THE HIPPIE CONSERVATIVE

MORE SNIPPETS

2010-02-08T19:02:00.000-08:00

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.

JOBS: THAT'S SPELLED G...A...Y...S

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"

STATE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN (it's horrible!)

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.

THE SECOND FLOOD

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.

A BAD WEEK FOR DEMOCRATS

2010-01-25T18:34:00.000-08:00

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.

CLAWING BACK

2010-01-18T06:33:00.000-08:00

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.

THE OPPOSITE OF 'STIMULOUS'

2010-01-11T16:05:00.000-08:00

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.

THE MESSAGE, NOT THE MESSENGER

2009-12-21T16:22:00.000-08:00

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.

OF WOLVES AND MEN

2009-12-07T16:10:00.000-08:00

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.

BITS AND PIECES

2009-11-30T16:37:00.000-08:00

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.

$12,000,000,000,000.00

2009-11-24T17:30:00.000-08:00

Quietly, without much fanfare, (barely anyone even mentioned it in the Main Stream Media) our National Debt hit $12 trillion dollars last week. I guess they were too busy covering Adam Lambert's cancelled show. (That search uncovered hundreds of stories)

CBS was one of the very few sources to do any writing on it at all and that was only in a blog written by CBS News White House correspondent.Mark Knoller. Mr. Knoller had this to say,"The National Debt has increased about $1.6 trillion on Mr. Obama's watch, though less than $4.9 trillion run up during the presidency of George W. Bush. But the White House budget review issued in August projects that by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept 30th, the National Debt could top $14 trillion. It gets worse. The same document projects that by the end of the decade, the National Debt will hit $24.5 trillion -- exceeding the Gross Domestic Product projected for 2019 of $22.8 trillion." That's $1.6 trillion that Obama and his Californication Dems have spent in just slightly less than a year. I guess that's just not big enough news compared to an Adam Lambert story.

I would say that the Obama Administration is spending like drunken sailors-but that would be an insult to drunken sailors who couldn't spend $1.6 trillion if every single one of them were drunk their entire lives.

While it's true that Bush (hardly a fiscal conservative) ran up considerable debt over his 8 years, his $4.9 trillion will be dwarfed by an eight year total for Obama of $12.8 trillion at his current rate of spending. And keep in mind, that doesn't even include the bill for the Health Care overhaul. Also, included in Bush's total is the Medicaid part "B" prescription benefit and the TARP funds, most of which are also being spent by the Obama Administration. To get a real grip on how outlandish this is all becoming, check out the U.S. debt clock which is literally spinning out of control.

Why this isn't being covered better, I'll let all of you try to figure out. However, to keep the younger readers in my crowd from committing suicide over the debt we are passing along to them, I'll end this piece on a positive note. Even Obama can't escape the wrath of the comedians forever and SNL has finally broken from the MSM and is no longer punching with furry mittens. H.C*UPDATE* These vids keep getting removed, so I will reload them as quickly as I can find new ones. NBC is claiming copyright infringement, but I find it interesting that only select vids (like this one) are removed.

DEFINING TERRORISM

2009-11-16T18:54:00.000-08:00

To take the simple approach, one would just look in the dictionary or on-line to find a definition of terrorism. Here, I'll save you the trouble, Webster's on-line dictionary defines terrorism as; The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. That's simple enough. However, as the recent Fort Hood Shooting has shown us, that definition needs a little more explaining. When does a nut-job with a gun or a bomb become a terrorist? Does he have to follow a religion? Can he be a terrorist in his own country? What's the difference between someone who's fighting to free his country from oppressors and a Patriot? Can a country itself practice terrorism? Where are the lines?

These are all questions that need answers. To help you sort these questions out I've decided to take a stab at how I would define an act of terror and what makes a terrorist.

First and foremost, I would say that every terrorist has one main thing in common. They target civilians. Notice that I italicized "target". There is a big difference between a military action that has non-targeted civilian collateral deaths and someone who blows up a shopping mall. Israel is a good example of a country that walks the fine line between the two. If Hamas attacks from within civilian housing, is it fair for Israel to blow up suspected houses knowing good and well that innocent civilians will be killed? I would say "Yes". That line, however, I believe, is crossed the minute Israel is trying to enact punishment on the Palestinian people without specifically targeting a known terrorist house. If it's a policy of "If Hamas kills five Jews, then Twenty-five Palestinians will die.", then I believe it is state-sponsored terrorism by Israel. As long as the terrorists themselves put the civilians in danger to protect themselves, then Israel is justified to commit an act of war with civilian casualties. Remember, it is Hamas that put them in danger.

But is Hamas, or for that matter any one else, a terrorist organization if they believe that they are fighting a guerrilla war with an occupier? This can get a little more complicated. First, to be fighting for the liberation of your country, in my opinion, you have to have the support of the majority of your people. Without that, every group, no matter how small, can justify attacking their country in the name of "patriotism". Civilized society allows civil decent, it does not allow every fringe group that disagrees with some policy to act out violently. The proper function of a patriot group is to persuade it's people to rise up against a government it believes has gone wrong. That group must convince a majority of people that it is right. It is the function of an oppressive government to limit demonstration and free expression. It is through those actions that they prove that they no longer have the majority of the people behind them and are no longer acting in the interest of it's people. If you are a member of a group that believes in changing it's government, has free expression, access to media, and the right to demonstrate peacefully and still cannot convince the majority of the public to get behind you, then your job is to continue to try to convince more people. You are not justified to use acts of terrorism to get your way.

Can a country be engaged in terrorism? This is the argument used by Liberals to defend the actions of people who feel, or even are, oppressed by some of the bigger, more powerful countries in the world. The truth is; they are sometimes right and most times wrong. Countries have opposing goals that are interlocked by limited resources, land, water, religion, past conquests, sketchy borders, regional conflicts and a host of other problems. War is the solution of choice for a lot of these countries. To assume that diplomacy and negotiation is always the solution is naive at best. Oppression is always the badge worn by anyone that doesn't get their way or loses the conflict. Since one side or the other will eventually win and get their way, the other side is always oppressed in their own opinion. This in and of itself cannot justify terrorism. Oppression, however, can take many forms, some inhumane and brutal, some economic and far more sublime. The ones that are brutal or inhumane will surely be easy to rally the opinion of the people against and terrorism I believe is justified in that instance. The lesser "oppression" is far harder to justify with violence unless the majority of the people are persuaded.

The world as we now know it has been a little too quick to slap the word "terrorism" on any action by an oppressed group that acts out against it's more powerful oppressors. The keys to separating these people from true terrorists is in their actions. Do they have the support of the majority of their own people and are they acting in their own country? If so, they aren't terrorists in my world. If they are targeting civilians in another country and if they haven't the support of the people in the country they're attacking, then they are terrorists. This may seem a little over simplistic, and maybe it is a simple answer for a very complex question. But I have applied this philosophy to a lot of situations and it seems to work far better than webster's definition. If any one has some input they would like to contribute, this is one discussion I would like to further flesh out. H.C.

LET THE PARTY FLIPPING BEGIN

2009-11-06T17:50:00.000-08:00

As I said so many times after President Obama became our first black President and Congress became a solely Democrat run institution, "Enjoy your moment Democrats, it's not going to last."

Tuesday's elections in New Jersey and Virginia have proven my point. And trust me, there is a lot more to come. Most of my Democrat friends were dead-positive after the historic election of 2008 that the tide had surely moved in their favor. They were, of course, very mistaken. What they thought was a sea-change toward their way of thinking was simply the repercussions of the corruption on Wall Street and the downturn of the economy. The truth is; we live in a social conservative nation. The proof is everywhere. There are now 40 "Right-to-Carry" (a gun) states. 36 of them are "Shall Issue" states, meaning the state has to find a reason to deny your right to carry as opposed to you having to prove that you have a reason to need one. During that same period in time, twenty-nine states have enacted a constitutional ban restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Another 19 states have laws that ban gay marriage and limit marriage to one man and one woman (but it is not in their constitutions) Yet, for some unexplainable reason, all my gun enthusiast friends think they're losing the battle and my Gay friends think they're winning. I guess Liberals are just more optimistic (or delusional) and Conservatives are more pessimistic. Either way, they're both wrong.

As further proof of this, Virginia has now elected Republican Bob McDonnell for governor by a wide 18% margin.The McDonnell victory headlined a three-way sweep for the Reps of the top statewide offices in a state where Obama had won the Presidential election. New Jersey also changed sides by electing Republican Chris Christie over incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine by a 6% margin. To add even further loss to the Dem agenda, the State of Maine has now overturned it's Gay Marriage law. This was a particularly startling defeat for the Gay Rights activists, since it was on their own home turf. My advice to Gay Marriage proponents; stop trying to win in the courts instead of changing public opinion. People don't like shady tactics.

The only bright spot for the Dems came from the 23rd district of New York where Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative Party Member Douglas Hoffman. Note that I didn't say "Republican" Douglas Hoffman. That's because the Republican candidate dropped out. Mr. Hoffman was a 3rd Party Candidate and almost beat Mr. Owen anyway, losing by only 3% points. Even though the left tried desperately to claim this as a win against the Republicans, the truth is; he didn't have a "R" by his name.

Overall, I view this as a very good sign that the Reps are on the comeback trail. The Dems are finding out that it's a lot harder to lead than to just sit back and criticize. The history of our country is that we don't like Parties that lead from the far end of the political spectrum. The Dems are paying the price for the Californication of our government and it will come back to bite them. Turnovers in midterms elections are common and I predict we're going to see quite a few seats change hands in favor of the Reps. Sorry Dems, but I told you so. H.C.

PRESIDENT OBAMA SO FAR

2009-10-25T19:05:00.000-07:00

Since I invested my precious vote in President Barack Obama, I feel I have every right to judge his progress and see if he has met my expectations of him. I was going to wait until his one year anniversary, but so much has happened and so much of his agenda has been put forth that I think it may be time to do an earlier assessment.

First, let me be clear on one thing so that any of you Barack fans out there don't have to bruise your little typing fingers hammering out an angry reply. I know that he can't fix all the problems created by the past administrations in just 10 months. In fact, I give him a full year to start his agenda and then another year for the actions to show results- but by the mid-term elections, the excuses had better end. That is the exact position I take on all politicians. They don't get elected by promising they can't fix things and I'm not about to give any one of them a free pass because they're good at making excuses. We have one of those politicians for a Governor here in Michigan and it wore thin 5 years ago. I also feel the need to remind those of you leaning right that it took Ronald Reagan 2 full years to reverse the damage of Jimmy Carter and since Ron is your "Great President", you should give Obama at least that long to show some of the same results. Now, with that in mind, let's see how Barack is doing so far.

*Foreign Policy*

This was on the list of reasons I voted for Obama. I had hoped for better relations overseas and so far I got it. Admittedly, they may even like him too much, for instance, by giving him a Nobel Peace Prize. But it is nice to see a little positive attitude overseas. On his dealing with dictators though I would give him a "D-". From North Korea's Kim Jong Il to Iran's Supreme Leader, the dictators of the world are playing us like fools. I believe Iran will be nuclear by the end of his first term and any one that thinks otherwise is as naive as Obama's Foreign Policy Team. Sanctions will not work and neither will diplomacy or world condemnation. The Dems have the bad habit of trusting dictators.

*The Economy*

I keep hearing that the economy is "turning around", mostly from the MSM (Main Stream Media) that desperately wants Obama's Administration to succeed. Most all of my economic professors, however, are quietly telling me that the current upswing in the markets is the result of artificial stimulation and an adjustment for the overselling during the crash. I agree with that assessment. Despite what most Liberals believe, you can't just keep printing money and handing it out. Inflation is looming and the Dollar is shrinking. Unemployment is still rising and way too much "stimulus" money is being spent to patch holes in state budgets. Sooner or later that money is going to run out and then the real work will start.

*The War in Iraq*

The MSM seems to have a serious memory problem when it comes to Iraq. Every liberal writer for every liberal newspaper is now gushing over our victory. Events like the recent bombing in Baghdad are no longer proof positive that we can't win. If G.W. were still in office Cindy Sheehan would be on every station, Code Pink would be demonstrating and every news station minus FOX would be talking about how hopeless the situation is. The fact is, things are bad there but stabilizing. The best credit I can give Prez Obama on Iraq is that he continued the plans of his generals and didn't follow the "grab defeat from the jaws of victory" plan of John Kerry and the rest of the Californication Crowd.

*The Afghan War*

The MSM also seems to have a serious memory problem when it comes to Afghanistan. The "Unwinnable War" now seems winnable to them with little else changing beyond the name of our President. This War has gotten considerably worse since Obama took over. Fanatics are encouraged by Barack's passive tones and the Democrat Party looks ready to cut and run. We only have two real choices in Afghanistan; an all-out effort and continuing presence or withdraw to attack installations and training camps when the situation allows. I'm sorry to say this but, I don't see a good option here. Perhaps after the first nuclear weapon goes off we will realize (with the rest of the world) that extreme measures are the only answer in an extreme land. Until then, the world won't tolerate what needs to be done and Obama's hands are tied. I don't fault Barack for this one, but his mouth made promises that his ass can't keep.

*Bipartisanship*

Don't make me laugh. Isolating Fox? Attacking Right Wing Radio? The only villains the Democrats ever recognize is on the other side of the aisle. Maybe if we could get the terrorists of the world to join the Republican Party, Fox News, Talk Radio or the Sarah Palin Fan Club they would finally understand that "evil" exists outside the U.S. borders. My advice to Barrack? Get some thicker skin and accept that not everyone that disagrees with you is an idiot or worse.

*Health Care*

I'm going withhold judgment until the final bill passes. So far it looks just like everything else that was created by government in committee-a complete mess with something for everyone to hate. I have one question though. Whatever happened to the "Repeal the Bush's Tax Cuts for the wealthy to pay for health care."? Suddenly that's off the table and taxing my plan is on. Remember, simply buying Catastrophic Coverage for 25 million people from the existing Health Care Providers would only cost about $75 billion a year (and that's the high figure) and wouldn't change anyone's present coverage.

*Domestic Policy*

O.K., a quick run-down. Let's see. No gun legislation on tap-good (In fact, so far our rights have expanded.) Leaving Medical Marijuana up to the states-also good. More corporate regulation-only good if it comes with a bureaucracy willing to enforce it. Nation Debt-Very, very, bad. Assorted suck-ups to the Gay Community-mostly don't care.

Overall, I would advise President Obama to focus more on the real issues and avoid things like campaigning for the Olympics. His Presidency will be defined by the Economy, the Wars and Health Care. It's always better to do a few things well than several things badly. I feel good about Barack's growing understanding of the complexities of the world but I would caution him to listen more to the Republicans when dealing with dictators and save his fellow Dem's opinions for dealing with Wall Street. Ten months isn't long enough to make much of an impact, but already Obama is worrying me on the financial front. The good news is, he does seem to be learning. Let's hope President Obama is as good student as he is a politician. H.C.

IS RUSH LIMBAUGH A RACIST?

2009-10-19T19:51:00.000-07:00

Since the story first surfaced that Rush Limbaugh was thinking about becoming a part-owner in a NFL football team, the accusations against him have been flying. Accusations are easy to make. Especially when you don't like someone. We've all been guilty of it at one time or another. Soon your mind wanders into irrational places. Why does he always go to his car for lunch? Is there a body in the trunk? What's with all those cleaning products in his back seat? Is he building a bomb? I'll bet he beats his wife.

I'm not saying that's what everyone that dislikes Rush is doing. I'm just saying it might not be a bad idea to check ourselves and see where the evidence actually takes us. Black people, in particular, have a perception of Rush Limbaugh that is based almost solely on how the Democratic Party and Liberal Media defines him.

"Self Indoctrination" is a term I like to use to describe what has happened to a lot of people's logic. Self Indoctrination is when you have isolated yourself from any views that may challenge what you already believe. You only hang around with like-minded people, you only watch T.V. shows that reflect your values, and you only seek out information that reaffirms your beliefs. Most importantly, you only listen to what you want to hear. When you apply this philosophy to how you view people who disagree with you, it can give you a distorted perception. Put it this way, how would you like it if the only information that people had about you, came from people that hated you? I think it would be fair to say that Rush Limbaugh is defined, for most people, by people who hate him. Is that fair?

The most vocal opposition against Rush owning a football team is based on the accusation that he is a racist. I won't even get into how crazy it is that the NFL is somehow moral enough to make that judgment when it's ranks are filled with rapists, drug addicts, wife beaters, dog fighters, and drunk drivers. Even if I were to make that comparison, it wouldn't justify having a racist in it's ranks to boot. What does concern me is; who is making this judgment, based on what evidence and by who's definition of what a racist is?

I've gotten challenged myself quite a bit over the past two years for what some people see as racist remarks that I view as justifiable questions. For example, I often challenge anti-gun types with data that shows that a disproportionate amount of gun crimes are committed in mostly black populated areas of cities. Liberals freak out on me and claim that this is due to availability (not true), poverty, and a lot of social ills that are not caused by the color of their skin. On that I agree. However, when I suggest that black culture may be a contributing factor. They instantly brand me a racist. Why is that? Don't a lot of predominate black leaders say the same thing?

Quite a bit of what has come out about Rush Limbaugh is along that same vein. I listen to him regularly (although he's yet to convert me) and have never heard him say that black people were anything but the complete equal to whites in every way. Does he say they've been misled? Yes. Does he say they have become too dependent on government along with a lot of their white Democrat counterparts? Yes. Does he criticize Jesse Jackson and other black leaders. Yes.

One of the main accusations that have been levied against Rush is his "Barack the Magic Negro" parody. This parody was sung by none other than Rev. Al Sharpton. If you remember correctly, this was during the time when Jesse, Al, Rev. Wright and a host of other black leaders were calling President Obama a sell out, before he won. Did I miss the part where Al was called a racist?

The bottom line on this is; I can't look into Rush Limbaugh's heart and tell you whether or not he views blacks and whites as being inherently different. The criteria for being a racist. But I can tell you it frightens me to think that someone, even Rush, can be denied their pursuit of happiness based on someone's perception of them. Particularly when that perception is built around people that simply dislike his politics. I can see no reason that Rush Limbaugh shouldn't be allowed to own a football team or anything else that he wants to own. If he's guilt of a crime that should stop him, then let him be charged.

In conclusion, I give you this impassioned statement by Bo Snerdley, Rush's friend and trusted assistant who just so happens to be black himself.

I'm sure that some of you will dismiss him as just an "Uncle Tom", but as I said before, without the other side, it's just "Self Indoctrination". H.C.

TOO MANY ISSUES, TOO LITTLE TIME

2009-10-12T14:14:00.000-07:00

It's time again for a summary of the past month's events that I just couldn't find the time to cover completely.

*NAMBLAWOOD*

As further evidence of what I believe is the next issue for the Hollywood/academic types (now that the Gay Rights Issue is all but done), here's is yet more proof that Hollywood wants you to believe that child/adult sex should not be a crime. Roman Polanski (yes the same Roman Polanski that I pointed out in an earlier post) was arrested in Switzerland on a 30 year old charge related to his drugging and raping a 13 year old girl and then fleeing the U.S.. Hollywood's finest promptly began a petition campaign begging for his release signed by over 100 cinema industry stars. Still think I'm off on this? Look at his photos to how see MSN portrays him compared to FOX. I think we can see who's taking Roman's side. By the way, where are the Feminists in Hollywood? Is violence against women now O.K. if it's long enough ago? If she's been bought off? If the perp happens to be a producer?

*The Nobel Peace Prize for Underachievement goes to..*

Barrack Obama of course. The choice of President Obama for this years Nobel Peace Prize brought gasps from the crowd at the assembly. It's no wonder, when the voting took place Obama had been in office a scant 12 days. Obviously, this was a vote of confidence by the committee for what they believe President Obama will do, not what he has done. No matter what they say. I personally think they should rename the prize, "The award for simply not being Bush". Because that's exactly what it really is. This has got to be really steaming up Bill Clinton who has watched Carter, Gore and now Obama sweep the award while he sits on the sidelines. For the Republicans who thought this was some kind of an outrage-calm down. No one has taking this award seriously since they gave it to the two-headed terrorist Yasser Arafat. Besides, Obama's said he hasn't done anything to deserve it and is donating the proceeds to charity. The world finally liking one of our Presidents isn't all that bad a thing ya know.

*Gay Hate Crimes*

The Democrat led U.S. House of Representative bowed to it's constituency last Thursday by voting to expand Hate Crime Laws to include sexual orientation. This is wrong (IMO) on several levels. Mostly though, it's wrong because it values some victims over others. I'm an egalitarian when it come to people. I find it criminal to value any one's life over someone elses. Black, white, gay, straight, cop, or homeless person, your mother or mine cries the same. This starts a very bad trend that I don't feel anyone, particularly Democrats who pride themselves on being for social equality, should support. BTW, it's interesting to note that the group that suffers the most deaths due to hate crimes is homeless people, not gay people. But I guess they just don't wear fashionable enough clothes to be elevated.

*Governor Granholm still clinging to Big Government*

Demonstrating exactly why Michigan is in a one state depression, Buffy the Job Slayer again shows why businesses can't stand her.

Well, that's it for now. Hopefully I'll have more time next week for a full, all out report on something or another that outrages me. Until then, take care of one another. H.C.

I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I'M HERE TO HELP

2009-10-05T14:49:00.000-07:00

Believe it or not, there are people who actually read the above statement and think, "Great!". That's a little harder for people like me who have always been independent and see the government as more of a problem than a solution. On that, I agree with my Libertarian friends. I do however, see the government as an option for things that are just not getting taken care of by any other means. I guess the best way for me to describe it is; the government is the solution of last resort. So it is with our health care problem. The idea of kids begging for money for a bone marrow transplant or a couple losing their dream house because one of them lost their job and then got sick is too much for me to leave to "market forces".

With this in mind, I'm going to share a story that was told to me by an old man. I have no idea if it's true or not, but it makes a good point and might make some of you understand a little better the thinking of people who don't want the government over extending it's reach.

A man lived in a house with his wife and two kids. They were a proud bunch who never asked for anything or expected anything. He worked as a hobby farmer for food and repaired things for money. His wife stayed at home and made crafts for her extra money. His kids were home-schooled and well behaved. In short, despite their hardships and poverty, they were quite happy.

One day the well ran dry and the family was too poor to replace it. Without much verifiable income, the bank turned down his loan. Out of desperation, he turned to the government for help.

Before the government would put in the well, they needed to inspect the property and the proud man did something he never wanted to do-he let the government into his life. The inspector noticed the squaller of the poor family, and out of sympathy turned his case over to a Social Worker. The Social Worker went to the house and decreed it unfit to live in, what with no water, bad wiring and plumbing. They moved the man and his family, under great protest, into a temporary housing nearby. The kids were interviewed for possible abuse and it was discovered that although they knew math, English and writing beyond their years, they knew nothing of the oppressive history of Native Americans, women or African Americans. They were ordered by a court to be enrolled in the local school to complete their education. The teachers there were surprised to meet people in their own community so isolated. They were even more appalled to find that the woman of the house had very little schooling and had never held a job. They took her under their wing and got her employment working for the school cafeteria.

The man of the house had a much harder time. The IRS wanted to know how he had managed to claim so little income. He was confused as to how much he was making, since a great deal of his payment came in trade services and bartering. Other people started accusing him of abusing his wife by not allowing her to work even though they both thought she did-at home. They accused him of abusing his children by not allowing them a "proper" education, even though he thought he did. They accused him of neglecting his family by not giving them a proper house to live in, even though they all loved their little house. Soon the press caught wind of the story and ran pictures of the families run down shack that they had lived happily in for so many years. The people of the community were shocked at the loose animals, old plow and traditional farm life style. Soon outrage turned to an arrest based on trumped up charges. The simple man defended himself as best he could in a system he didn't understand. The sentence was handed down and the man found himself in prison. Soon his wife stopped coming to see him and his children were told not to contact him. They had started their new life with their new friends who had "saved" them from their past 'horrible' life.

One day the simple man got out of prison for the crimes he didn't even know he committed. He walked up the long dirt road to his empty house now posted with "condemned" signs. He sat on the poach and began to cry uncontrollably. he cursed the day he tried to do the one thing he never, ever wanted to do, ask for help. In the darkness of that moment, he remembered the irony of that day when a man came to his house and proudly said, "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

This is the problem many of you have with our current health care debate. In your effort to "help", you are failing to understand. There are people all over the U.S. that do not think that you are "helping" by bringing the government into their lives. In fact, they think you are doing exactly what happened to the man in the story. We have millions of people who desperately need our help, but in that process, let us not forget that there are many more millions that do not want your "help". Someone once told me, "God gave us two ears and only one mouth so we would listen twice as much as we talk." If we truly want to help those that need it, we need the support of those that don't. Maybe the best way to get that support, is to listen. H.C.

MICHIGAN FIRST? NOT ON MACKINAC ISLAND

2009-09-28T14:59:00.000-07:00

Mackinaw Island sits in the Straits of Mackinaw between Michigan's upper and lower peninsulas with a rich history. The island was long ago a home to a Native American settlement before European exploration began in the 17th century, (they still constitute 23.7% of the island's population.) Later, Fort Mackinac was built on the island by the British during the American Revolutionary War. It was the scene of two battles during the War of 1812. Now the descendants of those same Native American tribes fight over jobs with people brought in from not only outside of Michigan, but from outside of the U.S.. The Governor's summer mansion sits on the island as does the Grand Hotel and the Mission Point Hotel. Both hotels are visited regularly by our top representatives here in Michigan and are host to many political functions. On Saturday, Sept. 26th of this year for example, the Republican party held it's gubernatorial debates on the island. The main subject; jobs. But even as they argued over how to fix Michigan's highest-in-the-nation unemployment, the island's hotels bristled with employment not for Michiganders, but for foreigners, brought in by using political connections.

When Michigan's U.S. Senator Carl Levin visits the Grand Hotel for lunch or dinner, as he often does, he is waited on not by fellow Michiganders, but by Jamaicans brought in through U.S. temporary work visas. As Governor Jennifer Granholm vacations at her summer mansion and dines at the Mission Point Hotel she is waited on not by fellow Michiganders, but by employees brought in from Asia or one of a dozens other countries. She even appointed the Grand Hotel's Kenneth Hayward to Michigan's Travel Commission.

All of this happens while they tell you they are fighting for Michigan jobs, for Michigan residents.

Ben, A close friend of mine, (name changed to protect him from retaliation) was a procurement agent for a company on Mackinac Island. He had this to say about the hiring of non-Michigan residents."The companies are using the nationals to hold their wages down instead of using Michigan residents who would cost them more. They also don't have to worry about paying them unemployment and can send them right back to their country of origin if they don't do as they are told."

With the money they deduct for housing and food, that's getting damn close to slave labor.

So how do the hotels get away with this in the face of the highest unemployment Michigan has seen in the past nearly 80 years? By greasing the palm of politicians of course. A quick check of political contribution records brought up several things of interest. For example; R. Musser, President/Owner of the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island gave $14,500 to various politicians. Most of that money went to none other than Senator Carl Levin.

To say that this is hypocrisy would be to understate the problem. I would equate it to having slaves serve your lunch while your promoting abolition. How can we take Governor Jennifer Granholm at her word, or Senator Carl Levin, or any of the Michigan representatives for that matter, Democrat and Republican alike, when they say they are trying to bring jobs to Michigan? Our Governor is served dinner by foreigners brought in under U.S. work VISA's while Michiganders lose their jobs. These are jobs that could go to residents. Maybe they just thought that no one would notice, or care. Well, they were wrong. I think every single unemployed person in Michigan should write a letter to our Governor, our Senators and all our Representatives and tell them that we don't think they should be padding their pockets with contributions from people that don't put Michigan first. That they shouldn't be dining at establishments that don't put Michigan workers first. And they damn sure shouldn't be helping people put Michiganders out of a job while collecting a salary paid for by us, the Michigan taxpayers. H.C.

EMPTY ARMS

2009-09-23T04:21:00.000-07:00

Colorado. The very name conjures up images of cowboys, horses, open spaces, and most importantly, mountains. Nothing can match the beauty of what mother nature can create. My intent this past week was to hunt cow elk and monster mulies while spending some time with my adopted son Aron and his brother Bob. My hope was to bring home some tasty venison to make the trip complete. Today I'm going to attempt to paint a day for all of you that will forever be etched in my memory. Life is, after all is said and done, nothing more than the days you can remember. The rest is just filler.

