Monday, February 8, 2010


First, I want to apologize for not keeping up on my blogging duties. Between babysitting my Grandkids, taking care of my Mom, and this new recent development with my back, (I'm having surgery on the 16th of February) I'm just not feeling it lately-be patient, it'll come back.

Anyway, despite my recluse behavior, I have been following the news and have a few brief things I want to share with you.


In an effort to convince us that Obama and the Dems are concerned about the present high unemployment, President Obama made jobs the focus of his State of the Union speech. The problem is, right after his soaring rhetoric, he went right back to his left wing agenda. I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone would think his new focus is jobs when every bit of effort (minus a few words about a soon-to-be-debated Jobs bill.) has been on overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". A little pop quiz; Who brought "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to the military? That's right, President Clinton. Maybe we should go back and look at some of the reasons Bill thought it would be a better idea than having gays serve "openly"-whatever the Hell that means. With our economy in the dumps and the market free-falling it's hard to understand why the whole MSM thinks this should be the number one issue. The support I've had for Gay Advocates is fading fast. How about a few key members saying, "You know, I really want this, but now is just not the time"


Here in the state of Michigan, we've had to suffer the very worst Governor we've ever seen. Every single economic indicator is worse than when she got here and people are fleeing. Her supporters claim it's all the fault of the auto manufacturers leaving. Fair enough. But can someone explain to me why we got 45% of all the Big Three layoffs?? There are 6 "Rust Belt" states, and we get 45%? The second highest state in terms of manufacturing job loss was South Carolina and it's not even one of the Rust Belt states. We're not the biggest union state or even the state with the most manufacturing. So my question is; why us? Despite this, the MSM continues it's disregard for it's duties and openly makes excuses for Granholm's ineptness. I have always given woman candidates an edge in an effort to right an imbalance. However, if they are not going to be criticized on the Democrat side no matter how badly they perform, (for instance, Janet I-wouldn't-know-a-terrorist-if-he-were-wearing-an-I-Love-Osama Bin Laden-t-shirt Napolitano) then my days of voting for them are over.


Get this. What's the happiest state in the whole U.S.? Give up? Here's a clue. They have a team that just won the Super Bowl. That's right, Louisiana. The state that was wiped out by hurricane Katrina. How could this be possible in such a short time? Easy, a flood of taxpayer money. The Feds have now pumped 10's of billion$ into the state. Their unemployment is now at 7.5%. That's far below the nationwide average of 9.7%. Money is flowing in every direction and Obama and the Dems have promised even more! For the record, my state, Michigan, is at 14.7% unemployment. Twice what Louisiana has. My guess is the money will keep flowing until New Orleans looks like Dubai. The Recovery Act is sending another $538,575,876 for infrastructure spending which White House officials estimate will create 50,000 jobs. That's over $500 million for the happiest state, with no deficit and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the U.S.. Anyone want to take a stab at why??

O.K., that's all for now. I may be a little slow to post anything while I'm recovering-or I may get so bored that I write a lot more. We'll just have to wait and see. H.C.

Monday, January 25, 2010


I probably could have used that heading for about a dozen different weeks since the Dems took power, but this week was exceptionally bad. It's hard to decide which of the two major events-the big loss in Massachusetts or the Supreme Court Decision- was the worse. Certainly the Massachusetts loss was the worst in the short run, but the S.C. decision may be the one that will do the most damage in the long run. So let's go over the two and I'll give you my spin on how I believe these two events have, and will, impact politics in the near and distant future.

The race in Massachusetts for the U.S. Senate seat was supposed to be an easy win for the Dems. With the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, the seat was open for the first time since 1962. Ted won the seat once held by his brother Bobby in a special election after RFK's assassination. Despite his lack of intelligence, ( he managed to achieve only the rank of Private First Class while in the military and had to cheat to pass Spanish.) Ted became a symbol of Liberalism in one of the most Liberal states in the U.S.. Given it's history and it's left-leaning politics, Democrat Martha Coakley looked like a shoe-in. However, a good-looking, charismatic Republican named Scott Brown managed to take an impressive 52 to 47 victory. Immediately, right-wing talk show hosts began pinning the loss on President Obama's lapel.

