Sunday, May 17, 2009

This Week's Big Story 17 May 2009

It's kind of hard to say which is the big story. According to the legacy media, there are lots of big stories out there. Big stories that are secondary to the real story that they just as soon tell you about after the fact.

Look over here. The President is going to Notre Dame and receive an honorary degree. What a mess that's going to be.

Look over there. The President is going to nominate a US Supreme Court Justice. The big questions are woman, minority, both?

And over there. The President is releasing CIA documents. uh, that is not so important. The NY Times has released more classified material than the pikers in the Obama administration have released. But isn't Bush bashing fun?

Don't turn away from this one. The President is going to prosecute terrorist interrogators. No wait, interrogators' lawyers. Could be important. They are lawyers, after all.

Wait look here. The President is going to release more prisoner abuse photographs. Nope, changed his mind. The big story, he's flip-flopping. Nothing new here. He's flipped on everything he campaigned on already.

Wait, Wait, Wait. The Speaker of the US House may be misleading Americans. You'd better check it out.

In the mean time....

Obama Administration and the legacy media are directing attention away from nationalized health care insurance that is being rammed through congress, quadrupled deficit spending, nationalization of banks and automobile industries, and other unsupported programs such as Cap & Trade, removing profitability from business, strong arming banks & business, and paying off supporters, such as ACORN (up to $5.2 billion in taxpayer funds). That's not to mention killing charitable non-government organizations, gun control and auto emissions.

It's all a trick. They cannot implement their agenda if attention is focused on what they are doing and understand the consequences of these real changes. They have to keep the crisis mentality alive. They don't want to waste it.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Good Time Charlie... Crist

Florida's governor, Charlie Crist (R), has announced his intention to run for the US Senate seat being abandoned by Senator Mel Martinez (R) after this term (Reuters).

I find this news to be disturbing as Governor Crist is proving to be another poll watching politician who will sign anything that the polls indicate the majority of Florida voters support. I found the news that Sen. Martinez was quitting bothersome as well. But this move by the governor makes little political sense.

First, Governor Crist his in his first term as governor in a state that is suffering under the US Congress generated economic crisis. I would say that he has unfinished work here and just because he can easily win the seat is not sufficient reason to jump on it.

Second, if he is such a shoe-in and so popular, wouldn't he better serve the Republican Party by keeping his governorship, promoting and supporting another prominent Republican, such as Florida Attorney General and former US Representative Bill McCollum. And if he wants a Senate seat so badly, run against Senator Bill Nelson when is term is up? He's a shoe-in, right? Instead of a one for one exchange, he could have added a needed Republican senate seat.

Thank you Charlie.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Pay Equity Debate Equals Class Warfare

The organization,United for a Fair Economy (UFE) is proud to advance the divisiveness of class warfare. Class warfare is a tool of the liberal left and the Democratic Party in the United States. They seem to believe that by pointing out the income differences in between CEO's and their employees is providing some sort of public service.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This organization seems to be a mouthpiece for those who cannot cope with or cannot understand the American way of life and they publish salary and bonus numbers to incite voters. And this helps no one.

Here is what they say:
"CEO Pay: We believe that the lack of pay equity in the US can be addressed by changing the rules. The better informed average workers are, the more they will be empowered to generate changes."
Their premise starts off on a positive note, but then fall into their peculiar idea of fairness. So, yes, being informed certainly is better for everyone. The question I have for them is, "why would our system need to change?"

While CEO's, executives, large and small business owners make much more than their employees in most cases, this should not be a problem, but an incentive. In fact, without our system and the risks business leaders take, the standard of living in the United States and around the world would be nothing like it is today. None of the advances in medicine, materials, and transportation would be possible. Millions people around the world would be dead, or never have been alive, if not for the work and reward system that Americans embrace.

CEO's make more because they take more risks. Employees only have to show up and do the job they contracted for. An employee's only financial risk is whether the company remains successful at the location where he/she works, and that security is a result of the leadership's expertise and commitment.

Look. If you are envious of another's wealth, that should be an incentive to do the same thing. If an employee wants make as much or more than his/her CEO, there is a very simple solution. Start your own company and take all the financial risks, the many hours of sweat equity, the learning, and abilities, and apply it to your goal. If you don't feel like you can do all that, then shut up, collect your paycheck and continue to be at the mercy of statisticians, accountants and balance sheets. With hard work, persistence and good ideas anyone in country can achieve as much success as they are willing work for. This scenario has been repeated millions of times in this country.

This is the way to become successful and wealthy in a free market system. Many politicians and organizations such as the UFE clearly do not understand this basic truth. Class warfare is used as a political tool to pedal influence. They influence millions of followers (a key word) to look to them to even out the playing field and protect them, but end up being held down, in place by those same politicians. Remember these are the same people who engineered, either by expert planning or supreme stupidity, the economic crisis this country and world are in right now. If you prefer to complain about the rich getting richer and having to work for "the man", then keep following others and looking outside yourself for help.

Our politicians have the sworn duty to make the playing field as fair as possible. They very often fall short of this while looking out for their own self interests. This is due to lobbyist approved legislation designed to give the lobbyist's employer advantage over employees and competitors. This is how we get the Enrons, the high energy costs, the S&L Crisis from the 1980s and the current economic crisis that is destroying millions of jobs.

In this country, for now at least, anyone can become whatever their own strengths, talents a perseverance allows.
Paul Begala is rewriting history in his own terms at the Huffington Post. I know it's his own terms because I challenged the validity if his remarks and my post was deleted. You can go there and read his post and the 30 web pages of remarks. The vast majority giving Mr. Begala props for posting "what needed to be written".

