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.