MORE SNIPPETS

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

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

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'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.