The morning was rather uneventful. I sat with Aron and Bob near the top of a finger that cascaded down from a huge mountain range that stretched as far as the eye could see. I saw no animals and simply enjoyed the scenery. That afternoon, I decided to strike out on my own for the far-away base of the mountain. It was a two mile hike from our campsite, but mountain men have to be tough I'm told. I packed a fishing pole and a gun along with my day-pack, water and snacks. My intent was to fish a stream that ran down from a draw and then finish the day hunting.

The walk across the plateau that separated our camp from the mountain range was hot and barren and I was glad for the day-pack carrying my extra clothes that I didn't have to wear. Arriving at the base of the mountain, I sat down to catch my breath. The air was thin and this old flat lander was still in the process of acclimating. However, the sight of a trout rising in the stream soon had me back on my feet and fumbling for a fly to tie on my line. The stream was surrounded by young willows and the best I could do was dapping the fly into the small holes and cuts that the stream had made on its way to join the mighty Colorado River several miles away.

Time after time I was frustrated to see brook trout shooting out from the cuts as I stealthily made my approach. Finally, after several attempts, a lightning fast Brookie grabbed my fly in an instant. Reeling back, I flopped him onto the bank and man and fish played a quick game of "catch me if you can". When I finally managed to pin him and hold him in my hand, I couldn't help but marvel at the beauty of the 12 inch fish. Orange, red, and white blended with colors I don't even know the name of to create a palate that would send Picasso into a fit of jealousy. The sun glistened off his shining skin and for a moment I thought that this must surely be the most beautiful fish I had ever seen.Gently, I place him back into the water, thanking him for the fight.

Just then a loud crash and splashing came in my direction. As quick as I could I reached for my BK 54 caliber muzzle loader. With two more bounds an Angus cow and her calf appeared within a few feet of me. Cows are allowed to run free in the mountains of Colorado. In the winter, snow forces them down to the lower elevations where they are rounded up by cowboys and placed into large pens where they are sorted out by their brands to their proper owners. The large cow faced me with her calf cowering behind her. She let out a loud snort and made an aggressive couple of steps toward me. Trapped between the stream and her, I false-charged her with arms thrown into the air to make myself appear bigger. Luckily, she conceded and turned with her calf to disappear back into the brush.

Two more Brookies later, I decided it was time to pick a hunting spot for the evening. The mountain opened herself up to me as I made my way through green conifers and Quaking Aspens. On the top of a small hill I found a pine surrounded by juniper and propped myself up against it's base. Soon a small flock of Merriam's turkeys made their way past me. The same turkeys had befriended me and Aron the day before. Usually a very shy and skittish bird, these birds had decided we weren't a threat and followed us around like farm birds. In all my life I had never seen such behavior from a wild animal.

The sun slowly faded as it made it's way to the top of the mountain range. Shadows grew longer and longer until they blended together to form the evening's dim light. As darkness fell, the mountains became so still that the wrapper on my candy bar sounded like I was wadding up a ball of aluminum foil. Coyotes yapped in the distance announcing their arrival on the scene as evening became night. Standing up, I stretched my legs and prepared for the long truck back down the mountain. In the flashlight-lit darkness on the way back down an elk sounded off his bugle. A shrill rising crescendo that ended with a barking chuckle. I felt that he was telling me, "Thanks for trying, but this mountain belongs to me."

As I approached the beginning of the plateau, I thought briefly that I had once again failed at my mission of bringing my quarry to my side. Looking back at the mountain, I recalled the events of the day. And in that silent moment, I realized that although my arms were empty, it was my heart and my mind that had been replenished. And that, I realized, is far more important than what I carry in my arms. H.C.

OBAMA'S VIETNAM

2009-09-07T14:12:00.000-07:00

In "Charlie Wilson's War", a pro-Democrat telling of the Soviet Union's loss in Afghanistan, U.S. House Representative Charlie Wilson (D-Texas) leads a covert operation called Operation Cyclone with the intent of handing the Soviet Union a defeat on par with the U.S. defeat in Vietnam. By arming the Mujahideen, (who would later morphed into the Taliban), Senator Wilson hoped to turn the tide against the Soviets. With the help of Ronald Reagan who praised the mujahideen as "freedom fighters", Charlie Wilson increased funding for the covert operation up to $500 million dollars and helped the future Taliban to secure Stinger missiles that are now being used to down our own helicopters. The film is an obvious attempt by the Democrats to write the history of the fall of the Soviet Union with a more Democrat involved spin.

But weren't we hearing from those same Democrats that we (meaning the U.S.) were paying for our involvement in Afghanistan when we were attacked on 9/11? How is it that Charlie Wilson can be praised by the Dems and Hollywood when much of our problems in that region stem from his involvement? The Democrat Party, it seems, is a bit schizophrenic when it comes to the issue of Afghanistan.

The history of Afghanistan is littered with the bodies of past conquistadors. One by one they overran Afghanistan only to find that holding Afghanistan was far harder than capturing it. In recent history, the Afghani people have seen 5 different Constitutions (not including the present) under different governments that have all failed. Now, the U.S., under President Obama, are stuck with the task of trying to do what has yet to ever be accomplished; establishing a secure government in one of the most fractured and tribal regions in the world.

From the beginning, Afghanistan has been a problem for Barack. Early in his presidential bid, Obama caught grief for his statement that, if he had the chance, he would call in an air strike on Osama Bin Laden with or without Pakistan or Afghanistan's approval. Interestingly enough, Obama has succeeded in killing one of Osama Bin Laden's sons.

President Obama now finds himself in a situation that very much mirrors the one the U.S. suffered in Vietnam. Only now the consequences of leaving are far further reaching and dire. As much as the Looney Left would like us to simply pack our bags and leave Afghanistan, that option isn't really even on the table. Unlike Vietnam, where the consequences of our actions were suffered by the Laotians, Cambodians and Vietnamese, the fall of the Afghani Government to the Taliban could lead to the fall of Pakistan, a nuclear armed country. The prospect of radical fundamentalists controlling between 10 and 50 nuclear weapons is very frightening indeed, and Obama knows it.

As the left continues it's move away from President Obama and his sudden realization of the depth of the problem in Afghanistan, I predict a continuation in his popularity drop. For Obama, it must be a perplexing problem. How does one get a group of people, in this case the far left, to understand something they never wanted to hear. That war is sometimes the only answer. The left will never understand that it is simply not the same for a country like Israel to have nuclear weapons as it is for a country like Afghanistan. (Strangely, they do understand back-ground check for hand guns, just not for nuclear weapons.) For the Democrat friends of Charlie Wilson, the answer must be clear; sometimes you must do what keeps the world safe. For the rest of the Democrats, it must be mind-boggling; how can this left-leaning president sound more like a Republican war-monger every day? For President Barack Obama it must be even more incredibly difficult; do you chose to do what you promised to do, to the people that helped get you elected, or do you do what you know in our heart will keep the country safe and then watch your approval ratings fall and fall. With dwindling support and very few good options, this could very well be the war that destroys the Obama presidency. H.C.

NO TEARS FOR TED

2009-08-31T16:15:00.000-07:00

First, I want to apologize for not keeping up with my usual one-post-a-week. I've been on a vacation this past week with my wife and I will be in Colorado from September 10th to the 20th mule deer and elk hunting with my unofficially adopted son, Aron. Those of you involved with PETA should say a prayer for those animals, I promise only as quick a kill as I can possibly deliver and to give the reverence and respect that all my prey deserves.

Secondly, I want to apologize for what I'm about to say about Ted Kennedy, but damn it, someone has to say it.

Senator Edward Kennedy died this week and for his service to this country (USA), he has my thanks. However, as most of you know by now, I'm not the kind of guy who believes that if you work in a mission or help the elderly it gives you forgiveness for what you've done in your past. To truly get forgiveness in my world you have to follow the three "R's" of asking forgiveness. First, you have to 'Recognize' what you have done wrong. That means coming completely clean about the details of your mistake and admitting you were wrong. Second, you have to 'Repent". That means you have to stop whatever it is that you were doing wrong and do it no more. And thirdly you have to 'Repair'. That means you have to make it up to whoever you did wrong. A good example is; you steal something from a store. You admit to the owner what you have done, then you ask his forgiveness and promise in return to never steel again (and you honor that pledge) and finally, you pay for what you stole and offer to do some work around the store to make up for your actions.

Ted Kennedy has not completed those three R's when it come to Chappaquiddick and the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

For those of you unaware of what Ted did on that fateful night of July 18, 1969, let me remind you. Ted threw a party for what was know as the Boiler Room Girls (young girls who had worked on his brother Bobby's campaign). At the party, was a noticeable absence of the wives of any of the men in attendance, including Mr. Kennedy's. After several hours of drinking and carousing, Ted offered to drive young Mary Jo Kopechne home according to his own testimony. Upon reaching the bridge leading across a bay, Ted misjudged a turn and drove into the water flipping his car on it's back. Ted managed to get out of the car but poor Mary Jo was left to die. There are sooo many things wrong with the many versions of that night that Ted gave that I can't even list them all, but here are a few.

1) Despite the fact that the car was in only six feet of water, Ted claims he couldn't get Mary Jo out. This despite the fact that he got out himself (which means a door or a window was open) and was such a good swimmer that he claims to have panicked and then swam over 500 yards to the other side.

2)Ted waited until the next day to report the accident (after he discovered that the car had been found) , despite that he conferred with several people about the accident.

3)He used every one of his connections to attempt to silence the story and fought the release of his testimony.

It should be pointed out here that the rescue swimmer, John Farrar, later testified at the inquest that Kopechne's body was pressed up in the car in a spot where an air bubble would have formed and may have lived as long as two hours after the accident.

I know that this all happened a long time ago, and only God and Ted knows what truly happened on that night. But one thing is certain in my mind. Ted Kennedy never gave Mary Jo Kopechne's family or the American people the truth and he certainly never followed my three 'R' rule for forgiveness. Ted would routinely ask other Senators if they had heard any good Chappaquiddick jokes and even named his dog "Splash". Ted never took full responsibility for his actions and for that he get no tears from me. I save my tears for the victims of men in power like Ted Kennedy. It took all of you approximately 5 minutes to read this post. I want you to stop and think what it must have been like for Mary Jo to struggle for air for 24 times that, all while pinning her hopes on a man that she greatly admired and was certain would save her while he plotted how to save his own ass. A man who wouldn't even come clean on his death bed. H.C.

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, IRRATIONAL LOGIC KILLS PEOPLE

2009-08-13T13:37:00.000-07:00

Occasionally, I get into a little debate with my good friend and fellow blogger, Andre. Lately, we've been goin' at it over guns. That's not a problem, Andre and me both know how to respectfully disagree. That's not to say that we don't throw our full weight behind what we think is right. Andre see things from the prospective of someone that has only seen guns used for killing, robbing and threatening. I, on the other hand, am exposed to people being far more responsible. Most of what I see is hunters and well-trained gun enthusiasts. Since I have never compiled what I believe are the true facts about guns into one post, I thought this would be a good opportunity.

The history of guns in America goes all the way back to the very first settlers. While England allowed the settlers to have some guns, they damn sure didn't want a well-armed insurgency on their hands. For that reason, gun manufacturing was not allowed. When the Founding Fathers decided to break away from England and gain their own independence, getting more guns was high on their list of important steps. For this reason, my hero Ben Franklin went to France to enlist the support of King Louis XVI who brought over the guns necessary for us to free ourselves. The Founding Fathers were well aware that guns were kept from them to keep them subservient. For that reason, they saw fit to enshrine the possession of guns into what we now know as the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Many years and changes have happened since that wondrous time. Slowly, with the help of people who fear guns, our attitudes have turned against guns. With that movement has come a lot of hyperbole on both sides of the argument. In an effort to clear up some of that misconception (IMO), here are some of my best arguments for keeping guns in the hands of capable and law-abiding people.

Since 1986, the number of states allowing people the "Right to Carry" a firearm has blossomed. From it's early inception, the movement has managed to turn nearly every state into a "Shall Issue" state. Meaning that if you want to be able to carry a handgun on your person, the state "shall issue" that permit unless you are deemed unworthy. Despite irrational claims by the anti-gun crowd that we would all end up shooting each other, each and every state has seen a drop in crime after Shall Issue was implemented. In fact all crime, including suicide has declined.

The left in this country tries desperately to convince people that the proliferation of guns by legal means is causing all the gun violence. They even go so far as to site the "gun show loophole" (which accounts for less than 1% of guns used in capital crimes) as a main means of trafficking guns into the hands of criminals. Nothing could be further from the truth. The guns used in crimes, particularly capital crimes, are mostly illegal guns that were purchased illegally. That's probably contrary to what you've heard either from your Liberal media or your Liberal professor or teacher. The truth is, there are a lot of anti-gun sites and radical pro-gun sites out there and good research is hard to find. Most of those anti-gun sites center on incidents and not on facts. They want to play to your emotions rather than to your logic. Here is the best research I've ever been able to find. It shows that over 78% of guns used in violent crimes were purchased illegally. The research was done by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and if you look at the date it was published, you'll notice it was compiled during the Clinton Administration. Arguably the most anti-gun administration in U.S. history.

Guns are used every single day in this country to protect life and property. Most of the time it is not even reported. I know this to be true because I have, myself, used a gun to stop a crime. And I never reported it. I was working late at a liquor store in Flint (already a bad idea) and to make a long story short, three young men came in and attempted to rob me. I became suspicious when two young men came in and appeared to be "casing the joint". When they left, I saw three different men get out of the same car and make their way toward the store. I grabbed a .32 caliber handgun the owner had under the counter, and when one of them reached for his gun (I saw it in his pants under his coat) I beat him to the punch and demanded they leave the store. Since I wasn't certified to have the gun, I figured I had better leave well enough alone. Stories like that are buried by our MSM on D-12 or on the Police Blotter and very few people ever see them. However, the NRA compiles them in their monthly magazines under the heading "The Armed Citizen". Click on the link and then type "gun" for the keyword and then enter your state. Since a lot of you will dismiss the NRA as a unreliable source (and you should always be sceptical), take the time to research each story using the source and the date. I did and came up with the story nearly every time (some sources weren't archived very well). As a little more proof. As I'm writing this piece, the news is reporting on a 72-year-old man who shot 4 thugs who attempted to rob his store and pistol-whipped one of his employees. Like I said-it happens every day.

The U.S. of A. is one of the most heavily armed countries in the world, and for me to pretend that we don't have a problem with gun violence would be disingenuous. What I'm trying to say here is that the problem isn't the gun-it's our culture. Since our beginning, everyone has had a gun and it was never a major problem. It was only within the past few decades that it became one. The devaluing of life, the absence of any structure or discipline in our families, mass media that glorifies killing, particularly with African Americans, are the most likely culprits. We can't really have a gun problem in America. A gun is, after all, an inanimate object, incapable of doing damage on it's own. What we do have is a irrational logic problem. Too many people believe a gun gives them power, will cure their problems and will get them respect. To believe that, I believe, is irrational. Especially when those that use a gun disrespectfully, almost always end up dead. And that doesn't give you power, doesn't cure your problems, and damn sure won't get you respect, particularly from me. H.C.

SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS

2009-08-03T15:15:00.000-07:00

Since nothing has really struck a nerve or pushed my blood pressure up this week, I thought I'd run through a few things that have sort-of struck a nerve, pissed me off or made me go WTF. So here they are in no particular order.

*Tough Girl?*

I am always hearing from the female side of our genetics how strong a woman Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is. So why is it that when Hill fractured her elbow she had to work at home? Couldn't she just put it in a sling? Hill was MIA for nearly a month and a half while Iran went ballistic and North Korea lobbed missiles over Japan and at Hawaii. So how is it that soon-to-be-Justice Sonia Sotomayor, breaks her ankle (considerably harder to move around with) and can still show up to face a daily Inquisition by Congressional Republicans. Hillary a tough girl? I'm taking Sonia in one round.

*Poverty Causes Obesity?*

Thinking logically, one would assume that the poorer you get, the thinner you'd get. If you look at all the countries with the highest poverty levels, you'd also notice them all looking mighty slim. America seems to be an exception to this rule. With unemployment in Michigan now at 15.2% and climbing, we have somehow found a way to make ourselves even fatter as more of us become unemployed. Michigan ranked as 9th highest in obesity according to according to a new report by Trust for America's Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). Only in America are all the rich people scary thin while the poorest wallow in obesity.

*Michigan Looking for Prisoners?*

Michigan is apparently so desperate for tourism that it is now courting other states' corrections departments. Governor Jennifer Granholm, aka Buffy the Job Killer, has offered to take California's inmates to fill up some of the Michigan prisons scheduled to be closed. I guess since our College Graduates are leaving at a record rate, we have to do something to get our state population back up. As if that wasn't bad enough, recently I've found that we're on the short list to take some of the Gitmo detainees. Isn't this cruel and unusual punishment? They're all going to end up obese and unemployed.

*Can't Seem to Make Up Their Minds*

As the Republican talk show hosts turn up the heat on Obama's Heath Care Reform, one topic keeps coming up contradicting itself. If, as the Talking Heads say, a Government run program would be a monumental disaster, proven by the fact that the Government "Fails at everything it tries, just look at the U.S. Post Office." How is it that those same radio ramblers also say that the Government run program would push all other Health Care Insurers out of business? They can't compete against a monumental failure? By the way, Fed-ex and UPS seem to be holding their own.

*Kwame's Legacy Lives On*

Detroit has finally managed to rid itself of Hip-Hop Mayor Thief-of-the-Century Kwame Kilpatrick. But his legacy lives on. Detroit Public Schools is $360 million in debt and the city itself is in debt for another $300 million. In the mist of all the thievery that has been uncovered in that God-forsaken Hellhole, we've recently discovered a a sweetheart (pun intended) deal Mr. Kilpatrick set up for another of his high-class, low morals beetches. Sheryl Robinson Wood, was hired by Kilpatrick to oversee reforms in the Detroit Police Department to the tune of $180,000 a month. All told, Sheryl managed to fleece the City of Detroit for an astonishing $13 million. The citizens of Detroit are holding their City Council elections tomorrow, we'll see how many of that band of theives hold their jobs.

O.K., that's it for now. Enjoy your day and if you don't live in Michigan, remember to Thank your lucky stars. H.C.

WHO ARE THE BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS AND WHY DO THEY MATTER

2009-07-27T12:26:00.000-07:00

When the Democrats won the U.S. Senate, the Presidency, and secured their majority in the House of Representative by an even wider margin in 2008, many of my Democrat friends figured that this was the end of dealing with the Republicans. With the recent addition of Al Franken, aka Stuart Smally, to the U.S. Senate, those same Dems gleefully announced that they were now unstoppable. Legislation could be pushed through the House with no need to compromise with the God-awful Republicans, the Senate would have the 60 votes needed to override any attempts at a filibuster and President Obama would certainly sign anything put up by his fellow Democrats. If only it were that easy.

In an earlier post, I warned all of you about the very powerful, 100% Democrat, Jewish Caucus, along with the many other caucuses. In addition, in other posts, I've told you about traitorous RINOs and DINOs. In this post, I'll explain the role of the Blue Dog Democrats, particularly in the recent Heath care reform. But first, I want to briefly explain something to any of you laymen out there. Both of the major parties here in the U.S. have their little subsets. There are moderate Democrats and Republicans, Pro-life Democrats, Pro-choice Republicans, Republican Feminists, Fiscal Conservative Democrats, Pro-union Republicans, Pro-gun Democrats, and even Gay Republicans called the Log Cabin Republicans. Even though both parties have their basic platforms, the complexities of regional politics can make some strange combinations. To assume that having a majority in the House or Senate gives you Carte Blanche to do whatever you want would be a misnomer.

Now for the Blue Dogs.

To quote their site, "The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public." On that part you should read, "Not Liberals". But being a Blue dog is really more about a "deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States." On that you should read, "We don't like Debt." Unlike the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party, the Blue dogs do not believe in printing money and handing it out to whoever needs it. They want a way of paying for it. Currently there are 51 members of the Blue Dogs and they are creating quite a problem for the Liberals.

Part of that problem is that the Blue Dogs know that the Liberal wing is lying through their botox-laden mouths about the cost of the Health Care Reform they're promoting. By not limiting what they're asking for to something do-able, the Liberals have loaded up the bill with health care for illegal immigrants, money for abortions, and a thousand other "extras" that the Blue Dogs feel (along with most Republicans) is simply too much to pay for. (It should be noted here that President Obama says there will be no health care for adult illegals) The Liberals are drawing a line in the sand on some of these issues. Health Care for illegals would ease the burden on states like California by pushing the cost onto the Federal level. This would also assure them the continuing support of the Hispanic population and maybe even help them to turn some states Democrat. Federal dollars for abortions is an issue that the feminist wing of the Democrats have been in a tug-of-war with Republicans over for decades. The Blue Dogs are simply too traditional and fiscally conservative to accept either of these additions.

As the Health Care Reform legislation plods it's way through the various committees in the House and is sure to be sent back by the Senate to reconcile once it's passed (IF it's ever passed), you can be sure the Blue Dog Dems will be a major part of problem the House will have to deal with. My reading on all of this is that the Bill looks very likely to die due to lack of any consensus on what it should look like. For those of you that thought my idea of simple catastrophic coverage didn't go far enough, prepare to see how a complicated bill, that's easy to divide people on, dies on the floor as the Blue Dogs, with lots of help from anti-abortionists, fiscal conservatives, and a host of others, rips it to shreds. H.C.

RUSH LIMBAUGH BACKS H.C.'S HEALTH CARE PLAN

2009-07-22T17:31:00.000-07:00

*Flash news update, July 22,2009*

Back in March, I suggested a Health Care Plan that wouldn't bankrupt our country, could be supported by both parties, and would be a path towards ending some of the biggest problems facing the uninsured. To my suprise, Rush Limbaugh suggested the exact same idea on his show today, July 22, 2009.

To quote Rush Limbaugh himself from his "Stack of Stuff",

"By the way, I mentioned earlier that what ought to be really insured -- talking about health insurance here -- is catastrophic care. If we're going to have a health care program and we're going to have reform, let's just do that and have people in the free market buy whatever other insurance policies they want for the day-to-day trip to the doctor, tonsillitis, whatever it is. But catastrophic stuff that could wipe you out. "Well, let's have insurance." Okay, let's do that."

Me and Rush on the same page. HMMM, maybe I am leaning too far right. H.C.

AMERICA LIMPS TOWARD BANKRUPTCY

2009-07-20T21:00:00.000-07:00

The year is 1991 and the country of Hungary is restructuring itself after the fall of the Soviet Empire. The scars that are left on Hungary's people include a dependency on a paternal government. The Soviet Union provided a generous social safety net coupled with harsh penalties for those caught cheating. When Hungary became independent, the people clung to their safety net, but they wanted it without the harsh tactics and punishments of the communists. The politicians, being politicians, promised the people whatever they wanted, no matter how dire a future it might create. What happened over the next 15 years would destroy the fledgling country and force it into bankruptcy. I now fear the same thing will happen here, in the United States of America.

Hungary's system was set up, as ours is, to provide for people in their old age and to help those that were too disabled to work. When Hungary was released from communism's grasp, the average age of it's disabled and retired people was 62, it is now 48. The politicians, smelling a good issue, promised more and more to a constituency that grew large as more and more of them joined the government disabled list. One politician even went so far as to promise and then deliver a "13th month" of pay for the retired and disabled. Politicians that opposed adding onto the programs were run over by the large constituency and simply lost. Soon 10 million of Hungary's 30 million people we're no longer working and the burden on the government grew and grew as did the taxes on those stupid enough to continue working. Because of the burden on the masses, people spent less, invested less, and saved less. Soon the outgoing money vastly surpassed the money coming in and Hungary fell in to the deep, dark pit of bankruptcy. It is now hanging on only with loans from the International Monetary Fund and is struggling to get it's people to understand the cuts and changes it must make to survive.

The United States is now heading down the exact same path.

As the "Baby Boomers" age, a great deal of them are finding themselves without pensions and without retirement funds. With no money or health insurance and with a declining economy squeezing them out of the workplace, many of them are turning to exaggerating their health problems. With liberalism taking a strong hold, particularly in the Social Services sector, claims for disability are being granted without much contesting. Word gets out fast and with the help of the Internet, aging boomers are working their way into the system and onto the disabled list.

Here in Michigan, we are especially hard hit by the sagging economy. We are now at 15.2% unemployment, the highest in the nation, and on pace to break all unemployment records dating back to the Great Depression. This has created even more incentive for people to game the system and the results are in. Over the past ten years, the amount of people on public insurance that are under 65 in Michigan has increased from 11% to 22% according to the Wall Street Journal. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that we cannot continue to fund these increases. The state of Michigan is now $1.4 billion in the red with another $2 billion owed the Feds for just unemployment benefits. Michigan has 1.84 million people on some sort of Social Security and with the Baby Boomers entering retirement age that number is sure to go up. We now have 274,000 people in Michigan on disability and that number is climbing the fastest of any group requesting Social Security assistance. With increased disability claims, an aging Baby boomer population, increased National Debt liabilities and decreasing GDP, it's hard to see a way out. When the amount of people on Social Security crosses 33%, it will take 2 people to cover the costs of 1 Social Security recipient. If we don't find a way to stop these increases, it's hard to see how this country will survive having both that kind of debt load and that percentage of a constituency that will refuse any cuts. Move over, Hungary, the U.S. is right behind you, following your lead. H.C.

FEMINISM TAKES A GIANT STEP BACKWARD

2009-07-13T15:17:00.000-07:00

I'm a feminist. That's right, you don't need to read it over and over to make sure your eyes and brain didn't suddenly become disconnected. I know it's true because I have a friend who's a confirmed feminist and she told me so. Heather, (I didn't get permission to use her last name.) is a professor of Sociology and Gender Studies at the University where I work and is soon to become the head of our Women's Gender Studies. She gave me a flash quiz. Do I believe in equal rights for women? "Yep." Equal pay for equal work? "Yep." Am I against discrimination against women? "Yep." Do I support an Equal Rights Amendment? "Yep." With the authority granted to her by virtue of her education and gender she decreed me a feminist.

Now that we were in the same camp, I thought I would throw out a little test to see if we were really on the same page. "Heather," I queried, "Do you think Sarah Palin was the victim of sexism?" Her forehead squinched downward and her eyes became steely. "God, yes!" she practically shouted. "Do you really think they would have brought up her daughter's pregnancy if she were a man? Do you think they would have judged her clothes? Do you really think they would have compared a man to a slutty stewardess?" "Ummm, maybe Bill Clinton." I offered.

I was a tad taken back. Heather is as confirmed a Democrat as she is a Feminist. "Doesn't it matter to you that she's a Republican?" I questioned. "You don't stop having rights as a woman just because you picked the wrong Party." She answered grinning.

This got me thinking. How is it that the Democratic Party has gotten away with engaging in the most openly sexist attack on a woman I have seen since O.J. killed Nicole?

The truth is, I have been protecting Sarah Palin since the very first day she showed up on the scene and here's why. I believe that every single person in this country, man or woman, black, white or brown should have the opportunity to become all that their talents will allow them to become. I believe women have more to contribute to this country than being a housewife or a mother, although I believe both of those jobs are enormously important. I believe they should have the right to control their own body, a right I extend to everyone. I believe they have the right to hold high office and I believe they have the right to be given the same respect that would be given to a man, if they can do the same job.

And that's where I differ from my Democrat friends.

They believe you only get those rights if your a Democrat. They too believe that women can be something other than a mother or a housewife, but if you should choose either of those very honorable professions, you are not fulfilling your destiny, and are less of a woman for it. They believe that a woman should have choices, but if you choose to believe that abortion is wrong, you don't deserve the choice. They believe true women are animal activists, not hunters. They should be engineers, not PTA moms. They believe real women marry men who wear Khakis, drive a Prius and like to shop, not men who wear flannels, drive a truck and like to fish. On every level Sarah Palin violated that stereotype, and that infuriated them.

So they attacked her family, they attacked her clothes, they attacked her values, they attacked her culture, they attacked her accent, they attacked her beloved state, and when all else failed, they used their lawyers to bankrupt her. Finally, tired of it all, she retreated from public life and gave up her job of Governor of Alaska that she had fought so hard to get, both as a woman, and as a person.

