Have you seen the pigs?

So if I had to choose just one place in this big beautiful country to move, I think that hands down I would have to choose our 48th state Arizona. A reminder of Old West history, Arizona is home to 28 national parks, the most famous of which is the Grand Canyon. And apparently there are actually residents in Arizona who remember the ones who came before them (like Cochise or Geronimo) who fought for freedom and what was right and among them is the current Governor,who may just be my new hero.

When President Obama nominated Janet Napolitano to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the line of succession elevated Jan Brewer, then the elected Secretary of State, to the office of the Governor. And apparently not afraid of poll numbers, Governor Brewer is now leading the call of the average Arizonan (and quite frankly the average American too) and fighting the fights that the people deem important and necessary. Personally I would love to have a governor (or any representative actually) who actually seems to govern and represent based on the will of the people. She's surrounded by a patriotic bunch of people that include Senator John McCain, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and State Senator Russell Pearce.

Just yesterday, Governor Brewer signed into Arizona law the nations toughest immigration enforcement policy to date. This legislation requires Arizona cops to question a person's residency status (during a stop or detention for just cause) if they have good reason to suspect that the person is in the country illegally. Yesterday's signing comes on the heels of recent legislation that will allow Arizonans to carry concealed weapons without a permit, a bill that gives the Governor the ability to circumvent the state Attorney General and sue over the healthcare overhaul as well as a bill introduced in the state House that would require presidential candidates to provide a copy of their birth certificate to be on the ballot.

Governor Brewer was clear in her statements at the signing ceremony when she said " And it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona remain solid - stable and steadfast." President Obama, after the immigration legislation was signed into law this afternoon, called the bill "misguided" and has ordered the Justice Department to see if it it legal. Opponents of the bill (obviously including President Obama) are afraid of potential civil rights violations as well as the idea that hispanics might be afraid to report crime for fear of being deported. So let me get this straight Mr. President. You're a constitutional scholar. Am I to believe that you don't have the ten minutes (that it just took me) to read the seventeen pages of the bill to determine if it is legal or not. Yet it is perfectly sane for you to think that the American people are just going to take your word for it when you tell us that the healthcare bill isn't going to cost us money, raise our taxes or strip us of our liberties when we are forced to purchase health insurance??!?

The new immigration law has the support of 70% of Arizonans, clear language outlining its abilities and its text (which did I mention was 17 pages?) sat on the Governor's desk for 4 days before she signed it. Healthcare reform consists of almost 3000 pages, well over one-half of the country opposed the action and the text (let me reiterate, almost 3000 pages) was signed into law less than 48 hours after it was voted upon. I think that I finally understand how the Obama administration works - analyze the situation and then do the exact opposite of common sense and the will of the people! Oh and if the people don't thank you, well then chastise and laugh at them because that goes over so well.

So I guess that I have been wrong. It is not a good idea to make something that by definition is illegal a crime and we shouldn't salute those who are working tirelessly to protect our borders and our citizens. I am sorry that I have questioned the exalted intellect and infallibility of the Administration and I will right now sit down and write a thank you note so that you know how much I appreciate the higher taxes and loss of liberty that I will experience as we watch healthcare reform grow.

Yeah, that's the plan because I just looked out the window and saw a couple of pigs flying by.

Tax Day. Do you need an extension?

Tax Day. When I was growing up, April 15 meant one thing - my grandfather was going to run to the accountant and request an extension. To this day I still do not know why he just didn't file his return, procrastination I guess, but still it is an image that I won't forget. In today's world, tax day brings a totally different image to mind. Thousands of people gathering on lawns, in parks, and on malls all over the country to display their anger over what the government is doing with regards to not only taxation but to the takeovers of healthcare and private businesses, the excessive spending practices, and to the overall weakening of our country perceived by the attendees.

Opponents of the Tea Party movement will counter today's gatherings as right-winged Republican love fests and the "tea-baggers" are so stupid that they don't even realize that they paid less in taxes this year. Here's the problem with that logic. No one that I met today (at the Tax Day Tea Party in Charlotte NC) was complaining about the taxes paid on returns due today. The folks I met were concerned with liberty and freedom and the futures of their children and grandchildren. They are concerned with things like renegade school boards, success of their businesses, finding or keeping a job and as most parents the idea that their children will have a better life than their own. They are concerned with dangerous legislations that will place unbelievable tax burdens on future generations. They are concerned with liberties and freedoms that are being stripped or limited and they came not to protest but rather to learn and educate themselves so that they can share these ideas with everyone that they meet.

