denying the NASA story, Press Secretary Gibbs should have said yes, Obama had told NASA administrator Bolden to build better relationships with Muslims and then explained why he wanted Bolden to do this. Perhaps after knowing the reasoning behind this order people might have been more understanding. Or here's a novel thought, to admit that since the public is upset they are rescinding that order altogether. But no, being a typical lawyer, Obama ended up lying and denying the entire story!

The public has reached the tipping point with Obama. This is just one more lie on top of dozens of earlier lies. Combined, the President's lies are a large factor behind Obama’s increasing disapproval rate. Time and time again, Obama has denied and lied to us. In addition to hurting public opinion of him, Obama’s most recent lies and denials send a chilling signal to anyone who works for him. Obama basically left Bolden hanging in the wind when the White House cut all support and then turned around and accused Bolden of lying. Who would want to work for someone who would do that to an employee!

Did you watch Obama's state of the union earlier this year when Congressman Joe Wilson shouted out "You lie"? Wilson apologized for interrupting the president, which was wrong, but I can now understand his frustration. Too bad that being publicly branded a liar hasn't phased Obama in the least. In fact last month Senator Or from Arizona met privately with Obama to discuss immigration. Afterwards the Senator told a group that "The president said the problem is if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform." The President denied ever saying this. At the time, you wondered who was telling the truth. After Obama’s recent statement denying his instructions to NASA administrator Bolden, you no longer wonder who the liar was.

Dismantling of NASA

2010-07-07T10:17:00.019-04:00

In a recent interview with Al Jazeera, NASA administrator Charles Bolden said that Obama instructed him to help Muslims “feel good about their historic contribution to science”. Excuse me? This is so over the top as to be made up. Right? Nope. Here is the exact quote.:

“When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering,"
You can’t help but wonder if, with these three charges to this NASA administrator, Obama is not just crippling the US space program but trying to extinguish our leadership role and the advances we have made. Well, actually, that is exactly what Obama is doing. For in response to former NASA administrator Griffin’s statement that these objectives were "deeply flawed", the White House issued this statement “The space race began as a global competition, but today, it is a global collaboration.”

Wow. The leader of this country is actually telling us to step aside. Our President truly believes that the US should not strive to be first but should instead work jointly with other countries and helping Muslim countries specifically. Right there is Obama’s motive for what he is doing to not just NASA but to our entire country. Are you scared yet? You should be.

Obama’s second objective, to expand our international relationships, goes to the heart of his plan to globalize the space program. What really scares me, though, is that if in expanding relationships, Obama wants us to share our secrets about the space program. NASA has given us so many advances in science, medicine, physics and engineering plus many many military advances. Obama can't be wanting us sharing these secrets with other countries, can he?

Then there is Obama’s third initiative – to make Muslim’s feel good about their role in science. Instead of helping, don't you think it comes across as extremely arrogant and condescending? And isn’t it interesting that he states it as dominantly Muslim countries and not Arab countries? Why the continous bowing down to this group? Can you imagine the outcry if Obama had said to reach out to dominantly Christian countries? The media would have been all over him and yet, why isn’t the media attacking the President for his prejudicial treatment of Muslim countries?

Why doesn’t Obama realize that many of these Muslim countries are our enemies? Don’t you get it Mr. President? They hate us and want to annihilate first Israel and then the US. For example, do we need to make Iranians feel good or under the umbrella of globalization provide them the means to fly a rocket with a nuclear tip to the US? And I bet that Iran wants nothing to do with globalizing space or globalizing anything for that matter in their race to be first. Yet in Obama's overall goal of globalization for America, he wants to use our space program as a means to reach out to them and to make Muslims feel good. Sorry, Mr. President. I could give a flying f$%! if Muslims feel good about their historic role in science.

Finally, the space program is not and never should be a global project. President Kennedy understood that. JFK’s moon speech eloquently rebuttals Obama’s goal of globalization in space. Here is an excerpt from his 1962 speech which rings as true today as it did 48 years ago.

“The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and
it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be
the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode
the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern
invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not
intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space.
We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of
freedom and peace.
We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding. Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.”

In less than two years, Obama will have destroyed President Kennedy’s hopes and dreams of America’s space leadership and abandoned all that has been achieved in the past 50+ years by the great men and women who worked for and even died for NASA.

Profiling – Part 2 - Why We Must Profile

2010-07-04T22:58:00.004-04:00

A policeman can be arrested if he uses profiling to capture an illegal immigrant but the lawyer suing the cop can try to get a conviction by legally using jury profiling! How insane is that? Try googling jury profiling and you’ll get over 2.5 million hits including pages of expert jury profilers for hire and multitudes of papers and studies on the validity of juror profiling.

It seems to me that there is no longer too much dissension about the effectiveness of profiling. It works. Oh it’s not 100% perfect or even 80% perfect at times and there are a few instances where it doesn’t work at all. But in many situations, what profiling can do is give somebody an edge, an intelligent guess as to how a group of people would act based upon specific parameters. In the courtroom, if behavioral studies have shown that a specific subset of people will regard your client favorably then you would want to stack the jury pool with those kinds of people. Manipulating the jury box may seem unfair but the other side is doing the same thing so it works out pretty much evenly in the end. Or at least you can only hope so if you want to continue to believe in our jury process.

In police work, however, what they are typically doing is not profiling. It is factual conclusions. People are crossing the Mexican border illegally. 99.9% of these illegal immigrants are Mexicans. Therefore questioning people of apparent Mexican heritage is not profiling. It is following the facts. Now is every person with Mexican features who reside just across the border an illegal immigrant? No. On the other hand, is ever illegal immigrant residing in America just across the border from Mexico a Mexican? Ah, yeah, pretty much so.

So please, can anyone explain to me why this is prejudicial or profiling or racist? Race just happens to be the means of identifying someone from Mexico. This is rational thinking. Just as everybody would agree that it appears to be irrational when the elderly woman in a wheelchair is frisked at the airport in case she is carrying a bomb. Rationally we should be spending our limited time and funds on frisking people coming from or going to specific Middle Eastern countries or with one way tickets or no luggage.

Is it profiling if we concentrate efforts on frisking Middle Eastern men? Again, thinking rationally, the answer is no. Are all Middle Eastern men terrorists? No. Were all of the terrorists who tried to hurt America from the Middle East? Just about all of them lately. Another common denominator, perhaps even more defining than race, is religion, since all of them were Muslims. But let’s face it, unless you are looking for someone of the Amish faith or a Hassidic Jew it is very difficult to tell someone’s religion by their appearance.

This whole mess stems from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin. Everyone knows that racial discrimination is wrong. You can't refuse service, for example, to someone because of their race. But, just for fun, I looked up the definition of discriminate which was to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit. Huh. Maybe I have the wrong definition, for to me, the key is that last part about actual merit. Seems to me there is ample merit to show that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico found in Arizona are Mexicans.

Then again, the lawyers poised to bring about lawsuits once the Arizona law goes into effect later this month aren’t talking about discrimination lawsuits. No, everyone is talking about racial profiling, instead. Now I think I am beginning to understand.

It can’t be discrimination if there is a factual reason behind it. Most illegal immigrants in Arizona are Mexicans therefore there is factual basis to asking people of Mexican race for identification. Since discrimination isn’t necessarily applicable, they plan to denounce it as racial profiling instead. For in profiling you assume a certain behavior or trait based on someone’s race or sex or some other characteristic found common within that group. So we’ve already established that the main common trait of Mexican illegal immigrants is that 99.9% are of Mexican race. But racially profiling is illegal. Again, I looked up the federal law.

It is telling to read the introduction to the federal law prohibiting racial profiling: Racial profiling at its core concerns the invidious use of race or ethnicity as a criterion in conducting stops, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures. It is premised on the erroneous assumption that any particular individual of one race or ethnicity is more likely to engage in misconduct than any particular individual of another race or ethnicity.

Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. Race-based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are harmful to our rich and diverse democracy, and materially impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just society.

Here’s a novel idea – change the law. How can we maintain that fair and just society when burdened with the costs of the illegal immigrants? Where is the justice to those who waited in line to be admitted legally to our country? As for those negative stereotypes, sorry, but what is harmful to our society are Middle Eastern men who want nothing less than the annihilation of the United States. Someday those “stereotypes” just might save lives.

Red Scare

2010-06-29T19:27:00.009-04:00

Amazing how much the world has changed in more than 20 years. Back then if a nest of Russian spies were discovered people would have been outraged, upset, even scared. Now? It seems so archaic, as if from a time long past and even sort of cool. I had to laugh, though, at the NY Post front page. Does the younger generation even still associate "Red" with Communism especially since a "Red" state such as TX means it voted for a Republican? Really, how did we go from having Red mean Communists to meaning Republicans in less than two decades? The headline also struck a personal nerve. I doubt if many under 50 would understand but when I was a redhaired child the other kids would tease me by chanting "I would rather be dead than red in the head". If public opinion is going to bring back "Red" to mean Communist rather than Republican than I am glad that my hair is slowly turning white!

Short Retort - Liberal Clones

2010-06-28T21:57:00.014-04:00

This is truly not the least bit politically correct and I should feel ashamed for what I am about to say. But I don't. Because come on folks, hasn't anyone else wondered if maybe the liberals keep cloning the same far-left women to have in their administration? They are giving women a bad name because you wouldn't know that a woman could be smart and good looking or even simply feminine at the same time instead of......

Janet Reno former Attorney General

Janet Napalitano - Homeland Security

and now

Elena Kagan - Candidate for Supreme Court Justice

(If nothing else, you have to wonder if all these women use the same hairdresser?)

General Chaos

2010-06-23T21:49:00.006-04:00

So General McChrystal is out. They say that Obama would have looked weak if he had not demanded the General’s resignation but I think this was a big mistake. Admittedly, I have never been in the military but I have worked for large corporations. And this experience tells me there are going to be problems that no one is addressing.

If you’ve read the Rolling Stones article you would learn that it was McChrystal’s teamwho were making sarcastic, impertinent remarks about the Vice President and other White House staff, including one remark about the President himself. So tossing out the General doesn’t address the low morale and “insubordination” of his aides and many of the troops in Afghanistan. In fact it will only serve to increase their anger. I know. I have lived through a similar incident in corporate life.

A few years ago corporate headquarters swooped down on my division and fired my division GM, my boss and two others. The word was that a major reason for the firing was that they had not been cooperating with corporate headquarters. I was immediately tapped to replace my boss and a few weeks later told that in a month my department would no longer be a part of my division but would report to a corporate department which was headquartered in the next state. I knew this would be a disastrous decision on many levels. But was I going to argue with them having just seen my boss fired for not cooperating? Nope. I lightly mentioned my concerns but then immediately shut up since I wanted to keep my job. I knew morale in my department was rock bottom but not much I could do other than sympathize with them and try to find some silver lining. Luckily we were literally saved at the last minute and the decision was cancelled. It only took a few months before the new GM admitted that moving my department would have been a huge mistake. Ironically within three years the “new” GM held corporate in even more contempt then the prior leader so no surprise that corporate eventually asked him to leave, too. Again morale plummeted.

Substitute the White House for corporate headquarters and you have a very similar situation. Our troops are unhappy and are being asked to perform under nearly impossible restrictions. And now the man they served under and, based on all indications, loved, was forced to retire by an administration that the article shows they already disdained. Plus let’s face it, soldiers are not among the most liberal group and now their far-left Commanding Chief, who knows nothing about the military, by the way, has thrown out their General.

I bet there will be a lot of really pissed off soldiers tonight. And yet now they will be afraid to say a word which will further erode morale. You see, one thing McChrystal understood, although it may also have been his downfall, is that sometimes it helps to let a team bitch and moan. Attitude readjustment sessions (also called Martini happy hour) are helpful to the morale of a team. But now you can be sure they won’t utter a word against Obama. And I can only imagine how low our troops morale must be tonight.

Maybe instead of firing McChrystal, Obama should have chewed him out but then bought him a drink and sat and listened to this soldier’s General. Obama might have learned something and come out as the bigger man.

The High Cost of Experience

2010-06-22T07:50:00.009-04:00

Experience. How necessary is experience? How much does experience really count? I always thought experience counted for something but I never realized just how important it is. That is until I recently watched two sporting events. Sunday afternoon I turned on the US Open where I learned that a young golfer had been playing the games of his life. Dustin Johnson walked up to the first tee at the famed Pebble Beach Country Club going in to this last day with a 3 under par. He was the leader in one of the most prestigious golf tournament of the year. It turns out that he didn’t even have to par the course on Sunday and he would be holding the trophy at the end of the day.

Dustin had in fact won other tournaments played at Pebble Beach. So he did have experience with winning on this golf course but not with playing the US Open. Long story short – he choked and did it big time on national TV. On the second hole he shot a triple bogey then followed by a double bogey and a bogey. Luckily halfway through the tournament they stopped showing him on TV for it was truly painful to watch. By the end of the day he was 11 over par and had dropped from a 3 under par to a 5 over par. Ouch. So it was Graeme McDowell who was seen kissing that US Open trophy instead.

The other tale of experience occurred Monday morning or more accurately Monday afternoon in England. It was the first day of the two-week Wimbledon tournament. Roger Federer, the six time champion of Wimbledon was up against an unseeded player Alejandro Fallah. I turned it on thinking it would be a quick match. To everyone’s horror the champion lost the first two sets and was a game away from losing the match. Fallah was playing unbelievably and the unthinkable was about to occur – a first seed player was going to lose in the first round. And then it happened. Experience kicked in. Federer took back control of the match and won the third set, fought hard against Fallah to win the fourth set and then pretty much played by himself as Fallah faded during the fifth 5-0 set to give Federer the win. Roger would now move forward to the next round while Fallah's Wimbledon try was over for this year.

After watching these two sporting events I couldn’t help but wonder about our inexperienced President. He does ok when reading from a script and he has strong arming Congress down to a science. But when something unexpected happens or he even speaks off script he chokes. He totally mishandled the Christmas bomber, Fort Hood shooting, and now the Gulf Oil Spill. It took him about two months with hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf before he finally took action. And what was that action? To form committees to investigate it. Great.

But what if one of these inept bombers get it right and manage to blow up a part of America and killing hundreds or thousands Americans. Hasn't it occurred to anyone else that the radical muslims might be planning something big next year on the 10th anniversary of 9-11? What then? Why should we expect this inexperienced president to suddenly show leadership skills if a life and death situation should occur?

I realize that people have been asking these questions ever since Obama won. And I heard them but the value of experience never really sunk in until it was unquestionably demonstrated over the past two days. Dustin Johnson might have been experienced playing Pebble Beach but the pressure of being the leader of the US Open was beyond anything he had ever encountered. The pressure, the crowds, the TVs, and again the expectations that came with being the leader brought him to his knees. On the other hand, there is Roger Federer who I am sure was shocked to find himself a game away from losing in the first round of Wimbledon. Lesser players would probably have succumbed. Not Federer. His experience allowed him to dig in and turn around his game. By the fifth set he was in such command that it was Fallah who gave up.

Which is President Obama going to be when he is faced with a major crisis? Will he totally choke as the golfer Dustin did or will he emulate Federer and find some inner strength from his years of experience to not only face the crisis but turn it to our country’s advantage so that we come out a winner? I am afraid that we all know the answer.

Taking the drama out of schools

2010-06-13T22:25:00.012-04:00

I am sitting here watching the Tony’s on TV and yet I must admit that I have no sympathy for the constant complaints about cutting the arts from schools. I’m sorry but I just don’t get it. The arts, to me, are filled with egotistical people who display themselves or their work in public, be it via drama, music, art or literature (get that – literature, never simply “books”) in the hopes of getting applauds and adulation. How sad is that when you think about it. Yet they have done a marvelous job of brainwashing us that these arts must be included in school. I now feel like the child about to point out that the emperor has no clothes but why are their professions of such importance that they must be taught in school? We use to teach children how to cook, do woodwork and even basic car mechanics. So why aren’t chefs demanding that cooking classes be added back into the curriculum or mechanics requiring that their skills continue to be taught in middle school? It seems to me that knowing how to change a tire and make a decent meal would be a lot more useful for a child to learn than art appreciation.