I don't see it like that.

I think it was more of an indictment of the Democrats in general than of President Obama. While I blame Barack for handing over the reigns to Pelosi and Reid, it's Congress that seems to be more interested in pleasing the left on every issue than listening to the moderates that helped put them in power. Health care is a disaster, Pelosi has the social appeal of a snake and Harry Reid looks like he shouldn't be left alone with children. The people of Massachusetts were simply reacting to a party that seem to be saying, "This country is ours now, and we'll do as we damn well please." From their arrogance in barely even campaigning to their sense of entitlement of the Senate seat, it's the Dems who cooked their own goose in Massachusetts. Obama merely showed up too late at a party where the mood was already set.

The result of their loss is Health Care Reform that must, (and should) be rewritten to draw more support and a tide that they must now work to turn back around.

The second strike of lightening that frazzled the Dems perfect hair-dos was a Supreme Court decision. In a case brought against the Federal Election Commission by the conservative nonprofit group Citizens United, the justices ruled 5 to 4 in favor of Citizens United. At issue was whether or not corporations, unions and other organizations had the same rights as individuals when it comes to the First Amendment. The court ruled that they do. Immediately the left went into full freak-out mode. "This will allow corporations to buy elections!" They shouted from the tallest media hills. Never mind that their candidate plowed over all money raising records this past election with the help of Google, Media Matters, Hollywood, and a host of other "corporations" as well as 527's. Since I listen to both sides (which I also recommend you do), I'll fill some of you Dems in on something that was left out of the Main Stream Media reporting. This case was triggered by the attempt by the Federal Election Commission, on behalf of the Clintons, to block the film Hillary; the Movie from being released prior to the election. I guess it's O.K. to trash G.W. with the sitcom That's my Bush, the cartoon Lil Bush, and the Oliver North film "W" (not to mention Fahrenheit 911 and a host of other documentaries) but for some reason it's not O.K. to do one on Hillary.

The end result of this decision is still to be felt, but I wouldn't worry so much about the national elections. I believe they have about as much money as they can possibly spend and I'm not so sure a lot of corporations want to be seen as openly siding with one party. What I would be concerned with is how this will effect smaller elections where a zoning decision could lead to an all out effort to remove a township board in favor of a more friendly board. Although, given the way cities like Detroit seem to be for sale, it's hard to imagine it being a whole lot worse. For the Dems, this really just means that their advantage with the Internet just got smaller. For Hillary, it means a taste of her own back-slashing medicine. As far as the corporations running this country now that they have this decision? Who do you really think has been running it? H.C.

Monday, January 18, 2010


Criticizing is easy. Just ask anybody. They'll gladly tell you what's wrong with Obama, Bush, the Democrats, Congress, the Republicans, or frankly, the way you mow your grass. The best way to throw a true "kvetch" (complainer) off his or her game is to ask them a simple question, "So, what would you do?" Chances are, you'll get an answer that would make all the aforementioned groups seem brilliant by comparison. Criticizing is easy, finding solutions is hard.
Since I do more than my share of critiquing, I like to try my hand at finding solutions from time to time. It's my way of keeping myself from ever becoming a 'kvetch'.

With earning season in full swing this week, you'll soon be hearing about huge profits and huge bonuses. I don't really have as much of a problem with people making large bonuses as some of my more Liberal friends do. If you can make me a $100 billion and all I have to do is pay you $100 million-sign me up! In fact, contact me right here and leave your number! I'll call you right back! I have no problem with "over-paid" sports figures, radio show hosts, movie stars, or anyone else who's helping someone else get rich and breaking off a piece for themselves. It does drive me crazy that some freakishly tall mental midget gets $20 million for throwing a round ball through a hoop while an emergency room nurse makes $40k. But as long as the stadium is full and the money's flowing, why not?