To all you female Democrats out there who reveled in the destruction of Sarah Palin, I have a warning. Freedom is more than the right to abort a fetus.It's more than the right to vote. It's more than the right to become a doctor or a engineer or a Vice President. Freedom is about the right to choose your own destiny, by virtue of your own choices. If your choices are restricted to only the ones that the Democratic Party gives you, you really don't have choices at all, and you are once again in a "comfortable concentration camp." H.C.

THE BEST HEALTH CARE ON EARTH?

2009-07-06T15:29:00.000-07:00

The claim made by a lot of people in the U.S. is that despite all it's faults, our health care is still the "Best health care on Earth". As the debate heats up in Congress about what to do about our uninsured, I thought I would try a different approach this time around to address my feelings about our flawed system.

I have addressed this issue before in my post "Tax the Rich", which brought me the ire of my right-leaning friends, and more recently in my post "The Universal Health Care Program No One Wants" which managed to piss off some of my left-leaning friends. This time around I'm going to take it to a personal level. I have warned you all before that "exampling" or pointing out an example proves nothing more than that something happened once. It's not a great way to make your point and is usually used by people who want you to react emotionally instead of looking at the facts. But, since I've already covered some of the facts in my previous posts, I though I could be forgiven for bringing the issue back home and personal.

The first time I really noticed the difference in having coverage or not was when I was in my twenties. My wife's brother Dave had just been diagnosed with lung cancer. He didn't have much of a problem getting a doctor to diagnose him, that part can be done in an emergency room or by a doctor willing to take payments. This is the part of our system that Republicans usually trumpet as "the health care everyone gets" after all, they'll tell you, "no one is denied treatment if they show up at the hospital door." What they don't want you to know, particularly if you have health coverage and don't know any different, is that that is only for the diagnosis, not the surgery or the treatment. Once you have been diagnosed as having a major health issue, everything changes. You can show up at the hospital a thousand times, and they'll simply tell you, "You have cancer, you need to find a surgeon." and send you home. Once Dave had been diagnosed, the long fight to find a surgeon willing to work on him with no coverage began. He went to Social Services who sent him to a doctor with a long waiting list. He tried to find another doctor, but each one simply pushed him off with delays, telling him he first needed to see if Medicaid would cover it (nope) then tried to push him through different Social Programs that he didn't qualify for because he had worked his whole life. Each effort to find coverage extends the delays. Finally, after three months, a surgery was scheduled. Prior to the surgery, Dave got another chest X-Ray, the news was very bad. During the three months, his cancer had spread throughout his body. Surgery was canceled and three months later he died. Leaving a wife and two kids. He was never once "denied", simply pushed over and over to the very back of the line.

Some time after that, I was diagnosed with cancer. During a visit for a lump on my abdomen (which was benign), the doctor was showing off his new ultra-sound machine and found a lump that wasn't benign. This happened on a Thursday and thankfully I had good Health Care from my job. On Monday of that very next week I was in surgery. By the end of that week I was in radiation treatment. There was not one delay and within 7 weeks I was done with my treatments and on the road to recovery. I asked my Oncologist what would have happened if I would have had no insurance like my Brother-in-law Dave? His response was chilling, "You wouldn't be here getting the treatment your getting now."

Fast forward to this year. I am now watching my daughter fight for her health with a system designed to provide her with nothing. Nine months ago she was diagnosed with an enlarged thyroid (again, getting diagnosed is not the problem.). The lump on her throat was the size of a acorn and only visible when she raised her chin. She has fought with Medicaid, who again refused her because she has a job (One social service worker suggested she quit.) She has tried to find help through the state, which has pushed her further back saying, "Our budgets are tight, programs no longer have the funding." She has scheduled with three doctors for the surgery, each one giving her dates months down the road and then canceling them at the last minute. Her last attempt got her all the way to surgery door only to have it canceled at the last minute because the doctor forgot to give her medication necessary before the surgery. Again the new date is months away. In desperation she is trying a new doctor who happened to hear of her plight and is willing to help. We're all praying it works out this time. Her lump is now the size of a half an apple and easily visible. She is a single mom with two kids who has worked her entire life.

During the arguments for and against revamping our health care system, a lot of lies and over statements are going to be made on both sides. But I want to lay one lie to rest. The one that, "Everyone gets treatment in America, no one is turned away." While there may be truth in the wording, the real truth is health care for those that are covered is quick and timely. For those that don't have it, it's a battle to stay alive until they can squeeze you in. Children are losing their mothers, sisters are losing their brothers, let's not candy-coat it with some distortion. The argument is that a Universal Health Care Program will result in people waiting for months for a knee replacement. Well, to them I have an answer. It's already happening, just not to you, and for things far more serious than a bum knee.H.C.

SUPREME COURT GETS IT RIGHT IN FIREFIGHTER CASE

2009-06-29T15:13:00.000-07:00

It's been a hell of a news week since I wrote to all of you last. Infamous ponzi scheme artist, Bernie Madoff, got more time than the equally infamous Charlie Manson, Michael Jackson dies and it's not by the hands of an eight-year-old boy's angry father. Farah Fawcett succumbs to Cancer and famed pitchman Billy Mays dies under unusual circumstances. Yep, it's been a news-packed week. But the item that really caught my eye this week was the 5-4 judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court that a group of white firefighters from New Haven, Conn.,were discriminated against because of their race.

The main reason I find this judgment fascinating isn't because someone screamed "racism" because they were denied a promotion, hell, that happens every single day in the U.S.. It isn't even because it was white people who were doing the complaining-that happens more and more all the time. It's because the argument used by the City of New Haven and other opponents of the fire fighter's case, was that the tests given to the firefighters were racist in nature. The tests were racist, those groups contend, because the blacks that took it didn't do as well as the whites. For this reason, the white applicants who did well on the test were denied the advancement they were entitled to. The City of New Haven claimed they were only preventing racism. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Interestingly enough, one of the appellate judges on this very case that disagreed with the majority's opinion was none other than President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sottamayor.

It's not that I believe there is no racism in testing. I think we've all seen enough examples to know that racism in testing does exist. It's a "burden of proof" thing with me. In a lot of people's minds, the evidence is in the results. If blacks do not do as well as their white counterparts on a certain test, then it is a racist test. Period. In their minds, it's as simple as that. I could not disagree more. If you accuse someone of cheating, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. To simply say that the fact that one group doesn't do as well as another makes the test racist denies the fact that different people are more suited to different jobs. (Here's where I get myself in trouble.)

The best example I can give you is this; My brother works for the Dept of Transportation here in Michigan. He is the foreman over several bridge maintenance groups. One day I noticed that every time I saw him on the job on one of our highways, the men were all sweating up a storm shovelling sand or running a jackhammer while the girls were taking turns flagging traffic (a far less physical job.) When I chastised him over his distribution of jobs, he informed me that none of his men wanted the job holding the signs. He further informed me that while the public generally smiled and waved at his female staff, they threw things and took out their anger on his male staff. Since both sides were happy the way things were, it was a simple case of best job for the best person. Is that sexist? Maybe on the part of the general public, but not by my brother or Michigan DOT.

What the Supreme Court was saying in it's majority ruling is that a test isn't racist simply because of the results, you have to prove that there was some intent by the parties to discriminate. Men won't always do as well on some tests as women, and yes, sometimes blacks won't do as well as whites on certain tests just as whites won't do as well on others. But if the test is designed to get the person best suited for the job, and not designed to stop someone from getting a job based on race, then there is no foul.

With this verdict, the door has been opened to a new line of thought, "It's not discrimination simply because the results aren't equally spread out." Over the past few decades the pendulum has swung too far, in my opinion, toward the belief that every slight is due to racism or sexism or homophobia or whatever. The accusers were allowed to put the accused on the defense without proving that they had any bad intent. Now the onus is where it belongs, on the accuser. Prove someone or something is racist and the perpetrators suffer the consequences as they should, fail that, and you lose, as you should. My accolades to the Supreme Court, they finally got something right and have earned my respect-for now. H.C.

DETROIT CITY DEN OF THIEVES

2009-06-15T18:00:00.000-07:00

In the Bible, the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah became so vile and sinful that God decides to burn the cities to the ground. If it's true that God smites cities that have become so corrupt, then I have a suggestion for the remaining decent people of Detroit....RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!! Not since the famous biblical cities has there been a place where the streets are so filled with prostitution, killing, decadence, decay, public corruption and a complete lack of morals of any kind by nearly anyone' s standards. Hell, even Larry Flynt wouldn't live there.

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the antics of the new KKK (Kwame Kilpatrick Klan) and his tribe of shady lawyers, but today I'm going to outline for you a cast of characters from Detroit, Michigan that make the fabled city of Port Royal look like a convent.

Just for the record, for those of you that don't follow Michigan politics, Kwame Kilpatrick was Detroit's "Hip Hop" mayor up until this last year. Mr. Kilpatrick ran City Hall like a crack house, complete with pistol-whip beatings, a possible murder, fornicating with his staff and even using the public's monies to buy off his detractors to the tune of over $8 million+ dollars. All this while his city shrank both in population and funds. His public schools were, and still are, in complete shambles suffering from lack of funds while he and his staff rode around in Limos. Kwame himself enjoyed the biggest posse (security staff) of any big city mayor. K.K. served 100 days in jail as punishment for his role in covering up his affair with his chief of staff Christine Beatty with public funds, Kwame now lives in Texas (to be closer to some other well known thieves?) where he's trying to avoid paying his court-ordered fines. Now, let's look at the rest of the thieves that Detroit elected to rape their children's future.

*Detroit City Council*

The first thing you should know about the Detroit city council, and by extension, the people of Detroit, is that they don't seat white males any more. In fact, the people of Detroit haven't elected a white male to City Council or the mayor's office since 1990. Despite the fact that Detroit has a minority white population of approx. 20%. I wonder how well that would wash in a 20% black or Latino community? My guess is, not well.The second thing you should know about the DCC is that criminal behavior is not new to them. So, how have the City Council done? Well the Detroit Public School system is now in debt to the tune of $306 million dollars.(the entire state is only showing a $920 million deficit) The City of Detroit is in debt $300 million and climbing. It has lost thousands of residents and it now has the lowest possible bond rating according to Moody's.

*Nepotism Running Amok*

There are nine Detroit Council members, Ken Cockrel is the president, and he sits with fellow councilwoman Sheila Cockrel-his step-mother. Ken's father, Ken Cockrel Sr., cheated on his mother with Sheila and now she is the only white face currently allowed on the DCC. Monica Conyers is another councilwoman with in-family connections, her husband is Detroit U.S. Representative John Conyers, famous for introducing reparations legislation every year of his service and more recently infamous for using $46,000.00 of his campaign money in three months entertaining friends and himself while the Detroit Schools went down the sewer. It should be noted that he lead the entire 435 member U.S. House in spending and doubled the next closest Representative. To complete Detroit's record on nepotism, we should also note that ex-mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was the son of another Detroit U.S. House Representative, Caroline Cheeks-Kilpatrick.

*Now for the Crimes*

I don't even know where to start with this pack of thieves. To be fair, some of them haven't been convicted as of yet. But, it's interesting to note that the U.S. Justice Dept. as well as the F.B.I. is investigating all of them. Now, let's go down the list, Ken Cockrel is probably the cleanest of the bunch, having only tried to hide a $42,000 fine for failing to submit late contribution reports, money which he eventually claimed under pressure from the press. Sheila Cockrel's only known crime is one of morality, having fucked, cheated and blackmailed her way ahead. Fellow councilwoman, Monica Conyers is currently under investigation by the FBI for her involvement in a bribe-for-contract scheme involving the sludge hauling firm Synagro. The contract was for $1.2 billion and also involved Kwame's father, Bernard Kilpatrick. Councilwoman Barbara Rose-Collins is drawing fire recently for a trip to Dubai that cost the City of Detroit over $20,000, including $1,000 fo "incidentals" and $225 worth of souvenirs. An interesting side note; Kwame and his mother Rep. Caroline Cheeks-Kilpatrick were planning a similar trip on the taxpayers dime when the story broke. They immediately cancelled their trip. Now, add to that 48 possible crimes listed by the Detroit Public Schools in their investigation into the disappearance of school funds.

*The Heros*

If I were the kind of person that I see far too often, I would point out Detroit as proof positive that minority-run cities are simply a fleece of the taxpayer. But that would do a disservice to the two public officials I'm going to list next, both black. Kim Worthy is the prosecuting attorney for Wayne County. And even though I initially thought she would cover for all the thievery in Detroit (I'm so sorry, Kim), Ms. Worthy did her job as if they were stealing from the children of Detroit..... which they were. Despite terrible pressure from black apologists, Kim stuck to her guns and prosecuted Kwame Kilpatrick and his Chief of Staff Christine Beatty. And she is not done yet. The other hero is the Detroit Public School Emergency Financial Manager, Robert Bobb. This guy is so great I'm not even going to pick on his two first names. Since entering the scene, Mr. Bobb has rooted out millions in waste and missing funds in the DPS.The criminals are running in every direction and it's only a matter of time before we see even more indictments.

The City of Detroit has surely hit bottom. If God should see his way to forgive and not smite the former French port off the face of the Earth, maybe Detroit can return to it's original place as one of the U.S's finest cities. I can only hope. The children of Detroit deserve better than to have rundown schools while Detroit's leaders party and pillage. H.C.

ORWELLIAN ANNIVERSARY

2009-06-08T14:35:00.000-07:00

Today marks the 60th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's famous book "1984". For those of you not in the Orwellian loop, 1984 was a futuristic depiction of what George Orwell dreamed 1984 (from his point of view in 1949) would look like after the "Thought Police" and "Big Brother" had taken over. The Thought Police were police that used high tech devices to stop crimes before they were even committed. Big Brother was the dictator/government of Oceania, Orwell's fictitious state in the mists of a totalitarian Government . Big Brother, aka the government, had evolved into a sophisticated monitoring system to keep the people under control. Cameras were placed in your home, at your work, and in the streets. Your every move and thought was monitored. Thoughts against the government were not allowed as were thoughts not approved by the government. Those who engaged in them were punished harshly.The good people of Oceania were told constantly through propaganda that it was all for their benefit, that the government knew what was best for them and was creating a Utopia. I viewed it as a horror piece, as did everyone I knew.

When I was in my early teens, my best friend, Mike "Spikehorn" Trench turned me on to Orwell's "Animal Farm" and I was instantly captivated by his writing style. I went on to read "1984" immediately afterward and it has influenced my thoughts on government and free speech every since. At the time, we were in the early stages of the Cold War and the winding down of the Vietnam War. The Soviet Empire and communism were the enemies. The propaganda of the day was that communism would turn your kids against you, your teachers would only be allowed to teach what the government told them to teach, religion would be run out of your schools and homes, free speech would die as would free thought and the ability to question authority. At the time, these were precious things that everyone, Hippies and Conservatives alike, equated with being American. My, how times have changed.

George Orwell could not have envisioned how much worse the future would actually turn out. Cameras are now commonplace as he had predicted. Computers are monitored by your bosses, as is your mail. Corporations can demand your urine, saliva or blood. Religion has been all but done away with in the name of government, science and secularism. Your children are encouraged to "turn you in". Common religious-based morality has been replaced with Liberalism, Relativism and Humanism. The most frightening development that I have seen that mirrors "1984" is the advent of the mentality that crimes can be stopped by limiting speech and thought. In the University where I work, I sometimes have flashbacks to Orwell's ugly vision. "Hate Speech" is used by liberals to silence any contrary points of view. Opposition to Gay Marriage, support of religious points of view, corporal punishment of children, and criticism of minority agendas are just a few of the restrictions on speech that I have seen. Their philosophy is that words can lead to thoughts that lead to crimes. Like Orwell's vision, these "thought crimes" can get you punished harshly, even fired. The linchpin in their philosophy is that they, like Orwell's Big Brother, know what's best for you.

If you have never read Orwell's "1984", I would greatly encourage you to get a copy and let yourself drift back to a time when monitoring your speech was unthinkable in America, when disciplining your kids was your job, not the governments, when you could walk down the streets without a camera ever taking your picture. When a book like "1984" was a horror piece and not a piece on present history. They say all these things are for our own good, that it will help us become a Utopia much like Orwell's Oceania. But I am reminded of an old slave rallying cry."I would rather die standing like a man, than live contently on my knees." H.C.

FOLLOWING THE MONEY

2009-06-01T16:10:00.000-07:00

If there was ever any doubt in your mind that your friendly neighborhood Hippie is a complete political dork, this should eliminate it. Just for fun, I was touring around in one of my favorite sites, opensecrets.org, and searching for relevant info on campaign contributions. (how am I doing so far?) When I stumbled upon a few tasty facts.

Now, I know President Obama has said that we need to look forward and not backward, but I believe that we do need to know what the heck went wrong before we can correct it. Plus, Barack unfortunately has to play in that arena, and therefore is a little too dirty to point at someone else's hygiene. I, however, am not so burdened.

As I'm sure all of you know by now, our country has been shoveling money in every direction to stop a complete financial meltdown. The majority of the money that has been handed out has been in the form of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or as it is more commonly known, the TARP fund. This fund was created by the Bush Administration and pushed through Congress with next-to-no over site in the waning days of G.W's last term. Since then, we have seen top CEO's of the very organizations who caused this mess write themselves giant financial parachutes as the economy was speeding toward the Earth.

Out of curiosity, I decided to see who was writing big checks to the Bush campaign of 2004 long before anyone supposedly knew of our impeding doom. Guess what? The names of a lot of the top contributors match the top TARP recipients, whata surprise! Morgan Stanley leads the pack of Bush contributors and gave the G.W. Campaign $600,480.00, In second came Merrill Lynch with a tidy $580,004.00. For it's efforts, Morgan Stanley was handed the 8th largest handout from the TARP fund-$10 billion dollars. Merrill Lynch was bought out by Bank of America who then used their polluted ledger to rake in the biggest payout from TARP, $45 billion taxpayer dollars.

Now, keep in mind, this was way back in 2004 when supposedly no one knew anything of the impeding crisis.

If you want to get even more nauseous, check out the huge sums of money thrown in Bush's direction by the lobbyists for these firms. Bank of America gave $8,790,000, and Morgan Stanley gave $3,120,000.(Some money was given after the crisis began.) The average return on their investments and the investments of other financial giants? According to Opensecrets it was 258,449 percent!

After viewing some of these stats I have to come to one of two conclusions;

A) These companies knew nothing about our financial crises and this was an incredible coincidence. Or;

B) These rats knew we were in trouble and were lining up their exit plan long in advance.

A thinking person has to ask himself a question. Why would financial institutions such as Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley be the biggest contributors to the Bush Campaign if they had nothing to gain? Were they hoping for even more deregulation when they were already pulling every shady accounting scheme known to man totally unregulated? Or, were they way ahead of the curve and already planning how the government would bail them out. My guess is you know the answer, as well as you now know what a dork I really am. H.C.

KICKING THE CAN

2009-05-25T15:49:00.000-07:00

North Korea has now tested it's second nuclear weapon. This removes all doubt that the regime headed by one of the true madmen of our time is now a growing nuclear power. The weapon that North Korea exploded underground is said to be significantly more powerful than the first one that it tested a year ago. The U.N. immediately condemned the testing, which means only slightly more than me and my dog condemning it. President Obama responded by challenging the world to "stand up" to this new threat. He is going to be very disappointed.

This all coincides with the recent testing 5 days before of Iran's long range missile that can now easily reach Israel. Needless to say, the world is getting far more dangerous right before our eyes. It really doesn't take a Evil Genius to put these two events together. North Korea is a very poor country that could use the money that rich countries like Iran would spend for nuclear secrets or weapons. To believe that we could stop them is tantamount to believing we can stop international weapons trade or drug trafficking. North Korea has already been accused of sending nuclear components to Syria that resulted in Israel doing a very clandestine attack that no one really knows the true extent of. If Iran, or Hezbollah, or Al Qaeda, doesn't already have a nuclear weapon, they are only a billion dollars away from having one.

How this will play out in international politics is anyone's guess.One thing is certain, it will effect it.

Increasingly, around the world, countries from Venezuela to North Korea have been openly flipping off the once-powerful United States. To the Liberals in the U.S. who have been praying for America to be far less influential on the world stage, you are getting your wish.

The new policy of the U.S. is one of diplomacy over threats, condemnation and embargo over military action. I'm not a hawk, I believe that diplomacy has it's place and military action should be the tact of last choice. However, I have come to the conclusion that the villains in the world now believe the U.S. to be a Paper Tiger, no longer having the capacity or the will to address the problems facing the world. That leaves us with only our combined efforts with Europe and the U.N. to stop a nuclear disaster. I hate to say this folks, but that doesn't sound too good to me. The U.N.'s history of stopping nuclear proliferation is dismal at best. The E.U. believes that the U.S. is the cause and answer to all the of world's problems.

This new frightening development in North Korea has demonstrated that we are powerless to stop what is going to be a second Arms Race around the world. One that is not between two superpowers, but between dozens of countries all with their own agendas. I believe this will eventually lead to a nuclear weapon going off somewhere in the world. The most likely candidate? London.

We humans have a hard time excepting things that we fear. Much like our inevitable death, the thought of nuclear weapons going off is too frightening for most people to deal with. Perhaps when the first nuclear weapon strikes and we see the results on our T.V.'s and computer screens we will wake up to the reality. Much like how we realize our own mortality when we have a near death experience. Until then, I'm afraid we will continue to "kick the can" on down the road, God save us. H.C.

FRAN ON THE FIRE

2009-05-18T15:54:00.000-07:00

There are some politicians that I will openly admit to not liking much, even though I always caution people not to fall into the trap of hating someone that they really don't know. For example, during the run-up to the Presidential elections this past fall I made it pretty clear I was no fan of Hillary Clinton, although I will admit to having a certain amount of respect for her ability to put herself into the public eye. However, there is one politician that I find so vile, that I occasionally catch myself grinding my teeth at her image on my T.V. That person is San-Fran Nan, better known as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

I'm not really sure why I have such a problem with Speaker Pelosi. Maybe it's her Botox-laden face, maybe it's her anything-goes-as-long-as-someone-else-is-paying-for-it San Francisco values. Maybe it's that she reminds me of a scary elementary school teacher I once had. Whatever the reason, I have found great joy watching her squirm lately as she lies through her capped white teeth.

In the past week, Nancy has found herself in the uncomfortable position of having the curtain pulled back on her more private conservative moments. After exhorting the evils of "enhanced interrogation" for the later part of the Bush Administration, it has now been revealed that Ms. Pelosi quietly sat in on CIA briefings on interrogation and said nary a word in protest. Like a lot of Liberals on the Hill, President Obama included, she has to keep a bit of a duel personality going. On the one hand, she is privy to a lot of sensitive material on the threats facing our country and she knows the threats are real. On the other hand, she is the main spokeswoman for the left's anti-war, anti-torture, peace-nic wing. The two sides can never be seen together in the same room.

So what's a politician to do? Simple, you do what you accuse your opposition of doing-you lie through your teeth. You claim that the CIA "misrepresented the facts" and that you didn't know they were talking about "torturing" anyone. In fact, you thought they were talking about taking suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah to a water-park for some afternoon fun.

There's only one problem, and his name is Leon Panetta. The ex-Clintonite and present CIA director Panetta refuses to just sit there and watch his department get trashed so's Ms. Pelosi can save her lipo-suctioned, silicone-implanted ass. He had this to say about Nancy's accusations, "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Come on Leon, can't you just take one for the team?

The Republicans have been smelling blood in the water and refuse to let this political grape fall off the vine before it's good and ripe.Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner had this to say about Ms. Pelosi's accusation, "Lying to Congress is a crime. Purposely misleading Congress is a crime. And if the speaker is accusing the intelligence community of lying to her or purposefully misleading her, then she ought to present that evidence, turn it over to the Justice Department, [and] have them prosecute it," Yikes! I believe the Republicans have finally made a point.

In the interest of good sportsmanship, I'm going to try to give Frying Fran a bit of advice. It's O.K., Ms. Pelosi, to be an unapologetic Liberal, some of my best friends are Liberal, that's not a problem. What is a problem, Fran, is standing in front of your Liberal friends and telling them how evil you think our intelligence community is, or how terrible our military is, when you know in your heart the vast majority of them are trying their level best to keep us all safe. For that, Ms. Speaker, I will never respect you. H.C.

HOW THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CAN SAVE ITSELF

2009-05-13T15:50:00.000-07:00

"The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated" -Mark Twain

The young Democrat approached me with a smile that came close to swallowing her ears. "Haven't the past three months been wonderful?" She practically giggled. "The Republican Party is finished, they'll never come back." I just smiled. The last time she saw me she was proudly wearing her Barack Obama for President "Yes we can!" T-shirt. I told her I was going to be voting for Barack and I guess she figured I was a Democrat like herself. She was mistaken.

Like a lot of the Democrats I've been talking to since the election, she took the results of last November to mean that the message of the Democrats had finally broken through the lies and rhetoric of the Republican Party. That people had finally seen that their message was one of kindness, hope and freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Republicans have simply found themselves at the end of their cycle. And a bad cycle at that. Two terms is usually the limit for a party to control the Presidency and the fact is, up untill 3 years ago, the Democrats had seen themselves falling further and further out of favor with the mainstream. They lost the House that they had controlled for over 40 years during the Clinton Administration and in 2004 couldn't even stop G.W., a relatively unpopular president, from getting a second term. In fact, over the past 17 years the Republicans have been running the show 15 of them. The Dems have only seen a resurgence in the past two elections with only the last one reestablishing their power. Most of that can be attributed to a bad economy, an unpopular president and a misbehaving Wall Street. Not something the Dems can count on continuing to profit for them.

So in the interest of fairness, I'm going to demonstrate why the Republican party can, and almost assuredly will, come back from the dead, if they follow this platform.

*Nation Security*

As I've said before, the Democrats are one major attack on the U.S. from losing it all. From closing Gitmo, to stopping interment, to outlawing "Advanced Interrogation", to allowing the suspected terrorists access to our courts, the Democrats have put themselves in the position of champions of the rights of people accused of terrorism. That's well and fine for now, but the people's view will change dramatically if we're attacked. Remember, the vote on the Patriot Act was 98-1-1 in the Senate. No one wanted to be seen as soft. For the Republicans the message is, "Obama and the Democrats are sacrificing our safety for their principles" Should an attack happen, they'll look like prophets.

*Social Issues*

Gay Marriage is not going to go away. With 30 states already outlawing G.M. in their constitutions (even California has joined) and another 18 outlawing it in other ways, the Republicans have public sentiment on their side. Gay advocates have a bad habit of being their own worse enemy. They have turned to judge shopping and using their connections in Hollywood to "blacklist" opponents and overturn laws instead of using public sympathies. The Civil Rights argument angers minorities and their lack of compromise is seen as all or nothing politics. For now, this is still a winning issue for the Reps.

*Guns and Abortion"

I like to say, "We will always have guns and abortion in this country, only the restrictions will change." Any attempt by the Dems (and there will be some) to restrict guns will lose Moderate Democrats and Independents like myself. Democrats have a bad habit of not understanding guns or the culture that surrounds them. Unlike some of my moderate Republican friends, I do not think Anti-Abortion is a losing position for the Reps. Recent polls show more and more people rejecting the idea of abortion. The Dems will further anger those in the middle with daffy legislation against parental notification and defense of the gruesome act of partial birth abortion.Those issues will lose a lot of people on the fence for the Dems.

Now for some positions I would change if I we're in charge of the Republican Party.

*Global Warming*

For the Republicans to win young people over, this issue has to go. The problem is the Reps look like they're defending polluting our planet. Plus, they use phrases like "Clean Coal" which sounds a lot like "Clean Dirt". Young people and people from my hippie generation are very environmentally conscious. They don't want to continue polluting because it "might" not be hurting our planet.....yet.

*Corporate Greed*

Defending excessive executive pay, trusting profit driven corporations to do the right thing unregulated, pollution, labor exploitation, deregulating the banks and our entire economy are all a black eye for the Republicans. Despite their attempts to refocus the blame, the American people understand one truth. Unregulated people will do whatever they can get away with. The Republicans need to lose the "Deregulate to prosperity" line. After two Bush Family driven banking scandals, the people no longer trust Wall Street unregulated...and they shouldn't.

*Health Care*

Get an alternative plan out as soon as possible. Predict rampant overspending on the Dem plan (a guaranteed winner). Offer Catastrophic coverage for all Americans as a compromise. The lie of "everyone gets care in America" isn't cutting it anymore. People see the jars in the stores begging for help to pay for 5 year-old Timmy's bone marrow transplant. Too many people know someone who's lost everything because of no insurance. Worst of all, poor working Americans aren't covered as well as those who don't even work. Republicans are seen as heartless on this issue and too many people fear their own health insurance may soon dry up.