And why are the arts so respected by educators while occupations that deal with making a profit are considered to be crass? Again, learning how to write a resume or how to fill in a W2 form would be more useful to a young person then how to distinguish a Monet from Manet. It is ridiculous to think that most of society has a greater respect for adults who spend their time playing make believe than they do for people who make products we need and services we use.

To make the topic even more ludicrous is the fact that when the arts are taught then understanding and critiquing a poem, song or play is purely subjective. Who’s to say if it is good or horrible? Impressionable children are pretty much at the mercy of their arts, music and drama teachers. The Oscars awards for best movie clearly shows a deep divide between what those in the arts profession admire and what the general population actually goes to see. They had to increase the nominees for Best Movie recently because in prior years no one other than actors and actresses had seen the handful of movies that had been nominated.

Speaking of which, when did actresses decide they wanted to be called actors? If they were so determined to deny their womanhood and be seen on par with men then it seems to me that they should have a Best Actor Oscar, period, and let them compete with men for the one award. But no, as usual, women want the best of both worlds. They want to be called actors and yet they still want to have their Best Actress Award. Makes no sense to me.

Finally, there is one other well kept secret when it comes to the arts – if you aren’t that interested in the arts you are not that alone. In spite of what you are led to believe there are a lot of people who are not the least bit interested in the arts. Of course the artsy folks would denigrate the nonartsy people, using terms such as philistines and unsophisticated. This is especially true if the nonartsy person is {gasp}a sports lovers. Yet why are sports always portrayed so dismally? It takes great strength, grace even for an outfielder to leap for a catch, or the exquisite timing needed for a full court press or the acting to bluff for the fake end run. There is more skill, passion and excitement in a good sporting event than in a Surrealism painting or an off off off Broadway show. Yet no one has ever fought to include educational sports in school, not simply PE but teaching the finer points of basketball and football. Imagine what that would do to male-female relationships every Sunday afternoon in the fall!

Seriously, this summer most towns will be battling over budget cuts. One of the major issues will be if arts should be retained in schools. This is why you hear ads with Broadway and Hollywood stars and musicians passionately arguing that the arts must be kept in the schools. They insinuate that you should be ashamed if you try to get rid of arts from the curriculum because we are a civilized nation that knows the importance of the arts, right? Don’t let them fool you. There isn’t anything more special about art skills than about cooking or mechanics or fashion designing yet no one is arguing to have these in our schools. It was a great con all these years but now with limited funds we must end the farce of institutionalizing arts in school and concentrate on the basics first.

A Proponent of Profiling - Part 1

2010-06-03T15:34:00.017-04:00

I have absolutely no sympathy for the people who are protesting the use of profiling. In fact I think the whole anti profiling ideology is a bit insane. Arizona borders Mexico. Mexicans are illegally crossing that border. And yet the Arizona police can’t actively look for these illegal Mexicans because that would be profiling which is illegal. As I said, this is insane.

When it comes to profiling, I should admit that I am a bit prejudiced because I made my career by profiling in the private industry. I worked for two seemingly opposite industries – casinos and banks. But in both cases the same rule applied, studying past behavior can predict future behavior. Before technology changed things, both industries would send out mass mailings to all their customers offering the same product or service. Not only was this expensive but it resulted in a low rate of people actually buying that product or service.

Starting in the late 80’s companies began to get the hardware and software needed to computerize customer information. A lot of data was now being generated and for some reason I had a knack in analyzing all of this data on past behavior and demographics. I was in at the start of Harrah's famed players club and then at Caesars Palace, Las Vegas. In these casinos, I would profile their customers using information gathered from their member’s card, put players into segments based on their gaming and where they lived and then determined what offer was needed to generate the most profits from each segment. Thanks to profiling I helped casinos make a lot of money.

In banking you could go a step further and predict behavior based on a customer’s demographics. It is just common sense. But then again so much of profiling is just that, common sense. Anybody would figure out that a 25 year old probably doesn’t have the money for CDs but would need car loans or mortgages. On the other hand an 82 year old probably isn’t interested in on-line banking or a car loan. As I said, simple common sense is a big part of profiling. Demographics however could not help predict how much a person would gamble, if at all. Perhaps the only indicators that were ever used were to exclude nearly everyone who lived in Utah as Mormons didn't gamble but target people in Chinatown to visit when the casino was empty at Christmas. Otherwise neither age, income, race nor any other demographic indicator helped in explaining gaming habits. Luckily, demographic data does help in profiling almost every other kind of company.

It’s not just banking and casino who profile their customers. Every sophisticated industry has been doing this for years. Why do you think so many businesses now offer some kind of membership card that you show when making a purchase? This is used to collect data on your behavior and many companies will also include your demographics in their profiling of customers. How do they know your age, income, education etc? They send their customer file of names and addresses to outside companies who specialize in obtaining specific information about everybody. This data is retrieved from a variety of sources including all that information you provide when filling out warranty cards for example.

The company I once used to provide demographic data on bank customers guaranteed an 80% match. They could provide a bank with detailed information such as age, home value, race, marital status and even type of car you owned on up to 80% of every customer. Combining demographic information with your buying habits allowed us to accurately profile you. Based on that profile you will be sent offers that are targeted specifically for you.

So is this profiling a bad thing or is it simply good marketing? The truth is, for the most part, people love it. If CVS knows I frequently buy Coke then why would I be upset if they often give me coupons for Coke? It’s a win-win situation. You get offers for products you actually use and need and the company makes money. Everybody is happy – thanks to profiling. There is, however, one major drawback.

When profiling their customers, businesses often use outside companies that specialize in this. In fact that consulting team I managed was with a company that specialized in the financial industry. Now in order to profile First Federal Bank’s customers we needed two types of data – past behavior and demographics. Past behavior was obtained by having First Federal send in their computer files with all of their customer’s information. That’s right. Your banking data (name, address, SS, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, how much you had in your accounts, loan info etc.) could very well be sitting in some third party business office or worse on somebody’s laptop that they take home. And you would never know. Of course these third party businesses are supposed to follow tight security rules but I could walk through my old offices on any given day and see tapes or CDs with bank data sitting openly on people desks or PC's with bank data on the monitor and no one at the desk.

But it gets worse. In order to get that demographic data the company I worked for had to then send the names and addresses to yet another company. Granted, we never sent anything other than just name and address but nonetheless this information was being passed around and when returned contained specific demographic information about each customer. Shortly before I retired there was a scare when this demographic provider was hacked. There were also frequent news stories about other companies which had been hacked or worse, a laptop with all the customer data was lost or stolen. This is a serious problem but it is a security problem, not a profiling problem. Tighter security or providing companies with a means to profile their customers in-house will resolve this issue.

Profiling in the business sector is a win-win for everybody. Companies send offers targeted to you specifically and in doing so reduce their expenses and increase their profits. Everybody wins. So why is profiling considered to be atrocious in the public sector? Since I got rather carried away talking about business profiling I will tackle this question in my next blog.

Thank You James Carville

2010-06-01T11:15:00.014-04:00

I never imagined that I would say this but here goes: “Thank you James Carville”. Probably for the first and only time I am in agreement with the outspoken Democrat strategist, who, as you know, taped a gut wrenching appeal to Obama to do something about the oil spill. Not sure which was the bigger story, his plea to stop the oil spill or the fact that a loyal Democrat was actually attacking Obama.

Of course the main villain in this horrible situation is BP. There is talk of investigating BP and the responsible government department. I agree that should be done, but not right now. We are in the middle of a major crisis and need to focus all of our resources on plugging the hole and cleaning up the Gulf and our marshes. Once that is done then we can play the blame game but sending down the Attorney General will only slow down the already slow process of fixing this mess. I also disagree with people who say that BP should be put out of business and everyone arrested. I think BP needs to continue to function as a viable company. I want them to keep making profits so that they will have the money to ensure that the Gulf Coast is eventually put back to the way it was before the spill and the fishermen compensated for their losses.

Then there is our president who has totally mishandled the oil spill crises. Perhaps Obama and his team were unaware of the enormity of the problem in the first few weeks. BP did lie to them about that. Yet after those initial lies Obama should not have been surprised if they continued to lie. Instead, the first thing Obama should have done is to have set up a shadow team, a group of experts who stayed with the top BP execs. This would eliminate Obama’s team from being continuously surprised by BP decisions and outcomes. It makes sense but I still don’t think this is being done.

Press Secretary Rober Gibbs, who only does what Obama tells him to do, added to the problems with either a surprisingly inept move or else a dangerously arrogant attempt to censor reporters. Gibbs had the gall to gather a handpicked group of journalists into a closed room and tell them to stop writing critical stories about the president's handling of the oil spill! You couldn't make up this kind of stuff. Luckily, it backfired but I shudder to think if it had worked...
Thanks to the pressure from Carville and the journalists, Obama finally gave in and held his first press conference in over 300 days. His last press conference was when Obama said the Boston police were stupid. No wonder the president has shied away from doing any since then. But this latest press conference was more of a farce than a success. In watching it I heard and saw a number of things that really bothered me. For instance, it ticked me off to hear Obama’s continuous assurance that they were on top of the oil spill since day one. Bull. Talk about BP lying to the public...

Through out his speech, Obama promised that he has experts meeting to determine the best course of action. Wrong! This is not what he should be doing. Obama isn’t in college or teaching or in a law firm where you have time to sit around discussing all sides of a plan and brainstorming on ideas. We need action now. We don’t have time to sit in committees talking it to death. Literally.

It also really maddened me when the president talked about the EPA reviewing proposed plans to see if they might negatively impact the environment. Excuse me? If they don’t do something now there won’t be an environment left. Besides it was the environmentalists who stopped any off shore drilling near coasts which then forced the oil companies to go further out to deep water to get the oil we need. Anyway, we don’t have time to meet with every Czar and committee that Obama throws at the problem to find the best solution. In times of emergencies a leader knows that we need to quickly decide on a plan which may be the second or third or even tenth best but can at least be enacted quickly to save our Gulf. Of course in an ideal world, BP would already have these plans for these worst case scenarios. Shame on them for being so unprepared and shame on us and what is turning out to be a very corrupt government department that was supposedly overseeing BP.

Another thing that angered me was the stage managing of the press conference. Obama held it on a pristine beach surrounded by a bunch of “cleaners” who had been shipped in for the day. The President’s staged walk down the empty beach was totally ridiculous. If they were trying to show that they were cleaning up beaches it backfired. In fact the entire thing was preposterous.

But what infuriated me the most about Obama’s visit to the Gulf was his complete lack of interaction with any of the Gulf Coast residents. Once again, Obama kept totally isolated from people. In comparison, I can easily imagine Bush or Clinton sitting in that local café talking to the fishermen, hugging teary eyed women or joking with a child. Not Obama. Is it because he is afraid of talking candidly since that always gets him in trouble? Or does he think he is above everyone else? Or does he share the common liberal view that southerners are dumb and basically unimportant so why bother to talk to them. (I do, though, wonder if he might have deigned to talk to them if they were African American.)

Whatever the reason, this entire situation shows Obama in a very negative light. He comes off as cold and distant when we need a caring, compassionate president. Obama’s indecisiveness shows the president to be weak when we need a commanding leader willing to take action. The one bright spot in this entire mess is that thanks to Carville's lead in pointing out that the emperer had no clothes on some journalists are actually reporting on the real Obama instead of fawning all over him. It's about time.

Greece, GDP and Dr. Seuss

2010-05-24T14:37:00.024-04:00

There have been riots in Greece but I didn't really understand why other than Greece's economy was shot. Then I read an article about Greece's debt to GDP ratio and for the first time I truly understood the impact of what they were saying. Before, I would get lost in talks of billions and trillions, it sounds like something out of a Dr. Seuss book* but this ratio made sense. It divides debt (the amount a country owes) into the Gross Domestic Product or GDP (the total market value of all goods and services produced in a country in one year). To make it easy, if a country produced $50,000 and had debts of $5,000 their debt ($5,000) as a percentage of their $50,000 GDP would be 10% ($5,000/$50,000).

Greece’s current debt to GDP is an astonishing 115%. So for every $100 produced, Greece would spend all of it plus owe another $15 giving it a deficit of 15% which it has no way of paying back since it has already spent all of the money it produced in a year. Thus they needed a loan from the UN to make up for its deficit spending. If Greece doesn’t curb their spending then economists predict that Greece’s debt to GDP ratio will top 140% by 2014 which is a 40% deficit! Something must be done but their ideas of drastic changes are ridiculous. Two of the measures they plan to implement include changing the retirement age from 61 to 63 and abolishing a two-month pay bonus which state workers receive every year. Oh my, no wonder protesters were rioting!

The truly disgusting part is that the U.S. helped pay for the bailout given to Greece. And it won’t be just Greece that is falling apart. France’s debt to GDP is 80% and expected to grow to nearly 90% by 2014. No surprise as France is another nanny nation where the retirement age is 60, the typical French worker can expect to spend 24 years in retirement and civil servants will earn 75% of their pre-retirement income, not to mention 6+ weeks vacation when they do work. Yet Sarkozy refuses to discuss cuts to these overly generous benefits. Instead, France hopes that for some reason their workers suddenly become motivated and increase production (a higher GDP would then mean a lower debt to GDP ratio).

So on one hand there are these spoiled European countries with their low retirement ages, high pensions, months off and big bonuses and on the other hand there are us, the United States taxpayers. The US worker is lucky if they gets a 3-week vacation compared to months off in France and Spain. And lately, most US employees figure they will have to work until they are at least 67 to have enough saved for when they can retire. It galls me to think that part of our hard earned money is being siphoned off to support people who riot at the thought of increasing their retirement age of 60 to 63. We thought it was bad when we were burdened with supporting deadbeats and illegal immigrants here in America but it turns out we are also supporting the lifestyle of European citizens through UN bailouts. Maybe it should be the American taxpayers who are protesting. Oh wait, hello Tea Party.

Yet in direct opposition to the Tea Party’s goals, President Obama continues to rapidly transform the United States into becoming more like Europe by spending trillions of dollars and increasing our debt. But what is our debt to GDP ratio, you ask? It will probably come as no surprise that it has grown substantially since the last election. Back in 2006, America's ratio of debt to GDP was 61.9%, and in 2007 it grew slightly to 63.1%. Then came Bush’s bailouts in 2008 which increased our debt to GDP to 70.5%.

After Obama became president, the ratio jumped in one year from 70.5% to 87% in 2009! This year it again increased dramatically to 97.5%! Thanks to Obama’s health care program, stimulus packages and bailouts, the United States is now spending $97 for every $100 we produce. If we keep on this track we are estimated to have a projected debt to GDP in 2014 of 106.7%! Like Greece, we would be spending more than we produce. We are faced with the same basic choices as Greece, France and every other country; either we produce more or we spend less. (Again this is taking a very simplistic view of the situation.)

Right now, it almost seems as if Obama and his team are crippling our ability to produce more. It is hard to increase our output when we have a 10% unemployment rate. Yet after nearly 18 months there are still no comprehensive job programs nor has he used the bulk of the stimulus money. Education is another factor since you would think that the better educated worker would produce more. Our first African American President and First Lady would be wonderful role models to minority children. Michele should be preaching about staying in school and tackling the exorbitant drop out rates in inner cities, not showing off her muscles and harassing pudgy kids.

We also need to be a leader in technology which will help workers to produce more by providing better electronics, tools and equipment. Yet Obama is destroying our 50 year old NASA program which encouraged kids to study math, science and physics, not to mention exploring planets and stars. And on the opposite scale from NASA are the small businesses which Obama is crippling with his new taxes and initiatives. Not to forget big businesses or fat cats as Obama so prejudiciously calls them. He's happy to take their money for his campaigns while blaming them for our country's woes at every opportunity.

I cannot think of a single thing Obama has done that would encourage the businesses, small or big or the government to produce more. Can you? But we can’t continue like this or we will end up like Greece. So if we aren't going to increase productivity then the alternative is for Obama and Congress to decrease spending. Ok, did you have a good laugh, too, at that thought? But if Obama and Congress won’t stop spending then we have to stop them. It's that simple. Vote them all out and vote for leaders who believe in small government and individual and state's rights. And while we’re at it, maybe we should stop handing out our hard earned money to the UN, too.