I believe most people think like me on this one. The real problem comes when someone loses $100 billion and still gets paid his $100 million. That what drives people to start shopping for sniper rifles and high towers. The Obama Administration is now paying lip-service to the idea of limiting executive's pay. That feels a tad un-American to me. Like I said before, if you can make me rich, I don't want the Government telling me when it's a good deal. I'll take my own chances. Thankyaverymuch. What I think someone is worth is my business. However, taxing profits is as American as apple pie.
So, here's my idea.

Let's base a bonus tax on the amount of money given to the top management of any major company on the profit they produce. It would work like this; You can pay your CEO, CFO, etc., anything that you want. However, only .01% of the amount of your profit payed in bonuses will be "bonus tax" free. For instance, if my CEO makes my company $100 billion, I can pay him up to $100 million bonus tax free! If I pay him 200 million, the extra 100 million causes the profit to get taxed on a sliding scale. $100 billion profit times .01% = $100 million with no tax, $200 million is .02% so the $100 billion profit gets taxed an additional .01%. If the bonus was $300 million, then the tax on the profits would jump to .02% and so on. The highest tax you can put on the profits is 100% and the lowest tax liability for those that don't make a profit would be the equivalent of the bonuses they pay.. The beauty of this plan is that the higher the ratio of bonus to profit-the worse they get taxed. If they choose to give out bonuses of $10 million when the company loses money, that's fine, the tax will be $10 million. I doubt the stockholders will go for that.

One of the little games our corporate-bought-and-paid-for politicians like to play is the "It's just too difficult" game. That's the game where they try something they know will fail and then say, "Well, we tried, I guess it's just too hard." That's the game they're going to try to run past you on these corporate bonuses. If it's possible to stop me, your average worker, from making any money on the side (just look at how they tax my kid's paper route, your waitresses' tip, or someone preparing your taxes) then, I think we could do this with very little effort. Don't buy for one minute that it "just can't be done." It can, and should, be done. H.C.

Monday, January 11, 2010


I've been waiting with baited breath for this week's U.S. unemployment figures to come in. A lot is at stake for the Obama Administration. One of the first acts of office that Barack performed was pushing the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It cost the taxpayers of this country an unbelievable sum of $787 billion. At the time President Obama told us it was an important piece of legislation to stem the unemployment problem. In fact, he claimed it would create 4.1 million jobs. Without it, we were warned, unemployment would soon be over 8%. With it, it is now 10% and we have lost an estimated 3.3 million jobs.

Every since I was a little kid, I have been taught, by Liberals, that the government can create jobs in the public sector and improve the standard of living for all Americans. They have always based their theory on the success (?) of Franklin D. Roosevelt after the Great Depression. The Work Programs that FDR produced, they claim, brought us out of the Depression and lead to the largest expansion of wealth and growth in the history of the U.S.. I have always been a sceptic of this idea, however, I left the possibility open in my mind that they may be right. I now believe that they are dead wrong.

Maybe it's the way that they have applied it that is the real problem.

FDR created his Work Progress Administration at a time when unemployment in the U.S. was at an all time high. Therefore, there was very little displacement of work from the private sector. Furthermore, FDR had as the centerpiece of his programs....WORK. The only exception was his establishment of Unemployment Insurance in 1935, which at least went to people willing to work. The Obama Administration seems to be more obsessed with giving money away than making people work for it. In Detroit, for example, money was literally handed out to people required only to prove need and stand in line. (Watch the video!) Other money was handed out to people for buying cars, or houses. More money was funnelled into State coffers to fill in budget gaps. The one thing no one was required to do to get the money, was work for it.

The end result?

We have now registered the second biggest job loss in the history of Labor statistics going all the way back to 1948. The #1 biggest? 2008, by only 1/10 of a percent. We have now lost an additional 2.3% of our workforce in just 2009 alone. Add to that a shrinking dollar, looming inflation and stagnant wages and it's very hard to see what we got for our $787 billion.