Briefly, Mr. Begala is trying to make the case that President Bush did not protect America as 3000 people died horribly on his watch, the Clinton administration warned him and he then used rendition and torture to extract information linking Iraq with Al Quaida as an excuse to invade that peace loving country.

Since he left out critical information, I concluded that he was misleading readers by focusing on his Bush-hate talking points. My response, which was never published along with the others, is as follows:
Mr. Begala, this a lovely fantasy that I'm sure all the folks here will take to heart. However, you conveniently leave out President Clinton's, or better yet, your Director of the CIA,George Tenet. Remember him? While you are focusing on interrogations that may or may not have occurred (you offer no evidence), your CIA director was telling the President of the United States that Saddam Hussein had WMD. He said it was a "slam dunk".

Recall that we resumed the shooting war with Saddam because he violated the ceasefire he agreed to, according to the United Nations.

Moreover, The Bush Administration consistently and repeatedly said that the Iraqis had no operational involvement with the 9/11 attacks by Al Quaida.

Rewriting history is one of the left's most widely used tools, but 7 or 8 years is too recent to attempt it.

Posted 08:11 PM on 05/14/2009

Update (3:3:47 PM, 05/19/2009)

OK, so maybe the Huffington Post's censors didn't care for my attitude with that attempt to inform. So I reworded it a little and posted it again today. Here is what it says now.
This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

Interesting position on the events that led up to the resumption of hostilities with Iraq. However, you leave out President Clinton's Director of the CIA,George Tenet. While you are focusing on interrogations that may or may not have occurred. Mr. Tenet was telling the President of the United States that Saddam Hussein had WMD. He said it was a "slam dunk".

Recall that we resumed the shooting war with Saddam because he repeatedly violated the ceasefire he had agreed to. This according to the United Nations. The Iraqi military had been targeting and shooting at US war planes since shortly after the ceasefire in 1991. Each one an act of war. Moreover, the Bush administration negotiated with Saddam Hussein for 14 months before going in.

The Bush Administration consistently and repeatedly said that the Iraqis had no operational involvement with the 9/11 attacks by Al Quaida.
Posted 03:47 PM on 05/19/2009

Another update (4:42 PM, same day)

It seems this one is much more to the censor's liking.

Comments welcome

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Change Social Security. Why?

I received an email from US House Representative Vern Buchanan. He represents the district I live in and I've sent many emails to him and I recommend contacting your representative whenever you get the chance.

This one was in response to his email poll that read...

Yesterday, The Washington Post reported that Congress might consider an overhaul of Social Security due to the concern that the program’s benefits will not be sustainable over the long term.

I responded as indicated, then followed up with an email. It read...

Dear Representative Buchanan,

In reference to your request for input on changes to Social Security, I'd like to add a clarification.

I responded by answering "no changes".

If the government can print TRILLIONS of "hope Dollars" to ensure executives that donate to their causes get paid on time (TARP) and to pay for the pet projects and supporter payouts the Democrats have kept in their desk drawer until the right time came along, the government can surly print BILLIONS more to pay for Social Security.

The fact is that if government was not raiding the social security trust fund, there would be no need to make changes to it.

I hope you see my point and I thank you for your service.

That is what I think of they way government is being run these days.

Friday, May 1, 2009

Who Does Senator Arlen Spector Represent?

Senator Arlen Specter announced his change from the Republican Party, that he has been a a member of for 5 terms, to the Democratic Party (CBS). In his statement he said it was because "the Republican Party has moved far to the right." Of course, that is complete nonsense.
His position and power is being challenged by another Republican in Pennsylvania and the polls show that he will lose by a wide margin to the newcomer. This makes much more sense.

The fact that Mr. Specter's own words tell the truth:
"I have traveled the state and surveyed the sentiments of the Republican Party
in Pennsylvania and public opinion polls, observed other public opinion polls
and have found that the prospects for winning a Republican primary are bleak,"
he said. "I am not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States
Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate -- not prepared
to have that record decided by that jury, the Pennsylvania Republican primary
I'm not from Pennsylvania, so why should I care?

I see Mr. Specter's disingenuousness as systemic in American politics. A growing number of our "representatives" are very much the same when it comes to attaining and maintaining their honorable elected positions.

Mr Specter demonstrates with bold clarity the reality that career politicians primarily represent themselves. The people of his district come in as a distant third place, behind the interests of his big dollar supporters. A look at the contributions he has received tells the story. According to, he received over $22 million in the 2003-2008 election cycle. Some of his top donors were Lawyers/Law Firms ($2,558,680.00), Securities & Investment ($927,899.00), Real Estate ($812,666.00), Lobbyists ($724,737.00), and Goldman-Sachs ($99,100.00). says he received $7,958,435 (47%) from out of state over this same period. He must be representing those folks as well.

Modern politicians have learned that as long as they don't give much detail (see the Obama presidential race), talk as though they "feel your pain" and understand your issues, that they will confront your enemies (big business, big oil, anyone who is successful, and the opposition party), and they will make your best interests job one for them, is all they need to keep their jobs.

This has to change before the government has everyone of us under it's thumb. They have already made dependents out of millions, taken over private industry - firing CEOs and dictating wages, "stress testing" financial institutions and picking the winners and the losers.

We have already lost control of a government that was, by law, "by, for and of the people". These days it is "of, by and for the highest bidder and/or the slickest politicians".

It's time to return to a real representative democracy.