* My take of Dr. Suess on Obama - Obama handed out millions, our millions, your billions, my trillions, and then he gave to the poor even more billions and trillions and gadzillions. Obama spent and he spent, every dollar and cent, bailing out cars, and houses, and banks, yet those louses never ever said thanks. Then Nancy got antsy and Harry got scary as they scurried like rats to round up their Democrats to vote the right vote or the right left vote. And now there's money for health care, money for car fare, money for stimulus plans and wars in Afghanistan.

But I do not like this, Pres, I says. I do not like Obamacare where everyone's on welfare. I do not care at all I says to Pres, I do not like banks too big to fail and so we bail and spend, and spend and bail so if you fail don't wail we'll bail and don't go pale for you'll get no jail instead give yourself a big bonus all on us. Oh my oh my I do not like this Pres, my friend, I do not like this Pres at all. The end.

Sharing the Wealth - My Way

2010-05-16T16:44:00.023-04:00

Share the wealth. This is what Obama wants to incorporate into every aspect of America, starting with health care. If the poor can’t afford health care then make the wealthy pay for it. If you take this statement at face value it is not an outrageous suggestion. Someone who can’t afford health care because they have lost their job should be given a helping hand until he can get back on his feet again. The same is true for the elderly, no matter how much a senior has saved he would be wiped out with one major surgery. So we need to help our elderly. Besides, isn’t that what tithing is all about? Giving money which will then be used to help the poor among us?

Helping the less fortunate is at the core of every civilized nation and every modern religion. The problem, however, is that we have become too large and have lost the community feeling whereby neighbor helped neighbor and so the government must step in. Government is always unwieldy and it doesn’t help that we have a growing population of people who choose to be poor and demand government help. Combined these two problems are emptying our treasury and dividing our country.

I’ve counted five different groups of these poor people who are draining our national wealth. First there are the men and women who refuse to get a job, which includes the underqualified and the overqualified. The underqualified includes the large group of people who drop out of school, who can barely read and write, who cannot speak proper English if they speak it at all, who are in gangs or drug dealing and the mentally challenged. The overqualified are formerly employed people who lost their jobs, have not been able to find an equivalent position and prefer to take government assistance rather than take a job that they deem are beneath them.

The third group of poor who are taking advantage of our government handouts are the young, and not so young, women who pop out a kid every year or two. Most of these young women are unmarried and have no means of providing for their children. These women are typically part of the undereducated group and the jobs that they could get pay so little that after providing for day care they wouldn’t be able to pay the rest of their bills. Easier to stay home, have more kids and get more government money.

The final two groups are those who we should be helping; people who are physically or mentally unable to work and the elderly. Ironically many in these groups would like to work, even if for a few hours a week because an extra hundred dollars every month might mean putting the thermostat to a more reasonable level. But the system is set up such that if they work even for a few hours then they might lose all of their government assistance.

What is the solution? Obama wants to spread the wealth but our “poor” are so numerous that paying for the slackards will bankrupt this country. No matter what promises the President makes, he will have to take money not just from the rich but also from the middle class to pay for his health care plan. It’s no surprise that working people are outraged that they will be penalized for working. They will be forced to hand over a bigger and bigger portion of their hard earned money to sluggards who live off of the government dole because they chose not to work. It’s not fair and people are angry.

President Obama, I have a solution to this growing problem and my idea can be summed up in one sentence – With the exception of the ill and elderly, everyone else who takes government money must work. Period. And the details of my plan are equally simple. If after a year of being unemployed a person still hasn’t found a job then they must choose from one of four options; join the military, go to college (must make passing grades), join Americorp or stop taking government money. That’s it. Of course the hope is that eventually they will find a job suitable to their experience but until then they have to pick one of these options.

The key to my proposal is Americorp and something Obama should like – community organizations. I don’t know how either currently operates but I see Americorp setting up in every medium sized community and in every depressed area. Each local Americorp facility would initially set up two businesses; a cafeteria and a day care center. The cafeteria would offer healthy but inexpensive breakfasts and dinners to the poor and their families while the day care center would watch over the children when the poor start working. Of course both of these enterprises would need to hire people thus already creating work for the poor.

Next, my new Americorp would target every farm, factory and other business which hires illegal immigrants. Americorp would now be able to fill these jobs. Some kind of benefits and rewards would be given to both companies who hire Americorp workers and also for the Americorp workers doing this acknowledged hard, manual labor. Thus in one stroke we would deter companies from hiring illegal immigrants while also providing jobs to our own poor.

If an able bodied poor person continuously refuses these job offers then their government handouts will be taken away. It's that cut and dried. Yes I can hear liberals shouting that we would be penalizing the poor children. First, their logic is faulty, it is the lazy parent who is at fault and second, I could see Americorp allowing these families to eat at the cafeteria thereby making sure the children still get healthy meals. And don't even dare try the argument that we would be separating babies from their mothers since this is exactly what working mothers must do every day.

Finally, for the college educated, I would create a fast track to get them teaching at our schools. Now that I think about it, the local Americorp should start a third business; hiring the educated unemployed men and women to act as tutors and mentors for the children of the poor. The ultimate goal is to stop the cycle of poor and the first step is to educate the children. Actually, the educated poor could also mentor and help the undereducated poor adults, too. They could teach these adults not just in school subjects but in everything from cooking healthy to managing a budget to proper etiquette when applying for a job. If there are no other jobs available and yet someone getting unemployment money refuses to take one of these Americorp jobs then they, too, would lose their government handouts. Or they could simply not apply for government money if they know they won't take a government Americorp job.

This leaves just those who truly deserve government assistance; the disabled, the elderly and the mentally ill. If anyone in these three groups is able to work for an hour or two a week then they should be allowed to do this without losing their government benefits. But if they are physically or mentally unable to work then they should receive full government assistance without feeling any shame or guilt. They are the only “poor” who everyone would agree actually deserve help. Everyone else should go to work, go to college, join the military or get off the government dole. I think this is a way to share the wealth that most working people would support. And even Obama should be happy as my plan uses community organizers so that he will have a job waiting for him in two years!

Nashville Heroes

2010-05-11T13:37:00.009-04:00

There was a lot of news breaking over the past week and yet I think Fox News got some of it wrong. A few other news divisions are now following their lead, but Fox was the first to incorrectly link the oil spill and Obama’s handling of this disaster with the way Bush’s team handled Katrina. The main point of contention was that Bush was denounced in the news for not visiting New Orleans until four days after the disaster whereas Obama didn’t show up to view the oil spill for nine days. The comparison must have struck a chord at the White House for now everyone has the same talking point in which they start any conversation about the oil spill with the phrase “day one” – as in “we were on top of this day one”. Nonetheless I think Fox used the wrong comparison.

In the midst of reporting about the oil spill, Arizona and immigration, the Times Square bomber, the stock market plunge and back again, there was another story of near epic proportions – the Nashville flooding. Now this disaster was on par with the flooding of New Orleans after Katrina. And yet the way the folks in Nashville are being treated in comparison to those in New Orleans is downright insulting.

Thirty one people have died, a vital Southern city is underwater, there is an estimated $1.5 billion in damage plus an important part of American history and our musical heritage, The Grand Ol’ Oprey was badly damaged along with millions of dollars worth of Country Music artifacts and instruments. Yet no one seems to care or even know about it. Hell, I got the above information from a BBC article as there are so few in this country reporting on it.

Gee, it took Bush four days to visit New Orleans and Obama nine days to view the oil spill yet why hasn’t any reporter accused the President of avoiding Nashville, another southern city completely underwater? Instead, nearly a week later, Janet Napolitano showed up. I still don’t quite understand why she is the spokesperson for the oil spill cleanup and now this. Regardless, the President or even the Vice President should have been in Nashville to view the damage and to maybe give a few comforting hugs to the flooded out residents.

In fact, in Obama’s acceptance speech of the Democrat ticket a few years ago he said "We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes."

Ironic, isn’t it? Someone needs to remind him of this for he sure as hell has been sitting on his hands while Nashville has epic flooding and struggles to overcome what some say is the worst disaster for them since the damage from the Civil War.

Obama also discussed something that has been annoying me recently. In his speech he mentions homeless veterans and families in poverty. Yet during the past year I have wondered about the lack of articles about the homeless. Where are the reports about filled shelters and families living in cars? I haven’t seen any, have you? And yet we are in the midst of a major recession with 10% unemployment. Can you imagine all the sob stories we would be inundated with if a Republican was president?

Anyway, back to the Nashville flood. Since Obama and most reporters are ignoring this story you may be unaware of the efforts by Nashville residents to help themselves. Country singers, many of whom, such as Kenny Chesney, had flooded homes themselves, are reaching out to help their fellow residents. Taylor Swift personally donated $500,000 to the relief efforts and a number of concerts and fund raisers are being planned to help the city. Another $400,000 came from the owner of the Nashville Titans with more expected from the NFL and individual Titan players. But, again, little of this is being reported.

One commentator from NewsBusters, a conservative website, wrote the following about the lack of coverage “The only thing that I can figure is that maybe Nashville is doing its best to handle the problem in any way they can, and they aren't whining and crying and blaming somebody or something for what is obviously a natural disaster," the commenter writes. "And also, maybe there's not much 'news' in this for the MSM, since there doesn't appear to be an agenda that they can push.”

So Nashville shouldn’t expect much, if any help from the government, nor a visit from Obama. Outside of the south, I also doubt if money will pour in or Hollywood helps out or hundreds of do-gooders flock to Nashville to help rebuild homes, all of which happened to New Orleans. Instead, for the most part, these Southerners are on their own. Rather than act as helpless victims, these stoic heroes will quietly rebuild their city and homes. In fact, a year from now I bet that Nashville will be well on its way to being restored while New Orleans, five years after Katrina, will still be damaged and parts of the city unlivable. It simply shows that government can not do everything. And yet this is the same government that is now going to take care of all of our health’s.

Two for One

2010-05-01T07:41:00.013-04:00

This past week, two different news items caught my attention.

First, as a Floridian, I was obviously interested in what my idiot governor, Charlie Crist, did this past week. You may think you know the story but here is an interesting timeline. Two weeks ago, Governor Crist vetoed a popular Republican bill that would have tied teachers pay to student achievements (thanks Debbie for reminding me of this). If he had passed it then teachers were planning sit ins and sick outs and all kinds of disturbances to show their anger to {gasp} being held accountable but since he vetoed the bill then the happy teachers, well, just wait a moment. For the next thing Crist did was to lie to the world.

Everybody knows that he sat there and told reporters over and over and over again that he would not run as an Independent. That he was a Republican and would stay with his party. The only problem is that his party left him in droves to support Marco Rubio; with Crist as much as 20 points behind the popular newcomer. Now Charlie had two choices. He could have dropped out and thrown his support to Rubio. Then in the next two years build a base of moderates from both sides which would put him in a good position to compete for the other Senatorial seat. It might even place him in contention as a VP or perhaps Presidential candidate in 2012. But no, Charlie isn’t that farsighted or patient, for he actually announces that he is going to run as an Independent.

No apologies to Floridians for lying, no remorse for turning his back on his party. Instead he says this change is for the people of Florida. Yeah, right, the polls showing he had a chance of winning the senate seat if he ran as an Independent had nothing to do with his reversal of position. Now back to that veto… within hours of his announcement there was an ad by the teachers union backing Crist. So we know what his price was. The only problem is that Charlie has completely alienated Republicans and his boldfaced lying has even turned off Independents. He has destroyed his relationship with Republican leaders and Democrats don’t want him either. Obama may have hugged him but rumor has it that the White House won't take his calls. After what Crist has done, he will be lucky if he one day ends up as Superintendent of Schools. But Senator? I don’t think so.

The second news item that caught my attention is truly outrageous. On Thursday, Tehran’s police chief announced that they will start arresting suntanned women and even men this time in an effort, according to RadioVoice, to cleanse “social misbehavior by women, and men, who defy our Islamic values.” How ironic that also on Thursday Iran was appointed to the UN Commission on Women’s Rights. What does that say about the UN? And I shudder to think what will happen to women around the world now.

Unbelievably, the United States (ie. Obama) did not object to Iran becoming a part of the Commission on Women’s Rights. However the government does object to Rev. Franklin Graham’s remarks criticizing the Muslim religion for their treatment of women. You see, Graham has an issue with Muslim's doing little things like stoning women, the complete lack of basic rights or now even persecuting women with a suntan. Because of Graham’s remarks he was disinvited to a Pentagon prayer event and his invitation to speak at a May 6 National Prayer Day at Capital Hill might also be rescinded. How very wrong is this world? And why aren’t U.S. women standing with Graham in outrage of all of this?

(Hmmm. Here’s a last thought – what if we were to send Charlie Crist to visit Iran. Maybe the Tehran police would then arrest the
perpetually suntanned governor and get him out of Florida politics for good?)

May Day! May Day!

2010-04-29T09:03:00.011-04:00

Arizona; I am not sure what my position is on this state’s tough new immigration law. On one hand I agree that immigrants who are here illegally should be sent back to their mother country, especially if they are caught doing any crime. On the other hand, I have a problem with the idea of requiring people to show their papers. It sounds too much like Communist Russia where no one could move around the country without their papers. This is not America.

Arizona’s new law seems to be nothing more than putting a bandaid onto a punctured artery. It will do nothing to stem the tide of Mexicans pouring over our borders. I think what we really need to do is to analyze the underlying reasons regarding our illegal immigration problems. Only then might we find an answer to this growing problem.

For all our talk, over half of the country wants these illegal immigrants here. First there are the businessmen and women who need the cheap labor. Their argument has been that Americans wouldn’t do those jobs although now I wonder about that what with our high unemployment. Nonetheless, as long as employers hire these illegal immigrants then Mexicans will continue to cross our borders. It is as simple as supply and demand.

I’ve mentioned this before but the second reason people dislike Arizona’s new law is that the Democrat party is looking forward to this group voting next fall. Even if the Mexican’s here illegally can’t vote, there is still a huge Hispanic population who can and Democrat’s want and need their votes. Even some Conservatives are backing off from embracing the new Arizona law because they can’t afford to offend the Hispanic community.

Whatever America does, Mexicans will continue to rush our borders as long as their country cannot provide the jobs and economic security which is found in America. It is truly outrageous that the United States is one of the richest countries in the world and yet there is a third world country on our southern border. We have spent millions of dollars to help prop up democracies throughout the world, why can’t we do the same with our own neighbor? Mexico may not want our interference, but too bad. Until they can control their own country and bring economic prosperity to their citizens so that they aren’t forced to come to here then we have every right to butt in.

No laws or walls will stem the tide of Mexicans crossing our borders for jobs and a better life. But if we can help Mexico provide those goals in their own country then there would be no need for Mexicans to come here, legally or illegally. Why aren’t wealthy liberals or groups of Hispanics raising funds to start schools, provide doctors, help Mexicans start their own businesses in their own country? Why can’t we offer loans for new factories and advantageous deals for trading across the border? Yes I know that the reason we can’t do the latter is that Mexico’s government is very corrupt and run by drug cartels. But we have to start somewhere, somehow, to encourage economic growth in Mexico, other than through drugs.

Until Mexicans can obtain jobs, economic security and better health care in their own country then they will continue to walk across the border regardless of our laws. The ultimate benefits in America are simply too tempting.

In the meantime, however, Hispanics will be making a huge mistake with their upcoming May Day protest in cities throughout America. Individual Mexicans cleaning your house or small groups working on your farm or factory don’t seem threatening or problematic. Sure there are parts of town controlled by Hispanics where there are frequent robberies, gun shots and murders, and all signs and conversations are in Spanish as most don’t even speak English. But you ignore that part of town and stay away from those streets after dark. Thus non-Hispanics tolerated the growing influx of Mexicans as long as they didn’t disrupt their life or appear threatening. This will all change come May 1st.