However, I should note that Wall Street had one of it's best years ever! Yea for the rich getting richer while the working class increase their debt.

Now, I have said that I would give the Obama Administration 2 years to turn this recession around (it did, after all, take Reagan that long.). And I stand by that statement. But when you say, as Obama did, that $787 billion would stem unemployment, create jobs and save the working man. You had better come through. So far all I have seen is the situation get worse and worse for the average guy-on-the-streets while Wall Street is running off with the money. It cost us a hell of a lot, but at least one Liberal lie is being put to rest in my mind-that you can turn the economy around by throwing money at it. Obviously, that didn't work. We already know that tax cuts for the wealthy can help, but how about this untried approach, Mr. President? Tax cuts for the Middle Class. The people you've so far only tried to burden even more. H.C.

Monday, December 21, 2009


With Christmas fast approaching, I thought I would do an inspirational piece to give all of you something to ponder with eggnog and relatives. I racked my overly fertile brain (some say that's because it's well-fed with fertilizer) for something that would both honor the season and reflect my feelings about this particular year. That's when I remembered a piece that I thought was by the comedian, George Carlin, called, "The Paradox of Our Times". The problem is; It's not written by Mr. Carlin, or by several other people that it's been credited to. The most reliable research seems to point to a Dr. Bob Moorehead a minister, author, and former pastor of Overlake Christian Church in Redmond, Washington. Mr. Moorehead was accused of molesting some of his flock and the left (who always seem to forget 'Innocent until proven guilty' when it's convenient.) were quick to dismiss his writings. Unfortunately, they threw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. No matter the author, I find this piece to be dead-on and worth considering. So without further ado, here it is;

*The Paradox of our Time*
The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints; we spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less.

We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years to life, not life to years.

We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor. We've conquered outer space, but not inner space; we've done larger things, but not better things.

We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul; we've split the atom, but not our prejudice.We write more, but learn less; we plan more, but accomplish less.

We've learned to rush, but not to wait; we have higher incomes, but lower morals; we have more food, but less appeasement; we build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication; we've become long on quantity, but short on quality.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall men, and short character; steep profits, and shallow relationships. These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare; more leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition.

These are days of two incomes, but more divorce; of fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw away morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer to quiet to kill.

It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stockroom; a time when technology has brought this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to make a difference, or to just simply hit "Delete".

I have this piece on my wall at work and I must have read and re-read it a hundred times. I would add only one line, "A time when we build heros, only to tear them down."

At this time I would like to thank each and every one of you that have taken the time to read my pieces throughout the past two years. We haven't always agreed on everything, but that's O.K., that's how it's supposed to be. It's the right to disagree and dissent that is so very endangered in these troubled times, and it is that right that we all should work hard to protect. I'm certain that I am wiser because of your comments and more worldly because of your insights. I would like to wish all of you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! May God bless and guide all of you. H.C.

Monday, December 7, 2009


Of all the political advocacy groups out there, none entertains me, or aggravates me more than PETA. They entertain me when they do dopey things like attack the American Kennel Club (AKC) for breeding dogs (and dress in KKK outfits to prove their "point"?). Don't they know that the AKC is one of the biggest groups of animal lovers in America? They aggravate me when they get involved with things like hunting or fishing (which they know nothing about) and try to influence policy based on nothing more than emotion. Such is the case with Wolves.

As a hunter, I view the wolf as my brother. He is both cunning and shrewd, sleek and majestic. He is at the same time beautiful and yet dangerous. To hear his howl in the dark of the night is to know that you are not alone in the woods. It's a sound that makes every hair on your neck stand straight up and it rates right up there with an elk bugling as one of the greatest sounds nature has to offer. He epitomizes freedom and represents everything I know about the Spirit of the Wild and the balance of nature. Unfortunately though, he is not in balance, because he lives in a world overrun by humans-his biggest competitor.