If the Republican Party re-invents itself as the party of traditional social values, Nation Security, reasonable, controlled, and sensible moves toward universal health care, well-regulated Capitalism, and non-radical environmentalism, they can reestablish their place in politics. If they should continue fractured or adopt a "Democrat Light" platform, they are assured of more losses. On the other side, my advice to the Democrats is simple, "Don't dig the hole while the body still moves." H.C.

THE INCREDIBLY POWERFUL JEWISH CAUCUS

2009-04-29T17:26:00.000-07:00

The big political news over the past few days is that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has switched Parties from Republican to Democrat. This gives the Democrats a 59 to 40 lead over the Republican. With the inevitable addition of Al Franken, aka Stuart Smalley from Minnesota, the Dems will have reached the magic number of 60. For the Democrats, that means immunity from the filibuster, a tactic used by the minority that's basically talking non-stop to obstruct a vote on any given issue. An interesting point of fact-one of the longest filibusters by a Senator is 14 hours held by Robert Byrd a Democrat from West Virginia. The issue that so inspired Senator Byrd? Stopping a vote on the Civil Rights Act.

But I digress.

For those of you that don't really follow the career of Arlen Specter, it must seem like the Dems have pulled off quite a coup, but in reality, Senator Specter was never a Republican to begin with. He's one of those politicians referred to as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). It's akin to a spy that has infiltrated the other side. The purpose of a RINO, or it's counterpart, the DINO, is to show up on partisan issues and act like the outraged member of the other party. For instance, when the Republicans are trying to stop legislation on Global Warming, the Dems trot out Senator Specter to act outraged at the behavior of his fellow Republicans. This allows Democrats to say things like, "The Republicans are so off-base on this issue even one of their own is against them." It works very well.

But 'Ol Arlen plays another role that isn't talked about in the Main Stream Media. Aaaand, since it's my self-appointed job to give all of you the inside ball on how the game is played, I'll pull the curtain back yet one more time.

Arlen Specter is a member of the Jewish Caucus. In fact, up until the other day he was the only Republican Jewish Caucus Member. You would think that the only Republican member of a political organization turning Democrat would be news in and of itself. I'll leave it to your fertile minds to figure out why it isn't being reported as such. I'll give you a clue though, how many behind-the-scene groups like drawing attention to themselves?

The Jewish Caucus is very unique in the House and Senate. It's unique because it is way over represented. While Jewish people make up only 2.2% of the U.S. population, they make up 14% of the Senate and 7.5% 0f the House. Compare that to The Hispanic Caucus which has 1 Senator (1%), Bob Menendez, a Cuban-American Democrat from New Jersey, and 19 House Representatives (4%) despite being the largest minority in the U.S. at about 14%. It's no wonder the Jewish Caucus likes to keep it quiet.

The Jewish Caucus is now 100% Democrat, and while it may confuse you as to why a very religious group (they are after all, a race that defines itself by their religion) would align themselves completely with the Dems. There is a very good reason.

Most base groups, like the Pro-Choice groups for instance, align themselves with the Democrats because they feel they are, for the most part, the only ones representing their group's views. But to believe that the Dems are the only Party to represent the Pro-Israeli view is quite a stretch. In fact, it's usually the Republicans that feed the Israeli war machine with their military subsidies. The Jewish Caucus operates as almost a third party. They can force Democrats like Barack Obama to bend to their will on issues pertaining to Israel by threatening their fragile majority. Refuse to cooperate and the 14 unified Senators might not back issues important to President Obama. Play the game and he's assured of their support. Remember 60 minus 14 doesn't leave the Dems with a majority at all.

The Jewish Caucus is a lesson in manipulation in politics. My point here is not to vilify the Jewish people. I am, in fact a supporter of the State of Israel and an advocate against anti-Semitism. However, the power of the Jewish Caucus is vastly under-reported. Perhaps there's even some lessons here for the other minority caucuses. For them, it might be worth considering whether they would be more powerful if they took the Jewish tact, and jumped sides themselves. H.C.

THE NEW MCCARTHYISM

2009-04-27T15:43:00.000-07:00

As all of you know by now, I am a huge fan of the First Amendment to the Constitution-Freedom of Speech. I have the right to speak my mind and other people have the absolute right to disagree. I am not a fan of using "Hate Speech" laws or any other restrictions on the free flow of ideas. The only exception I will accept is direct threats toward an individual or group. The problem I have with the concept of "Hate Speech" is that it can be used to quiet anyone who disagrees with the status quo.Frankly, I feel that any disagreement I have with something one side feels would help their group could be considered "Hate Speech" by that group. That's unacceptable to me because it hinders free debate. If your on the side that's right, why fear debate? If I know I'm right, I feel I have an advantage and if I can't defend my beliefs, maybe I should change them. I would disagree with these restrictions if it were used by conservatives to stop atheists or evolutionists from having their point of view in my schools. And I am equally offended by the left's efforts to stop the creationists from having their view. I understand that science is science, but if it's taught as a philosophy or just as a theory, then I see no harm. The restriction of free debate is far more harmful than anything that someone I disagree with can say.

Unfortunately, in this country today, being un-politically correct can get you far more than a good debate. It can get you fired, it can get you denied your goals, and it can get you ostracized by people who think that tolerance is a word for how you should treat them.

In Universities across America, free speech is hindered by the very people who pretend to defend it. University Presidents have been fired for suggesting that maybe women just aren't attracted to the idea of being Engineers. Philosophy professors are fired for suggesting that there may be a God. Criminologists are fired for suggesting that crime statistics of a group may not only be due to prejudice. All this happens while others are supported while exercising their rights to bad-mouth the U.S. ritualistically or trashing religious people and their faith.

At this point in history, no cow is more sacred than Gay Rights.

The very mention of your disagreement with Gay Marriage in the public arena will bring you instant scorn. That in and of itself is not the problem-that is debate. However, it has now gotten to the point where it's advocates are going out of their way to punish anyone, any way possible for simply disagreeing. I myself have been banned (read blacklisted) from any political discussion groups on Myspace for stating my view on Gay Marriage respectfully.

The most recent example of this new form of McCarthyism has demonstrated itself in the Miss USA Pagent. Miss California, Carrie Prejean was asked by gossip blogger Perez Hilton about her stance on same-sex marriage.Ms. Prejean responded, and I quote,"I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." Now, you have to admit, that's a respectful answer while still stating your position.

Immediately afterward, she was told that her statement cost her the crown.

Soon after that came the barrage of misinformation designed to vilify Ms. Prejean for exercising her right to disagree. "In Entertainment" stated that she said gay people, "should not be allowed to marry." This same statement was carried on MSN and a host of other left-leaning media outlets. Clearly, that's a misrepresentation of what she said.

Here's the main question folks. Do organizations have the right to deny you a job, to fire you from your job, or to stop you from winning a contest based solely on your opinion on a controversial issue? I understand that some positions are representative of that organization, but are we taking it too far when we demand that all our employees think like we do? I once heard radio talk show host Laura Schlessinger tell a Christian woman that it was O.K. to fire a employee because she didn't share her Christian values. Is that right? Can I ban single mothers from working for my business because I don't share their morality? The entire entertainment industry has now shown itself to be unified on "blacklisting" someone if they don't swear allegiance to the Gay Movement. No matter your stand on the issue, you have to admit, Joseph McCarthy would be so proud of their methods. H.C.

THE SCUM THAT SAVED THE EARTH

2009-04-16T12:09:00.000-07:00

It grows in almost any stagnant water whether it's salt, fresh or brackish. It needs only carbon dioxide, sunlight and some kind of waste for it's diet of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus. It can grow incredibly fast, reaching maturity in as little as 14 days. It can reach the size of a state. It's found everywhere and can grow anywhere. It just might be the answer to some of the biggest problems the human race faces. It could end Global Warming, turn CO2 into a cash crop, feed our livestock and consume our waste all while producing oxygen. It's potential is being studied by scientists funded by Bill Gates. It has among it's supporters the Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla, country singer Willie Nelson and the U.S. Department of Defense. "It" is algae.

Last year tests conducted at PetroSun Biofuels’ pilot algae farm in Opelika, Ala., showed oil production between 5,000 and 8,000 gallons per acre per year. It has already produced 4.4 million gallons of bio fuel. Sapphire Energy, a start up company from San Diego, California has an "open check" to do the research and development necessary to get algae fuel production on the map. Some of the money is coming courtesy of Microsoft founder Bill Gate' investment firm Cascade, but investors from all over are getting involved. Algae is the fuel of the future, all we have to do is make it large scale and profitable. In this piece I'll go over why I think algae is the ultimate solution and why we should all be pushing this alternative fuel to the front of the line.

*It's feasible*

The shear numbers involved in our fuel consumption are enough to eliminate most alternatives. The U.S. consumes over 18 million barrels of oil a day. That's 756 million gallons a day or 276 billion gallons a year. No small sum, to be sure. For ethanol from standard crops to be viable, it would take huge percentages of our farmland. As of now, ethanol, primarily from corn, is only 2% of our fuel use and consumes roughly 2% of our corn (U.S.), therefore it would take 100% of our presently available corn to reach our fuel needs. This would cause huge rises not only in our corn-related food prices, but also our meat prices since livestock is fed primarily corn.In exchange for these rises in food prices, corn produces about 423 gallons of ethanol per acre per year. Algae on the other hand is estimated to produce 5,000 to 50,000 gallons per acre, per year. That's 7 to 30 times greater than the next best crop, Chinese tallow (699 gallons). That's a far better use of our land.

*It's carbon negative*

What that means is; not only does algae not leave a carbon foot print, but it actually consumes so much CO2 that it leaves a negative footprint. Unlike some of the other bio masses, algae is squeezed, not cooked. That means it doesn't need other gases to heat it up like ethanol does.The best part about algae as a fuel is that most of the operations being formed pump CO2 through chambers to grow the algae more effectively. One example is the Vertigro system by Valcent Co. which uses vertical tubes. Since the Co2 is brought in, it makes things like carbon capture even more feasible. In fact, it could even solve one of the biggest problems with carbon capture, the cost. When captured, CO2 could be sold as a cash crop to Algae farms. Coal-burning energy plants may make a comeback.

*It produces bio feed*

By using certain edible varieties of algae for bio-fuel, an added bonus is produced. The remaining biomass left over from the process is an excellent food for livestock, thereby leaving more farmland for other crops.

*It can consume our waste*

One of the biggest problems mankind faces on a daily basis is what to do with all our waste. Algae provides a solution. Human and animal waste is, as everyone knows, an excellent fertilizer. By utilizing those wastes to provide Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium for the algae farms, two birds are killed with one stone.

In short, I have never been as excited about any one thing as the future of algae as a bio-fuel. It produces no sulfur, emits very little carbon and consumes more than it will ever produce. It takes up very little land (relatively speaking) and can consume our wastes while producing oxygen and a livestock feed. Compare that with Petroleum, which is destroying our planet and causing our unnecessary involvement in War-ravaged regions. Even if you don't believe in Global Warming, you still have to admit that all this polluting can't be good for us. How long would you allow me to piss in your well? Until you taste it? Until you see it? We need to learn to live with the Earth and this is a great start. If we can get algae fuel to a comfortable $3 a gallon, we can fix a lot of the world's problems. Who knows, one day we may actually have to burn fossil fuels just to put some CO2 back in the atmosphere. H.C.

PIRATES -0 AMERICA-1

2009-04-13T15:20:00.000-07:00

I'm sure by now all of you are as sick as I am of the day-in, day-out coverage of the failed cargo ship hijacking off the coast of Somalia. However, there are so many things that I have to say (in my own twisted-hippie way) about the events of the past few days. There is insight here into President Obama's character, our future foreign policy, as well as a few laughs. So, step inside my psychedelic mind and let's see what's been running around.

The events, just in case you've been living under a rock or are watching a 7-day Spongebob marathon, went down like this; The U.S. flagged cargo ship, Maersk Alabama, was hijacked a few hundred miles off the Horn of Africa. The ship was carrying emergency food relief to Mombasa, Kenya when it was seized by four men armed with AK-47's. Apparently, the crew of twenty men were not allowed to carry weapons for fear of mutiny. I guess hijackings were not among the fears that the owners had, despite a rash of hijackings in that area. In a quick twist of situations, the crew of the Maersk, despite being unarmed, managed to overtake one of the hijackers. The other three, sensing a turn of fate, fled with the Captain of the ship, Richard Phillips, as a hostage onto one of the Maersk's lifeboats.

Now here's where it gets funny.

Since the ship's crew were holding one of the pirates and the pirates were holding their Captain, a swap seemed to be in order. Oddly enough, the crew took the pirates at their word and released their man first. The pirates then, of course, refused to release the Captain. Fer Christ's sake, didn't a single person on that ship watch "Pirates of the Caribbean"??? They're pirates!

After realizing their incredibly stupid mistake, the crew, now backed up by the American Navy destroyer, the USS Bainbridge, and several other vessels, began negotiating for the Captain's release. You have to hand it to the U.S. Navy for over-kill, The Bainbridge is a guided-missile destroyer carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles, torpedoes and two MH-60 Knighthawk helicopters armed with Hellfire missiles. All that vs. four men with light weapons in a glorified row-boat. Despite all that show-of-force, the four men managed to hold the U.S. Navy at bay for several days.

Now, this is the part where I wish I was a fly-on-the-wall.

To negotiate with the U.S. Navy, one of the pirates came aboard the reclaimed Maersk. During the negotiations, per President Obama's orders, the officers in charge sensed things were going badly and O.K.'ed sharpshooters to take out the three remaining pirates in the lifeboat. Three shots from our nation's finest and three pirates lay dead. Now, this is the other part I find funny. When the remaining pirate was told of this change in his bargaining position, how did he react? Did he try to play it off? "O.K. then, here's my final offer. You let me go with the lifeboat and my dead friends and we'll call it even. Deal?" One thing's for sure, I'll bet his attitude changed very suddenly.

The fact that there's still pirates boarding ships in the 21st century is a strange test for our new President. But I have to say, I give him high marks for this one. As I've said before, I love a story where the bad guys get theirs in the end. I have been somewhat worried that Obama had bought into the Liberal idea that fighting back just creates more enemies. Sure, the pirates immediately spouted off that the U.S. would pay for it's refusal to submit. Trash always talks trash. But if I'm a pirate, or a terrorist, I have to be thinking to myself, "These damn Americans have a nasty habit of fighting back." And that's the America I love. Great job crew of the Alabama Mearsk, excellent work sharpshooters, and good call Mr. President. H.C.

LIVING A BETTER LIFE

2009-04-06T16:50:00.000-07:00

It has occurred to me lately that a lot of people out in the real world have been living a life filled with chaos and unhappiness. Financial problems, marital problems, kid problems, you name it and I've heard people complain about it. Now, I've never claimed to be a relationship guru or a financial whizkid of any kind. My thing is politics and that's usually where I like to keep my focus. However, quite often, I have people asking me for advice, (which they seldom seem to take, for reasons I'm unsure of.) Perhaps it's because I tend to not sugar-coat things or that I simply tell them things that they don't want to hear. Like, that it may be their own fault.

Despite coming from a very bad start in life (poor, broken family, abusive father, early drug abuse, etc.), I have managed to have a great life and I swear to you, if I died this very minute, I would have no regrets. I have been married now for 30 years this August (to my one and only love). I own two houses and I am financially secure despite the fact that neither me nor my wife make much money. I have three children and six grandchildren who I love very much, and who I know love me. I feel I am reasonably happy nearly all the time. All of this didn't come about by some amazing stroke of luck. No matter what your fatalist friends may tell you, happiness is not an accident. So, in order to hopefully help all of you to have a better and more fulfilling life, I have arranged a few of my favorite little "words to live by." Follow them and I will promise, your life will be better in the long run.

1) "You are the most important person you'll ever sleep with." If your not happy with who you are, you can never be truly happy. Don't depend on your inner happiness coming from some boyfriend or girlfriend, from drugs or alcohol, or from fame or success. Be a good person within yourself. I know it sounds overly simple, but knowing your an honest, good person makes it easier to take the criticism that will always come, and easier to take the falls knowing you did your best with the best of intent. No matter how it turns out. Being a good person attracts other good people and that by itself will make your life better.

2) "Live within your means." Man, a lot of you need to know this one. Shiny cars don't make you a better person, neither do fancy clothes or a big house or a new cell phone. Those things are great for showing off, but they only attract other superficial people. The grief that comes with wondering how you'll pay your bills will only make you more miserable in the end. That hole in your heart can never be filled with things.

3) "Friends are the gift you give yourself." You wouldn't give yourself a crappy gift, why surround yourself with crappy friends? A good friend cares about you and you about them. People who are fun to be around are great, but fun times end, and I would much rather have a friend that will stick around when things go bad. Things to look for in a real friend are honesty and loyalty. Real friends don't hit on your girlfriend or boyfriend the minute you leave the room. They want to see you happy.

4) "Find another good person to share your life with." A lot of people make their life miserable because they tried to make a life with someone that they thought they loved, but they really only lusted after. Looks don't last. Great sex doesn't either. It really hard to have a good life when you jumble it all up with ex-wives, ex-husbands, step kids, child support and all the things that come with one bad decision. Take your time, watch for red flags. Before you even think about having children with someone, ask yourself, "Is this someone I would want for a parent?" No one thing has made a bigger impact on my life than choosing my wife as my soul mate.

5) "Care about other people." Your not likely to hold onto that great wife or great best friend if your a selfish bastard. Other people have needs and feelings too. Try to be sensitive to their needs. A really great relationship of any sort is a give and take. Two takers can not be together very long. One giver and one taker will eventually leave one feeling very used.

6) "Always have a plan B." No matter how well you plan your life, some things will go wrong. Prepare for it. Always think ahead. I've often thought that chess is a great learning tool for life. Those that plan three moves ahead are seldom completely surprised. Keep money in the bank "just in case", never tap out all your credit, buy insurance if you have things to lose. Know what you will do if plan A fails.

7) "Practice discipline." For some strange reason, discipline has been devalued by our culture and we are all less for it. Many cultures even have rites of discipline where people learn to stand on painful pits of fire or lie on beds of nails. All that you gain in life can leave in one moment of weakness. Ask any one of a number of politicians. Find a way to practice disciplining yourself by denying yourself something you want. Use your discipline to save money or to eat good foods instead of bad. Self discipline will help you resist temptation of all sorts. Those that bend to every temptation are guaranteed a life of chaos.

8) "Learn to love." This is a lesson that will take your whole life. Learn to love the beauty of a day. Learn to love the people around you. Learn to love the innocence of children. Learn to love the earth and all the wonderful things she has to teach you. Of all the things that God has given us, none is greater than love. Only when you learn to love yourself, only when you learn to love others, and only when you learn to love life, can you truly be happy.

One of my all time favorite quote comes from Albert Einstein, "You can choose to live in a negative universe or a positive universe, but the choice is yours." Mr. Einstein hit that one right on the head. I hope that all of you will take these words to heart and try, starting today, to live in a positive universe. Several decades ago, a miserable, drug addicted, lost soul decided he would change his life by adopting a few rules to be a better person. I have never been sorry. H.C.

THE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM NO ONE WANTS

2009-03-30T16:21:00.000-07:00

One of my all time favorite talk show hosts, and a great personal inspiration, was J.P. McCarthy. He died 10 or so years ago of a rare blood disease and till this very day I miss him very much. It's strange to miss someone so much that you really didn't even know. I listened to his show every work day for years and I always loved the way he could talk to anyone with equal respect. Democrat or Republican. My daughter jokes that I could talk to a rock about dirt. If that's true, I learned it from J.P. McCarthy.

One day, after a particularly trying series of calls from listeners on polar opposite ends of an issue, J.P. paused for what seemed like a really long time. When he came back on, he said with great exasperation, "Why is it we are so prone to run to "A" or "Z" when there is so much room in the middle?"

Why, Indeed.

The Health Care issue in the United States feels like that to me. On the "A" side stands the Republicans. In their view, everything is just great the way it is now. Everyone gets care. No one is denied health care if they show up at the emergency room door. They will tell you that other countries with Universal Health Care are in shambles. People wait for months for cancer treatment and bureaucrats, not health care professionals, decide what treatment is proper. And worst of all, those of us with good health care will see our health care shrink. Frankly, most of that is horribly spun. If not a down-right lie.

On the "Z" side stands the Democrats. What they are proposing is a move toward absolute coverage for every ailment that the masses come across. Abortions-covered, sex change-covered, mental illness-covered, flea dip for Fi-Fi the Poodle-covered. That would be a disaster of monumental proportions. One only needs to look at the average person abusing SSI to see how bad this can be. Medicaid cards are treated like Gold Visa cards by some doctors. Test after test after test. I know of one young man who fought for years to get on SSI for a questionable "illness". End result? Over a million dollars on tests and then a fat $30,000 check for back pay on his SSI. To see how many will exploit a system like that, just look at what happened to Hungary.

So, there's "A" and "Z". Both utterly unacceptable.

Now, here's what I'm proposing. I'll call it "Proposal M". With Proposal M you get catastrophic health care coverage issued by the Government as long as your a legal U.S. citizen. What this means is that every man, woman, child and any liberal combination of the three, gets coverage against any major health issue that you can have. As long as you have it involuntarily. Sex change-not covered, abortion-not covered, breast enlargement-not covered, hair transplants-not covered. Also not covered are office calls or tests. Frankly, nothing is covered until it's determined that you have a major problem. What are covered are operations, cancer treatment, major life-threatening injuries, bone marrow transplants and the myriad of god-awful things that can put an uninsured person into bankruptcy.

But H.C., what about all the other things? Poor people can't afford office calls and tests! For that I would expand on our already successful state run clinics. Sure, you won't get your own doctor, sure you'll have to wait in line with smelly homeless people, but once it's determined that you have a serious illness it's back on the fast track that everyone has.

But H.C, I already have health care. Will I have to give up my doctor? My place at the front of the line? Absolutely not. You will be able to purchase health care just like you do now, only it will be way cheaper since it doesn't have to cover any of the big -ticket payouts. Anyone can purchase additional coverage. Hell, I can buy flood insurance on my home and I live on a hill! Noah would be floating by on an Ark before my basement would flood.

There are two major problems with our current system the way I see it. 1) People without coverage (usually working poor) are seeing their life savings destroyed by one major health issue. This can also happen to someone who loses their job but has too many assets to qualify for help. It should never be that someone in this country goes all the way back to square one because of a series of unfortunate events beyond their control. 2) Expensive health care coverage is making our companies less competitive in the global market. Proposal M is a solution to both those problems.

Universal Health care is a dangerous venture for any country to enter into, much less one as big and as prone to abuse as ours. Catastrophic coverage is a good way to start without destroying both our current health care system and our budget. Sure, it's a bitter pill for conservatives to swallow, of course it's not everything the Socialists are hoping for, but I for one, would be happy knowing that, no matter what happens, I'll never lose my house and everything that I've ever worked for because I lost my job and got sick or hurt. Proposal M may not be perfect, but "A" and "Z" are completely unacceptable. So, let's make J.P. McCarthy proud and show him we Americans do know there's something between "A" and "Z". Proposal M. H.C.

WHAT'S REALLY BEHIND BILL MAHER

2009-03-23T18:46:00.000-07:00

I just finished watching the movie "Religulous" written by, and starring Bill Maher. No, I didn't pay for it. I try to never contribute money to people that are purposely trying to hurt someone else. A friend of mine thought I might get a kick out of it, so he brought his copy over. In case you don't know who Bill is, Mr. Maher got his start doing stand up comedy. Like a lot of stand up comedians, he had a hard time finding his nitch. Then one day, Bill discovered something that would become his trademark; taunting religious people. The best part for Bill was, he enjoyed it, even if he didn't know why.

I'm not a religious person, so Bill's attempts to crawl under my skin with his smartzy "I'm so much more intelligent than you, cuz I don't believe in fairy tales" crap doesn't do much for me. Whether or not the Christians are following a false prophet doesn't interest me. Why the Mormons wear those "magic undies" doesn't fascinate me, and the millions of contradictions that Bill and his faithful followers find in religious documents are only mildly worth listening to. But I am very curious as to why Mr. Maher devotes so much of his life to attacking other people's beliefs.

I like religious people. There, I said it.

I like that they have a moral compass dictated by a group, not by their own individual wants and needs. I like their commitment to their family and their understanding that some things are just plain wrong. I even married a sweet Catholic girl and entertained myself for a while by going to church with her (mostly Easter and Christmas). I tried to be a follower, but hard as I tried, it just wasn't for me. I liked the morality though. I'm a bit of an "Old Testament" guy at heart. I love a story where the bad guys get theirs in the end. But the "pray on Sunday, sin on Monday" attitude kind of lost me. I like the Old God. The Great Smiter. Now religion is all about forgiveness. How can someone live a life of hurting people and then on his deathbed suddenly ask for forgiveness and get it? Not in my world. Want forgiveness? Admit your wrongs before you find out your dying, repair the damage you've done and then seriously repent from your hurtful ways. Then maybe. For the rest of you...let the smiting begin, in the smoking section.

Still, I have never felt the need to try to talk anyone out of their religion.

Why would I? If it brings them comfort during times of hardship, what's the problem, Bill? Does it really bother you that much that someone has faith in something that you personally don't believe exists? At first I thought that Mr. Maher was just making a few quick bucks on haters. If a few girls with, shall we say, lowered morality, happen to want to sleep him in the process. Hey, bonus! I really believed that was about it.

Then, about half-way through the movie, an epiphany. There sat Bill Maher, with his poor old gray-haired mother, talking about his religious upbringing, when a little chestnut fell right out of the tree. Bill apparently was crushed as a child when he found out there was no Santa. There it was staring me in the face. Bill was bitter that he was lied to and started to question everything. If there was no Santa, and no Easter Bunny, and no Tooth Fairy, then by God, there would be no God! And not just no God for Bill, no God for anyone. They would all have to have their faith crushed just like his was. Bill Maher is simply acting out his own hurt by hurting others.

Suddenly, I found myself pitying poor little Billy and his broken Christmas heart.

So, let's all do Bill Maher a favor and help him get over his pain. Everyone print off a copy of this piece and send it to Bill Maher. Maybe after seeing it for the tenth or hundredth time, Bill will finally see himself for what he really is, a selfish, bitter little man who is still carrying around his childhood pain. There is help for people like Bill Maher, but first, they must admit they have a problem. So, let's all get together and help Bill to help himself. It is, after all, the Christian thing to do. H.C.

DORA THE.....WHORA?

2009-03-19T18:19:00.000-07:00

Zoey got pregnant, Hannah Montana's posing nearly nude, Two pre-teen boys are fronting something called "The Naked Brothers Band", and now Dora the Explorer is being turned into a pre-teen tramp. If all this sounds like an effort to sexualize your 8 year old daughter or son, you'd be right on target. The last time I wrote about this horrible trend in our culture, it was a couple of university professors that we're trying to convince you that adult/pre-teen sex was perfectly O.K.. Don't believe me? Check it out.

Being the father of 3 children and the grandfather of 6 grandkids, this effort by the disgusting "progressive"arm of our media and universities makes me nauseous like no other issue. When I bring up this effort (by some) to legitimize sexualizing children, or even having sex with children, I'm usually greeted with a large degree of scepticism. My efforts to tie that movement to the current Gay Rights movement is usually met with down-right anger and accusations that my '70's experimentation has left me with less than a fully operating brain. Let me assure you, The Hippie's brain is firing on all cylinders.

Anyone that's been around for more than two decades has seen this for themselves, even if they don't know it. If you don't have any young children, or don't pay much attention to what's going on in T.V. programing lately, I suggest you take a day or two and watch Nickelodeon or any of the children's networks. Be prepared to be shocked. Eight year old boys are chasing girls and walking around with bare chests, Lazytown, a popular children's show, is so sexualized that pedophiles have set up sites to salivate over the seemingly pre-pubescent star. Your children are being taught that they should use words like "hot" or "sexy" to describe their playground playmates.