Once again, our big screen TVs will be filled with images of angry Hispanics. Signs in Spanish will be waved along with the Mexican flag. The demonstrations may start of calm buy you know they will eventually deteriorate into angry, perhaps even violent protests. Americans, of every background other than Hispanic, will suddenly feel threatened and upset by this display. I don’t think this protest will help the Hispanic cause at all.
We see ourselves as a good country, a country that helps our neighbors, a country that has basically been willing to look the other way as Mexicans migrate here and flood our schools and hospitals and take menial jobs. We bend over backwards to enable Mexicans with our dual language approach which irritates many Americans. But now? These protests may seem very ungrateful and extremely disrespectful to this country which has done so much for our neighbor. And seeing what amounts to a foreign demonstration in the United States will make Democrats uncomfortable and Republicans downright angry. This is a huge mistake which will only inflame the already volatile situation.

The Idiocy of Youthful Idealism

2010-04-24T09:37:00.017-04:00

Lately I’ve been listening to some young people discuss President Obama. They sounded so idealistic and enthusiastic about our President. It makes me want to slap them silly until they get some sense and see what really is happening in our country. Now some of you might say that I am acting like an old grump complaining about the youth of today and forgetting what it was like to be young. Not true. When I was in my 20s I was as politically conservative as I am today and even helped to campaign for Reagan.

As for today’s youngest voters, first, they should be applauded for actually voting. Too many of their generation opt out entirely from the election process. So even if they voted stupidly, er, for Obama, these 20 somethings should at least be proud that they did vote. And yes, I know, if they had stayed at home then that would mean fewer votes for Obama. However, the win margin was so great that even without their votes Obama would have still won so I can afford to be magnanimous and congratulate them for voting. Actually it is this kind of sneaky thinking that doesn’t yet occur to young people. Unfortunately politicians are masters of this type of attitude and behavior and President Obama is the Grand Master of it all.

Obama cloaks himself in secrecy, lies and doubletalk and is surrounded by people almost as good as he in manipulating others; Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel just to name a few. Between them, they are creating a legacy that at first glance appears to be one of helping anyone with middle and lower incomes at the expense of those with higher incomes. They are making his campaign promise come true - to share the wealth, which sounds great to everyone except the wealthy and of course businessmen who make profits and everyone on Wall Street. But these “fat cats” as Obama calls them can afford to be hit up for some money to help others, right? Oh my, there are so many things wrong with this that I get dizzy trying to think where to start. How do you begin to explain to young people who are still enamored with Obama and believe that all capitalists are immoral and making a profit is bad that they are wrong and the path Obama is taking our country is reprehensible?

I might be saved from having to explain anything if I just wait and let them discover it for themselves. In fact, I think they are about to be in for some big shocks. None have seen past the razzle dazzle promoted by President Obama and his team to take the time to understand what he proposes actually means. Take the national health care bill, for example. I heard one young women gush over our President and how this was why she voted for him, because he cares about the poor and those without health care. It was her next sentence that got to me for she then added that she can’t afford to get that health insurance but she feels relieved to know it is there for when she can afford it. Excuse me? Didn’t she read the small print? Didn't she listen to any of the nearly daily speeches the president made about health care? Obviously not.

This woman didn’t have a clue how this national health care was going to work. Yes I agree that it is a nice gesture to now have health care for everyone. But she must not have read the small print – health care insurance will not be an option - it will be a requirement in this country. Once this bill goes into effect, if she still can’t afford the offered health care insurance then she probably won't be able to afford the tax Obama will impose on people without any health insurance. I am sure as hell that she will not be happy when she does her income taxes and realizes that she will be hit with a hefty tax instead. It is infuriating that this young woman and the millions like her can’t see the unfairness of this new bill and it may take our Supreme Court to decide if it is even legal to require our citizens to buy health insurance. And yet until the reality of this bill hits this young adult, they will still think Obama walks on water.

Another young Obama enthusiast recently discussed how the President has kept his taxes down. He was actually referring to Obama’s decision to keep President Bush’s lower taxes but I knew it would be useless to point this out to him. I know that he, too, will be in for a shock come the first tax day after Obama has removed Bush’s lower taxe rates and the young man will see how much he now owes in taxes thanks to our current President. But no one that age would listen to me if I said that the current lower taxes are due to President Bush since they can't see past their hatred of him.

As much as these young people love Obama they despise Bush. I have a theory about that. These young adults were children and teens during 9-11. It was a scary time for everyone and must have been even more upsetting for children. It would be only natural for them to look up to our new president and during those early days President Bush did seem nearly heroic. The image of him standing next to the construction workers at the sight of the fallen towers shouting that we will be heard was exhilarating as were the early days of the Afghanistan war. But then the war dragged on and on and the initial heat of revenge cooled off as we found ourselves in a long drawn out war. Between the war, the 2004 election and the economy Bush went from hero to zero in the eyes of the young. And no one can be as judgmental and cruel as a young person who becomes disillusioned with an adult they had once admired. I should know. I was once a young Republican for Nixon.

For the time being, other than this article, I am going to keep quiet when I hear further outrageous remarks from the young people. Besides, I am not sure there is anything I could say that would change their mind. Only time and experience can make them understand what is really happening. I just hope we have the time for them to get the experience which would open their eyes to what Obama is doing to America.

Happy Earth Day Iceland, Chile, Haiti, China….

2010-04-18T14:56:00.009-04:00

I’ve never really cared for Earth Day until this year. I can’t help but laugh at the irony of all these people talking about taking care of “mother earth” when it seems as if “mother earth” is doing her best lately to destroy us. How many tens of thousands of people have died recently in earthquakes occurring from Haiti to China, from Chile to Japan. And I heard that the number of 7.0 or higher magnitude quakes are on par with previous years. The only difference is that they are hitting populous areas and/or areas that are not equipped to handle earthquakes resulting in massive damage. It goes to figure that the more populated the earth than the greater number killed by earthquakes, floods, avalanches, hurricanes etc. So those Club of Rome doomsday sayers concerned about overpopulation shouldn’t be worried since it seems as if earth will easily take care of any overpopulation problems.

Additionally, these Earth Day people who worry and lecture about what damage humans are doing to earth has always struck me as being incredibly arrogant. I truly believe that more damage is done through natural disasters than through anything, short of nuclear war, done by people. The earth is one tough old broad who has been around for millenniums and has survived a lot. All the damage done by people is insignificant to the destruction by a major natural disaster such as a tornado, hurricane or tidal wave.

We typically think of natural disasters as being water based (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods) or earth based (earthquakes, mud slides). So an airborne natural disaster is something that no one was prepared for. How can you not be astounded at the result of a volcanic eruption in Iceland of all places? One unpronounceable volcano has managed to completely shut down all air traffic in Western Europe. It boggles the mind. Who knows what the final cost might be to the airlines and all the disrupted work by the millions who are stranded somewhere. And it appears that this will go on for days and days.

Yet, in all the news stories about the volcano, has anyone heard anybody discuss the effect of the ash currents on the greenhouse effect and our ozone? Nope, I haven’t heard a word. Funny, isn’t it? This is the biggest source of dirty air pollution in decades and no one has discussed its effects on our atmosphere. What kind of cap and trade reprimand will the UN impose on Iceland for its environmentally unsound volcano? How does this equate to the atmosphere mankind is supposed to pollute each year? Somehow I doubt if the mainstream media will ever talk about any of this when they celebrate Earth Day next week. Sure there will be a lot of talk about the horrible human race destroying the earth but discuss how earth is polluting and destroying its own atmosphere or lands or waters? I don't think so...

I have been fascinated by this story and an article by Claire Bates for MailOnline really intrigued me. In 1883, when the volcano erupted, an Icelandic man wrote the following in his diary “I was walking along a path with two friends - the sun was setting - suddenly the sky turned blood red - I paused, feeling exhausted, and leaned on the fence - there was blood and tongues of fire above the blue-black fjord and the city - my friends walked on, and I stood there trembling with anxiety - and I sensed an infinite scream passing through nature.” The diarist was Edvard Munch, the artist who, based on this experience, painted his famous picture “The Scream”.

Over 100 years later, the same volcano erupts again. This time we are able to view it from above and a recent radar image shows the following picture. Scary, isn’t it? Maybe the artist really did hear the earth scream…

Short Retort

2010-04-14T21:20:00.004-04:00

That was the dumbest purchase of my life, or at least it seems like it. I just spent $8,995 for something I can’t touch and can’t really see either. The last time I spent that much, excluding buying my townhouse, although come to think of it I’ve bought houses in the past with less down payment than that. Anyway, the only other thing that expensive was a car I bought 25 years ago. At least after spending all that money I got to drive my purchase home. This time, I can’t even kick the tires, so to speak. What was this purchase? A brand new roof for my townhouse as the 19 year old one that I had was starting to leak onto my ceiling. A friend asked how did I like it? How do I kn0w? Come to think of it, I won’t even know if it is a good one or not unless it starts to leak, too. The only thing I can say is that I caught a glimpse of a small corner of my roof when driving up my street and it looked brighter and cleaner than the roofs next to it. And that is the extent of all I can say about this outrageously expensive purchase. Gee.. Just think how much nicer it would have been if I could have spent $9,000 on some bling instead…

Seeing is Not Believing

2010-04-12T12:34:00.011-04:00

Everyone knows that the politically correct police have been slowly changing our language to fit their liberal perspective. What you may not realize is that they are also manipulating images to show only what they want us to see. The goal is to make people identify specific images of their choosing with specific topics. As I look for images for my blog I have noticed this disturbing trend as I see more and more biased and politically correct images.

Take for instance last week’s blog about Easter where I googled “Christian images” to find pictures for my blog. Google image results will provide eighteen images, including photographs, cartoons, symbols and there will be multiple pages. The first page of Christian images had four pictures of a cross, one picture of doves and one had hands in prayer. So one-third of the first page of pictures included standard Christian images. Yet there was not one picture of Jesus or even a Bible. There were two pictures of what was supposedly the largest church in America but it looked rather sterile and isolated. The rest of the pictures included various sayings and a couple of images were for something called the Christian café.

Finally on the second page I saw a picture with Jesus in it along with more pictures of crosses, and sayings and pictures about peace and doves. But then there were two cartoons - one about “Christian Taliban” and another entitled “Free Christians”. The worst, though, was the picture titled “Porn Again Christians”. It went downhill as the the third page had a image a naked man being arrested, two more of shirtless muscled men, one of a decapitated man on an exam table and a pie chart titled “Christian Oppression”.

OK you get the point. The 54 pictures shown for Christianity had one, maybe two, pictures of Jesus, none of the bible, one angel and none of any of the other people or stories from the bible. Yet there were multiple pictures of nude or semi nude men, one about porn and many discussing the “oppression” and problems about Christianity. You can’t help but notice how terribly slanted the choices were for Christianity images. But what about Muslims? How would Google treat these images?

A search of Muslim images first resulted in a lot of pictures of women in burkas although in contrast there were a few pictures of Muslim beauty pageant winners. There were also pictures of Muslim symbols and a couple of shots of men in prayer. In the first few pages there were a number of pictures of protesters holding various banners. Were they protesting the strict sharia laws or perhaps all the terrorist attacks on innocent citizens? Of course not. Under the title of “Muslim Outrage” were protester holding banners which read things like “Behead those who insult Islam”. Unlike the search for Christianity which showed multiple negative attacks on the religion I found only one in the first few pages of the Muslim images search. This result was a form with the title of “”Hate Muslims? So do we!” But this turned out to be a joke and not a serious attack on the religion such as the ones on Christianity. In the first few pages I didn’t see any negative cartoons or banners or pictures against Muslims or the religion. I wonder if people are afraid to ridicule or denigrate Islam whereas there is no such restraint against Christianity. Or is it simply politically correct to defend Muslims and Islam while it is equally politically correct to abuse Christianity?

Most of my blogs, however, are about Republicans and Democrats, and I need appropriate pictures to go with these articles. So what images does Google provide for these topics? About a third of the first page for both Republican and Democrat searches showed elephants and donkeys, respectively. But the third picture for Republican is a takeoff of the progress of man from monkey to human called “Some Noted Republican Presidents”. I next saw a picture of a typical American family in which all of them are holding rifles or guns. There was an images included a picture of a Jesus holding a gun with the question “What would Jesus do?” and another of a militant Jesus. Oddly enough, the Democrat first page also contained a picture of Jesus, this one looking sad and was a pitch for a song called “Jesus was a Democrat”.

The stunning difference of the two Google searches became clear with the second page of images. The Democrat page continued with more pictures of donkeys, a number of uplifting pictures of patriotic symbols such as the White House and the flag plus serious pictures of famous Democrats. The first picture on the second page of the Republican search shows a strange cartoon of a man in drag, complete with fishnet stockings and heels and for some unknown reason there was a cat up his ass and he was telling a pollster that he was a Republican. Was that supposed to be funny? The second picture is a real snapshot of a man holding a banner which read “I’m a Republican and Ashamed of the GOP”. The rest of the pictures on this page continued to have derogatory and/or obscene pictures about Republicans with a few scattered pictures of elephants, including a cover of Time magazine showing the rear end of an elephant.

Nice, huh? Can you imagine some twelve year old writing a paper for school on Democrats and Republicans and coming across these images? Are Democrats and liberals so insecure, so fearful of Republicans and conservatives that they have to rig the world to tilt it in their favor? Political correctness and the liberal view of the world has taken over not just the words we say (or can not say) but they are also taking over the images associated with these words. Yet has anyone noticed? Has anyone objected to the unfairness found in these images?

"Seeing is believing" we use to say. But now you can't even trust the images you see. I fear for the day that these politically correct words and images become so commonplace that we can no longer recognize that they are even biased.

Easter Resurrection

2010-04-04T09:52:00.015-04:00

This country was founded on Christian-Judeo principles. A lot of people would like to ignore or even deny this fact. Progressives and liberals have been working for decades to eradicate any hint of religion from the daily life of Americans and to a great extent they have been successful. But there is hope…

It is amazing how much has changed in the past fifty years. I suppose to some, 50 years is a long time, but when you’re 52 those years go by quickly. I recall as a young child my mother taking me to see a live nativity scene – in front of city hall. In school we would sing Christmas carols before we were let go for the Christmas break. Christmas decorations, including religious scenes, adorned every store and people easily wished each other Merry Christmas. During Passover there were Jewish symbols out and yes in school we sang Dreidle Dreidle Dreidle right after an older student would tell us the meaning of Passover.

In American history we learned that religion was a major reason why the Pilgrims came to America, a fact that is rarely taught today. We would have Good Friday off and get an Easter break. After school it was just assumed that you went to Sunday School or Hebrew School. No stigma attached, it just is what you did although the non-Jewish kids were rather impressed that the Jewish kids were learning a language written backwards. The Jewish kids also got to have a great party with lots of gifts and money when they turned 13 whereas after my confirmation all I got was my own bible with my name engraved in gold on it. And yet, even though I don’t go to church much anymore, that same bible is still kept in my nightstand all these years later.

So where are we today? Just about all talk of religion has been eliminated from school and city hall. As to how children are being raised today, I really couldn’t say as I have no contact with kids. I can only look within my own family to see how they are raising their children. My oldest sister raised her two boys in the church. They may have gone kicking and screaming at times but it must have stuck. The oldest doesn’t go to the church his parents and grandmother attend. No, he found his own more contemporary church where he now goes with his wife and children. Religion always was important to my sister’s youngest son who is now married and in the navy and I have no doubt that he will also raise his children in the church.

On the other hand, as much as I love my middle sister and her husband, we all know not to discuss religion with them. Actually I still recall the heated discussions about religion they would have with my mother when they were teenagers and had decided they were atheists. And yet, having grown up in a church I think they missed the closeness of the congregation so they found a compromise in the Unitarian Church. As much as I understand it, Unitarians celebrate everything and believe in nothing. But this gives them some place to be Sunday mornings and provides the socializing they missed and contact with others who feel as they do. From what I can tell, both of their adult children are not religious either but might occasionally attending a Unitarian “church”.

Then there is my brother who probably disliked Sunday School more than any of us. My mother finally gave up trying to drag an angry resentful teenage son to a place he had no interest in going. Religion is still not important to him. Our mother would occasionally take his daughters to Sunday School but after she moved to live near my oldest sister I doubt if my brother or his family have stepped foot into a church since then. So there you have it, three children and three different paths when it comes to religion. And what about me, you ask? I am one of those Christians who truly do believe and religioun is important to me and yet I rarely attend church. But that’s a long story for another day.