Today I met a gentleman with Campaign for Liberty. David was most hospitable as I asked him to explain why he was at today's event. He explained that his group is focused on gaining support of a bill that would audit the Federal Reserve. He, like others in his group, was gathering signatures in order to present them to Senator Kay Hagan who as of today has not shown her willingness to support Senate bill S604 which has the support in the manner of a co-sponsorship by Senator Burr. (The House of Representatives has a similar bill (HR 1207) that has garnered some bi-partisan support here in the Tarheel state.)

I listened to impassioned speakers as they illustrated the problems, as they see them, that we are facing as a city, county, state and country. Speakers who illustrated solutions to some of the problems and complaints of the thousands on the lawn of the Old Courthouse instead of just recycling rhetoric in hopes of stirring the crowd. A merchant, who calls himself the Free Market Warrior and who was kicked out of a local mall last year (click here for a previous entry on this subject) for selling merchandise showcasing the viewpoints of the right and of the tea-party, spoke to the crowd about his plan of action. Loren Spivack urged the crowd to do something, "Three times in our history we have instituted fundamental change in this country -- the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and during the New Deal. Now we have the chance to do so again, if we are willing to DO SOMETHING." His core idea is education - of our children and ourselves. He got the biggest applause of his speech with this, "I don't want my history and values being taught by a government bureaucrat, give me the (tax) money back and I will teach my kids."

The organizer of both last year's and today's Charlotte event, Matthew Ridenhour, is both unassuming and humble but his speech was probably the most well received of the day. Matthew is a Marine who has served two tours of duty in Iraq and who began the organizing of the Tax Day Tea Party in a bar with some friends when none of them would step up to the plate. He shared his story with the crowd, "Its one thing to serve your country in Iraq and shed tears on their soil but to come home and see your country being fractured and Lady Liberty being destroyed from within...... freedom doesn't come without burden" He urged the crowd to carry that burden and to not just attend the Tea Party but to take action and educate.

Tax Day 2010. Maybe an old vision and and a new one have now combined. I think that today I witnessed an extension request from the American people (at least the ones I saw here in Charlotte). They are not willing to give up their country without a fight and they aren't just making noise. They are educating themselves on pending bills and current legislations as well as candidates who agree with them and those who don't. Be careful world, Kate Smith isn't singing yet!

Reading is Fundamental

Before yesterday, I had never heard of the Congressional Research Service. I think I am probably not alone but I am hoping that more and more people will come to know them almost as well as the Congressional Budget Office because if recent leaks of information contained in their reports are true, well they might be my new favorite entity in Washington, D.C. The CRS is a non-partisan think tank of sorts that serves a shared staff to congressional committees and members of Congress. The CRS, created in 1914 during the Wilson administration, provides analytical support in all levels of the legislative process. One of the most intriguing tasks with which they are charged is the preparing of confidential memoranda, briefings and consultations. The content of these "confidential" reports is often hard for the American public to find and access as they do not become a part of the public domain until a member of Congress releases them.

You may be asking yourself why the lesson on the Congressional Research Service - well I just thought that people should be aware that while it appears there is in fact a facet of Washington that continues to be non-partisan in its review of legislations, the reality is that the results of these evaluations are intentionally kept secret so as to allow members of Congress to continue to leave the American public in the dark and manipulate the data for their own purposes.

In August 2009, a CRS report was responsible for illustrating the fact that HR 3200 did not expressly prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits under the new healthcare reform bill. President Obama was quoted saying, "Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has not even been on the table." The reality? The CRS report showed that there was no language in the bill that the "Health Insurance Exchange" would have any restrictions on non-citizens (whether legally or illegally present or in the United States temporarily or permanently). There is a subsection within the bill that mentions that no benefits for affordability payments are to be made to individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States however since there is no specific language that establishes a verification or enforcement process (as in other Federal programs) it seems that there were gaping holes in the President's logic early on in the process of railroading this bill past the American public's opposition.

Now this week two pieces of information were brought to light through additional CRS reports. The first item is extremely disturbing. The healthcare reform bill passed contains a loophole that would not prevent "a qualified health plan in a health insurance exchange from providing coverage for drugs prescribed to treat ED to a non-incarcerated beneficiary who was previously convicted of rape, child molestation or other sexual offense." Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed an amendment to the bill in the final days of negotiations but it was summarily struck down by Democrats afraid that changing any portion of the language would delay or even (gasp!) prevent the bill's passage during Reconciliation.