Once the Gray Wolf, and several other North American wolf species lived unspoiled and in harmony with the Native Americans, the only humans here at the time. But that changed with the invasion of the white man. With his fear of wolves, man slayed the beasts to a point where they were nearly extinct. As we matured as hunters, we began to realize the value of our brother and his place in the wild. Efforts were made to reintroduce the Gray and Timber Wolf in places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Yellowstone National Park. Those efforts have been very successful. In the Southwest, in Arizona and New Mexico the Mexican Gray Wolf has been reintroduced successfully too.

However these successes have not been without problems. As you may remember from your old Nursery stories, Wolves like sheep, and calves, and any other livestock that they can get their hands on. Ranchers and wolves are running into each other more and more. In New Mexico ranchers are being driven out of a business they have been in for generations because of repeated wolf kills. In Yellowstone, wolf packs leave the park at night to prey on neighboring ranches. In Michigan's Upper Peninsula, Wisconsin and Minnesota hunters are complaining that wolves are killing too many deer-destroying what was once a thriving deer hunting industry. The problem is, the wolves are a victim of their own success. Numbers in all those states are now passing their targets and management, by hunting, is the only answer.

Unfortunately, hunting is never the answer to nutty groups who deal in emotion and watch Animal Planet far too much. Hunting groups have fought long and hard along with ranchers to get the Gray Wolf removed from the Endangered Species List. The other side is fighting hard to keep them there. Remember, their numbers are surpassing the targets set by the states as sustainable. Groups such as the Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, The Humane Society of the United States, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Western Watersheds Project, Wildlands Network, and Hells Canyon Preservation Council, PETA and a host of others are fighting every effort to cull the out-of-control numbers of wolves.

Here is the low-down on why they are wrong.

Animals need to be controlled in order for them to live side-by-side with humans. Predators lose their fear of humans with time and become a problem. The days of endless forests for them to run unaffected in balance are gone. Human invasion is everywhere and bound to get even worse with time. The idea of returning the major predators to their "rightful place" in the food chain is a pipe dream at best. Man is the ultimate predator and effects everything he touches with his manipulation of the environment. The only way to return things to the way it was before man, is to get rid of man. Since I don't think that mankind is going to be leaving the U.S. any time soon, we can only hope to find a way to live together. Man's livestock, garbage, pets and even children can become easy targets for a major predator.

Colorado experimented with putting an end to running bears with dogs during hunting seasons, the end result? Bears that no longer feared dogs and wandered right into towns. This put both bears and people in danger. Large cats like the mountain lions are showing similar boldness. Without the fear put into them by the hunters with their dogs, they decided that house cats and small dogs chained to a tree were easy prey.

Wolves are quick studies. They learn really quick where danger is or isn't. Ranchers allowed to shoot a wolf will rarely see that pack again. I can appreciate the animal -lovers and their fondness for the animals we both respect. The problem is they see only beauty and good in animals like the wolf and none of the problems. In order for us to live in harmony, it is necessary for the true stewards of the forests, the hunters, to do their job and keep the wolf as he should be-wild, wary and afraid of humans. PETA and their ilk try to attach human emotions to an animal and the wolf simply looks a little too much like Lassie for them to accept a culling hunt. None of that is built on research or science-it's just emotion. In order for the U.S. to have a thriving environment with sustainable numbers of the wildlife that we all enjoy seeing, we have to make a decision. Do we trust the people who rely on research, science, their experiences in the wild, along with their own desire to see the animals they love to hunt? Or do we trust people who get their information from T.V. shows and from petting animals in a petting zoo? I think you know the answer. H.C.

Monday, November 30, 2009


It has occurred to me that I haven't taken any shots at the Republicans in quite a while. Well, there are a couple of good reasons. First, the Reps have become completely inert. Oh, they bitch and moan and try their level best to be obstructionists, but truth be told, they have about as much power as a AAA battery. Maybe less. The Democrats are in total control and pushing their agenda hard. Frankly, punching up the Republicans right now is like kicking a midget- a little too easy. Secondly, the Democrats have been doing sooooo many things to comment on I can't even keep up. So here's a little mash-up of some recent events that caught my eye.