A hundred years ago, my sisters, brother and I would most likely all be Christians who attended church regularly. Instead, due to exposure in school and college some of my siblings began to question the concept of God and Jesus and ended up walking away from both. So the liberals and progressives have made progress and are slowly moving our country away from our Christian-Judaism faith. But they are about to meet a very large bump in the road.

Everyone agrees that after universal health care the next big issue that President Obama is going to tackle is illegal immigration. The fear is that he will somehow allow for them to quickly become citizens. Yet the liberals and progressives are ignoring one small detail. Most of these Mexicans and Cubans and other Hispanics clamoring to be in our country are Christians. I have a feeling that their faith is strong and enduring and these Catholics will want to continue to worship God once here in the United States. Then there are the Asians who are here legally. The man who owns the nail place I go to has a card on his work area, similar to a baseball card, but instead it has a picture of Mary with information about her. And each of the other Asian workers have either a card or rosary beads or a cross at their work station. Nor are they shy about talking about God and their religion, proselytizing as they do your nails.

Finally there is the story of young man, mid twenties, single and apparently looking for something. He was a good friend of my nephews and became a fixture at my sister’s house when they were in high school. A few months ago my family were all at a wedding and ran into my nepthew's old friend. After talking for a while, he asked my sister about her religion and basically asked if he could go to church with them. And so each Sunday he began to go to church and sat with my sister, her husband and my mother. A few months go by and one Sunday he tells them that he is taking classes to become a member of their church. Last month he officially joined the church and yet he still had never been baptized. And so today, Easter Sunday, this young man who found what he was looking for in God and Christianity, will be baptized.

The moral of this long Easter Sunday sermon is that, no matter what the progressives may try to do, religion and God are not going away. In fact, thanks to the immigrants, legal and illegal, Christianity is once again important to a growing segment in this country. More exciting is the fact that the story of my nephew's friend is not an isolated story. I’ve read that there has been a small swell of interest by men and women in their mid twenties who are interested in learning about Christianity and who end up joining churches.

If you think about it, it is pretty silly for progressives to believe that they can eradicate a religion which has been persecuted for over 2000 years and yet is still here. Not to sound too blasphemous but those who thought that religion was dead and buried will find that just like Jesus, religion can never be totally buried and will always rise up again, stronger and more vibrant than ever. Hallelujia. Have a blessed Easter and Amen.

Looking Through A Glass Darkly

2010-03-26T14:49:00.014-04:00

I am worried about what is happening to my country and so, after a long break, I decided to bring out my rarely used crystal ball to see what the future might hold. Now was that a mistake! Talk about scary things. Perhaps I am over-reacting but my dusty crystal ball is showing me a dangerous future and it is not your grandchildren’s future but what might happen in just the next month and year. So what near future am I seeing in my crystal ball?

First I am seeing Republican politicians speaking to nearly deserted arenas this summer. Why? Where are all the people? I asked my crystal ball to show me what happened more recently so that I might understand this future. It takes me to the Easter break, when the Tea Party Express makes its third trip around the country. Although defeated over the health care bill, tea party goers were invigorated and perhaps because they were defeated, conservatives were more determined than ever to replace the members of the House and vote in more conservative politicians. Yes they were angry but they wanted to channel that anger into positive energy going forward. But then my crystal ball returns me to the empty arenas of this summer and that is when I realized that the rooms were empty due to the fact that there were no Tea Party participants to cheer on the conservative candidates. So I looked deeper into the ball and shuddered at what I saw.

It started after the health care bill was passed when a few liberal politicians claimed that they were called names. No one questioned their claims, although there was no proof, not a single unfocused footage in spite of the camera men and regular folks filming the event. Then more and more politicians complained and yes there was now proof as they played voice messages from angry people, some who crossed the line of acceptable behavior. And once one angry person denigrated the President then it was obvious to the liberals that these conservatives were all racists and bigots. (Republicans had equally violent and upsetting calls but the government’s opinion was that they pretty much asked for it due to how they voted.)

Starting with a few name calls it snowballed into all liberal politicians saying they were afraid of the violent, racist conservatives. Obviously these name callers had to be a part of the Tea Party since the Tea Party participants admitted to being angry. Not only were they angry but everyone knew that the Tea Party was started by Republican law makers or maybe it was by big bad businesses or the evil banks or even the KKK. Regardless, there was just no way that normal people would band together in defiance against liberals, since liberals were trying to help the people. OK so maybe the Democrats were not trying to help those people, you know, people who were tax payers or wealthy or even middle class suburbanites. But those people should understand that they are getting more than their fair share and should want to be helping everyone else. Those people have never protested in the past, they always just worked a bit harder and had a bit less but now they must be insane if they actually are rebelling against the government.

My crystal ball even showed me a headline from today when the Tea Party released a statement saying that they were a peaceful group who denounces all forms of violence including racial attacks. But will that help? Probably not, because the media won't bother to cover it and the few that do, well liberals who hear it will just think the statement is untrue and that these conservatives are all liars anyway. And unfortunately, my crystal ball shows me that there will be one person at a Tea Party rally this spring who does yell out a racial slur at a politician which will support the liberals’ views that the entire Tea Party, and by default all conservatives, are racist.

It won’t take long for leading Democrats to jump from denouncing the Tea Party as being racist to stating that it encourages hate crimes and that their participants are the real terrorists in this country! From there, Obama will enact the Homeland Security Act and label the Tea Party and its participants as being threats to our national safety and therefore must be disbanded. Hence the empty rooms when Republican candidates give speeches this summer; as the conservatives are afraid to come out in public for fear that they could be arrested for terrorist activities if they simply cheer on a conservative candidate or disagree with a liberal politician.

It is strange, isn’t it how liberals were furious at George Bush and all the Homeland Security laws that he enacted which limited our rights for the sake of protecting us against terrorists. And yet Obama has not done one thing to liberalize those laws. Perhaps he wants them in place. Perhaps liberals don’t mind limiting freedom of speech, freedom to gather, freedom to worship and all our other freedoms – if it is withdrawn from the right kind of people, those people. And the media continues to see only one side of it. If conservatives were branded terrorists and treated as such, would the media say anything? Or would they remain quiet since it would be happening to those kinds of people and not to the good kind; the liberals, the poor, or even illegal immigrants. If violence occurs to Republican or conservatives, well, they deserve it for not thinking correctly. But if violence occurs to Democrats or liberals, well then those people must be the real terrorists and stopped at all costs. And it will cost us everything…

By now you must be thinking my crystal ball is cracked to prophesize such things. This is America. It could never ever happen here, right? Admittedly, I was going a bit far but trying to make a point of what could happen. Then, in the last paragraph I was going to write something about real terrorism and Al Queda but I wasn’t sure how to spell it. In fact I still am not sure of the spelling because when I got online to The Drudge Report, to my horror, at the top was a link to the following headline VIDEO: Clyburn says Republicans 'aiding and abetting terrorism' against Dems.... Perhaps my silly crystal ball isn’t that silly after all.

The Day After

2010-03-23T12:36:00.004-04:00

I am watching President Obama sign the new health care bill into law. How do I feel about this? It scares me. Taxpayers will have more taxes and lesser health care in order that unemployed or poor people can have health insurance, many of them for free. I worry what this will do to small businesses. I hear that businesses that do offer health care have determined that it would be cheaper to pay the penalty and not help out their employees. And I really am concerned about the added power they want to give to the IRS. The IRS is already out of control at times and now the government want to expand that department? And no way will it help the deficit, of course it will make it worse!

Obama is now talking, people are applauding and standing for an ovation. But why? Because they forced members of their own party into voting the party line? They had to bribe, strong arm, and as they admitted, do whatever it takes to get their own Democrat Congressmen and women to vote “Yes”. It just shows how flawed this bill is, if even with all the maneuvering by Obama, Pelosi, Rahm et al, there were still some Democrats who stood by their values and voted “no”. Good for them.

So now what? There is talk now about Republicans being “ugly losers”. I can understand why, people are very upset with what just happened. They can’t understand how a President with a 41% favorably rating, a Speaker of the House with an 11% favorable rating and a Senate Majority Leader with only a 9% favorable rating could come together and decide how to spend our money. I would say it is simply unimaginable except for the fact that it happened.

Yet I don’t think we should be ugly losers. Instead we should fight harder, fight smarter on the next bills, primarily immigration, and cap and trade initiatives. We must stop both of them. We must go across the country explaining why these are bad for the U.S., for us. No name calling or any other tactic along those lines which would only make us look bad and give sympathy to them. We need to publicly be nice and polite but behind the walls we need to fight as hard as Pelosi did and stop being so nice and polite. The country simply can’t afford another loss, another step towards redistribution of the wealth.

I bet that Obama will next try to bring in all the illegal immigrants. He has to. He needs those new citizens as potential new voters. Democrat voters, of course, who would then be bused to the voting polls in November 2012 to make sure that Obama is re-elected, even though the tax paying population is turning against him. (Obama has already shown he could care less about his party and Democrat politicians up for re-election this year. If he cared about them he wouldn’t have forced them to vote Yes on the health care bill knowing full well that their people hate the bill and will vote them out in November.) Anyway, we must stop any new bill to ease illegal immigration. If we couldn’t afford all those poor illegal immigrants before, just imagine the cost since they would all get on the federal insurance plans! We need to close the gates now because if I were a Mexican I would get my ass in this country ASAP in the hopes of some mass legalization thus allowing me to use the United States wonderful health care system, for free, of course.

Tea parties are great but we need more than that. We need stronger voices. We need Nancy Reagan. We need both Bushes and their spouses. We need Sarah Palin to do more than comment on Fox News. I just heard that McCain, who has always had a more liberal view of immigration and was hoping to put together a joint bill, has just said that there will be no more bipartisan efforts. What little goodwill there was has totally evaporated in light of the shenanigans by the Democrat party to ensure their recent victory. And then we need young voices.

Over the past week there have been a few younger Congressmen who have slowly risen to, perhaps not the top, but they have risen above the crowds. Other than Scott Brown I can’t tell you their names. But they know who they are and they need to start making the rounds on Sunday mornings and standing up for our causes. Speaking of which, most people are at church Sunday mornings but if you think of it tape Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. He is hosting the first one-on-one of the Republican candidate’s for Florida’s open Senate seat between Florida Governor Crist and Marco Rubio. At the start of the Republican primary Crist was a shoe in. Now? Rubio, a second generation Cuban, very conservative, young tea party goer now has a solid majority of 56% vs. Crist’s 34%. That is what we need to do.

I heard some democrat say that people will forget about this by November. Perhaps. But that might be why the symbol for Republicans is an elephant. We don’t forget. And we won’t let anyone else forget. As for the health care bill, we will do anything and everything we can do to delay, if not stop, it. A recent poll showed that 49% wanted their states to sue the government; primarily challenging that the health care bill is unconstitutional. Make sure yours is one of those states and that yours is one of the voices protesting, challenging and making sure people know the truth. This is my voice - where is yours?

A Show of Raw Power

2010-03-20T07:40:00.007-04:00

People I talk to are truly scared that the passage of this bill would change America, many of them fearing it is an irrevocable giant step towards socialism. However, if the news that the Democrats have the votes for the health care bill upsets you, here are some things to think about.

For the past six months, ever since summer really, it feels as if the whole country has been paralyzed because of the health care bill. Republicans should actually be grateful. All this attention and effort on just one bill has meant that nothing else is getting done in Congress.

If Obama wins on Sunday and the health care bill is passed, it won’t mean that everything will go his way from then on; far from it. I keep thinking of the phrase “political capital”. Obviously with all the arm twisting and bribing, Obama and Pelosi will have used up all of their political capital. If a Congressman ends up voting for this bill I wonder how receptive they will be to future liberal causes, and threats.

For example, there is my own first term Congresswoman, a Democrat who voted No on the first health care bill. If I am being bombarded by telephone ads from both left and right to call her I can only imagine what her life is like right now. Well, no actually I can’t imagine what it would be like to be browbeaten not only by my Speaker, dozens of Democrat leaders but also confronted by my President in his Oval Office, and all of them threatening to annihilate me in November if I don’t support my party.

Then there is the “pep rally” planned this afternoon for all Democrat Representatives plus Obama, now that he has cancelled his trips. Some analysts are comparing what is happening to the Stockholm syndrome which is when hostages begin to sympathize with their captors. I think it is more along the lines of mass hysteria. Remember the pictures of the crowds cheering Hitler over and over again?

I really can’t see my Congresswoman continuing to stand up to so much raw power. And that is what it is. Absolute raw ugly power against, in many cases, first term idealistic Congressmen and women. But once Obama and Pelosi have used this tactic they will have nothing left in their bag of tricks for the rest of the year, which is why I doubt that any other very liberal bill gets passed this year.

We all know that Obama came into office promising a laundry list of far left changes. He has now spent his first year on just one issue – health care. Once that is passed he will try to quickly move on to other issues, immigration is already next on his list, but I believe that he will find each vote to be a painful reminder of the damage he and Pelosi have done in order to pass the health care bill.

First, the passage of the health bill will result in dozens of law suits questioning the legality of forcing people to get insurance. Already over half the states are planning to fight this bill. There is also the “fixes” which Democrat Senators promised the House will be added but they might find it difficult to pass when faced with Republican opposition. The bill already isn’t supposed to force health care on us until 2014 and between now and then Congress will be swamped with law suits and delaying tactics making it difficult to implement this bill or to move on to any other bill.

I also think that what is happening is similar to any action movie. The good guys always take a real beating and then at the end they pull themselves together and finally succeed in defeating the bad guys. I have a feeling that as in any action flick, if the health care bill is passed then the people, the soccer Moms and racecar Dads, the elderly widows and the young family man, the single women and the mother of four, Republicans, Independents and Tea Party people of any and every color, age and creed will pull together in a tidal wave of anger, frustration and purpose to block anything else proposed by Obama and to win this November. And like any good movie, in the end the good guys will win.

A Lack of Leadership

2010-03-14T16:17:00.007-04:00

If we were in England, Obama, who just a year ago was riding high, would be facing a vote of no confidence right about now. Instead, we have the Health Care bill which has morphed into more than simply an up and down vote on this issue. It has become a test of Obama’s leadership skills and his ability to get something, anything, done in his friendly Democratically controlled Congress. The only problem, however, is that in order to prove he is a leader and can get something done, he must ask his party to vote on a bill that is unpopular with a public who no longer even want it. (The most recent Rasmussen poll shows that 53% are opposed to the bill and 57% believe it will be harmful to our economy.)

The question that Democrat Reps are facing is this - do they fall on their sword by voting on this issue as a show of their support of their party and their President but knowing that a "Yes" vote will alienate their district resulting in their being voted out of their office in the fall? I truly feel sorry for the first term Congressmen and women who know full well that they will not be re-elected if they vote for the bill. And yet imagine the pressure they must be under to do just that! Congressman Massa may be a nutcase but I’m sure there is an element of truth to his statement about pressure to vote Yes from Rahm, Obama’s hitman. Add to that the calls from Nancy Pelosi and even from the president, and life is very uncomfortable for the Democrats who plan to vote against the health care bill.

You read that Obama’s leadership is at stake because of this bill yet I feel that he showed his complete lack of leadership skills by letting himself get into this position in the first place. If he had actually turned to the economy and creating jobs, as he promised in his State of the Union, he not only might have helped the country but his approval rating might be on the upturn for once. Instead he has completely squandered the country’s goodwill towards him.

The numbers clearly tell the story of Obama’s downfall:

The President’s approval ratings have been in freefall. The Rasmussen poll shows a swing of 23 percentage points from a positive 16 difference between Strongly Approve vs. Strongly Disapprove to a negative 6 percentage points. As bad as this is, the negatives for Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are even worse! Sixty-four percent view Pelosi unfavorably while 56% dislike Reid. A recent remark by Pelosi is so outrageous that it is almost impossible to believe she said it. But she actually did say this: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Wow. No wonder people are in such contempt of Congress.