Hollywood and our media have had a tolerant attitude towards sexualizing children for some time. When Roman Polanski, a famous director, raped a 13 year-old in his hot tub (after feeding her Quaaludes), Hollywood couldn't even feign shock. In fact, they even continued to celebrate his films and defend him even as he fled to France to escape prosecution. When Woody Allen, another famous producer and star, started openly dating his own step daughter immediately after she turned 18, Hollywood embraced them both without a hint of condemnation. Every day another teacher is paraded across our T.V. screen after being caught having sex with one of her "tween" students. Is she in the orange garb and shackles typical of past male teachers caught fornicating with a child? No. She looks like she just stepped out of a day spa. Our media offers no judgement, no condemnation for having sex with her student while we paid her!

How am I connecting all this to the current Gay Rights Movement? First, let me say that it isn't gay people that I have a problem with at all. It's the activists. Note that I didn't call them "Gay Rights Advocates". These are the left-over '60's era hippies (the one's that stole our movement for their own gain) that have made their way into the arts and our schools and our universities. They are reliving their past by clinging to anything that has the word "rights" attached to it. Having justifiably worked for Civil Rights, Women's Rights, The Anti War movement and now Gay Rights, they are quickly finding themselves with no cause to fight for. And no more attention. No more adulation. No more getting laid by young impressionable people. That's the crucial point, attention. They liked to be viewed as championing for the underdog and will back anything that gets them attention. This will include the lowering of age of consent (or Young Adult Civil Rights) and adult/child sex. Once Gay Marriage is passed and gay rights are established, do you really think they'll just leave all that attention? Or will they just find another issue?

To see how right I am on this subject, simply walk through any Junior High to see how well their efforts are working. Young ladies walk around in clothes that make street-walkers look conservative and no teacher or administrator says a word. No judgement is passed because they've been taught it's wrong to judge. The media has taught our youth that their sexuality is all they have to offer. And where are our Feminists? They are deathly afraid to cross these activists because they are on the same side on issues such as Gay Rights or abortion. Rather than risk offending their supporters, they stand idly by as young women are sexualized far, far beyond anything seen in our more oppressive past. If we can't stand up for our own children when they're being dressed up for pedophiles, sexualized before they reach puberty by cartoons and 'tween pop stars, and then preyed upon by sick gray-pony-tailed academics, maybe we should stop calling ourselves "parents". We will no longer deserve the title. H.C.

IS BARNEY FRANK AS BAD AS KEN LAY?

2009-03-10T12:30:00.000-07:00

Most of you probably don't know who Rep. Barney Frank (Mass-D) is, but you should. Representative Frank heads one of the most powerful committees in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. This committee oversees the entire U.S. financial services industry, including the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries. The Committee also oversees the work of the Federal Reserve, the United States Department of the Treasury, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In short, our entire finances that are now in utter chaos.

However, I'm not blaming him for the disaster that lays at our feet. What I am blaming him for is his sunny assessment of our finances even as it was crumbling like the Roman Empire.

First, let me make one thing abundantly clear. I put the majority of the blame for our financial mess on the Republicans. In fact, I would say this is about 70% the fault of the Republicans and 30% the fault of the Democrats. The reason I say this is because throughout the lead-up to this mess, it was the Republicans that controlled Congress the vast majority of the time. Looking back through the past 7 Congresses (Congress changes every two years), the Reps controlled the House for 12 of the past 14 years! They also controlled the Senate for 10 of those 14 years and had the Presidency for the past eight. With that kind of control it's hard to believe this wouldn't be mostly your fault even if you just left it alone. During those years I believe a deal was struck between the Reps and the Dems that caused this whole mess. The deal went like this; The Democrats wanted more loans for their constituents, (I.E. minorities, poor whites and inner cites that were decaying) and the Republicans wanted deregulation of the financial sector. Since the problem was that no banks wanted to be passing out loans for high risk cities and people, the Republicans found the solution. Deregulate the industry, they give out sub-prime loans and in return they get to bundle the loans and sell them on the open market (something that wasn't allowed before). The Rep constituents get to make profit and farm-out the risk, the Dem constituents get the loans that they couldn't (and probably shouldn't) have gotten before.

Now, here's were the Democrats get their blame.

Once the Democrats found themselves back in the driving seat of Congress, do they start shouting from the highest hills that our finances are a mess? No. Barney Frank gets put into a position that oversees the entire financial services industry, and what does he do? Does he immediately sound the warning bell that all is not right in our financial house? No. Instead he does exactly what Ken Lay, the CEO of Enron, did to his stockholders...he lied. He said that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were sound even as the bricks were falling off the buildings. He knew that there would be political capital to pay by the Dems if Fannie and Freddie were exposed as unsound, so he hid that fact from the people, the press, and most importantly, from the people who owned Freddie and Fannie stock.

When we pulled out the torches and pitchforks and went hunting Ken Lay after the Enron fiasco, the luckless stockholders had lost over $60 billion dollars and a whole business went down the tubes. The reason we went after Ken Lay and his cohorts with such zeal is because of the innocent investors that lost their savings. Ken Lay's lies cost people their livelihoods. Now, compare that to what Barney Frank's lies have cost us. It's hard to put an exact figure on the amount lost, but here's what we do know. Fannie and Freddie hold a combined stake of over a trillion in mortgages. Their stock has fallen by 90% over the past year, costing investors tens of billions if not hundreds. We the taxpayers are on the hook for an estimated $200 billion and they're still asking for more.

But, before you go blaming only the Democrats for Freddie and Fannie, take a look at how they spread out their lobbying dollars.

The bottom line on all this is that while Ken Lay got what he deserved for his lying and treachery, Barney Frank has walked completely away from his role in the collapse of a giant industry that controlled nearly half of all our mortgages and contributed (if not caused) the current situation we're in. For him to stay in a position with that magnatude of power when he's already demonstrated that he can't be trusted to tell the truth is criminal. I'm calling for a full "what he knew and when he knew it" investigation into Rep. Frank and his office. Is Barney Frank as bad as Ken Lay? No. He's far worse, and he's on our payroll. H.C.

KILL CHRYSLER

2009-03-03T07:42:00.000-08:00

Now, let me see. How can I alienate all of my Michigan friends at the same time?
I know! I'll suggest closing down some Michigan auto plants! Nothing raises the hackles of a Michigander faster than threatening their high-paying shop jobs. Maybe I'll even get myself some more of those death threats that I love so much.

But, on the serious side.

Anyone that has been paying any attention at all knows that the U.S. automakers are in serious trouble. This really isn't any groundbreaking news. When I was in high school, many eons ago, my teachers were already telling us that these shop jobs were on their way out. Then in the 1980's the shops started laying off and tens of thousands of workers lost their jobs. Yet, here in Michigan, we still didn't get the message. Even Bruce Springstein, who's not the brightest guy on the planet, understands. In the 1985 song "My Hometown" he says, "these jobs are going boys, and they ain't coming back". Yet here in Michigan, we remained clueless.

Fast forward to the present, and here we are again, still not getting it. So, let me make this as simple as I possibly can; The U.S. auto market is too divided and competitive for the government to continue to subsidize three different parts of a failing industry. One of the Big Three has to die.

In the later part of last year, GM, Chrysler, and to a lesser degree, Ford, all went begging to the Bush administration for money to help them survive the vicious downturn that our country is now experiencing. The first sign of what a problem this was going to be was in the fact that the automakers raised the amount that they needed by $9 billion in just the 6 weeks of negotiations. The U.S. government then decided they were all "to big to fail" and covered them to the tune of $17.4 billion taxpayer dollars. I then predicted that they would be back for more within a couple of months and lo and behold, I was right. Move over Nostradamus. Now they (Chrysler and GM), want another $14 billion (or more) and I'm going to make another brilliant prediction-they'll be back again. The problem is, we're simply not addressing the core problem. Not enough people are buying American cars to support all three car companies. We can bail them out till 2020 and we will still have the same problem.

Then the question is; Who should we save and who should die?
No matter the answer, someone is not going to like it.

First, let's all agree that Ford isn't even in the running to be eliminated. Ford is still viable and isn't even asking to be bailed, they only wanted a line of credit-just in case. One of my chief complaints about how all these bailouts are being passed out is that we keep giving the most to the people who are performing the worst. Ford proves this point. They get no subsides because they are the most successful. We give more money to GM than to Chrysler simply because they are further in debt. This is rewarding bad behavior and the golden rule of rewards is, "Whatever you reward, you will get more of."

However, on the flip side is the argument that GM is bigger than Chrysler and therefore needs it more. By the numbers, GM employs 230,000 workers while Chrysler only employs an estimated 100,000 (it's next to impossible to get an accurate estimate on Chrysler's workforce) This in and of itself says the impact of a failing GM would be harder for the economy to absorb.

But I have an even bigger problem with bailing Chrysler.

Unlike publicly-traded GM, Chrysler is an LLC (Limited Liability Company). It is owned by the investment firm Cerberus. What this means is that Chrysler is privately owned and therefore doesn't report it's assets and debts in the way that GM has to. This is one of the reasons that it's so hard to put an exact figure on their employees, executive pay, liabilities and debts. In fact, we're pretty much taking their word that they're in debt at all. Cerberus, which owns Chrysler, has it's own assets that it refuses to put into Chrysler. That raises the question, if Cerberus doesn't think it's a good investment to pump more money into Chrysler, why should the taxpayer?

The bottom line here is this; There just isn't enough market left to support all three American carmakers. Eliminating one creates more market for the remaining two. Since the American taxpayer is only going to tolerate so many bailouts, I think it's imperative that we focus on something that will more likely work on two automakers than directing our resources and efforts on the less likely prospect of saving all three. If we all think about this logically, there can only be one answer to the problem of what to do with our struggling automakers. Chrysler must die. H.C.

LIGHTENING UP A LITTLE

2009-03-02T11:54:00.000-08:00

A little something from my favorite comedian who just so happens to be from my hometown of Flint, Michigan. Ladies and gentlemen (insert drum roll) Bryan McCree

DEMONSTRATIONS AND SHOES GREET HILLARY IN INDONESIA

2009-02-23T12:02:00.000-08:00

It's 3:00 am and your friendly neighborhood Hippie can not sleep. Maybe it's the stress of following all that goes on in this world , but occasionally I find myself wide awake in the middle of the night scanning through the news channels brought to me by my satellite dish. While flipping threw the stations, I caught the very end of a story on Hillary Clinton's trip to Obama's boyhood home of Jakarta, Indonesia. Like most people, I haven't paid much attention to Hill's trip because it was assumed that it would be a friendly venue. After all, it's Barack's boyhood home and the people over there celebrated Obama's victory as much as the American Democrats did. Surely this would be just a lovefest.

But that wasn't the case.

Much to my surprise, there were demonstrations and a small riot. I was blown away. Then they showed a group of people pelting a effigy of Hillary with shoes. Not just one or two, but a cache of shoes that would make Emelda Marcos proud. I sat up and my jaw dropped, "Wow, the press is going to have a field day with this!" I thought to myself. quickly I scanned the other networks. Nothing, nothing, and nothing. "Well," I thought, "Tomorrow I'll catch up on all the details."

The next morning I went to work trying to find out why they were throwing shoes at President Obama's Secretary of State. Through the Web I surfed, to no avail. "What the Hell?" I began to ponder. I couldn't find anything anywhere. Finally, I found a story out of Jakarta itself. With the help of Babelfish (a great site for translating and one of my little tricks) I managed to find the story. I wasn't dreaming, they really were throwing shoes! A little more work and I unearthed a story out of Canada on it but still no major network out of the U.S.. Now a couple of questions occurred. If it was such a big story when G.W. Bush had two shoes thrown at him by an Iraqi Journalist, why is it a non-story when Hillary has demonstrations and a cache of shoes thrown at her effigy in a country that is supposed to be a friendly venue? And why were they throwing shoes at her effigy, (supposedly a huge insult in Muslim countries)?

The first question is easy. Our media has been on a day and night quest to destroy G.W. for at least the past 6 years. Not that he didn't help them by being one of the worst Presidents in history. They used the shoethrowing occasion to further slander Bush in a way that only the Left-bias media can. Hillary on the other hand, is the left's female martyr and they are not going to say one negative thing about her unless forced to. But why did the demonstrators hurl the shoes? I have to thank my friend Andre for the answer. Andre reminded me that the U.S. press, while doing Hillary's dirtywork, had released a photo of Barack in Kenya dressed in Muslim regalia. Another story had also been leaked about his attending a Madrassa (school) in Indonesia as a child. Hillary had tried to make the connection between Barack's Muslim ties in Indonesia with his being a closet Muslim. Which she made sound like a very bad thing. For the law-abiding, peaceful Muslims in Indonesia, this must have been quite an insult.

For all of my readers; This is a good example of the kind of bias our media demonstrates nearly every day. I though this would be a great time for all of you to ask yourself a question that you should be asking yourself a lot. Why are some stories huge while others are ignored? Is my media fair? The real lesson here is that even if your one of the few people who has a broad range of media outlets, you never have enough. H.C.

W.W.R.D.

2009-02-16T11:22:00.000-08:00

Right-wing conservative talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham and Shawn Hannity have a bad habit of referring to President Obama as "The Messiah". It's a tongue-in-cheek reference to how Liberals believe Barack to be their savior. Then, usually in the same segment, they will make a reference to "What Would Reagan Do?" ala the popular Christian phrase "What Would Jesus Do?". I guess the message is it's O.K. to associate Jesus with a Republican, but not a Democrat. So, since the Reps believe their Messiah has all the answers, I thought it might be worth our time to look into "What Reagan Would Do?"

According to the Messiah Reagan, the quickest route out of our financial mess is tax cuts for the wealthy, lower prime interest rates and less regulation on Big Business. Apparently, all we have to do is allow Wall Street to create even more false assets and financial bubbles and POOF! all our troubles will be over. This is a tried and true solution in their eyes. Obama's consumer-sided economics therefore seems to them to be doomed to failure.

I have a slightly different take.

First of all, I believe that economic downturns are cyclic in nature and will turn around pretty much by themselves. The Republicans have simply been taking credit for something that would have happened anyway. It's human nature to overspend when we believe times are good (because we believe they will never end), and to panic and shed all our luxuries when times are bad. This is also true in the corporate world. Most successful corporations believe that they will continue to prosper and therefore spends more than they should, hires more than they should and expands more than they should. When times are hard, they withdraw to survive. They shed those extra employees, cut back on those luxuries, stop that planned expansion and become a leaner running machine. The leaner machine makes less profit, but it needs less money to make that profit. Soon the profit is enough to take back some of the luxuries and the process starts over.

Now, I know I've been a tad negative about our economy lately. And for damn good reason. However, there are some silver-linings to consider. Since the last major recession was in the waning years of Jimmy Carter and supposedly cured by the Holy Ronald Reagan in the early 1980's, I thought it would do us some good to look back and see if there were any lessons to be learned.

The recession of the late 1970's to early '80's was the worst times I have ever personally seen in our economy. When it started I was a young carpenter who was making a good wage and on the path to becoming a full-fledged union journeyman carpenter. Journeyman carpenters made big bucks, lived in big houses and usually ended up being well-off contractors who sat on their fat-asses barking out commands to little wannabes like me. I hoped to end up one of them. Within two years of Jimmy Carter taking office, I had lost my job and was working at Burger King. By the end off Jimmy's term, I was on welfare. Carter's price controls, inflation controls and his attempts to control lending through the Federal Reserve lead to stagflation, a deadly combination of rising unemployment, interest rates and inflation. At the climax of this recession in 1982, inflation was at 13.5%, unemployment was at 10.8% and the prime interest rate was at 21%. Compare these numbers to our current numbers of; prime rate=0% to .25%, inflation for 2008=3.85% and unemployment at 7.6%. It's pretty easy to see that things aren't nearly as bad.

So let's look at the Reagan solutions and see if they can be effectively applied.

First off, there is nothing we can do to the prime interest rate to help. The rate set by the Feds for lending money to banks and other lending institutions is at an all-time low and short of paying institutions to take our money, there's nothing left to do. This is especially disturbing since controlling the prime interest rate is one of the major tools we have used effectively to lessen the impact of past recessions. Secondly, I doubt there is a single person of any consequence in the U.S. ballsy enough to say at this moment in history that we need less regulation when it's the dismantling of regulation that got us into this mess to begin with. This is a prime example of one of my two chief complaints about our two main political parties. Democrats trust despots and dictators too much and Republicans trust CEO's and Wall Street too much. Thirdly, Tax cuts. On this one I'll agree with the WWRD crowd. Putting money back in the pockets of the people is the surest way to stimulate the economy. However, I think it's time we tried middle class tax cuts instead of upper class tax cuts. President Obama has the right idea but he didn't put enough bite in it. In his effort to be exactly the kind of Democrat that drove me out of the party the first time, Barack and his fellow Dems have loaded the Stimulus Package with all kinds of Progressive Ideology and hand-outs to the poorest among us. Morally, I have no problem, but this is handing money to charity and ideology while your in danger of losing your house. To be effective, this Stimulus needed bigger tax cuts than the predicted $8 a week. Green technology subsidies, hand-outs to States, funding for liberal causes, and all kinds of throw-ins have reduced the effectiveness of the tax cuts to almost nill.

In short, take heart, people. I believe that the economy will turn around even if we did nothing. The question is how long and how bad. Some of the ideas that Barack has thrown out there have some merit. I'm very happy that it looks like any additional handouts to the financial institutions have come to an end. Obama's right to direct his attention to the core problem of house valuation and foreclosure although I promise a scorching article if he follows through with his plan to bail out those in default on the backs of those who made sound and rational financial decisions. Rewarding bad behavior is wrong on Wall Street and wrong on Main Street. In the end I have to admit I'm not sure if any of these stimulus packages are going to do any good, but you can rest assured both sides will try to take the credit when the turnaround comes. As for "What Would Reagan Do?", after realizing two of his main tactics for saving an economy are shot, I'm guessing he would scream "Tax Cuts!" but probably not for you and me. H.C.

HOUSE OF CARDS

2009-02-05T15:30:00.000-08:00

O.K. I'm scared. It's not that I scare all that easy. I've been at the wrong end of a gun more than once and I've had to use my own guns to fend off criminals twice in my life. I've been beaten up by several people at one time. I've watched people die. I've seen childbirth three times (more scary than being at the end of a gun.) and I've seen my share of hard times. But I've never seen anything that scared me as much as what I've been witnessing over this past year.

What's got me so spooked is watching my government, a government that pledges itself to be "by the people, for the people" abandon it's creed for greed and ideology.

It started with something I saw once before in the late 1980's during the S&L Scandal. Corporate greed and corruption run amok. With the destruction of safeguards designed to protect the people, thieving bastards sold worthless bonds to unsuspecting victims. My government, the people we entrusted to protect us from the powerful, sold out it's virtues to the highest bidder. The end result was 160 billion dollars funneled off to a few shady insiders. The main villain was a man named Charles Keating, and he, by himself, stole nearly a billion. But Keating was a smart man, he didn't keep all of it to himself. He spread it around to groups and people like the Christian Coalition, the Vatican, and even Mother Teresa. With the help of other powerful people with the same ideology, he managed to keep a healthy part of his theivery and only do a paltry 16 months in jail.The punishment was weak and the rewards were too great. I assumed the American people would never allow this to happen again.

I was wrong.

The mistake we made is that we didn't get to the root cause. The overwhelming influence of money on politics. Sure, there were token attempts like the recent McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. Unfortunately, it only tried to limit the effectiveness of grassroots organizations like the NRA and the Service Employees International Union but left the door open to Corporate money bundlers and 527 organizations who's agendas are their own ideological or monetary gain. The fact that McCain/Feingold failed to restrict their influence is in the record amounts being raised.

With this path laid out for huge sums of money to be funneled into the hands of Congress, corporations and advocacy groups struck a deal. Deregulation in return for access to money for people who couldn't afford the loans. Shady loans were given out, then bundled and sold. Refinancing created a stream of money to people who believed the value of their house was skyrocketing. New cars were bought along with laptops, cellphones, x-boxes and every luxury a person could think of. Even people who were in "poverty" drove new lease cars and owned computers. Local governments played along and over valued the houses in return for higher property taxes. Mortgage companies sold and resold the risky loans for a quick buck with no concern for tomorrow. The stockholders raked in the record profits. CEO's wrote themselves fat contracts with golden parachutes and since everyone was gaining, no one cared.

But it was a house of cards. We spent tomorrow's money today and soon it became tomorrow, so we borrowed and borrowed until paying it back became unlikely, if not impossible. And the bubble burst.

Now, we find ourselves in our day of reckoning. And the answer is not taking our medicine for our indiscretions, or paying down our debt. The answer it seems, is to borrow even more. Trillions more. This time from our children's future. The companies who acted the most irresponsible are using their money strings on our puppet politicians to get more and more money on our future's credit card. We reward the bad actors while ignoring the less powerful responsible actors. We assure that the companies who are "to big to fail" survive even as they cut their payrolls, go on junkets, and flat out run off with the cash. Small companies who can't afford the lobbyists die, guaranteeing the big companies will be even bigger and harder to let fail. Unemployment grows and with it the dreams of the average person is destroyed to assure the future of the people who created this atrocity to begin with. Our politicians, fat on greed and their own ideology, can't seem to resist spending on pet projects even in the face of a Depression. The working class has been forsaken. Like a giant game of Monopoly, the end is near and the average guy can't stop landing on someone else's property. A vicious cycle has started. We bailout the select few while the rest lay off people. The more people lose their jobs, the less they have to spend. The less they spend, the worse companies do. The worse they do, the more they pump lobbyist money into politicians for more bailouts. The more we bail them out the further we go into debt and the dimmer the future is for everyone except the big companies, lobbyists and politicians.

Yes, my friends. I'm scared. H.C.

"NOW, BEG FOR YOUR LIFE."

2009-01-22T10:12:00.000-08:00

I'm going to warn everyone up front. You may find this story disturbing, but it is absolutely true to the best of my memory. I would also like to say that I have several good friends in law enforcement and I do not believe the actions of the police officers in this story in any way reflect the integrity of the average cop-on-the-beat. Due to the large amount of stories I have read lately on overzealous police action, including the recent Oscar Grant case, I thought it would be a good time to relate one of my own experiences. Remember, we judge people here individually. Not by race, religion, gender, political affiliation, sexual preference, appearance, or by the job they hold.

It was the very beginning of the summer of 1974 when I heard the horn of a '68 Chevy Impala in my driveway. To my surprise, the smiling faces of two of my friends, Mike Trench and Doug Bernard shown from the front seat. Doug was one year older than me and Mike and therefore had gotten his driver license a year earlier than either of us. This was a big event. Until now, we had depended on our parents or brothers to chauffeur us around. Doug was the first among my friends to get his license and to us this meant the opportunity to cruise for girls. Something that was a little hard from the backseat of your mom's car or from the seat of your Schwinn Bike.

I gathered up my gear complete with a half-pint of Southern Comfort and a fresh quarter ounce of weed I had scored from one of my brother's friends. This was going to be sweet. It was the first real weekend after school had let out and with a car, liquor and weed, it promised to be a great night. I ran out the door yelling to my mom that I would be gone for the night and would be spending the night at Mike's house. Sprinting, I practically flew into the backseat. "What is up, my brothers?" I shouted. "Are you guys ready for a night of decadence, wild women and sin?"I questioned. "You couldn't get a girl with backstage passes to a Stones concert." my main man Mike snickered. "Yeah? Well, I got your mom with only a five dollar bill." I shot back. Doug chuckled in a way that always reminded me of someone much, much, older. "Where we headin' first?" I asked while playfully yanking on Mike's ponytail. "We thought we'd go to Haskell Parking lot and see if anyone's hanging around." answered Doug. "Sounds good, let's roll." I said as Doug skillfully backed out of my driveway.

I broke out my bag and started rolling a joint while me and Mike mentally jousted about our looks, our style, our family and anything else we could think of..nothing was safe. As we pulled into the parking lot, smoke from the joint had already begun filling the car. "Empty!" Mike said, stating the obvious. "Maybe everyone's just not here yet." I offered. "Maybe there's a keg party and we didn't get invited cuz we hang out with you." Mike countered. " Maybe they're gangbanging your sister and that's why we're not invited." I replied. "Sheesh, that was harsh." Doug laughed as we pulled to a stop in the parking lot. "I'd hate to hear how you guy's talk about my family when I'm not around." "We wouldn't do that." Mike answered, looking back at me laughing.

Through all the joking and smoke, none of us noticed the police cruiser making it's way through the only entrance to the parking lot. In fact, it was only when they pulled directly behind us that we suddenly saw them. "Shit! Cops!" Doug half yelled and half whispered. All of us started "crotching" our bags and wiping any evidence from the seats. The cops circled like sharks around the car, each taking a side. The cop on my side knocked on the window next to my head. I slowly rolled it down hoping the extra couple of seconds would help the smoke dissipate. It didn't. Smoke rolled out like a scene out of a Cheech and Chong movie. "Evening Sir." I offered. "Is there something wrong?" he leaned back and adjusted his gun belt. His crew-cut and '70's porn mustache accented a face that had not even a hint of humor on it. "Let's have it hippie!" he growled. Still not quite grasping the situation, my smart-ass side responded. "Have what, Sir?" "You know damn well what, punk. The pot!" he said, becoming increasingly irritated. "Gee officer." I continued, still not understanding the gravity of the situation. "You missed it. We just finished our last joint."

Stepping back slightly he said, "I'm giving you one last chance, give up the pot or I'm hauling someone's parent's car into the pound."

With that, Doug reached into his pants and pulled out his bag and handed it to the officer. I thought, "Fine. Doug's busted." But then he turned to me and said, "Give him your's too." I couldn't believe it. Why? The cop already had what he wanted. "Whatthefuck?" I stammered. At that exact moment I felt a hand on the back of my long hair and I was literally pulled through the window. In a second I was on the ground with a hard knee in my back. The cop was now rifling through my pockets and shoving his hands down the front of my pants. "Not so smart now, are ya hippie?" he hissed. After pulling my bag out, he cuffed my hands behind my back and pushed me against the back of his cruiser. "You boys best be leaving now if you know what's good for you." his partner told my friends. Watching their car leave left me suddenly feeling incredibly vulnerable. Mr. Crew-cut pressed his body against mine and whispered, "We're all alone now punk."

"Fine" I said. "I'm busted. I want to exercise my right to a lawyer." They both laughed. "Yeah, we'll get right on that." Crew-cut's partner said. With that Crew-cut lifted my cuffed hands up and pulled me away from the cruiser. He opened the door to the back seat and placed his hand back on my hair. "Watch your head." he advised and then smashed my face into the top of the door opening. Blood began gushing from above my eye. "I told you 'watch your head'. You don't listen well, do ya boy." He then pushed me into the backseat and slammed the door. Through the window I could see the two cops arguing. Crew-cut was angry and was shouting down his partner. I didn't like the looks of this. They both got back into the cruiser and without saying a word began pulling out of the parking lot. "Look, I was a smart-ass, I admit." I offered. "I got my ass whupped and I deserved it." I continued. "How about we call it even?" I negotiated through blood-blurred eyes. "Not this time, hippie." Crew-cut snarled.

We were not heading toward the downtown police station and I knew it. I began to panic. "Where are we going?" I asked. " Sit down and shut the fuck up!" Crew-cut screamed. "Or so help me God I'll kill you right here!" "Look..." I started. Crew-cut slammed on the brakes. "Did you not hear me you stupid fucking piece-of-shit?" Crew-cut screamed. I put my head down. Crew-cut started driving faster. Street after street went by as my mind raced. Soon they turned down Mackin street by Northern High School. I knew this street. It dead-ended at the highway. There was nothing there. "Look Sir, I know I was an asshole. I've learned my lesson. You don't need to do this." I begged. "Shut the fuck up!" he screamed again. The cruiser stopped at the dead end. Only a large field covered the last hundred yards. "No one will hear me if I scream." I thought.

Crew-cut unbuckled his seat belt. "No one will hear the shot over the traffic." he told his partner as he opened the door. "You can't let him do this." I cried to his partner. "I'm only 15!" Crew cut reached into the back seat and yanked me out by my hair. The next few minutes is a blur of being dragged...kicked...punched.. and cursed. When we reached the middle of the field he pushed me to the ground and placed his foot on my back. It got really quite for a moment. It was as if time had stood still. The only sound was the traffic and my own sobs. Suddenly I heard the unsnapping of his holster. Crew-cut put his knee on my back and began uncuffing me. "Can't have you thrashing around with the cuffs on, it might leave a mark." he said. Then he cocked the hammer of his service revolver back and placed it on the base of my neck. "Now, beg for your life." he commanded.