*Digging the hole even deeper*

President Obama announced yesterday that he will be sending even more troops into Afghanistan. It was a mistake to stay this long and it'll be an even bigger mistake to stay longer. I sympathize with the President on this one. His supporters want us out, his Generals want us in with both feet. Both have some great points. The fact is; we can't separate the good guys from the bad over there. Left on their own the Afghan people turn to infighting and the brutal Taliban take over. It's seems easier to me to let them form training camps or control apparatus and then blow the living crap out of them. But I'll admit, I'm not a military analyst. This war is fast becoming Obama's War and I'm dead positive he will regret taking ownership.

*She left us!*

Our beloved Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, has just gotten back from a State dinner with President Obama for India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife, Gursharan Kaur. Ms. Granholm feasted on an "elaborate array of vegetarian dishes and listened to the National Symphony Orchestra" while her state is trying to figure out how to feed itself. I just got back from a trip up north deer hunting and I have never seen the area around Alpena look so desperate. Locals told me the deer population is way down due to starvation-of the residents. She reminds me of that scene in Jurassic Park where the T-rex rears it's head (Michigan's debt and economy) over the embankment and the lawyer takes off running leaving the kids to die. Thanks Jennifer. I guess as long as she's having elegant food and company and can jockey for a better position it's O.K.. The local press seems more concerned about her attire, but I want to know what the F*** she's doing partying while our state is burning. I'm sure some Liberal can give me the apologetic answer.

*Even more local*

Of all the things I miss the most about the old days, it's accountability. Why, it used to be that if you got caught stealing a penny bubblegum from the drug store (Wow, I sounded old there.) you could end up working for that same store for a month, mandated by your parents. Now, you can be in a position to oversee the entire Michigan Education system and watch $306 million vanish from the Detroit Public Schools and know one says a peep. Here's a lesson for all you "Reform Wall Street" types-laws and bureaucracy don't do one lick of good if the people paid to watch them aren't accountable for when they fail to stop the stealing. Everyone acts like we don't have anyone that was supposed to be watching that Den of Thieves in Detroit, but we do. It's called the Michigan State Board of Education and it's headed by one gray-haired old lady named Kathleen N. Straus. If we're not going to do a single thing to the department that is paid to watch the school system when they fail to do their job, then what's the point of having them? So they can make sure our kids know how to put a condom on while the superintendents sell off their computers? Sigh.

*Willie Horton II*

During the 1988 Presidential campaign, Democrat candidate Michael Dukakis was plagued by ads run by Republican George H.W. Bush showing a young man named Willie Horton. On October 26, 1974, in Lawrence, Massachusetts, Horton and two accomplices robbed Joseph Fournier, a 17-year-old gas station attendant, stabbing him 19 times. Mr. Fournier later died of his injuries. Mr. Horton was convicted and sent to prison. On June 6, 1986, he was released as part of a weekend furlough program but did not return. On April 3, 1987 in Oxon Hill, Maryland, Horton twice raped a local woman after pistol-whipping, knifing, binding, and gagging her fiancé. The furlough program was supported by candidate Dukakis. The style and underlining racial theme of those ads is often pointed to as examples of racism by the Republican Party. Now, a new play on that old script is emerging. Maurice Clemmons, who is black, performed a teenage crime spree in Arkansas that landed him an 108-year prison sentence. He then had his sentence commuted by Republican Presidential Candidate and Talk show host Mike Huckabee who was Arkansas's' Governor at the time. Mr. Clemmons went on to kill four white police officers in cold blood. Now, strangely, even the most Liberal Media sources have no problem showing Maurice's photo next to the four white cops. It should be very interesting to see how this will play out if Mr. Huckabee decides to run in 2012.

O.K., that's all my blood pressure can take for now. It sure is a burden having to point out week after week what our press seems unwilling, or unable to do. Fortunately, I live for this. H.C.