So what is going to happen? If they had the votes, Pelosi would have called for a vote on Monday. But they are still a handful short of even a simple majority to pass the health care bill. To add further pressure, Obama just postponed leaving for his big trip by a few days. One assumes he will use this time to call the recalcitrant Congressmen and women into his office to apply the greatest pressure of all – Presidential appeal and probably bribery. I truly hope that these Representatives, including my own, Suzanne Kosmos (d), can continue to stand by their first vote of no but I can understand how difficult it must be when faced by an irate President in the Oval Office. Yet in the long run I don’t think it will matter.

If the President and Pelosi are successful in passing this bill there will be a major upheaval as irate blue dog Democrats, Independents and Conservatives vote in Republican candidates en masse this fall. The primary campaigning point will have been to overturn the health care bill and once in office I am sure that they will find some way to do this. Or there is still a chance that the Democrats will not obtain the votes needed to pass the bill. Either way, within a year the Obama, Reid, Pelosi health care bill will not exist. Hopefully the next President, be he (or she) Democrat or Republican, will have finally learned that in order to succeed, a health care bill must be a joint venture with input from both sides and not a complete overhaul of our system by one side only.

As for Obama, if he is unable to pass bills when both the House and the Senate is controlled by Democrats then the rest of his term will be abysmal if the Republicans win big this fall. His legacy will revolve around how he squandered the nation's goodwill, wasted time during an economic crisis on a health care bill the public didn't want and showed that his retractors were right - Obama knows how to campaign and run for an office but once there he has no idea how to lead.

The Americans

2010-03-03T20:56:00.013-05:00

Tonight a friend of mine echoed a thought that I have had... why are we pouring millions and millions into Haiti and now offering to help Chile when our own country is hurting so much? Can we continue to afford to be this generous when we are broke? Shoot, instead of sending all that money to help others, we simply could have used it to pay for health care for everyone here!

I recently read that China is maneuvering to surpass the US as the biggest country in the world and I say go for it. You take care of all these countries in need and let us simply take care of ourselves because sure as hell no one else will help us.