Through tears, I sobbed and pleaded with him not to kill me. I told him I was only a kid. I told him my mother needed me. I told him I was really a good person, that I would be better. And then I just cried.

Slowly he stood up. I heard him put his gun back in his holster. I shook with uncontrollable fear. He said, "If you ever tell anyone about this I will hunt you down." Then he kicked me...and...finally..he left.

I laid there for a long time after I heard the cruiser rumbling down the dirt road. I crawled through the grass until I reached a group of small pine trees and then slowly, shaking, I stood up to look around. All I saw was stillness. The car lights went one by one down the highway. No birds, no crickets, just the hum of cars. "What if he comes back? I thought. For a good five minutes I just stood there, afraid to move. Slowly, I started making my way back to the road. Only then did I start to notice how much my body hurt. I wiped my sleeve across my face and the blood shown bright red in the moonlight. As I started down Mackin road, a car pulled out of a vacant lot. "He's back." I thought. I turned to run but the lights didn't look like a cruiser. I started waving my arms to get their attention. "I'm going to make it" I thought.

The car pulled closer and I realized it was Doug's Impala. I ran up to the car and jumped in the back seat. "Go" I commanded as I tucked my head down. "What the hell happened?" Mike asked. "We saw them roughing you up as we pulled away. We waited around the corner and then followed them. Why did he drag you out into that field? You look like hell, what did he do to you?" I told them the whole story. They wanted me to report them but I felt like I had no one to report them to. Cops protect other cops, I reasoned. I was never able to fully trust a cop again.

Some years later, I was watching a young black man beat up by the police right on my T.V. His name was Rodney King. Someone had video taped the beating. The cops were later arrested and tried and convicted. While some of my white friends bemoaned the arrest and tried to defend the white cops mostly because of the black/white nature of the media coverage, I secretly rooted for the blacks. When the conviction came back, part of me screamed with joy, while part of me cried through the memories I thought I had long ago buried. I still have a hard time shaking that feeling of begging for my life, it's something you never forget. Even though I know this kind of thing still happens, I also know that because of one man named George Holiday, who thought enough to film something that he knew wasn't right, we're all a little safer. Because of his actions and the actions of other people like him, bad cops are a little more nervous now than they were in the past. Somehow, that makes me feel a little better. H.C.

BUSH PUNTS IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROBLEM

2009-01-20T04:33:00.000-08:00

As I write this piece, the U.S. is busy inaugurating it's first black president. I guess I probably should be writing about what a monumental day this is in history and what a proud day it is for both our country and for our African-American population who have fought so hard and come so far. the problem is; that piece is being written everywhere and I don't believe you people come to my site to hear yet another version. So I'll simply say that it is an incredible day and congratulations to everyone who fought so hard to make this happen.

Now, on to something that is far less covered.

Back in July, your friendly neighborhood Hippie predicted that Israel would be attacking Iran's nuclear installations soon. My prediction since then has been that it would happen before Barack Obama took office. On that, I was wrong. My thinking was that Israel needed the codes necessary to fly over Iraq and that they would rather try to get them from G.W. than from Barack. On that, it appears I was correct. President Bush announced the other day that Israel approached his administration near the end of last year with the idea of taking out Iran's nuclear program. The stunning part, at least for me, was that G.W. turned them down.

The flaw in my thinking was that I didn't consider the implications on Bush's legacy. G.W. has very little that he can point to as successes in his terms. Pretty much there are only two; first, that he kept us safe since 9/11 and second, that he has turned the Iraq War into pretty much a success after it being a long drawn out failure. It now appears Bush wasn't willing to give up one of them for his Jewish friends. Had Israel attacked Iran, we would most likely be looking at far more Iranian sponsored attacks in Iraq. The Shite clerics, many of them with strong Iranian ties, would have backed away from their cooperation with the American forces. The last thing G.W. would want in his final days is a resurgence in the insurgency.

So what now?

Well, I still believe an attack by Israel on Iran is inevitable with or without American cooperation. Israel is in the final stretch of their election, which is held in February of 2009, and as I've said before, security is the only real issue in Israeli politics. In an effort to thwart any criticism of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Kadima Party, Olmert is taking steps to demonstrate that he is the one to protect Israel from the many growing threats in the Middle East. This is being demonstrated in the most recent incursion into the Gaza Strip against Hamas. The two main concerns the Israeli people have is; the rockets that are raining down from Gaza and the nuclear threat from Iran. Prime Minister Olmert would love to be the one to snuff out both those threats before the election.

In the near future, I predict that Obama will have to deal with the resulting attack on Iran. I still believe that it will happen, the question is only when. Perhaps it's better that it will happen under President Obama. God knows the press both here and overseas will be far kinder to Obama than they would be to an out-going G.W.. Barack's commitment to Israel will be put on trial and so will the overseas love affair with our new President. Enjoy your the moment President Obama, you deserve it. Tomorrow the fun starts. H.C.

OBAMA'S BIG, BIG, MISTAKE

2009-01-12T03:13:00.000-08:00

Up until this moment, I've been fairly happy with President-elect Barack Obama's choices on his cabinet (even though it's littered with ex-Clintonites), and his goals for this country. However, there is one area where I couldn't disagree with his policies and appointments more. That area is National Security. Barack is setting himself up to fail big-time in this area. Let me see if I can explain it in a way that makes sense to all of you...even those on the left.

The reason I'm singling out those of you on the left is because your the fraction that generally opposes overseas internment (I apologize for using the left's verbage), the Guantanamo prison camp and coerced interrogation (you'll recognize the last one by the term "torture"). I believe there is something you need to understand about human nature.

All of you will continue to be staunch supporters of Civil Rights over security...until something horrible happens to you or someone you love. With very few exceptions, as hard as it is for you to believe, if someone close to you gets killed, raped or otherwise violated, you will throw your support of rights out the window. When your child disappears and someone saw the registered child-molester down the street talking to him/her last, you will be all for torturing the living shit out of him until he tells you where your child is, whether he has your child or not. When we humans get scared, no matter the political persuasion, we don't care about rights. That's just a fact. For example, after 9/11 we all demanded action to make us safe again, and rights were not even considered. The vote on the Patriot Act was 98-1-1 with only one Democrat voting against it. Sorry Dems, but fear took precedence over rights and it will again.

Barack Obama has now caved into the left's stand on these issues and it's going to cost him dearly. For Republicans that have been looking for a way to bring down this so-far Teflon President, the answer is now merely patience. Barack has already promised to close Gitmo (although he now says it won't be within 100 days). Even though he doesn't really know what to do with the suspected terrorists once he closes it. The left wants to give them full access to our judicial system- that's going to be a disaster. Most of them have already had their rights violated in one way or another and just like someone who wasn't read their Miranda Rights, a lot of them will walk. With the removal of coerced interrogation, as supported by Obama's choice to head the CIA, ex-Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, very few of them will talk at all. With their right to remain silent intact, most of them will remain so. Whether or not this will produce more or less actual actionable intelligence is going to be a mute point. The perception will be that it might have, and perception in politics is more important than reality.

Let me explain it this way; So far in the argument, the left has held the higher moral ground. Whether or not we are safer because of G.W.'s policies in the War on Terror is theoretical. Some argue that all these policies have done is inflame the people that already hate us and turn our friends against us. They also argue that we would be just as safe without these policies. That is also theoretical. Whether these policies are helping or hurting is hard to figure out. The fact that we are acting in a way that violates some people's rights, or that we are, in some instances, using extreme measures, is not theoretic. Therefore, it's the fact that we violate people's rights vs. the theoretic notion that it's the policies that have made us safe. The left wins. Now, the one thing that the Reps can point to is that we haven't been attacked since 9/11. That's a fact for their side. If we get attacked again, the argument by the Reps will be 1) We didn't get attacked on Bush's watch (fact) and 2)We did get attacked on Barack's watch (fact). No matter how theoretic the effect of each man's methods, those facts will remain. If Barack changed nothing, he would be safe. Insulated by the same policies. With the changes he's making, people would naturally come to the conclusion that it must be the policies (as that's all that has changed) that have caused us to be more vulnerable. Remember, when people get scared, the value of rights goes out the window.

I don't want to see our country get attacked and I don't want to see President Obama take the blame for something that may, or may not, be his fault. But one thing is for certain, if these changes take place and we get hit big time, the Republicans will be using that issue to propel themselves right back into the majority and into the Presidency in 2012. So, I'm giving you fair warning Barack, because I like you. Stop changing our methods against terrorism to appease your friends on the left and pacify the mamby-pambies in Europe. This may make you more popular, but it will end up being the biggest mistake of your presidency if things go wrong. H.C.

YIKES!

2009-01-09T12:31:00.000-08:00

I don't usually do the whole racist cop/ social examples thing. I like to leave that to my friends like Andre and Malik who speak to it far better than me. However, minus the race angle, this video and story makes me sick to my stomach. Sometimes, in the heat of situations, I find myself sympathetic to police and the crap they have to deal with. But not for this cop. This happened over New Years in Oakland, California to a young man named Oscar Grant, my sympathies to his family, this is unexcusable murder...plain and simple.

BARACK THE MAGIC NEGRO?

2009-01-03T04:56:00.000-08:00

My parents raised me with manners. In fact, it's still common to hear me say "Sir" or "Ma'am" when I'm talking to my elders or to people above me in social stature. I don't find it demeaning. People in general, I believe, deserve respect. At least until they demonstrate to me that they don't deserve it. I don't need any legislation, I don't need to be censured, I damn sure don't need any censorship. I believe I should be able to speak my mind about anyone or anything and people that disagree with me can freely judge if I'm out of line or not. I do try to do it with some element of class. Though I'm not always sure I succeed.

So, when I read about Republican House Representative Chip Saltsman giving away a comedic CD by Comedian Paul Shaklin in his Christmas gift package to fellow Republicans that included parodies such as "Barack the Magic Negro" my reaction was, "What an ass!" Nothing more, nothing less. However, the resulting condemnation by the Main Stream Media and the blogosphere got me thinking that there was something fundamentally bias about the way this was being handled. Oddly enough, Peter, Paul and Mary, who wrote the song "Puff the Magic Dragon" didn't even have any objections to "Barack the Magic Negro"on their website.

For the past nearly 8 years, I have heard George W. Bush called some of the most God-awful, disrespectful names by my University colleagues, comedians, commentators and the MSM. He's been compared to Hitler, Stalin and Charles Manson. The media laughed out loud when Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez called Bush "Diablo" and commented that the podium where G.W. was just standing "Smelled of sulfur". They damn near applauded (some even did) when an Iraqi journalist threw a pair of shoes at him. Comedian Bill Maher gets his over-the-top disrespectful videos replayed all over the Internet by the Bush Haters who feel they have the right to compare G.W. to any one of histories worst villains, to animals, or to human waste. And yet there was no condemnation by the MSM.

There seems to be a real double standard here.

The rules on President-elect Barack Obama seem to reflect the rules that we have established in society in general. One set of rules for white males, and a different set of rules for everyone else. Already the press has come out hard and strong against Obama being compared to a monkey (which has become the standard caricature of George Bush), any swipes at his intelligence (even to the point of it being wrong to say he's "articulate") plus any references to his hygiene, his race, his color, his religion, his looks, his speech, his middle name, and on and on and on. In fact, it appears that the only thing you can say about Obama that won't be roundly criticized by the MSM is how wonderful he is. That's plain old wrong. And this is coming from a guy who voted for Obama.

The standard line that is used to defend this obvious hypocrisy is that it's different for minorities. White males have never had to be called a "nigger" so they shouldn't use the word. (Although I've often wondered if it's O.K. for us to call some of our fellow white males, "wiggers") Women have been oppressed throughout history and have special sensitivities to being called a "bitch" or a "ho". (Except, of course, by black rappers and hip-hop artists. Then it's O.K.)

The problem I have with all of this is less about hypocrisy, and more about censorship.

Censorship is power. Plain and simple. Picture that you and me didn't much like one another, much like our two political parties. Now picture that you could say anything, and I mean anything, negative about me to the public, but I could not say a single negative thing about you. You could be the worst human being ever and I could be a reincarnation of Ghani and the public would think you were the Saint. In our political spectrum, this gives our leaders immunity against any criticism of their policies or actions, no matter how egregious. This is not how you want our government to operate. Secondly, as much as I personally disagree with the politics of using derogatory language and comedy on our leaders by our entertainers (I believe it lowers other nation's view of them), I respect their right to do so. I myself, have taken a cheap shot or two at some of them. Strictly for comedic purposes, of course. It's not all a negative thing anyway. There is something to be said for self deprecation. It shows that you can take a joke, even when it's on you, and most people respect that.

In the next 4 years your going to hear a lot of howling by the press over the way President Barack Obama is handled. Anytime Obama is criticized or parodied, the MSM is going to rush to his defense. Sure, the right-wing radio commentators will still have their say, (if they're not silenced by the (Un) Fairness Doctrine), but they only preach to their choir anyway. That's going to have very little effect on the general public. Here in Michigan, we elected our first female Governor ever and she has been a complete disaster by any measure. Despite this fact, the press has gone out of their way to not criticize her and to defend her. The result has been the worst state economy in the U.S.. Fair is fair. If your a bad leader, black or white or brown. Man or woman. You should be judged on the job you do, not defended simply because your the first this or that. Criticizing our leadership is the way that we, the people, keep them in line. It keeps them from doing anything that the lobbyists ask. If President Obama isn't treated exactly the same as he would be if he were a white male, his administration will forever be tainted with accusations of bias no matter how it turns out . And bias it will be. H.C.

IS IT TIME FOR "TRICKLE-UP" ECONOMICS?

2008-12-26T05:44:00.000-08:00

Ronald Wilson Reagan is generally credited with coming up with the phrase "Trickle Down Economics" but it was actually coined by humorist Will Rodgers decades before. The Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman is also well known for being a proponent of this style of economics, which is based in deregulation and advancing the interest of companies verses the people. The theory goes like this; If the richest among us do better, then some of that wealth will "trickle down" to all of us through job creation and advancement. In theory, I would agree with that. After all, jobs are not created by the poor, they are created by the entrepreneurs, the risk takers among us, who invest their fortunes and thereby create products and jobs for all of us. The problem is that I view CEO's much like Dictators. Without regulation, they will all gravitate toward whatever benefits themselves the most with little regard for the future, the environment, or anything else. Trickle Down theory has been put to the test lately as the American taxpayer has shelled out billions to companies, make that over a trillion, in bailouts, bridge loans, help, investment, whatever you want to call it. The problem is, these companies are not "trickling" the money down. What they are doing instead is using the money as an insulator against the tough times ahead rather than loaning the money out or investing in new ideas or products. You can hardly blame them. Loaning money out to people who, in great likelihood, will out of a job next year is a hard sell when you can sit on the money and weather the storm. But isn't that why we gave them the money in the first place?

The TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) was passed hurriedly through Congress to stem the panic that had set upon Wall Street. Credit markets had frozen as financial institutions began to realize the extent of the downturn. Without credit, homes could not be purchased, cars couldn't be bought, appliances couldn't be sold and an economic death spiral had begun. Money had to be injected into the system quickly to prevent a total meltdown and as much as I hate to say it, I had to support it. In the rush to get money into the system however, not enough restrictions were put on the billions that were handed out. The end result is; the money we hoped to put in the people's hands is now being used to right accounting books and insulate the companies against more loss. This does very little to help our problem. Perhaps now is the time to try a new approach.

The numbers involved here are staggering to say the least.

To put this in perspective, a billion seconds ago I wasn't even alive, and I'm 48 years old. That's how big a number a billion is. The amount now handed over to the Treasury and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is well over one trillion dollars, or said another way, over a thousand billions. Some theorize that it may end up topping $7 trillion before this is all said and done. A huge sum to be sure.

What else could be done with this kind of money? Here's a few thoughts.

The United States has approximately 50 million mortgages on file (estimates range from 44 million to 50 million). If you took the one trillion dollars already allocated, and divided it among the people who owe the mortgages, you could give every single one of them $400 off their bill per month for over 4 years! Not just the ones that made bad investments or selfish choices, every single one of them. Hard to believe that wouldn't stimulate the economy and stem foreclosures. To date, hardly any money has been sent to the consumer. The American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act gives a $7,500.00 interest free loan to new home buyers, but that money won't start hitting the hands of the consumer until they fill out their 2007 tax forms. The Bush Stimulus package sent out $600 to each taxpayer (and lesser amounts to some people who pay no taxes) in an effort to stimulate buying, but that was a drop in the bucket for people who were several times more than that behind on their debts. Refinancing through lowered interest rates (now around 5% despite the Federal Rate at near 0%) has helped a little but financial institutions are creating a huge spread (5%) out of fear of future job losses. That's simply not low enough.

Here are some ideas I have for righting our situation.

First, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and even HUD, the government should be in direct competition for the refinancing dollars. This will help drive down the interest spread, which is too high, and will benefit everyone. Second, we have to except a certain amount of attrition on the business side. We can't continue to save every company by increasing our National Debt while our GDP shrinks. That's a recipe for disaster. Third, I like the idea being floated by some that foreclosed houses be turned into rentals by the financial institutions instead of kicking the families out. This would reduce the number of vacant houses (which are driving all of our property values down) and would give the owners a reduced payment that they can afford. Additionally, I would outlaw ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgages). The problem is that they prey on people who don't understand them and put people at risk when the country can least afford to have people defaulting; during a downturn. Finally, we should encourage purchasing, by those that can afford it, by giving tax breaks for cars, housing, or big ticket items. If the guy that owns a refrigerator company sells more refrigerators, everyone gains. The money "trickles up". Trickle down theory has it's place, but when fear on Wall Street is met with hoarding taxpayer money by these corporations, it may be better to give the money to the people who will spend it, not hoard it. H.C.

HIPPIE CLAUSE

2008-12-23T10:56:00.000-08:00

Ho, Ho, Ho. Hello everyone, it's me, Hippie Clause. The '60s version of the jolly old man from up north. I'm not quite as well known as the Kris Kringle version, mainly because I don't hang out in malls, don't have a league of elf helpers and don't have a great story wove through the ages. But I am working on it. I don't bring toys for all the kids, I bring advice to all our politicians and people. Not quite as glamerous to be sure, but someone has to do it. So, let me reach into my big tie-dyed bag and see what I've got for everyone this year.

For President Barack Obama;

I thought long and hard about this one. To President Barack Obama I advise humility and Supreme guidance. If ever in our history there was a man that needed the guidance of God, it is Barack Obama. Our economy is in shambles, our stature overseas is dismal and our people are lost. Our families, once the great unbreakable strength that has persevered through war and depression, has now been replaced by fractured families that have devalued fatherhood, the two parent structure and discipline. Our children are lost and we are too busy with ourselves to even care. For Obama to make a mark in this area he will have to show that a nuclear family is worth emulating and help us understand the value of unity verses selfishness and narcissism. In the process, Barack has to have the humility to be one of us, not one above us. It can be far to easy for someone who has come so far, so fast, to become full of himself. In this time of self indulgence, President Obama needs to understand that no one man can cure problems so vast and deep by himself. He needs humility to help guide him to the people most capable of helping him help all of us. We need a leader who leads people willing to follow, not a strong arm. Humility will help him in that area, just as it helped another great president who faced hard times, Abraham Lincoln.

For our Congress;

I advise, guilt. Guilt for running our country into the ground while only thinking of their next election. Guilt for taking money from lobbyists who didn't have the best interest of this country at heart. Guilt for representing big business and advocacy groups that served the few, rather than the many. And guilt for blaming each other, when it is the corrupt system of Washington that is to blame. A system that can only be fixed by virtue, reborn through guilt, that will make a few strong enough to stand up and say, "I will no longer stand still while corruption destroys the country my fore fathers died for."

For us, the people;

I advise, strength. The strength to change back into the people that we once were. People who valued themselves by their ability to sacrifice for their family, country and the greater good of everyone, not by their selfish achievements or possessions. We have come far in shedding our racism and our sexism, even though we still have far to go, but we have fallen so far in other areas. We were once self-reliant and strong, now we are weak, divided and dependent. We seek a government that can cure all our needs by writing a check, not by us volunteering. We don't shovel our elderly neighbor's walk, instead we wonder why the government doesn't create a program to do it for us. In the process we have lost the pride that comes with helping, with caring. In the hard times that are certain to be ahead, we will be faced with the option of continuing down this path alone or together. Tough times will help us realize our own strength and the truth behind one of my favorite quotes, "United we stand, divided we fall."

My last bit of advice for all of you is to not worry about the hard times ahead. Prepare. Hope for the best, but don't worry. We have been down this road before and we will come out of this stronger and smarter. Times will get better, they always do. Love those that are closest to you, support those that are less fortunate. Together we will overcome these hard times just as we always have. As Dr Seuss' character, The Grinch, famously learned, Christmas isn't about things, it's about family and being together. We should all take a moment to remember that. Merry Christmas everyone. May God guide you through these tough times. H.C.

PAGE D-12

2008-12-16T06:15:00.000-08:00

Here are some stories that I've unearthed that I feel deserve a lot more attention than they were given. Most were buried deep in the bowels of my many newspapers and are ignored by nearly everyone. Since I love when my friend Andre over at The Unmitigated Word does news snippets, I've decided to give it a short try myself with my own spin on it. I'm sure some of them will leave you wondering, as I was, how the mainstream media managed to bury them.

Arson at Sarah Palin's church

For reasons that I am unable to fully understand, people on the left side of the political spectrum hate Sarah Palin beyond words. I find this odd because Sarah hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, done anything to any of them except have a point of view, culture and lifestyle that is different from their own. The supposedly tolerant left can't seem to control themselves from attacking her children, her hometown, her looks and even her accent. However, it now appears to have reached a brand new level, when someone, or several someones, burned down the Wasilla Bible Church in Alaska. Authorities believe it may be connected to the church's outreach program for homosexuals that has been recently criticized by several Gay organizations. Governor Palin herself has apologized to the church and people of Wasilla for bringing this vile hatred back home from the lower 48. Move over KKK, it appears you now have some competition on the left.

Bush swings open the border

In the middle of the night G.W. gave a parting kiss to farmers across the country. Bush rewrote the rules for immigrant farm hands in a way the makes it easier for farmers to get low wage workers without having to prove that they at least tried to get labor through conventional means. Bruce Goldstein of the advocate group Farmworker Justice had this to say, "The changes in the posted version would drop a requirement that an employer get the Labor Department to certify it faces a worker shortage before it can get visas for foreign workers; instead, employers would be allowed to simply attest in writing to a shortage. That version of the new rule also would change the method for calculating wage minimums for workers and relieve employers of a requirement to recruit in states or communities where other employers already are hiring farm workers." With the GOP fighting for cheap labor and the DNC fighting for the illegal vote, soon we won't have to ship jobs overseas to lose them.

Riots across Europe

One of the many reasons that I oppose Socialism is that it doesn't absorb hard times very well (due to the majority of the jobs being public) and instills in it's populous the inability to function without the government holding their hands. I call these people "Bridge Sitters" after the people stranded on the infamous bridge in New Orleans waiting for the government to save them. An unfortunate result of disappointed "Bridge Sitters" is that they blame the government for not solving every problem in life that they face. Self reliant people are far better at surviving hard times since they immediately go about helping themselves and others. This is now playing itself out in several European countries as the bad economy spreads. As more and more people lose their jobs, and with no other job source to turn to, angry youths are hitting the streets to vent on their "parent". The government's only option is to create work programs funded by printing money. Any first year economics student will tell you that only leads to devaluing your currency and hyper-inflation. The riots started in Greece but have now spread to France, Germany, Spain, Denmark and Italy. This could turn into a far bigger story later.

Lending money to fools

Lastly, but not least, is the story of a swindler of epic proportions. Wall Street money manager Bernard Madoff's ponzi scheme is being pretty well covered by the mainstream media. Mr. Madoff managed to run off with over 50 billion dollars of investors money. That's 50 Billion with a "B". What wasn't, and isn't, being covered is who was among the burned. J. Ezra Merkin, GMAC chairman. That's right, the chairman of the financial arm of General Motors Corporation that is, as we speak, begging for taxpayer money. Is it too much to ask that before we bail out these losers, they at least shed people that fall for one of the oldest schemes known to man? It's easy to see why this isn't being well publicized. Who would give more money to people who can't even be trusted to hold on to what they have? What's next, we cover their track losses too?

Well, that's it for now. Maybe this helps explain why I walk around mumbling to myself a lot lately. H.C.

A LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE FUELS; IS NATURAL GAS THE ANSWER?

2008-12-09T07:57:00.000-08:00

Despite the fact that gas prices worldwide have plummeted, our situation here in the U.S. has not changed. We are still way too dependent on foreign oil, we still will be out of domestic oil in 10 to 12 years, and petroleum is still polluting our planet whether you believe the Global Warming alarmists or not. The majority of the dollars we are sending overseas are still going into the hands of governments that have our destruction as a goal and or trade deficit is still way too high. For all these reasons, I beg all of you not to fall back into complacency and assume the danger is past. It has simply retreated only to return later, far more dire. In this piece I will be looking at the viability of using Natural gas as an alternative. My hope is to go through all our alternatives and help you best decide which will be the most viable option, or if a variety of options used simultaneously is best.

Natural gas is a naturally occurring gas (hence the name) found in the Earth that consists mainly of Methane, but also contains Butane, Propane, Hydrogen Sulfide and other trace elements. It is either pulled out of natural gas wells or is the bi product of oil wells. At the present time, it is used in the U.S. to primarily heat homes. If you live anywhere near a city in the U.S., your home is most likely heated by natural gas. Natural gas has been used in the U.S. since 1816 for both heat and light. More recently, it has been used to create electricity as a fuel in conventional steam boiler generators. It's cleaner than it's competitors such as oil and coal, and some people, most notably T. Boone Pickens, have been recently propping it up as a solution to our oil dependency. But how likely is that to happen? Do we have enough to do the job? And is it a good answer for our future? All of these are questions I will try to answer in this piece.

*Do we have enough?*

At first glance, it certainly seems we have enough. The U.S. has known reserves of natural gas in excess of 1,320 trillion cubic feet. That certainly seems like plenty, but first we have to study the mechanics of Natural Gas. Natural gas is measured in cubic feet, meaning the amount of gas that would fill a box 1'x1'x1' = 1 cubic foot. That would seem to be equivalent to about a gallon of gas, but there's other factors to consider. In order to compare them fairly, we have to "liquefy" the natural gas through compression. In order to get 1 gal of liquid natural gas, we have to compress approximately 100 cubic feet of gas. Even then it's not really equivalent. One liquid gallon of natural gas has approximately 3/4 the energy stored in it when compared to petrol (it takes126.67 cubic feet of cng to equal a gallon of regular unleaded gas) . That means that a gallon of natural gas in a car that normally gets 24 MPG will only get about 18 MPG, which in turn means you will have to burn more of it to cover the same distance. Another problem is that we already use natural gas to heat our homes and to power steam turbine power plants. At the present time, we only produce 24.5 trillion cubic feet a year in the U.S. and we already consume 23 trillion. That doesn't leave a lot of room. With the amount of natural gas that we would have to have to power our cars, estimated at 28 trillion cubic feet per year we would need to increase our production by over 100% or find a way to free up what we already produce. That would explain why the T.Boone Pickens Plan has, as one of it's centerpieces, replacing the amount of natural gas that we use for electricity production with wind and solar and why he's only suggesting replacing only a fraction of our oil consumption.

*So in conclusion.*

Is the idea of natural gas as a replacement for oil viable? Yes. But we have to consider a few more things before we jump head first into it. For one thing, replacing or increasing production would take years. Would that time be better spent chasing something else? We'll get into that later when we look at the other alternatives. Another thing to consider is that natural gas is controlled by the same corporations (Big Oil) that have been raping us at every opportunity. If we're going to invest in a new fuel source, wouldn't be better to not give a big monetary kiss to our rapists? Natural gas is a domestic source that is plentiful, cleaner, (but not really clean), and easily deliverable since the pipeline already goes to most of our homes. It's certainly worth considering. It would definitely be better than sending our money to governments that hate us and quite possibly are the source of funding for terrorists that are trying to destroy us. As we look at the future, it would serve us well to seriously consider all the options we have and natural gas could, at the very least, lessen our dependence on foreign oil in the short term. H.C.

CHANGELINGS

2008-12-01T14:19:00.000-08:00

Change, change, change. That was the mantra of the Obama campaign. It also was the buzzword of the Obama-maniacs. That group of faithful followers who cried at all his speeches, took all his words to heart and looked at him as the Messiah who would lead this country to Utopia. Now, nearly a month after the historic elections, change has come to the Obama camp, but it's not the change they thought. That change was from flighty idealist to realist.

It's not really Barack's fault that some people projected unrealistic expectations upon him, those people are seldom grounded in reality anyway. They are people who believe war is never the answer, even when avoiding war is more costly. They are people who think you can force the rich to do your bidding, even as they admit the rich run this country. They believe you can pry power from the powers-that-be simply by voting in a President, even as they admit that we have a balance of power and a Constitution that keeps a President from doing whatever he wants. To all those people, I dedicate this piece.

The problem is, for the most part, that they are ignorant (and I don't mean that in a degrading way) of the way our government runs. Because of that, they don't understand how hard it is for a President to get his agenda through. They have been told by their Left-Leaning Media that G.W. is single-handedly responsible for the War in Iraq, the price of oil, the state of our economy, and probably believe that Bush hired-out the attacks on 9/11. If Bush could do all that, they reason, then why shouldn't Obama be able to push through Universal Healthcare? Better distribution of wealth?

The truth is, and you Liberals should probably sit down for this one, Bush didn't really control all those things himself.

The War in Iraq was pushed through by a cabala of people from Rumsfeld to Bush Senior. Poor G.W. was just their pawn. It was planned and agreed upon by the RNC with the help of other nations and even some Democrats that were sick of bowing for oil and sick of the troublesome example that Sadam set forth in the Middle-East. After 9/11, they saw their chance and used, let me repeat that, used, not created, the event to their advantage. You people who believe that Bush orchestrated 9/11 have a real problem sorting fact from conjecture and I can't do a thing to help you. As hard as I have tried. If it wasn't 9/11, it would have been something else. Our Presidents can't get away with a blow job or a burglary much less something that would require the Pentagon to kill it's own people. God, I can only hope none of you end up as part of a jury.

The price of oil, and thereafter the price of your gas, is manipulated by world factors such as supply and demand, OPEC, and the value of the U.S. dollar. Most of this oil (77%) is in the hands of Governments who have their own agendas which are contrary to ours. Bush couldn't control that if his life depended on it. Do yourself a favor and spend some time researching where oil comes from and how much we (the U.S.) consume. It'll do you a lot of good.

What really happens is that these ideas are hatched over years and through politics and money, people are brought on board until they have enough people to make it happen. Then they sell their idea to the unwitting public through their media sources. It's as simple as that. Without those people in Congress, without the support of your party and without the lobbyists to pay for it, ideas die. Some things have tons of support from the public (like ending abortion) but aren't supported by either Party because it might dry up the well of lobbyist monies that both sides get from hotly contested issues. Change in Congress is for sale to the highest and most organized bidder. No one can do it alone, including President Obama.

For this reason, President Obama has carefully tried to craft a cabala of his own. One that he hopes will be powerful enough, connected enough, and financed enough to pass the ideas that he holds closest to his heart. In looking at his options he has to consider the politics involved. Will he piss off others in his Party that expect power through seniority? Will he lose their support on key issues? Are there people on the other side of the aisle willing to join him? Can he trade positions for support? This is not change, but it is reality. For Obama to get anything done, he needs to enter the very world he threaten to change. Fortunately for him, all his fellow politicians understand that "Change" is simply the keyword used by every politician to take a position held by the other Party. Especially when things are going wrong.

So don't be too hard on Barack, you Changelings. He's just doing what he has to do to get any change at all. He picked ex-Clintonites for posts because he had to. He picked Hillary for Sect. of State to unify his Party, and he's cutting deals just like every politician before him. It's true that it's not change, but it's what he has to do. The best we can hope for is that he will keep our best interests at heart. But most importantly, don't blame him for not bringing the change that you hoped for in the blink of an eye. After all, it's you that didn't understand how hard it is to "change". H.C.

AND SO IT BEGINS

2008-11-24T16:03:00.000-08:00

Of all the problems that plague our government, none infuriates me more than the "Pardon Season". Although Presidents typically pardon people throughout their terms, controversial pardons are usually avoided until this time of year. This is the part of the election cycle that America suffers a "lame duck" President. That is, a President who is nearly powerless, but has nothing to fear from voters. He doesn't fear the voters because he's already been voted out or termed out and his Party has two years before another election. Let's face it, no one can ever remember who any President ever pardoned anyway, much less two years later. The Pardon Season starts sometime just after the Presidential election cycle and can last right up to the very last day of the departing President's reign. Each departing President tries his best to do this outrageous act in a way that draws as little attention as possible. Maybe during a hot news day, or after a major sporting event.

Today the Bush Administration released a list of 14 people who would be the recipients of a Presidential Pardon from George W. Bush. Including these pardons, he has now granted a total of 171 pardons and eight commutations. Conveniently, this list was release at the same time that every journalist was covering Barack Obama's announcement that his new economic team would include Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers. Yes, the same Larry Summers that I wrote about a while back who lost his job as Harvard's President because he had the nerve to suggest that women might just not be interested in becoming engineers. That infuriated the leftists at Harvard who demanded, and got, his resignation. Despite that, it appears Obama is unconcerned that the press will make an issue of his appointing a known sexist. My guess is that he's right, since the press always seems to be far more forgiving to the Dems for acts of racism or sexism. But back to Bush.

Bush's pardons so far are in line with the usual lame duck pardons. A bunch of rich people, a bunch of well connected people. Each has fought long and hard to make their way on to the list. Whether it's Republicans or Democrats doing the pardoning, you can rest assured that each pardon is represented by sizable donations to the President's campaign or his soon to be constructed Presidential library. Clinton pardoned domestic terrorists along with an assortment of white collar criminals and drug dealers and George H.W. Bush pardoned his Iran-Contra buddies and a long list of white collar criminals, both sides abuse this loophole terribly. Among Bush's recent pardons were for 3 people who committed various types of bank fraud, a women who committed medical insurance fraud, a couple of drug dealers and even a killer of bald eagles.

So how do we stop this abuse of power?

First, there should be no lame duck pardons at all! All pardons should be given out before Oct. 1 of their last year in office. That way the press has time to publish all their pardons and let the voters take it out on their candidate or party. This system of allowing criminals to buy or barter their way out of their convictions through lobbyists or personal connections is a form of nepotism and elitism that we should all be trying to limit in our government. Government is a service to one's country, not a position of power to shield one's friends and relatives. Presidents, Senators, House Representatives and Governors all abuse this power for their own benefit and it's time to make it so that it's also at their own peril. Justice can never be completely equal, but it is what we should all strive for. H.C.

TWO DAVIDS VS. TWO GOLIATHS

2008-11-11T08:20:00.000-08:00

The banners have all come down, the streets are all swept free of the confetti, and the last party has been thrown. Now comes the time to analyze the election, the blame and the credit. To be sure, a lot of the credit for the big win on the Democrat side has to go to Barack Obama and a lot of the blame for the loss has to go to John McCain. That's just the way it is, the buck stops at the top. The McCain campaign leaders (not to be confused with the RNC) have thrown Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin to the wolves. This is to be expected, they certainly don't want to take the blame themselves, after all, they're all hoping to work on another campaign in the future and that's not likely to happen if they blame themselves. Governor Palin is doing the right thing. She's defending herself while pointing out that these attacks aren't coming from McCain or the RNC. Her future, from my point of view, has to be bright, I can't picture the RNC throwing away anyone with that much star power and name recognition. On the Democrat side, everyone wants in on the credit, as can be expected. But who was really the brains behind the impossible? From everything I've seen and read, it was two relatively unknowns that brought down the the twin Goliaths of McCain and Clinton; David Plouffe and David Axlerod.

So, who are the two Davids? Let's take David Plouffe first.

David Plouffe began his political career when he went to work for Senator Tom Harkin's 1990 re-election campaign. He later worked as a state field director for Harkin's unsuccessful 1992 Presidential campaign. He then successfully managed Congressman John Olver's first re-election bid in Western Massachusetts. In 1994 Plouffe managed Delaware Attorney General Charles M. Oberly's unsuccessful campaign against Senator William V. Roth Jr.. He then worked as campaign director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 1995. In 1996, Plouffe managed Bob Torricelli's successful campaign to fill Bill Bradley's seat in the United States Senate.From 1997 to 1998 Plouffe served as Democratic leader Richard Gephardt's Deputy Chief of Staff. From 1999-2000 he worked as executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and then in 2003 he met David Axelrod and began working on Barack Obama's successful 2004 U.S. Senate Campaign and finally on Barack's Presidential bid. From the very start of Obama's campaign, Mr. Plouffe made one thing abundantly clear. There would be no drama. As Barack's campaign manager, David was the "details man", in charge of the Obama strategy to win. With every state thought out in his head and every move calculated, David Plouffe believed the only possible problem would come from either his staff acting out badly or his candidate coming across as an "angry black man". On that, he was completely correct. White America had seen it's share of passionate black presidential candidates from Rev. Jesse Jackson to Rev. Al Sharpton and they had demonstrated one thing beyond any doubt. While all were popular among black people, white people would not vote for them. Without the white vote, Mr. Plouffe concluded, Barack could not win. This theory of "no drama" was applied not just to Barack Obama, but also to his wife, his spokesmen, his supporters, campaign workers and anyone else that could be tied to Obama. David Plouffe was directly responsible for the discipline that the Obama campaign showed.

David Axelrod was Barack's Senior Political Advisor, but he could better be described as Barack's "Right Hand Man". David began his political career at age 13 handing out campaign buttons for Robert F. Kennedy. He pursued his passion for politics by attending the University of Chicago where he majored in political science. Like his counterpart, David Plouffe, he didn't graduate and went to work at the Chicago Tribune and became the City Hall Bureau Chief and a political columnist. Unhappy as just a writer, (I can relate), in 1984 he joined the campaign of US Senator Paul Simon as communications director and within weeks he was promoted to co-campaign manager. He then formed his own consulting firm, Axelrod and Associates, and was hired by Harold Washington, Chicago's first black mayor.This established his experience in working with black politicians and he later went to work on similar mayoral campaigns of blacks, including Dennis Archer in Detroit, Michael R. White in Cleveland, Anthony A. Williams in Washington, D.C., Lee P. Brown in Houston, and John F. Street in Philadelphia as well as Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley. David met Barack Obama in 1992 through a mutual friend and the two became so close that Obama consulted Axelrod before he delivered his famed 2002 anti-war speech and asked him to read drafts of his book, The Audacity of Hope. Axelrod is credited with coming up with the Caucus Strategy and post Super Tuesday Strategy that helped defeat Hillary Clinton in the primaries. I think it's fair to say that without David Axelrod, we would be looking at a Clinton or McCain Presidency.

As we assess the 2008 historic election of Barack Obama, let's all remember that Barack is not just the product of the streets of Chicago, not just the product of a caring Grandmother or the support of black people. Barack Obama is where he is today by virtue of his gift of communication and the efforts of two Davids who helped him slay two Goliaths that no one, not even me, thought he had a chance against. H.C.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES

2008-11-04T10:28:00.000-08:00

On September 11, 2001 all of our lives changed forever. On that fateful day, Americans were no longer black, brown or white, we were all Americans. The attacks on the World Trade Center unified us all in a way I have never seen. In the face of an enemy that didn't care if they killed who they killed or what color they were, we suddenly all became Americans, brothers and sisters. But time has a way of making us forget the significance of a single day, of a single moment in history. Whether it's April 4, December 7, or September 11, we slowly drift back into all the things that divide, not unify us all.

And now, on November 4, 2008, after all the divisive attacks by both sides, America has seen another equally important moment in time. Unlike the previous days I mentioned, this day is a joyous one, even for the people who did not support the change that has come. On this day America chose an African-American, Senator Barack Obama, for their highest, most powerful position, the President of the United States of America. This happened even though blacks are only 14% of the population. It happened with the help of white people, Asian people, Hispanic people, Gay people and people of every race, creed, and religion imaginable. It happened because a majority of people did not care about his color or his mixed race and mixed religion background. What they all shared was his positive message of an America that could be better, of an America that lives up to it's creed; "That all men are created equal". They all shared his vision of unity, not divisiveness, of hope, not of fear.

On this one day America is again unified by the one bond that binds us all, a future that is tied and bound by our love of the United States, our home.

Don't get me wrong, there will be times of trial, and divisiveness will again rear it's ugly head, but after today, we will never look at America the same. The Nay-sayers, the haters, the people stuck in the sad reality that was the '50's, '60's, and '70's will have to admit that America has changed and for the better. On this day, November 4, opportunity has spread and now warms the hearts of people who honestly felt that it was simply not theirs to enjoy. It is truly a day for hope and optimism.

The saddest part of all of this is that one day separated Barack's grandmother, the women who raised him and the person he credits with being his biggest influence, from seeing her son become everything she believed he could be. I am sure, however, that she is in heaven smiling down, knowing that the sacrifices she made were not for naught. Family has won out.

To all my black friends, congratulations. It has been a long hard road but one that has lead to a better tomorrow. Yesterday is gone, the moment is fleeting, and tomorrow is all we have. On this one day, history has been made, hope has resurfaced and racism has been dealt a serious blow. What a difference one day can make. H.C.

WHO AND WHAT I'LL BE VOTING FOR AND AGAINST NOVEMBER 4th

2008-10-29T11:59:00.000-07:00

In this historic election, I have tried to give you as fair an analysis of the issues and events that I possibly could. I believe I have treated each candidate with equal suspicion and equal respect. But at some point we have to make a final decision. I will say this one thing to help comfort you in case your candidate should lose, either Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama would make a good President. Neither of them will destroy our country or our economy. The rhetoric that you has been fed to you by the Mainstream Media and the campaigns has been carefully designed to make you fearful of the other. The differences between the two lies simply in their philosophy of what would be best for our country. Nothing more. Barack Obama is not a secret Muslim America hater and John McCain is not trying to destroy the Middle Class for fun and profit. So, with no further adu, here is how I will be voting, why I'm going that way and what I think the results will be.

*President of the United States of America*

I have given this considerable thought and I feel that Senator Barack Obama is the best choice for this moment in history to lead our country. I'll say right up front that Barack's association with a Preacher that spews hatred instead of Love as commanded by the very religion that he embraces, bothered me the most. I do not believe that Obama didn't know. I believe that is a lie, simply put. What I do think happened was that Barack thought he could benefit from Rev. Wright's connections and that he needed the Church to get elected, as is the case for all black politicians running in black communities. For his support, Barack sold out and then lied about it when it was no longer convenient. However, in this respect, Obama is no worse than John McCain who ran legislation for shady people like Charles Keating. The difference is that Obama's associations didn't cause thousands of people to lose their life savings and didn't cost me a dime. So, on the issue of associations, McCain lost.

Now, on the issue of oil. I can only hope that Obama will lead us out of our dependency on foreign oil. John McCain, I am dead certain, will not. With his Bush ties, his 20+ ex-oil lobbyists on his staff and his "drill baby drill" mentality, I have no faith that John McCain will lead us away from the biggest danger we face today. We will be out of domestic oil in 12 years at our current pace and I am tired of bowing and sending young lives and billions of dollars to countries that hate us and have our destruction as a goal. This is my number one issue and it effects our foreign policy, our domestic policy and our economy. On this issue, again, McCain lost.

Even though those two issues alone would have pushed my vote away from McCain, there are other considerations that have moved me to Barack. I feel that Barack Obama's election would send a message around the world that is so powerful, it can not be ignored. We, the United States of America, will have elected a person that represents a minority of less than 14% of the population, African American. This doesn't happen in any of the so-called "progressive" countries around the world. France will never elect a Muslim, the U.K. will never elect a Catholic and Ireland will never elect a Protestant. Only in the U.S. is this possible. The message sent within our borders could be equally important. Every minority child in the U.S. will now know they have the opportunity to be anything they want to be. This is America at it's finest. I believe the odds of this happening are very good. I predict Barack Obama will win by 2 to 3% of the popular vote...maybe even more.

*U.S. Senate seat now held by Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich)*

Despite the fact that Carl has lost my respect, deserted our state, and sadly become another Democrat partisan hack, I believe he will handily beat his challenger Republican Jack Hoogendyk. I will be voting for a 3rd Party candidate out of disgust. Carl, you were once my hero, how far you have fallen. J.P. McCarthy would be ashamed.

*Proposition One-Medical Marijuana (Michigan proposal)*

I would be a complete hypocrite if I didn't support this proposal. I have been a advocate for legalization of Marijuana my entire adult life. I used medicinal Marijuana when I was being treated for Cancer when I was 32. It absolutely helped. For my complete testimony check out my video at http://hk.youtube.com/user/bentdrive. I believe that this proposal will pass. Opponents claim it's an effort to move toward legalization and I don't care. To quote Jimmy Carter (the only time I do), "The punishment for a crime shouldn't do more harm to society than the crime itself."

*Proposal Two-Stem Cell Research (Michigan proposal)*

The fact is, we don't need this. Stem Cells can be grown from skin, umbilical cords, amniotic fluid, placenta, and even testes. This is a attempt to discount life at conception, a"fuck you" to people with religious morals, and I do care. Although I am Pro-Choice, there are issues surrounding this that can reach far beyond simply Stem Cells. The issue is whether it's O.K. to create life just to destroy it and I just can't support that. My joke on this issue is that when the Democrats found out that there was other ways to get Stem Cells they asked, "Can't we kill them anyway?" It is unnecessary at this point and I've done a lot of research including asking some of my very knowledgeable University colleagues. After reviewing the polls and doing some "man on the street" interviewing, I'm going to update (10/3 at 7:30am) my prediction and say that this proposal will pass. I will still be voting against it.

There you go folks, I hope all of you will make up your own minds and do what you feel is best for all of us. Most importantly, don't forget to vote November 4th. It is our most sacred right. H.C.

A WORLD IN CRISIS, A WORLD OF HOPE

2008-10-20T06:23:00.000-07:00

The housing crisis, falling stock markets, shrinking government revenues and rising unemployment all have us feeling more than a little anxious lately. On top of all that, we have a historic election for the President of the United States, the most powerful country on Earth and the country the rest of the world is both blaming for the crisis and hoping will lead us out of it. At the root of all our problems is the problem of debt. How much is too much and how do we go about shrinking it without sending the world's economy into a tailspin? I wish I had an answer.

As I've said here several times before, "You can't be better off tomorrow by spending tomorrow's money today." It's as simple as that. As long as we insist on living beyond our means by demanding loans we can't afford, houses we can't afford and luxuries we can't afford, our problem will continue and grow. It's total hypocrisy to point at the excesses of Wall Street, or the Government, as we live in excess ourselves.

For far too long the situation was twofold. The lenders were pressured by politicians to lend to people who couldn't afford it and in return the lenders got less regulation so they could offset their losses by engaging in shady market dealings that pushed the risk around to other countries and businesses. The return for this game of "hot potato debt" was a booming economy built on a shaky premise that couldn't possibly be sustained.

So what is the end result? Millions have now lost their homes to foreclosure, the housing market is flooded with too many houses that can not be sold, credit cards are being defaulted on because the equity the borrowers once used to refinance is gone (mark my words, this will be the next crisis.) Financial Rapture is upon us. Markets worldwide have seen their wealth disappear at 20, 30 even 60 percent. Countries like Iceland have gone completely bankrupt and Russia has frozen their stock trading. Buying is shrinking and the domino effect is reverberating throughout the Global Market.

For those of you that enjoy seeing the rich suffer out of jealousy, I have a wake-up call for you. The rich throughout the world pay the majority of the taxes. This is even more true in the socialist countries. As their wealth has shrunk, so has their tax burden. This is much like the way we want people to stop smoking at the same time we use their "Sin Tax" to fund health and education. If we get our wish, we are the ones to suffer. Capital gains is a thing of the past. In fact, the richest amongst us will be claiming losses, not "gains". Retirement accounts based in the stock markets are seeing huge losses (although better lately) and that will lead to increased burdens on social programs aimed at the elderly. Automaker pension programs are in danger of not being able to meet their obligation. The government will be forced to take over more and more of the burden while receiving less and less revenue. You don't have to be an economist to see tough times are ahead.

The bright side of all this is that we have finally had our veil lifted. John McCain and his Band of Merry Deregulators are being seen for what they truly are. Robber Barons. The Democrats, for their part, are being seen for what they truly are; irresponsible and too focused on the now. We are seeing the "It's all good" generation realize that it's not all good. You can't just hand money to people who can't afford to pay it back. You can't just rely on the Rich to pay all of your bills, you can't just live for today with no foresight into tomorrow and you can't push your responsibly to yourself, your children and your future onto the Government. This is the ultimate lesson on personal responsibility. If your benefactor disappears, can you survive without him? The next President of the U.S., whoever it ends up being, will find himself, from day one, in the uncomfortable position of explaining to the American public that we simply don't have the money that we had just one year ago. We can't create more programs with less revenue. The Entitlement Generation is in for a shock.

The bad news is that hard times are ahead without a doubt. My suggestion to all of you is to save, cut down on the unnecessary, and prepare for the worst while hoping for the best. The good news is that we are finally, once again, going to understand what is really important in this world. Our families, our friends, and our inner strength.... not our possessions, our appearance and our Ipods. H.C.

A PERSONAL UPDATE

2008-10-14T08:25:00.000-07:00

With hunting season now upon us, I'm having a little trouble keeping up with all my chores. Such as posting on my blog. For those of you interested, I've already bagged a fat 6-pointer that I caught trespassing and the venison is already in my freezer. (I do all my own processing) Outside of that, here's a quick update.

Unfortunately, Flinttalkradio and me have parted ways. The removal of Steve Brewer, who I consider a good friend, from the show has caused me to re-evaluate my relationship with the owners/operators of Flinttalkradio and Studio 1714. While I hold no animosity towards either Steve Meyers or John Wilson (they did give me good exposure), their view of the world and our working relationship is considerably different than mine. This happens even among friends. I stand by my view that everyone has a right to their opinion and I respect those of both Steve and John even as I adamantly disagree with them. I would have hoped that I would get the same respect, but I unfortunately, did not.

I will however, be trying to keep our business relationship solid and would not discourage anyone from visiting their sites.

This leaves me with only my blog for venting and I've already decided that is not enough. So, in order to create a new venue for my music, opinions and commentary, I've started working on several new sites that I'm hoping to link all together with my blog. The main idea is for me and Steve Brewer to build our own studio where we will not be under the whims of other people's visions of our show. Steve is a gifted comedian/commentator and I can't wait to start producing what I'm sure is going to be the best product we've produced yet. Part of what we're looking to do is to help promote local bands and music by running their songs between our commentary.

I'm going to be posting our show on YouTube and any other venue that will have us. I'm looking forward to working with Steve and he is already full of ideas on how we can make our show even better. I'll keep all of you posted as to our progress and I'll let you know when and where you can catch us on the Internet. For now, here's a sample of the kind of stuff we'll be running. We had a misunderstanding with Eric and Carson from Banana 101. I apologize for the bad audio, it was out of my hands. H.C.

ONLY THE LOSERS

2008-10-06T07:58:00.000-07:00

There were a few problems with the 2000 presidential election, as all of you probably already know. There were arguments over "Hanging Chads" and "Pregnant Chads" and over missing ballots, and disenfranchised voting groups. In 2004 we went through it all again with accusations against the companies that made the electronic voting machines. For the most part, I think we, the public, view voter fraud as something Republicans do to poor people and minorities to increase their chances at the ballot box. But certainly there's always two sides to the argument, so here's what we'll do. I'll simply list the examples of how both sides try to gain advantage and let you decide. At the end I'll give my thoughts on both sides.

*Democrat Cheating Methods*

Since you already have a few examples of Republican methodology, I'll start with the Dems. When considering the Democrat position, we first have to understand that Democrats, in general, do better with people as their income bracket goes down. Republicans do better as the scale goes up. For the Dems, that means recruiting poor people, lower middle class and minorities to vote. Unfortunately, a great deal of their prospective voting block has felonies, moves often, doesn't register to vote, is here illegally and in some examples, is just plain lazy. The truth of the matter is; Democrats benefit from letting some of these people break the rules. If they let illegals, for instance, register and then vote despite not being a U.S. citizen, the odds are, the result will overwhelmingly favor their party. This is also true with people who vote under several names that they know are registered, even if they happen to be dead. (I'm sure they would have voted for my guy anyway). The Democrats know that these methods are used more by their constituents than by the Republicans, so they turn a blind eye. If it turns out people are gaming the system (like illegals), the Democrats defend them as being disenfranchised and the Republicans get portrayed as threats to the right to vote. Even though those people should not have had the chance to vote to begin with.

*Republican Cheating Methods*

The Republicans would probably like to simply respond-in-kind with districts that favor them. Unfortunately, those districts are overwhelmingly rural. In the small towns across American, cheating is not tolerated. In my small town they will check my I.D. even though I've known most of them for 20 years. No, for Republicans, their best method is to try to stop the Democrat voters from ever reaching the ballot box. Including some methods such as manipulating ballots, shorting the supply of ballots in poor areas, etc.. They demand consistent registration because they know poor people move more, voter I.D.'s to stop the illegals from voting, and clean criminal records because poor people are more likely to commit crimes. They search for any Demographic that fits them best. Drunk drivers favor Democrats? Then no voting if you've had a D.U.I.! Potheads favor Democrats? Let's make sure possession is a felony.

*MY SPIN*

I feel very strongly that the right to vote is the most sacred of our rights. Without it, everything else is out of our hands. I would like to see more people participate in voting, even though I know that would favor Democrats. However, Democrats should remember you shouldn't use public funds to encourage voting only in segments of society that favor you. For instance, Democrat voter outreach programs target the poor or minorities because they stand to benefit from it. Organizations that front being bipartisan such as the American Democracy Project or more recently the organization ACORN, who's being accused of voter fraud. If an effort is made with public funds, it can't be that one-sided, it has to be targeted to the public in general. Not just Universities, big cities or poor neighborhoods. What private people want to do to promote voting and who they want to support, is their own business. As far as the Right to Vote, I would require I.D.'s for voting because it cuts down on cheating. I would continue to demand that illegals become an American citizen before you can vote and I would make efforts to enforce that law. I would make registering to vote easier, even on-line (registering only, I don't favor on-line voting). I would make Voting Day easier in any way I could. For example, I would give every American the first Tuesday of November off from work as a Federal holiday (we could use the 'off years' for local elections). What's more important than voting? I would encourage participation in our system through P.S.A.'s and our public schools. I would monitor election personnel carefully and the companies that run the machines. I would have harsh punishments for all people caught cheating. Cheating the Vote is close to treason in my world.

This election, like every election, will have it's share of complaints by the side that loses. It's funny how the winners rarely complain. All of these accusations should be taken seriously and people found guilty should be punished harshly. So when November 5 finally comes around, and as we're looking over the results, let's remember it should be every one's goal to make our elections fair, not just the losers. H.C.

SHADES OF '92

2008-09-27T07:16:00.000-07:00

Back in the Presidential race of 1992, George H.W. Bush Sr. was running against a young upstart Governor from Arkansas named William Jefferson Clinton (as well as against Ross Perot). The race was not going the way of the challenger despite Bush Sr. having had a divisive Middle East War, a failing economy and a banking crisis called the S&L Scandal. One day a nearly unknown Clinton advisor named James Carville hung a sign on the door of Governor Clinton's "war room". The sign read simply, "It's the economy, Stupid." Clinton took the advise to heart and the rest is history.

Fast forward to the present time and we see history replaying itself once again. This time the young upstart is named Senator Barrack Obama and the Steward of the past administration is Senator John McCain. But the issue is still the same. The economy.

As our jittery market sways back and forth like a tire on a frayed rope ready to break, Americans are pushing the economy to the front of the issue line. This was most evident in the first Presidential Debate moderated by Jim Lehrer this past Friday. The subject matter was supposed to be "foreign policy", presumably John McCains' strongest position. However, from the very first question, it became clear that the economy was going to dominate. When Obama flat-out accused McCain of being wrong on the fundamentals of the economy, moderator Jim Lehrer asked Obama to "say it directly to him," meaning McCain. After Barrack repeated his accusation face to face, McCain gave the funniest statement of the debate. Turning to Lehrer, he bitterly questioned, "You afraid I couldn't hear him?"