And then I recalled a letter from the 70's written by a Canadian which is as relevant today as it was 30 years ago. If you are old enough to remember this letter which was also recorded, the sentiments are worth reminding ourselves. If you are too young for when it was first published, please take a moment to read it and afterwards you'll stand a little taller, a little bit prouder to be an American.

~~~

Gordon Sinclair's editorial broadcast from Toronto as printed in the Congressional Record in June, 1973:

This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - - not once, but several times - and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the American who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.

Tiger Declawed?

2010-02-20T12:47:00.008-05:00

The lead story on the news last night was about the sex life of a golfer. How ridiculous is that? There is so much going on in the world, and the country is bleeding from numerous wounds yet the main stream media kicks off the nightly news with Tiger Woods’ apology for screwing around. What does that say about “serious” journalism? Could you see David Brinkley doing a story about Arnold Palmer’s sex life? I don’t think so...

Actually I have always felt that Tiger was treated unfairly throughout the whole ordeal. Yes he was wrong for cheating on his wife but I felt that the public and media over reacted. It is not like this is the first time that an athlete fooled around. In fact for most athletes having an active sex life is almost a requirement. Think over the years of how many famous basketball, baseball, football and hockey players were known for their randy sex life. Could you imagine anyone telling Joe Namath or Wilt Chamberlain that they need help for their sex addiction? Hell no. Or better yet, what about Mick Jagger or any other rock star who is surrounded by groupies the minute they get off of the stage? It is ludicrous to even image their being labeled as sex addicts and in need of therapy! Instead the men admire them and the women want to be one of their partners.

The same day that Tiger issued his apology there was an article about the sex lives of the Olympic athletes. For the past few Olympics one of the freebies found in the Olympic village for the athletes are free condoms. In 2000 Sydney supplied the village with 70,000 condoms and still had to bring in 20,000 more after they ran out! I love the story about Beijing which not only stocked up on 100,000 condoms for the athletes but the condoms also had the Olympic motto of faster, higher stronger! This year Vancouver is also providing 100,000 condoms for its athletes but sans the motto. As the article by Today show journalist Mike Celizic, from which I found all of this information, further details, those 100,000 condoms works out to be 14 condoms for each of the athletes, coaches, trainers and others housed in the Olympic Village. I bet no one would even think of demanding apologies or requiring sex therapy for these athletes!

Yet I can understand the fascination in Tiger’s Jeckle and Hyde behavior. Unlike others, I never saw him as a family man. Instead, I always thought of Tiger as being aloof, arrogant even, as if his enormous talent put him on a different level than everyone else. And when I watched him play golf and see him hit these spectacular shots, he almost seems inhuman. Then there was this new personal side of a passionate man having adulterous sex and even semi relationships with more than a dozen beautiful women. Wow. It almost sounds like every man’s fantasy – to be a champion athlete and to then have your pick of beautiful women almost, as their reward for a great round of golf. What man wouldn’t want to trade places with Tiger for a day, the old Tiger, that is.

Cheating on his wife was wrong, but only to his wife, it really wasn’t anyone else’s business and I don’t think he deserved this punishment. Some of the people who heard his apology said it was insincere and “too little, too late”. While others said he appeared broken and not the same man he was a year ago. I tend to agree with journalist Carlos Monarrez who said “It was hard to imagine this guy ever pumped a fist, stared down a putt or uttered a curse word in frustration. Those are the images of Woods that have defined him and endeared him to fans. Now, who knows?”

All athletes, be it golfers or Olympic champions need certain qualities of arrogance, defiance, competitiveness that makes him work and struggle to be the best. He has to have this mindset that believes that he is a champion. Call it the Alpha male syndrom or wanting to dominate and lead the pack. And throughout history the reward for these Alpha males who have beaten their foes, be it on a battlefield or a golf course or a ski jump, has always been a beautiful woman. Just as the women are having their own, although less visible, contest for the right to be with a winner.

So I wonder, what will this “therapy” and his sincere (or not), self belittling apology do to Tiger the golfer? Will this declaw him? Will he lose some of his competence? Will he begin to doubt and question himself? And in the long run who has won from this spectacle? Not his sponsors. Definitely not the PGA. Not even his wife. I wonder if she will even like the new Tiger 2.0 version? For if she does take him back, she married an Alpha male champion, not the new hesitant, demeaning, albeit supposedly faithful husband.

Of course there is always the possibility that he really isn’t changing all that much. I am almost waiting for an outburst, the kind he is known for on the golf course. The equivilant of throwing his golf club while cursing a blue streak. Something other than that boring and weak apology. I would have loved it if he had simply told the media and others to go to hell; that he is the greatest golfer ever. That is all that matters and that his personal life is just that, personal. He did try to tell everyone to leave his family alone but he sounded wimpy. He needs to get angry. To pump his fist in the air while psyching himself up to tell them all to go to hell. That would sound truer than his self deprecating apology. Nonetheless, regardless of the outcome, it still doesn’t belong among the top stories of the day.

2010-02-14T11:32:00.005-05:00

Charles Krauthammer wrote another terrific article that everyone should read. In it he discusses how Obama and other liberals refuse to believe what the Scott Brown election tells us - that the people don't want the Democrat's health care bill or just about any of their proposed legislation. The people do want change, just not the Obama type of change. And yet in the State of the Union address Obama vows that he will get his health care bill regardless of the fact that the majority don't want it. I love how Krauthammer explains why Obama and the liberals are acting this way:

This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Don't you just love that? The sad part is that he is probably correct in his conclusion of how liberals think. And the rest of Krauthammer's article is just as perceptive and fascinating. So, I recommend that you take a few moments to read his whole article The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010 in the Washington Post at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403623.html?sub=AR

Enjoy!

Bio Brief - Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

2010-02-11T17:01:00.008-05:00

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was recently in the news for his snide attack on Palin by writing notes on his hand. I have never liked the man and this little episode didn’t help. Maybe it is his smirks or his attempts at sarcasm or perhaps just his general demeanor. Whatever it was I can’t help getting the feeling that this was the kid in high school who was given constant wedgies, and now in a position of power, he is getting back at the popular kids. I could be way off base, but who knows? Who is Robert Gibbs? What is his background and how did he end up as President Obama’s Press Secretary? So it is time again for one of my Bio Briefs.

Robert Gibbs was born in 1971 in Auburn Alabama, and as Wikipedia goes on to report, both of his parents worked in the Auburn University’s library system. Most bios on Gibbs state that rather than hire a babysitter; his mother would take him with her to League of Women Voters meetings and that his family discussed politics and these meetings during dinner. Librarian parents and League of Women Voters meetings? Oh yeah, I bet I was right about his getting those wedgies in middle school. Maybe, as Wikipedia surmised, this helped hone Gibbs’ interest in politics but I doubt if it helped his reputation in school. Playing the saxophone and being on the debate team probably didn’t help his popularity either. On the other hand he was also the goal keeper on his school’s soccer team, although this was a solo position, apart from the rest of the team.

This was all the information about his earlier life that I could find. The 5 or 6 bios I read provided only these few facts, I still don’t even know if he is on only child or if he has siblings! In fact one bio mentioned four famous people who graduated in his high school class, making it seem as if Gibbs was famous or at least more interesting because of his association with these famous people rather than because of himself. And they might be right.

According to Wikipedia, from 1990-1992 Robert Gibbs continued as a goal keeper but now at North Carolina State University where he graduated cum laude with a degree in political science. That’s it. That one line contains the entire upper educational history for this man. No mention of any other honors, awards, clubs, anything other than that he was on the soccer team for two years. I can’t even find any mention of the year in which he graduated!

Moving on to his early career, while in school, in 1991 Gibbs interned for Alabama Congressman Glenn Browder, eventually becoming his executive assistant in Washington DC. In 1996 Gibbs moved back to Alabama to work on Browders Senatorial campaign, which was unsuccessful. In 1997, 1998 and 1999 Gibbs worked on a different campaign during each of these three years. Then during the 2000 elections, Gibbs worked on Senator Debbie Stabenow’s senate run. According to WhoRunsGov. Com, Stabinow’s unexpected win brought Gibbs to the attention of Jim Jordan, the then executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Gibbs was then hired to help with the 2002 elections.

In 2003 Jordan was now working on the Kerry campaign and hired Gibbs to be Kerry’s press secretary. But in November 2003 Gibbs quit in protest after Kerry fired Gibb’s mentor Jim Jordon. Yet Gibbs continued to support Kerry’s run for the presidency. In fact, when Gibbs became the spokesman for a liberal advocacy group they launched a vindictive ad using pictures of Osama Bin Laden to attack Howard Dean’s foreign policy experience. This started Gibbs’ reputation as a man who would do whatever it takes to elect his man and maintain his employer’s reputation. Kerry eventually apologized to both Jordan and Gibbs but instead of returning to work for him, Gibbs joined the Obama team.

Robert Gibbs joined team Obama in mid April 2004 and eventually became Obama’s Senate Communications Director. Obama then choose Gibbs as his Senior Strategist for Communications and Message during Obama’s successful run for the 2008 presidency. In 2009 Robert Gibbs then became President Obama’s Press Secretary. As for his personal life, he is married to Mary, a VA attorney and they have one son.

That’s it. Very basic data that wouldn’t be fit even for a resume. Most of his bios don’t even tell you if he worked on winning or losing campaigns from 1997 to 2000! And about the only personal traits we can discern from this bio is that he seems to be a loner, not one who joins groups as he rarely joined any groups or clubs nor do we read of any religious affiliation. Yet he is extremely loyal to whomever he works for, almost to a fault, as he has a reputation of doing whatever it takes to help his man. So in spite of his soft southern accent Gibbs has been called ruthless, aggressive, pugnacious, manipulative and bad cop to Obama’s good cop.

There was one other factor which most bio’s mentioned – Gibbs’ relationship with Obama. Apparently the two men are very close friends. According to the NY Times, Gibbs is more than just a Press Secretary; he is also involved in strategy, politics and messages. I’ve read that he is called “Barack Whisperer” due to his closeness to the President and I’ve also read that he is called “The Enforcer” because of his rapid fire response to any derogatory remarks from the opposition. In addition to the counter attack strategy he has also been credited with the low number of leaks due to his tough management style.

So who is the man? Although his is the face we see each day we truly don’t know much about the man. What is he whispering to our president? What are his beliefs? What makes him tick? Maybe not knowing is what makes him the perfect Press Secretary. He is a blank page on which Obama writes his story and gives his messages.

PS – While proofing my material I discovered that Gibbs does have a brother based on a sentence discussing his mother in whorunsgov.com – “…she brought her two sons with her..” That is the only clue that there is a sibling although he might even be deceased by now. Who knows?

What's the Truth now, Al Gore?

2010-02-09T13:12:00.018-05:00

As Washington DC is facing over 40 inches of snow in what will be its snowiest winter in recorded history, it seems like a good time to revisit global warming. The Drudge Report recently had a link to an article whose title caught my eye. This OpEd was written by columnist Margaret Wente of Canada’s The Globe and Mail which I have quoted or paraphrased extensively in the following. (The Bush quote and sarcasm, however, are all mine.) Oh yes, the name of the article? The Great Global Warming Collapse.

We all know about Climategate, the revelation about the emails on destroying, ignoring or manipulating data in order to support the global warming cause. Then there was the verdict that the tropical rain forests would be wiped out due to global warming. It turns out that the source of that claim, according to the Sunday Times of London, was an article by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a left wing environmental activist group. This wasn’t the first or last time that global warming claims are based on data from activists with little to no scientific proof.

In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the primary advocate and source on climate change, cautioned that the Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035. A spokesperson for the WWF warned of dire results if a deal isn’t struck in Copenhagen to save the Himalayan glaciers. It turns out, however, that the glacier report, along with many other global climate “studies”, was completely fraudulent. Yet again, UN IPCC based their findings not on any impartial scientific analysis but on articles written by World Wildlife Fund activists. No, really? What a surprise….

The head of the IPCC learned of this shortly before the Copenhagen summit but ignored it. There might be a reason why Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC head, dismissed any reports contradicting these claims. You see, he is also part of the Energy and Resource Unit division in New Delhi, which just happens to be the division that received millions in grants based on the premise of those melting glaciers in the Himalayan’s. Cosy arrangement, yes?

Eventually Pachauri retracted the claim regarding the Himalayan glacial meltdown, but he indicated that the error was an anomaly. He defended the IPCC saying that the attacks are political. But, as Wente wrote, the tide is definitely turning against Pachauri and global warming itself. Even Britain’s Greenpeace has called for Pachauri’s resignation and India is establishing its own group as they “cannot rely” on the IPCC. Ouch.

As the whole global warming foundation begins to crumble I can’t help but remember Al Gore’s famous statement: “The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm's length because it's an inconvenient truth, because they don't want to accept that it's a moral imperative.”

Yet no one remembers this quote by then candidate Bush during a 2000 Presidential debate against Gore where Bush said: “Some of the scientists, I believe, haven’t they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? There’s a lot of differing opinions and before we react I think it’s best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place.”

Although Bush defeated Gore in the election, Gore continued to win the debate on global warming. True to his word, over the past decade Gore and his global warming activists continued to silence any scientific debate which countered their stance on climate change. And anyone who questioned his views was labelled an obstructionist, a bad scientist and worse – a conservative right wing nut and some lost their grants and even their jobs by speaking against man made global warmth.

Now, however, in the face of all the damaging news that is beginning to surface, many climate scientists sense a sinking ship and are bailing out according to Wente. Some scientists and environmentalists are starting to admit that the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change. One such scientist, Andrew Weaver, goes so far as to actually say that the climate body has crossed into the line of advocacy. No, really?

Wente concludes by saying that none of this is to say that global warming isn't real. But the strategy pursued by activists and the scientists desperate to prove global warming has turned out to be fatally flawed. By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. The first casualty was Copenhagen where amidst the growing scandals it was apparent even before the first meeting that Copenhagen was never going to produce any agreements. It was a dead end and yet another wasted trip by Obama.

“The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” wrote Walter Russell Mead, a Kissinger senior fellow on the Council of Foreign Affairs and professor at Yale. “It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.” Or as Mr. Mead succinctly puts it in his blog on The American Interest: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” Yes!

(And I can't help but add that it may have taken ten years, but once again Bush has been proven right. Although this is probably too inconvenient of a truth for Al Gore to ever admit.)

Hasn't Got A Prayer

2010-02-04T16:42:00.007-05:00

How hypocritical of the President to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast after not only shunning the National Day of Prayer last May but also never once stepping inside a church since his election! I still might have given him the benefit of the doubt if he had spoken a short prayer, as past Presidents have done. But no, this is President Obama, who with teleprompter in place gives, not a prayer, but a lecture.

I thought it telling that he began his lecture by stating that all Americans “of all faiths and no faith… share a recognition, one as old as time, that a willingness to believe, an openness to grace, a commitment to prayer can bring sustenance to our lives." Excuse me? How could someone of no faith have a commitment to prayer? And why are they even being mentioned at this National Prayer Breakfast? Let the unfaithful have their own day of unprayers, oh wait, they do, it’s called Earth Day.

After this past year in office, no one should be surprised that President Obama took a bi-partisan prayer meeting and used it as a platform to give yet another diatribe. During his speech, Obama seemed to be scolding his listeners as he once again came across as the superior, condescending professor who is frustrated that his “students” continue to dare to disagree with him. It was telling that the President and his group in DC concluded a few weeks ago that the problem with the health care bill wasn’t the bill itself but rather that they didn’t communicate the benefits of it to the public in spite of all the press conferences, townhall meetings and speeches on health care. Running underneath these conclusions is the darker belief that the American people are just too stupid to understand the bill or to appreciate why it is good for them. This would explain why Speaker of the House Pelosi arrogantly stated that she will do whatever is necessary to pass the health care bill because she knows what is best for us.

During his National Prayer Breakfast lecture Obama continuously scolded the listeners and asked for “a return to civility”. This reminded me of Rodney King’s plea of “can we all get along” but in Obama’s case it really means that the bad conservatives need to get along with the wonderful democrats who are doing God’s work, such as the health care plan. And it was hard to miss Obama’s meaning when he “urged leaders to be empowered by faith, to step outside their comfort zone to bridge divisions and unite around their common goals.” What common goal? Or perhaps I should ask whose common goals? He further talks about the “erosion of civility” which “poisons the well of public opinion” and “makes politics an all or nothing sport” and that our crisis, such as health care become “contests for power”. Duh. Politics is a contest for power and the only time someone complains about it is when they find themselves on the losing end!

Barack Obama also took a slight detour in his lecture and provided some interesting insight into the man we call our President. During his civility lesson 101 he stated ".. surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith or for that matter my citizenship.” Oh my. The birthers are a small fringe group and yet liberals seem to love to talk about them; although not sure if mentioning them during a lecture on civility and on everybody getting along is really appropriate. As for questioning Obama’s faith, well, of course we will, in fact he has made it easy for us. As I stated earlier, he skipped the National Day of Prayer last year and has yet to attend church since his Sundays with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. So President Obama has given us cause to question his faith. Granted, I might be accused of being a similar hypocrite as I am a Christian who also hasn’t set foot in a church in years. Then again, I am not the President of the USA, who appears to turn his “faith” on and off as the situation requires.

Within all this talk of civility was another plea – to not question his motives. “Challenging each other’s ideas can renew our democracy but when we challenge each other’s motives it becomes harder to see what we hold in common.” Does he truly not get it? Americans thrive on challenging not just ideas and policies but the motives behind them. There has never been anything wrong in asking a politician “why is he doing something”. You can’t truly understand a person unless you understand his or her motive.

I wonder, though, if having his motives questioned has been a new and uncomfortable position for the president. He is no longer surrounded by people of similar motives nor is he the darling of the media any more. People actually are daring to question him. How uncivil! Instead of blindly agreeing, they are questioning his motives, his faith, and wondering if his goals are our goals.

Obama's decline in public opinion is due to the public beginning to realize that Obama’s actions are not matching up to his words. And you don’t resolve this by talking even more. Obama may give a great speech but we’ve stopped listening to what he says and are watching what he does instead. So yes we are starting to question him, no matter how uncivil it might seem.

A Tale of Two Coasts

2010-01-30T07:54:00.008-05:00

During the President’s State of the Union he touted job creations and announced a plan to build a high speed train from Orlando to Tampa. To further emphasize this initiative, he arrived in Tampa the very next day to announce it again. Now if you’re not a Floridian then you may not know that the idea of high speed trains is not new to this state… In 2002 there was an amendment to build a similar high speed train which was passed. Just one problem. There was no mention of how Florida was supposed to pay for this thing. Two years later, after everyone came to their senses and realized how much it would cost the state, we voted it down. I guess that citizens’ wishes are now irrelevant as the President has just forced it back on us again.

Obama said that he was “giving” us $1.25 billion to build this, except that is only half of the full cost of $2.6 billion. Who is going to pay for the rest? If it is up to Floridians, forget it, we don’t have that money. So we may end up with a high speed train from the Orlando International Airport to Disney, which is Phase 1 of the project - a great boondoggle for Disney World but useless for Florida’s citizens.

But what about all the jobs it would create? It was stated that there would be 23,000 construction jobs and 1,000 professional jobs needed for this project. Let’s take the professional jobs, first. We would need to look to Europe or Japan for the expertise and professionals to oversee this project. The trains themselves, would also most likely be primarily built overseas, too. But there would still be the 23,000 construction jobs which would help Florida’s employment, right? I don’t think so.

Everybody jokes about seeing a group of construction workers standing around and watching one guy work but what about 229 men watching one guy? You see, there are approximately 80 miles between the Orlando International Airport and Ybor City, the proposed final destination. Let’s even say there is another 20 miles to go over to Disney and other tracks needed at the airport and Lakeland, another destination point. The proposed 23,000 jobs works out to 230 men per mile! I don’t’ know about you, but the 23,000 projected jobs seems as out of whack as most government projections.

Even if they found the money to complete it to Tampa, there is still the question of who would ride it. I just don’t see that there is enough demand for people going between Orlando and Tampa to support the $2.6 billion cost. I’ve driven this route frequently and it simply is not a bad drive.

They say the train will halve the current trip of about 90 minutes to roughly 40 minutes. But that omits the added time to get to the train station and find a parking space. Nor does it resolve the practicalities of getting where you need to go without a car if you arrive by train. Then add in our Florida weather. I read that they are thinking of powering it with electricity. Hmmm. I am not sure if I would want to get on a metal train attached to an electric line during the daily summer lightening storms. Not to mention how often we lose power which would mean the train could frequently be stranded somewhere in the middle of orange groves… Driving straight over would make more sense and would probably be quicker in the long run, all things considered.

In the shadow of the “excitement” for the Orlando to Tampa high speed train there was another quieter announcement this week about the other coast of Florida. Obama has proposed that NASA use its budget to maintain the International Space Station and keep it viable to 2020 and abandon the effort to return to the moon. In one stroke Obama will effectively destroy NASA’s future. This change in focus will cancel NASA’s Project Constellation which was working on replacing our aging space shuttles with new capsule based systems. This simply does not make sense and is not only detrimental to my state but to the whole country.

This new change in the focus of NASA is expected to result in the loss of 7000 jobs in Florida, on top of the 900 people let go last fall. And these are skilled engineers and scientists with high paying jobs who will be now removed from Florida’s tax base. There would be comparable losses in Houston, California and other states which have facilities that support NASA.

Obama’s budget would destroy our space program as we would no longer have any shuttles and nothing in the works to replace them. Even worse, it means that we would end up funding Russia’s space program as they would have the only remaining transportation to the ISS and our astronauts would have to hitch a ride with the Russians, for a price, of course. Thus Obama would destroy our space program while supporting Russia’s.

Last week, on the west coast Obama proposed a high speed train at a cost of at least $2.6 billion, which nobody wants or will use. He is giving us only half the cost so this state, which had already voted down a similar project, will now be saddled for the other half. On the east coast, NASA has been told to abandon our space programs which will loose 7,000 high paying jobs. We need to tell the President he has it backwards (again). Abandon the ridiculous and unwanted high speed train and instead support our future space programs. For in the long run, probably more men and women will fly into space then will ever ride that train.

Farewell 2009

2009-12-31T14:27:00.002-05:00

A lot of people, including myself, will be glad to see the last of 2009. It has been a year of fears and terrors, economic recession and emotional depression, political hardball and hard court presses, where reality couldn’t live up to unrealistic hopes and hero’s were tarnished and cut down from their lofty perches. No, not much good occurred in this ninth year of the new millennium.

2009 nonetheless began with hope and optimism even in the midst of the continuing financial meltdowns. No matter your political affiliations you had to be touched and inspired by this great country which has become color blind after a history of injustices. You could understand the tears streaming down the upturned faces alit with hope and optimism when Obama was sworn in.

And yet Obama has turned into a fun house illusion. It is part arrogance and part inexperience and the combination has resulted in a multitude of errors. Perhaps the greatest is that he simply has yet to become the President. Oh he may sit in the Oval Office but he does so as a usurper. He still is playing the roles he knows best – Community Organizer, lawyer, Chicago politician, Ivy League alumni and always the mantle of being black in America lies across his shoulders instead of the mantle of the presidency.

The surprising thing is that this man, who can inspire with his speeches, has actually turned out to be cold and distant without his teleprompter. It feels as if he is treating this country as some lawyerly experiment; setting up new policies giving untold power to the government in the supposed goals of helping the citizens. And yet has any of this truly helped? What has his stimulus package stimulated other than more work for the bureaucrats but none for the people?

Somehow Obama has managed to offend both the left (Guantanamo Bay still holds prisoners, increased action in Afghanistan) and the right (health care, stimulus packages) and everyone in between with the handouts to the financial giants. Time and time again he misjudges situations – siding with his friend and calling the police stupid, going to plug Chicago for the Olympics, going to the climate convention which ended in complete failure by the participants to agree with anything measurable, not going to the memorials for WWII etc. etc.

There was an overall undercurrent of disgust and anger running through the citizenry this year. People were appalled by the ACORN debacle when up and down the Eastern coast employees of the ACORN organization showed their lack of respect for the law with their disgraceful and disgusting fawning over the alleged pimp and Madame who were trying to purchase a house for illegal underage prostitution.

After watching the inept Congress try to destroy the democracy this country was founded on people finally rose up and said “Enough!” The Tea Parties, ignored for the most part by the main stream, were a true phenomenon harking back to earlier times of rebellion by the people, of the people and for the people. Average citizens had reached the tipping point and their anger and frustration had evolved into action.

Yet Congress continues to blindly push through their agendas. In their arrogance they justify their actions with the rationalization that they know what is best for the country even if it is at odds with what the majority believe. And the politician who dares to question this is both threatened and bribed by Reid or Pelosi who are willing to do whatever it takes to pass their bills. And yet they wonder why 65% disapprove the job Congress is doing.

The year began with the US President refusing to use the word terrorist or even concede that we are at war. Absurdly, he even won a Nobel Peace Prize for no explicable reason. Obama was to be the start of a glorious new era, an anti-Bush era, where everyone now loved America because we had a President who cared and could feel their pain, so to speak. The only problem is that no one told the terrorists that they no longer existed and that there was no war.

We end the year with what an increase in terror attacks for it doesn’t seem as if these fanatics got the word. They didn’t realize that Bush was gone and Obama, a man who once lived in a Muslim country, was now America’s President. In fact, world leaders didn’t seem to understand that in Obama, the U.S. now had a President who, unlike the warmongering Bush, was willing to let bygones be bygones. Or perhaps they did. For recently the head of Iran and China and Russia and Venezuela and oh so many other countries are giving us more troubles and simply aren’t playing nice even though we are led by a man who told them that he wants to be friends.

For someone who has always been able to see the silver lining in any situation, I must admit to being hard pressed to find even a silver thread in this past year. Perhaps the best I can do is to say that the best thing about 2009 is that it is now over!

Arrogance over Protocol

2009-11-29T15:17:00.010-05:00

The recent gatecrashers at the White House bring to mind what happens when a new administration comes into office. Understandably, they are pumped up over their recent win and now want to put their own mark on the country. Unfortunately new administrations also have the tendency to walk over the rank and file and don't listen to the real people who run the departments regardless of who is president. The new presidents tell the old-timers that they don't want to hear the excuse of "that's how we always did it" and now want things done their way. However, the new administration has neither the experience nor the patience to listen to the very peope who could help them. In their arrogance at being elected Presidents don't understand that the intricate protocol that has been perfected over the past 100 years enables new presidents to fulfill their new duties with poise and class and avoid potentially embarrassing mistakes. I have a sneaking suspician that this is at the heart of the lapse in security at the Obama's first state dinner.

If I remember correctly, there were horror stories about the last two Democratic administratons. Both the Clinton and the Carter incoming teams were young, inexperienced and few on their team had much managerial skills or spent any time in DC. Yet these young politicians came across as arrogant, cocky, power hungry and charged with the belief that they were empowered to do whatever they felt was best for the country. There were rumors that the Clintons sold overnight stays at the White House to major donors or their Hollwood friends. Then there was Bill Clinton's conduct in the White House with that woman which showed a complete lack of respect for the office of the President and for the White House, itself. Carter wasn't much better as he invited his adolescent daughter to a formal state function where she then proceded to read a book at the dinner table.

In contrast to the disastors created by Carter and Clinton's administrations, both of the Bush's had very smooth transitions. Yes, George HW Bush went from VP to President, retaining a number of people from Reagan's regime. But Bush himself was a career politician who knew the ins and out of Washington. Ford was another old time politician who stepped into the void left by one of the country's most traumatic experiences. Yet Ford was still able to assure the country and the world that the US would continue intact. But this kind of transition isn't always that smooth, as both LBJ and Truman had very rocky transitions from VP to President.

Clinton's administration not only began disastrously but it ended equally shamefully with stories of trashed offices and destroyed computers. But, like his father, George W. Bush had class and never complained about the mess left by the Clintons. And unlike the Clintons and Carters, Bush had a team that included career politicians who understood DC, which helped his team have an easier transition than if they were all newcomers.

Now we have Obama who has even less experience than Carter and Clinton, who had both been governors. To his credit, Obama did keep a few men from Bush's administration. This was particularly helpful in providing a smooth transition to our military, although, ironically, this caused Obama a lot of grief with the very liberal base who elected him.

In spite of the media's shunning of any negative story about the Obama administration, more and more cracks are starting to appear. People are beginning to question if mistakes are being made due to Obama's ignorance and inexperience or perhaps due to his determination to do things his way or to a combination of all of the above.

There are Obama's continuing bows to other state leaders when rarely if never has a President bowed that low for it is seen as a symbol of weakness. At times Obama comes across as too parochial. He had a favorite during the World Series, he of course cheered on the Chicago basketball team and he somehow found the time to travel overseas to help promote his hometown in its failed bid for the Olympics. On the other hand, he snubbed all of the activities regarding World War II.

Speaking of traveling, he really shouldn't be proud of the fact that he has traveled more than any other president in the first year. Someone with more experience, who truly understands his role as President, which isn't to go sightseeing with his wife and kids, belongs first and foremost at home. This is especially true when the country is hurting as much as the US is with the high unemployment, horrible housing markt and in the middle of a major recession.

And now we have a couple breaking through what should be extreme security to crash the Obama's first state dinner. (I also can't help but wonder why it took them 10 months before they had their first major official event.) I am sure that the Secret Security will take a major hit for this breach in security. Yet there are faint hints that the Obamas have tried to relax some of the security surrounding the White House and themselves. Perhaps once again a young inexperienced first couple is bulldozing over the rank and file so that they can do things their way. They might not realize that there is a reason behind the established protocol. Both of the Obamas need to stop talking so much and to start listening to the old-timers around them. Their very lives might depend upon it.

Happy Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T09:18:00.009-05:00

Many years ago after a heated Thanksgiving Day discussion with my father, he quoted Winston Churchill who said "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." I can't help but think of this quote as families gather round the Thanksgiving dinner table today.

A big part of the charm of Thanksgiving is that it does bring together multiple generations. No surprise then that these differing generations will result in children of all ages clashing with parents. And thanks to our longer living elders, it is not unusual for the middle aged to be the parent while carving the turkey and then the child by the time the pumpkin pie is being served.

I worry, however, that the family arguments this Thanksgiving will be more heated, more divisive then in the past. Even though we all know better than to discuss religion, sex or politics within the family nonetheless our political differences will permeate the dinner table like an unwanted guest. Make a toast to every one's health and the next thing you know there is an argument about the health care plan. Offer a prayer of thanksgiving and it turns into a heated discussion about religion and schools. I worry that nearly any innocent word or gesture will become a launching point for a vitriolic discussion from either the Liberals or the Conservatives.

I had forgotten that Abraham Lincoln was the President who nationalized this holiday. I mention this because it seems to me that the chasm between the Liberals and Conservatives today is not necessarily due to Churchill's generational gulf such as we had in the 1960's but that it dates back another hundred years to the 1860's Civil War's North vs. South division. I realize that it is dangerous for me to say this out loud because Liberals will now label me as a bigot because I am a Southerner. Their tunnel vision will immediately conclude that I, like all Southerners, dislike Obama because he is an African American and therefore all Conservative Southerners, must be racists. I am not naive enough to believe that there are no racists; I am sure that Obama's heritage is a problem for some Southerners.

But I think it is just as racist to feel compelled to like someone because of his race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. as it is to dislike someone for the same reason. The people I know who dislike Obama do so not because of his race but because of his politics. Conservatives are fearful that Obama is rapidly changing our country by gathering more and more power to the federal government by taking power away from the individuals and states. Just as this was a major factor in the Civil War, it is again a division between the North and South rather than a generational chasm.

It just occurred to me that this argument is even older than the Civil War and in fact stems back to the very beginning of our country. While writing the Declaration of Independence and setting up our first government a feud broke out between Northerner John Adams and Southerner Thomas Jefferson. Adams sounding like Kennedy, Kerry or any other fellow Massachusetts politician argued for more power for the federal government and less for the individual. While the Southern tea bag parties echoed the refrain first stated by Thomas Jefferson who wanted greater state and individual rights and a weaker federal government.

And now here we are 250 years later sitting around the Thanksgiving dinner table and still arguing for a stronger central government while others heatedly argue against it. Perhaps the very fact that our forefathers were divided over the issues that divide us today will help put it into perspective.

So whether you love him or hate him, the truth is that Obama's policies probably won't matter in the long run. The United States has been arguing the very same topics since our beginning and yet we still stand tall and strong as a beacon of freedom for the whole world to see. Now that is something for which we can all be thankful.

Finally, on a personal note, I have an awful lot to be thankful for this year. Just the fact that I am alive, healthy and have both legs is a minor miracle. And I am thrilled that although I missed the family reunion because of my health I was still eventually able to be with my family and will sit down to our Thanksgiving dinner with four generations. But most of all, I am thankful for all my friends and family's help, prayers and thoughts during this very difficult year. Thank you and may y'all have a wonderful and peaceful Thanksgiving.

Follow Up

2009-11-19T16:00:00.003-05:00

A few weeks ago I wrote the following blog about the loss of childhood freedomsz during what had been a relatively slow week. Then something happened which caught my attention so I tucked this article away for this week when I knew I would be busy preparing for Thanksgiving next week.

Imagine my surprise when after publishing my reminisces of childhood freedoms I found the following article on www.Time.com Can These Parents Be Saved about overly protective parents! So if you want to read more, and I do mean more as Tme devotes four pages on line to this topic then check out this Times article. However, after page after page of hand wringing over helicopter parents the Time article concludes pretty much with what I started out with:

If you embrace this rather humbling reality, it will be easier to follow the advice D.H. Lawrence offered back in 1918: "How to begin to educate a child. First rule: leave him alone. Second rule: leave him alone. Third rule: leave him alone. That is the whole beginning."
Of course, that was easy for him to say. He had no kids.

And I suppose I should also disclose that I don't have kids either. But I was one....

Lost Childhood Freedoms

2009-11-19T10:06:00.006-05:00

Do you remember the feeling you had when you were a kid and you were riding your bike? The wind was in your face and the hot sun beating down, speeding away or perhaps swaying back and forth or maybe practicing wheelies. You were in your own little world where there were no parents or siblings or even friends to bother you or pick a fight or break the silence with their talking. Nope, instead the world consisted of just you and your bike.

I thought of that because today we are never on our own and out of touch with the world as we were when we were kids 20+ years ago. As adults we are plugged into the world 24/7 thanks to cell phones, blackberries, PCs, and round the clock cable news. And I doubt if even kids today will ever know that kind of freedom; as they are always carrying their cell phones too.

I feel sorry for these kids today. Every 12 year old needs to think that they have eluded their parent’s grasp and are free to do whatever it is 12 year olds want to do. My parents probably never knew that my friend and I would save our pennies then would bike a few miles away to a park where we would rent a little row boat. We would row out to the middle of the lake then stretch out in the boat; eat our forbidden Twinkies and simply float around; daydreaming, looking at the clouds while trailing a hand in the water and of course talking and giggling. It was harmless but to us it was magical as it was our little secret getaway.

I couldn’t even begin to imagine that idyllic summer scene interrupted by the insistent ring of a cell phone. To have that quiet escape broken by a mother’s interrogation of where are you, what are you doing, who are you with, when will you be home, etc. etc. Yet that is now the every day life for children today.

Perhaps parents reading this would be horrified if their 12 year olds went off on a similar little escapade. I am almost embarrassed to admit just how free we really were back then. (Oh my, I am turning into an old foggie complete with the prerequisite “In my day…”) Anyway, we were freer and less fearful than kids today. Take riding my bike for example. I had no helmet or pads and would have thought anyone wearing that stuff was a sissy. (Ok a part of me still thinks that!) I would think those funny little helmets were hot and would definitely interfere with the wind blowing through my hair.

I could, however, understand wearing a hardhat during my horseback riding lessons. But a bike? Over the years, I was thrown more times from a horse than a bike and yet even then I still never landed on my head. I wonder if making kids wear the helmets is also making them more fearful. Seems to me the kids of my childhood were fearless. I admit to a healthy respect and fear of falling from a horse but I never once worried about falling from a bike. I loved that bike. Yet making a child wear a helmet implicitly tells a child that riding a bike is dangerous; that you could fall and get hurt so be afraid and wear this helmet. How sad.

When I was young my sisters and I knew that we needed to be in whistle range. Mom had this very loud whistle and when it was time to come home she would stand on the front steps and call us with the whistle. So as long as we could still hear the whistle we were free to explore the neighborhood. When we were older we were given even more freedom. I had friends who lived a mile or more away and after getting permission would hop on my bike to go to their homes. No cell phones, just my trusty bike and I facing the world together.

Today my 11 year old niece is nervous about walking two blocks in her upscale residential neighborhood to her bus stop. (Although in her defense, this same young lady thinks nothing of hurling her body in flips while staying on a balance beam!) Nonetheless, she worries that maybe someone might try to kidnap her. Wow. Has the world changed that much? Were there not pedophiles when I was a child? I would think there were. I just wonder if no one talked about it back then, not even on the news. And so if you were ignorant then you could be carefree as ignorance truly is bliss.

Stranger – danger is what is drilled into today’s children. But the majority of strangers are not dangerous. The odds are that most children would go through their childhood and never meet a dangerous stranger. And yet they are taught to be afraid of all of them. How very sad. And think what they are missing by being scared to talk to an adult.

I worry that we are teaching our children to be afraid of life. Be afraid of your bike and wear a helmet. Be afraid of strangers and stay away. Be afraid of someone with the sniffles – you might catch the swine flu. Is this what Political Correctness is doing to our children? Making them afraid of life? What kind of grown ups will they become? What kind of America will we become? Now I think I am afraid….

Names do matter

2009-11-12T10:57:00.007-05:00

After Nidal Malik Hasan killed and wounded our soldiers at Fort Hood, some woman being interviewed said with a straight face “I wish his last name was Smith.” And for me, that summarizes all this PC stupidity.

People just won’t admit the fact that a large group of radical Muslims want to incite terror and kill us. Liberals are so afraid of being politically incorrect that they simply refuse to face reality. Wake up America! It’s not ‘Smiths’ or ‘O’Brians’ or ‘Yamamoto’s’ who have issued jihads or holy wars against us. It’s people with Arabic names. It’s people who are Muslim’s. It’s people who hate our way of life and the very freedom for which we stand.

We need to recognize that we can no longer sit back and enjoy our freedoms. Our freedoms and way of life are being attacked. And not just with bullets. They are using our very own freedoms and courts to shelter and advance their malignant religious rules and laws. Already there are examples of how they are trying to corrupt our country with their extreme laws. At least some reporters are starting to investigate the murder of Muslim women who dared to be Americanized. Women who only wanted to dress like Americans, get an education, be more than the wife to a radical Muslim husband who believes he has the right to kill his wife without facing any penalties by his culture. In fact, why aren’t more women libbers taking up the cause of these Muslim women? They were sure quick to go after radical Mormons who illegally had multiple wives. Yet they are suspiciously quiet while radical Muslim men abuse their wives and daughters in the name of Allah and the Koran.

Perhaps a part of the problem is that we are a country of nice people. It is almost impossible for us to understand that radical Muslims could treat their women that cruelly. And then there is the little fact that millions of strangers want us dead. Liberals refuse to believe this. They think maybe if they could talk to them, sit down and listen to their leaders, perhaps even understand where they “are coming from” that they could then find some common bonds that will lead to understanding and acceptance. Wrong. Sure they will sit down and talk, their leaders might even make promises to be better in the future. And then at the earliest opportunity they will find a way to kill our soldiers and blow up innocent bystanders with their suicide bombers and ignore their promises.

When the world doesn’t act in a manner that Liberals approve of then Liberals end up turning issues inside out arguing that enemies are friends and friends are enemies? Words no longer mean what we were taught and they give nicer names to things that threaten them so as to feel better. They will insulate themselves by believing that they are superior to other Americans and that their greater intelligence allows them to see the “big picture” and understand the other side. They will always argue that a minority is at the mercy of the oppressive white man. Ironically, most Liberals won’t believe the stereo types of the "abused" minority but will quickly embrace any negative stereo type of the rest of us. And the scary part is that this group is who is running our country today.

Now we had a man of Arabic background, a Muslim, go on a shooting spree killing unarmed soldiers. I had hoped that perhaps our military hadn’t been quite as corrupted by political correctness such as our universities, media and local schools have been. This episode with Fort Hood demonstrates just how wrong I was. Political correctness, fear of upsetting a minority, worrying about playing fairly; it is this stupidity that allows a US soldier like Hasan to go so far as to communicate with al Qaeda and email with a radical imam. Not only was his outrageous conduct tolerated but this traitor was even promoted and sent to Fort Hood. Why did no one stop him? How many more unstable Muslims are there in our military? And better yet, does the FBI or military have what it takes to finally go after these men now?

What makes it doubly hard is that much of the hatred begins and ends in their temples. Radical Imams preach against the godless Americans, raise their children to despise us and our way of life, imprison their women into a life of servitude and encourage their young men that killing Americans is not only right but will give them eternal gratitude when they give their life for the cause. And these temples are not just found overseas. They are here in America, too.

Of course not every Muslim temple harbors radicals. But we need to stop the PC bullshit and admit that yes, some of them are our enemies. We need to be penetrating these temples, putting in taps and all that espionage stuff and letting the FBI do their job; rather than being persuaded by liberals and the ACLU start that we are being prejudicial and unfair to this religion. We need to recognize that there are cores of truth in stereo types. We need to take action if someone is showing questionable actions, such as this Hasan had without worrying that some ACLU lawyer will come after you.

And maybe the first step is to call things by their right names. When Nidal Malik Hasan began killing unarmed soldiers it was a terrorist attack; Hasan was literally creating terror and fear and not a “man made disaster” which is what our Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplitano would have you call it. That’s right. A terrorist attack is supposed to be called a man made disaster. It would be laughable if it weren’t so, well, terrifying.

Tenaciously Optimistic

2009-11-04T10:15:00.013-05:00

I heard a phrase the other day which immediately resonated in me. I don’t remember where I heard it but the phrase was “tenaciously optimistic”. Isn’t that great? We all know people who never seem happy; who complain about every little thing that happens to them. On the other hand, there are those few people who truly have had terrible adversities in their life and yet they still seem happy. They are tenaciously optimistic. They know that when life throws you a curve ball it would be easy to feel sorry for yourself or become bitter but instead they work to remain hopeful and cling to their belief that life is to be enjoyed. I should know. I also think that this phrase describes the attitudes of our best politicians and leaders, not just here but world wide.

Think of Winston Churchill who never gave up during WWII. One of his many quotes that he is famous for is: ... we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Wow. Now that is the epitome of being tenaciously optimistic! Churchill had faith that they would win but he knew they would have to work hard to achieve that win; in other words they needed to be tenaciously optimistic.

Our most revered Presidents are also those who were tenaciously optimistic. Roosevelt inspired Americans with his upbeat view during the Great Depression and then WWII. In fact, Roosevelt applied this sentiment in his personal life. He could have been bitter after being struck by polio and losing the ability to walk. Instead he fought to be happy. So did Kennedy who also had serious illnesses and a debilitating back problem. Like Roosevelt, he overcame his personal problems with humor and confidence that he could do anything.

Perhaps the President who most exemplified tenacious optimism was President Reagan. He was elected during a terrible recession, interest rates greater than 20%, unemployment well over 10% and an energy crisis. Yet during his campaign he exuded optimism and hope that things would be better. And the American people responded and swept him into office twice. How could you not admire a man who as he was being wheeled into surgery after being shot during an assassination attempt quipped to his wife “Honey, I forgot to duck.” Reagan knew that humor is frequently used as a means to deflect adversities.

Obama was also tenaciously optimistic. He would have to be as he was the first African American to be on the Democratic ticket for President. Few African Americans ever thought there would be a black president in their lifetime but not Obama. He even turned his tenacious optimism into his campaign slogan “Yes We Can”. And he did.

I mention this because I heard someone, I think it was the Republican House Minority Whip, say that the two Republicans who just became governors of Virginia and NJ were “sunny Republicans”. The pundits discussed how these two Republicans each ran a campaign of hope and ideas of how to improve life for the citizens of their state. On the other hand, the Democratic candidates ran angrier campaigns attacking their opponent and playing the blame game. Voters have shown over and over that they don’t respond to those kinds of campaigns. We don’t want leaders to blame other people, we want them to explain how they will improve the situation. And once again voters responded to the tenacious optimism of the Republican candidates of Virginia and New Jersey.

Something else has occurred to me. As previously mentioned, when running for President, Obama was enthusiastically hopeful with his “Yes We Can” motto. But since becoming President he seems to have lost that ebullience and hopefulness. Instead every time he gives a speech it is about doom and gloom, how bad things are and continuously blaming President Bush for all the problems. In looking back, Clinton had a lot of problems but if not exactly cheerful, he did have this cocky self assurance. Carter, however, was like an old time Southern Baptist pastor preaching of fire and brimstone unless people changed. He lasted one painful term and yet never learned for he is still preaching doom and gloom.

All the pundits are analyzing the election results from last night. What does it portend for Obama and his agenda? How will it affect the health care bill? What does it mean for the Republican party? Personally, I think the message is an old one. That voters are tired of being told how awful life is, they know that things are tough all over. They don’t need politicians telling them how bad it is or blaming the other party and voters definitely don’t want politicians telling them that they need to sacrifice (ie. pay higher taxes) in order to help others. And they also respond badly to threats – that if they don’t do something then life will be horrible in the future (think climate change).

Voters want those “sunny Republicans”. They want to hear that life is good and is only going to get better. They want solutions but not solutions that makes life tougher for themselves. They want leaders who are confident and hopeful in a better future. Leaders who won’t promise easy fixes since most of the time the voters end up paying for that. Instead these leaders will tell you how they will work to improve your family’s life. These leaders are tenaciously optimistic; finding joy and pride in America even during the darkest hours and exuding hopefulness that we can work together to create a shining future.