Senator McCain then tried desperately to divert attention away from the economy by injecting war stories and dropped the names of every politician and political player he's ever worked with from Henry Kissinger to General Petraus. Obama would have no part of it however, At ever opportunity he steered the conversation back to the economy. The approval monitors CNN had given to the audience told the tale. When the economy was the issue, Barrack's approval soared while McCain's faltered.

From my stand point, the debate went very well for Senator Obama despite some high points for McCain on taxes and "the Surge". If the economy doesn't turn around before election (and it's hard to see how it could), McCain will continue to suffer for it. Just as it's hard for Barrack to separate himself from his past, Senator McCain will have a difficult time separating himself from the deregulation and policies (such as Social Security Privatization) that he once supported. As shady as some people find Obama's past acquaintances, the fact remains that it didn't cost the American public any money, or possibly their financial future. My instinct is that we will see a repeat of 1992 this November and I am boldly predicting that, barring any unforeseen ethical scandal, Senator Barrack Obama will be our first black President. The math is simply against the Republicans this time around. In most people's mind it will spell out like this; Two Bushs, two Wars with questionable motivations, two recessions, two banking scandals and now two bailouts. John McCain will never be able to totally separate himself from the policies and people he once supported. Shades of 1992? Yes, once again, "It's the economy, Stupid." H.C.

THE REGULATORS

2008-09-23T07:11:00.000-07:00

Let's do a little critical thinking. Reach into your wallet and pull out a one dollar bill. (Assuming you have any left after the financial chaos of the past week.) Hold it up and take a long look at it. Now ask yourself a few questions. Why is this piece of paper worth a dollar? Who decides how much it's worth? What keeps it from being damn-near worthless like so many other foreign currencies that have failed? Will it always be worth a dollar? What exactly is a "dollar"?

The main reason that dollar in your hands is worth a set amount of goods is because you believe that it is. Faith is the true currency. You believe that when you accept that dollar from someone, you will be able to use it in the same way to buy something from someone else. If you start to doubt that for one instant, it all falls apart.

The best way to view a currency from any country, is to think of it as stock in that country. If your country is powerful and stable, your "dollar" is worth more. Likewise, if your country is failing, your stock falls. Once again "faith" comes into play. In order for your dollar to be safe, people around the world have to have faith that your country is stable and financially secure.

And so we get to the problem that has faced our financial markets this week.

Around the world, that "faith" is on the decline. The main reason is because we have become a debt society and a debt country. When other countries look at our balance sheets, they see a country that has no savings to fall back on should things suddenly go south. Our houses are borrowed on beyond their worth. Our credit cards are extended beyond what most of us can afford. Our banks have taken all their assets and put them on the table as bets on Wall Street with nothing to fall back on should these bets fail. With no assets to borrow against, it's hard to imagine a way out for our middle class. Foreclosures are everywhere, and with fewer people able to buy, house values are falling to a point where it's no longer profitable for contractors to build.

How did we get here?

A look at the history shows lots of blame to go around. Both Dems and Reps have had their hands dirtied in this mess. Rather than do the right thing long-term, they all opted for the quick buck. We live in a "quarter culture", where our CEOs, our stockholders, our politicians and even our population only looks at the fiscal quarter to see how they are doing with very little concern over the long term. Our Presidents all encouraged such behavior by removing the barriers against spending more than we even have. G.H.W. Bush deregulated, Clinton deregulated, and Dubya deregulated. The only thing that mattered was how things were going right now. Unfortunately, the future no one cared about is now.

The blame can be spread out, but examination of the players shows the same names popping up all over the place. In the early '90s, the Savings and Loan Scandal raced through the financial markets. Spurred by deregulation brought about through bank lobbyists, S&L's sold bonds that had no real assets backing them up. When shady corporate weasels funneled off the only money in the system, the taxpayers were left holding the bag to the tune of $160 billion dollars. Privatized profit with Socialized risk. Infuriated, the taxpayer demanded to know what happened and the Keating Five found themselves in the spotlight. One of the "Senators for hire" was none other than Senator John McCain. Among the big benefactors was the Bush Brothers, Jeb and Neil. The deregulation was pushed through by their father, George H.W. Bush. Working with him behind the scene was Texas Senator Phil Gramm.

Fast forward to the present. Phil Gramm, who until recently was John McCain's financial advisor, was instrumental in the most recent wave of deregulation. G.W. Bush has allowed the banks to operate with nearly no oversight. Oil companies are practically guaranteed alternative energy is kept on the back burner and profiteering will go unpunished. Once again John McCain is front and center and once again we are supposed to believe he didn't have a hand in the cake even though his face is covered in chocolate.

We, the taxpayers, are now on the hook to the tune of nearly $1 trillion dollars. The industries that made the most during the run up to this crisis are having their debt cleared because we can't afford to let them fail. The very fact that we fell for this twice is disturbing to say the least. That we need more regulation and oversight of our financial institutions isn't even debatable. Now John McCain wants you to believe that the same people that created this mess twice are the ones to trust to fix it. Well as G.W. himself once said, "Fool me once, shame on me. fool me......." well, you get the idea. H.C.

MCCAIN, REPUBLICANS IGNORE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE

2008-09-13T06:38:00.002-07:00

The young man stood up in the back of the crowd at one of Senator John McCain's many small town stops. "Senator McCain, what are you going to do about DHMO?" the young man questioned. Quickly McCain's security detail moved in, escorting the young man out of the venue. "It's killing our children!" the man shouted repeatedly as he was forced out the door. John McCain ignored the disruption just as he and the Republicans have ignored any environmental issues throughout the campaign. But what is DHMO and why do the Republicans try desperately to keep it off the list of campaign issues?

DMHO is the acronym for Dihydrogen Monoxide. A substance that is so toxic a thimble full can kill a child. In fact, it is the leading cause of death of children under 4. Despite this fact, it is an ingredient in manufactured soft drinks, soups, and dozens of other products sold throughout the U.S.. However, the dangers of DHMO do not end with it's consumption.

Dihydrogen Monoxide, also known as hydroxyl acid, is the main component in acid rain. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage in humans and in animals. It contributes to the "greenhouse effect" which is warming our planet and quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in every stream, lake, and reservoir in America as well as in the rivers, streams, and lakes around the entire globe. It kills thousands yearly, while Republicans shove millions of dollars of lobbyist contributions in their pockets to keep it legal.

So who benefits the most from DHMO? Mostly, it's companies like Coca Cola. Since adding DHMO to it's products, Coca Cola has seen their profits rise exorbitantly. It now accounts for a full 1/3 of all their profits. But it's not only the soft drink industry that fattens the pockets of politicians, it's also industries that produce products like automobile coolants, solvents, fire retardants, Styrofoam, pesticides and too many more to even list.

The Earth is our mother and if we don't make an effort to stop the politicians (mostly Republicans) from receiving lobbyist monies to ignore this problem, I fear it may soon be too late.

There is a lesson here that needs to be learned. Research for yourself the dangers of DHMO and of remaining ignorant. Understand that we are all constantly being manipulated by people who use fear mongering and our lack of understanding of the problems to push us toward policies that make no sense. Is DHMO a major problem? Yes, but more so because we don't take the time to even know what we are supporting, or opposing. H.C.

SARAH, SWEET AND SIMPLE

2008-09-07T14:41:00.000-07:00

With both the DNC and RNC conventions out of the way, our attention is now turned to the Vice Presidential picks. On the DNC side, Senator Barack Obama decided to go as white male as he could and picked fellow Senator Joe Biden from Delaware. Biden shares his anti-war stance even though he voted for the Iraq war, and adds some foreign policy chops to Obama's ticket. On the RNC side, McCain wisely picked a fresh face from the Governor's office in Alaska of all places. Sarah Palin has everything McCain was looking for. She can steal away women from the Democrats and possibly turn this race around for him. She has the conservative credentials to appeal to the right wing and is an engaging personally to say the least.

Oh, and did I mention she's a woman?

Not just any woman, but an Alaskan woman. That's right, this woman can split wood. She can kill and skin a moose. She also could, I'd be willing to bet, whip the ass of most of the women that will be criticizing her. Maybe that's why the democrat media seems to be so quick to attack her. They fear her. In a very primitive way, they recognize that Sarah Palin is a predator, not prey for their fodder.

The left has always had a difficult time dealing with powerful Conservative women. From Goldie Meir to Margaret Thatcher the Left simply avoids commenting on them. In their view, powerful women do not play by the men's rules, they make up their own separate but equal rules. They should be for Women's Reproductive Rights as long as that choice isn't to have the baby, they should have the right to choose their own careers, as long as that career isn't "Stay-at-home-Mom.",They should be against hunting and anything else that defines Traditional American Male Culture, while protecting every other culture on the face of the earth. For a women to hunt, be against abortion, and be a conservative women's voice, can only mean one thing in their eyes.

She's a Hand Maiden to the barbaric, imperialistic, male dominated establishment.

This is much akin to the way some blacks view other blacks as being a "sell out" or a "Uncle Tom" if he sides with the whites on an issue. This makes Governor Palin a Pariah of the worst sorts. If other women should start looking at Sarah and admiring her, that may lead to more women like her. The left has long enjoyed the lion's share of the women's vote, especially on issues like Animal Rights and Abortion. They're not about to watch it all bleed away because of some self proclaimed "Hockey Mom."

To them, I would like to send a piece of advice......"Be careful, very careful."

Senator Obama went out of his way to say that he would not comment on Palin's family, but the Liberal Media wasted no time attacking Sarah's daughter for getting pregnant. They used it as an attack on Palin's conservative stance on Sex Ed in schools, and as proof that conservative ideas fail. They laughed at her experience as being "small" town and therefore not valuable. They taunted her description of herself as a "Hockey Mom" as laughable, considering the office she's applying for.

Meanwhile, across the U.S., thousands of parents with unplanned grandkids are thinking, "Hey, are they saying it's OUR fault?" The Leftist Media goes after Palin's "Hockey Mom" self description and thousands of Hockey Moms (and Soccer Moms, Baseball Moms, etc.) see themselves being talked down to. They put down small towns and the same people who got angry over Barack's "clinging to guns and religion" comment, get angry about the Latte Liberals showing their contempt for them. The Democrat Party cannot afford to lose these people. Already the RCP polls are showing a strong bump for the McCain/Palin team.

Sarah Palin is set to possibly become the first female Vice President in our Nation's history. If the Left doesn't give her due props, a lot of women could move over to the Republican's side in anger. If they continue to devalue her and not take her seriously they are going to find out what it's like to tangle with a conservative, frontier woman who believes in her values. Sarah, Sweet and Simple? Nah, this women can split wood, and maybe Democrats. H.C.

2008 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION; CATHARSIS OR CHAOS?

2008-08-20T04:21:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton claims her supporters need a "catharsis", a healing, to get over their loss. To hear her tell it, it would seem that her supporters are the first in history to be disappointed and to have to deal with their candidate failing to meet their expectations. In an effort to placate her supporters, Barack Obama has agreed to allow Hillary's name to appear on the nomination at the convention and to be voted on. For Barack's people, or the DNC, to believe that Hillary's supporters will be pacified by losing yet again in a very public fashion seems insane to me.

At the DNC Rules and Bylaws meeting May 31st of this year, the dems gathered to decide what to do with Michigan's and Florida's suspended delegates, the mood could not have been any worse. Despite repeated attempts by the chairwomen to keep control, Hillary's supporters shouted out comments and disrupted the proceedings throughout. Any Democrats watching must have been embarrassed by the lack of class and decorum exhibited by some of their own. To expect that the DNC convention will be any less chaotic seems naive at best. My prediction is that at least on Wednesday, the day the V.P. nomination takes place, you can expect much of the same if not worse.

How the DNC thinks this will lead to a catharsis is beyond my thinking.

The problem the Democrats have, and will continue to have, is that they have to explain to a group of very pissed off Hillary Fem-bots how it is completely fair to have one group win out over the other. Democrats sub-groups have been taught by the DNC all their political lives that any loss is the direct result of some prejudice, not the result of one group doing a better job of representing their point of view. Is it any wonder then that a women that every single pundit (including me) thought would win the democratic nomination hands down, now tries to blame misogyny and sexism as the cause of her downfall. This despite the fact that her own chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, said in a recently released memo that Obama, "Couldn't win against Attila the Hun." It couldn't possibly be that they simply underestimated their opponent.

To make matters even worse, Obama has to try to pacify Hillary's supporters while choosing someone else as V.P.. This has as much of a chance of flying as Lead Zeppelin. While I'm sure Howard Dean will do everything in his power to keep everything under control, this convention will be sure to have Republicans grinning from ear to ear. H.C.

EDDIE

2008-08-10T07:40:00.000-07:00

Sad is the story of a life gone past

Muddled in secrets and memories cast

The tears of a child who fears his own home

Ended in a basement dark and alone

Edward Farrar was a "Paste Eater." He was the kind of kid who didn't seem to have a lick of sense. His hair was greasy black and combed in a Pompadour like Elvis used to wear. Strands of it would break loose from the rest and hang in front of his eyes. His clothes were dirty and out of date and he smelled of poverty. He had a maniacal laugh that reminded you of the Joker from the old Batman series and he could be counted on to disrupt every class with his outbursts and antics. He was hyperactive, out of control, and was put on Ritalin by our school. The only time Eddie seemed in the least bit restrained is when the Ritalin would take effect and he would nod off. I don't believe anyone knew why Eddie was like he was, and I don't think anyone really took the time to care. Sadly, this included me.

Eddie entered Merrill Elementary School on the north end of Flint in third grade and right away it was obvious that he was a troubled child. In those days, acting out was not tolerated, children who misbehaved were sent for spankings by the Principle. So common was this form of discipline that our Principle's office included outlined hands drawn on the wall. When you were to be punished, you put your hands on the outline and then your feet were moved back to put the pressure on your hands. This method was devised to keep kids from putting their hands in the path of the swinging paddle. After you were paddled, you were then told the reason for your discipline and what kind of behavior was expected of you. It seems cruel now, but back then it was totally excepted. I have to say one thing about that form of discipline; very few kids acted out and classes were far better behaved then now.

Eddie was clearly the exception to that rule. No amount of punishment seemed to effect him. He beat a path to the Principle's office and soon the Principle gave our teacher permission to paddle him herself. The first time our 60-something teacher tried to spank Eddie, it didn't turn out so well. She lead him out into the hallway to receive his discipline and seconds later, in burst Eddie paddle in hand, our teacher in pursuit. Around and around the desks Eddie ran, laughing and tormenting his pursuer in a game of "Keep away." The class, sensing a rare moment of chaos, roared it's approving laughter. After Eddie was finally caught with the help of two other teachers, his Ritalin was increased to a point where he rarely raised his drugged head from off his desk.

When we were both graduated to Emerson Junior High I knew Eddie's life was going to get far worse. Some of the black kids immediately recognized him as an easy victim and Eddie was tormented endlessly. His tattered clothes and dim intelligence gave the poor oppressed black kids a rare chance to feel better than someone else. Even better for them, someone white. Eddie soon found himself being ridiculed by the lowest rung on the social ladder. For him, it must have seemed life could get no worse. I always watched from a distance, glad that it wasn't me. Glad that their attention was directed on someone else. In hindsite, I could have been a better person, a better human. It's a guilt I still feel today. Normally the few white kids banded together, co-miserating at their mutual misfortune. Eddie suffered alone and walked home alone.

On the day we were told that Eddie had killed himself. I remember that there was no crying. No one walked around with a vacant stare, in fact, no one seemed to care at all. His obituary read like a life wasted. No baseball trophies, no school accolades, no achievements. It described his 9 brothers and sisters and grieving mother, nothing else. For some reason, I started asking questions about Eddie. I realized that despite knowing him for 4 years, I knew nothing about him. I rode my bike past the address I had read in the obituary. His house was a small 235 house (houses given to the poor that only had only about 600 square feet of living space.) I tried to envision how 9 kids and an adult could live in one. The house was in complete disarray; broken bikes, chewed-up lawn, dog feces everywhere and broken windows. I learned from one of his brothers that Eddie had been molested repeatedly by one of his many step-fathers and severally beaten by all of them. His mother was an obese women who tolerated any behavior by her men as long as they would stay. I tried to envision even one happy moment in such a scenario. I could not. Eddie, it turns out, had hung himself in the basement during a very rare moment alone.

The more I found out about the sad life of Eddie Farrar, the more shame I felt for having laughed at him, for being part of making his already pitiful life even worse. I still think about Eddie sometimes and wonder why God had seen fit to treat someone so badly, who had so little to begin with. Life is filled with regret and all you can do is ask for forgiveness. I have tried to make up for my transgressions by being a better person now. Part of that process is recognizing what you have done wrong. The purpose of this post is part of that process. I now recognize that I wasn't as good a person as I could have been to Eddie. That I could have tried to help him or at least listened to him. For that, I am truly sorry. Forgive me Eddie, I didn't know. H.C.

BARACK'S BIGGEST PROBLEM? BLACK PEOPLE

2008-08-05T05:33:00.000-07:00

I know what your thinking. How could Senator Barack Obama have a problem with black people who are supporting him 90 to 95 %? Isn't that his strongest base? Absolutely. But Barack can not win this election with black people alone. He needs to have a decent chunk of the biggest group in the U.S., working class white people. And these are the people that are the most fickle constituents that Obama has in his stable. Ask your average white person if there is a disadvantage to being black and the majority of them will say "yes". Ask the same group what to do about it and they split into fractions. Race politics divides. Every since the Reverend Wright videos surfaced on youtube and all of our T.V.s and radios, Barack's support among white people, particularly white males, has fallen. I now believe that the biggest threat to Obama's campaign is the very people who have shown him the most steadfast support.

After the Reverend Wright videos, Barack's support among white people fell off considerably. In fact, Hillary Clinton actually got more of the Democrat's votes afterward. Is that the fault of white people? The mostly white media? No, and I'll tell you why. With the advent of the Internet, it's virtually impossible for the Main Stream Media to ignore a story that big. It's the introduction of the story that is the problem. Afterward, Reverend Wright went on to make even more outrageous statements, dragging poor Barack's misery out even further. Is it the media's fault that they responded to the Reverend's requests? If they didn't allow him his voice wouldn't the argument that Hill made of media bias be even more sound? Of course.

Later, when Jesse Jackson made his infamous, "I'd like to cut his nuts off." statement, was it the media's fault, or Jesse Jackson's? More recently, when Ludicrous, a black rapper, sang about painting the White House black, was it wrong for white people to be stunned? What if a white person became mayor of Washington D.C. and white people started saying it was time to "Whiten-up the place." wouldn't black people be equally stunned?

The truth of the matter is; Barack doesn't need to have race brought into the race at all.

Part of the problem is that black people are not used to black politicians avoiding the issue of race. Far from it. Black politicians usually thrive on it, it's their oxygen. Without it they can't survive or win in their mostly black districts. Obama avoiding the issue seems to black people the same as not caring. That's simply not true. Barack just understands white people far better than the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of old. The reason both Jesse and Al couldn't make their campaigns work as well as Barack's is because they cast themselves as a "black candidate", centering on black issues. With the possible exception of a very few guilt-ridden white Liberals, most of the white people ran to the white candidates as fast as they could. That is not how you win a Presidential election folks. You win by forming a constituency that is bigger than your opponents.

If these prominent black figures continue to inject race into the election, either through gloating or out of concern that it's being left out, Barack Obama will lose this race. Every time they bring up anything racial in nature, Barack's opponent's will seize the opportunity to make the election a racial issue and Obama loses the support among white middle class voters that he so desperately needs. The right will simply say, "We didn't bring it up." and they'll be right. Black advocates need to take a page out of the Republican hand book on this one. When the conservative right started showing up at functions and making statements, the Republican Party suffered. Now they are kept in the backfield. They still have as much influence, just not so publicly. Black people need to make a choice; do you want to have your problems heard during the race, or do you want influence and win. It's your choice, and I promise you can't have both. H.C.

BREAKING THE GRIP

2008-07-24T09:29:00.000-07:00

It's an ugly truth most people just don't want to admit. We Americans are puppets on a string. We're forced to send our money, our influence and even our children's lives to nations that hate our guts and take turns pulling the strings. Nations like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Russia and many more. With one meeting between the OPEC nations our economy can go into a panic, with one war in a oil-rich nation our life style becomes precarious. And we do it to ourselves. Like an animal that will eat and eat until it kills itself, we don't seem to know when to stop. Like an addict, we run to the pump for our fix no matter the price and like an addict, it's our addiction that will kill us. This addiction to oil is ruining us, and my friends, it can not go on.

When I was quite a bit younger in 1973, I saw all of this play out in a way that should have been a warning to us of times to come. In response to the Yom Kippur War, the OPEC nations announced they would no longer ship oil to nations that support Israel. The United States, along with several European nations and Japan caught the worst of it. Gas prices jumped through the roof and our economy took a serious hit. Later, during the 1979 Energy Crisis, we again got a glimpse of what was to come. Because of unrest in the Middle East we again found ourselves at the mercy of our puppet-masters. Just as we were gearing up to finally take action to end our dependency, the price fell back down again. Just like the addict that we are, there was no problem as long as we got our drug, and just like the addict that we are, we continued to bow to our drug dealers.

The recent rise in gas prices is just another example of the oil rich nations exercising their strength. With the collusion of Oil companies, speculators, politicians and investors, our dealers have become even more powerful than they could have ever imagined 50 years ago. They now have the power to bring us to our knees and quite possibly destroy our economy and our way of life. I can not stress enough how important this issue is. For me personally, it's the only issue. The amount of oil money that we export has now reached $700 billion dollars a year, the largest exchange of wealth in all of the world's history. If it continues it will ruin this country. Our politicians are all feigning outrage while stuffing their pockets with oil money. They pretend to search for solutions, when all they are doing is shifting the profits from Chevron to Exxon. As a reward for their misdeeds we offer them even more subsidies, more access to our land, less regulation and more power. In an effort to secure our supply, we have prostituted ourselves and our land.

In the past year, Americans have begun to wake up to the reality of our problem. People like T. Boone Pickens have taken it upon themselves to try to force our government to act. Researchers everywhere are searching for new answers and a way to self dependence and a cleaner form of fuel that is safer for our environment and our children's future. Fuel cells, Ethanol and hydrogen are all being explored as alternative energy. Wind and Solar power are getting a second look as are new ways of harnessing geothermal energy and even wave energy. We are standing at a crossroads and our choices are clear; continue being an addict or clean up our act and be self-dependent. Unfortunately, like an addict, as soon as we begin to get sick of our situation, as soon as we decide to change our ways, the dealer makes sure to give us what we need, until the next time they want us on our knees. H.C.

JOHN McCRASH

2008-07-21T20:05:00.000-07:00

I've wrecked a car or two in my time. I guess that's kind of bad since I drive for a living. The first one was when I was 17 years old. A guy and his girlfriend were timing a string of lights and caught me going through the yellow. Result; one very smashed Impala. In my next accident, nearly twenty years later, I was on the side of a dirt road cleaning off my windshield when a guy with his entire windshield frosted over drove right into me without ever touching his brakes. Result; one destroyed Chevy Nova. Other than that, I've had a small bump or two, but nothing that made my car any where near undrivable. Considering that I've driven professionally for over 30 years, I don't feel that's too awfully bad and shouldn't keep me from being anything I want to be.

With that in mind, let's compare my experience with John McCain's flying.

John McCain has crashed and burned 5, count 'em, 5 planes.

McCain graduated (fifth from the bottom of his class) from the Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1958. He also graduated from flight school in 1960. One of the planes he crashed, was during flight training where he was learning to land. I assume he flunked at least that lesson. For whatever reason, (maybe his Admiral dad and grandfather) they saw fit to give him a pilot's license anyway.

While deployed in the Mediterranean, McCain lost a second aircraft. McCain was reportedly, "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral." Oddly enough, shortly thereafter McCain was promoted to, of all things, a flight instructor.

However, John wasn't quite done wrecking planes. He lost a third aircraft while flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. He claimed he was experiencing a "Flame out" where his engines cut off. After several failed attempts to get his plane to restart, McCain bailed out leaving his plane to crash into a clump of trees. Thankfully, John wasn't close to any major city.

The fourth plane McCain took out was by far the most damaging. I should point out here that there are several versions of the events of July 29, 1967 on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Forrestal. The official version is that the plane behind McCain suffered a "electronic malfunction" of one of his missiles which launched on deck and struck McCain's plane. McCain then leaped out of his plane which was leaking fuel and was struck by scrapnel when the missiles on his plane blew up. Some witnesses have a different story. Their version is that McCain, always a joker, allowed fuel to build up in his engines before firing them up. This "wet start", would cause a large fireball to blow out the back of the engines startling the pilot behind you. In their version, this set off the missile which then struck McCain's plane. As McCain fled his injured plane, he inadvertently dropped two of his missiles onto the deck of the carrier causing further damage. In the end, 134 people died that day with even more dying of their injuries later. The U.S. Forrestal almost sank. John McCain was the only person evacuated immediately off the Carrier despite the fact that several other people had more serious injuries. (evidenced by the fact that several of them went on to die later.) Some of McCain's fellow crew mates claimed he was evacuated to keep him from being assaulted for his stupidity.

The fifth plane to be reduced to rubble by McCain is the only one he'll talk about. On Oct. 26, 1967, he was shot down and captured by the Vietnamese. McCain spent 5 1/2 horrific years being tortured before being released in 1973. This event lead to the "Hero" status that McCain enjoys today.

I would like to say that I have utmost respect for John McCain's service. My opinion of McCain from ever thing that I've read, and even things that have come out of his own mouth, is that John is simply not that bright. Five planes is an awful lot of planes to destroy no matter your excuses. These plane cost (in 1960's dollars) close to a million dollars each and that's not even including the enormous damage to the Forrestal. During the "Keating Five" trials, McCain claimed he was "duped" into supporting legislation that he didn't understand. Given his history, his education and his own words we should all take a long look at McCain and decide if this is a man who's intelligent enough to be President. Before he crashes our country. H.C.

IN DEFENSE OF TONY SNOW

2008-07-17T11:24:00.000-07:00

I don't much care for President Bush or his Assministration. Let's get that right out of the way. I called for the head of Donald Rumsfeld way back in '04 when George Tenet was fired. I've criticized their handling of the war, the Nation Debt, and damn near everything that they've done since they took office. However, I have to admit an admiration for Tony Snow and here's why.

First, as I've explained before, I think the job of White House Press Secretary is the hardest job in American politics. Your life expectancy is shorter than that of a suicide bomber. Presidents flip through Press Secretaries faster than Bill Clinton goes through women (which is pretty quick.). Bush is now on his fourth, or is it fifth, Press Secretary. It's hard to keep count. Tony's predecessor, Scott McClellan, was shit-canned for his inability to defend Dick Cheney's bad shooting. (He mistakes his friends for quail.) That's how hard it is to keep the job. In the arena of Press Secretaries, Tony Snow did something that was amazing, he was one of the very few that left before he was fired or asked to leave. Which is the same. But it's not his handling of the job that earned my respect, or even his devotion to his ideology. It's because Tony Snow showed dignity in doing the one thing that will be the hardest thing in any of our lives to do...dying.

Prior to his death on July 12, 2008, I got to know Tony mostly through his occasionally replacing Bill O'Reilly on "The Factor" radio show. Since I have aspirations to be a talk show host, I study successful radio personalities like Bill regularly. Their positions concern me less than their ability to draw people in. Tony was a surprisingly likable guy. He never made any concessions to his guest's point of view but still managed to be respectful and fun. That is something I'm striving to emulate. I learned a lot about Mr. Snow on Bill's show. That he once played in rock bands much like me, that he has always been married to the same women just like me, that he had 3 kids, two daughters and one son, just like me. And that he had cancer, just like me.

I don't advocate hating people just for their point of view, I get way too much of that myself. I find that's a common feeling amongst people who get attacked. To be more sympathetic to others who get attacked. I'm not whining, if I wanted to stop the attacks, I could simply stop putting myself out there, but I have learned that people can be vicious. Tony Snow must have learned that too, because I never saw him respond in the vicious way that he was sometimes treated. That shows real restraint, and real class.

I may not have agreed with Mr. Snow's opinions. I never could understand why he would even want to take the job of defending the Bush administration. But in the last days of Tony Snow's life I saw a man who never whined about his bad fortune, who never said, "Why me?" Dying is, without a doubt, the hardest thing that any of us will ever have to do and Tony did it with grace and dignity without asking for pity or pitying himself. For that, he will always have my respect. R.I.P. Tony Snow, a real man and a real gentleman. H.C.