I don't even think that I can begin to wrap my head around that idea. Is there really someone out there who thinks that its a good idea to give child molesters and rapists Viagra? If Congress can summon the heads of major companies before them to testify as to the validity of their accounting procedures that blatantly show that the healthcare sham of a bill will cost them money then why can the American public not require every member of the Senate that had a hand in the blocking of this amendment be brought before a panel and explain why they think that adjusting this language would have prevented the bill's passage. Is there a major lobbying group of child rapists that is funding re-elections? Everyone of their constituents should call their offices immediately and demand an answer as to why this amendment was blocked.

But I have the GREATEST way to combat their answer of "it was for the greater good". The senators who blocked the amendment to prevent sex offenders from receiving prescription medicines to improve their erections may in fact have shot themselves in the foot. In the rush to get this healthcare sham passed, language included in the bill may "remove members of Congress and Congressional staff" from their current coverage, in the Federal Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available. Anyone who isn't laughing hysterically at this moment must not have a funny bone because that is simply priceless! The party line legislators who have been telling us for over a year that if we like our healthcare coverage then we can keep have now, because none of them read the whole bill before passing it, opened the door to losing their own coverage! Wow! I hope that all of these members of the House and Senate are in excellent health and have no pre-exisiting conditions or they might for once have to see what is like for the rest of us minions.

Wait! Is it too late to call for St. Patrick?

The new week brings the President's nuclear summit to Washington, D.C. Forty-seven world leaders are meeting in our nation's capital to discuss the nuclear future of the world. Noticeably absent are the two biggest nuclear threats within the globe - North Korea and Iran.

Is it just me or is anyone else worried about the staying power of these agreements given the President's history on campaigning for other people, places or things? And isn't that what this summit is all about anyway? Asking or campaigning for the other attendees to come around to our (as the host) way of thinking?

President Obama campaigned quite fervently for the Chicago Olympic bid for the 2016 games, even going as far as to fly himself and the First Lady and Oprah over to Copenhagen to plead in person. That worked out famously as we all know. The President then threw his support to some high-profile candidates in a few of off-year races that were held in November and the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat held in January. Those endorsements were held in such high esteem and voters were apparently fired up and ready to go after listening to the President's justifications for elections since they were able to defeat Jon Corzine, Martha Coakley and Creigh Deeds. Yet even with an 0-4 record, there are still those willing to keep the President campaigning on the country's behalf.

Recently the President made a surprise jaunt to Afghanistan so that he could visit with our troops. During his trip. he visited with the Afghan President Hamid Karzai. That meeting went so well that within a week, Karzai was threatening to resign his Presidency and join the Taliban. That event was on the heels of the announcement (during Vice President Joe Biden's visit) that Israel was going to approve more construction on the West Bank.

Now we have President Obama meeting with the leaders of forty-seven nations trying to hammer out the details on a successful nuclear strategy for the rest of the world. After a productive first day of talks, it was announced that China was on board to maybe possibly think about moving toward the Obama way of thinking on Iran and the Ukraine decided to give up its highly enriched uranium. Given the fact that China could really care less about sanctions on Iran and the President's own spokesperson wasn't sure where the uranium was to be sent (namely to us or to Russia - who might or might not give it to other countries for power generation) I think our not inviting some countries to the summit has allowed us to dodge an onslaught of rats.

I am glad that North Korea and Iran did not attend this summit. We could have been left with the fallout from a boobonic plague of a Presidential campaign that I don't think that we have enough stores of potassium iodide to combat.

I'm firing up the DeLorean

In September 2001, President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were lambasted in both the US based main stream media as well in International media outlets for (in the wake of the attacks of September11) stating that Osama bin Laden was "Wanted Dead or Alive" or even that we wanted "his head on a platter". Where is the same outrage now as the current Administration adds an American born Muslim cleric to the "kill or capture" list?

The Bush Administration was admonished over and over for using bellicose and "Texas-style" rhetoric with regards to the terrorist responsible for murdering 2998 Americans. President Bush was accused of stripping Americans of their freedoms with the Patriot Act. The main stream media became firmly entrenched behind those who opposed the policies of President Bush. Groups like Code Pink, MoveOn.org, and the Media Fund were lauded in their vocal protests by the media. Anyone who expressed opposition to these media darlings were charged as trying to quiet the voices of dissent.

In 2003, MSNBC talking head Keith Olbermann hailed the anti-Bush protests and stated, "It is political dissent that created this country and sustained it and improved it." A mere six years later, Olbermann showed his Kerry-esque flip-flop ability (in August of 2009) saying that anti-Obama protests were "societal sabotage" and insisted that "the protesters are not interested in hearing any voices other than their own". CBS's Katie Couric was quoted as saying (with regards to the Bush administration) that there was "a sense of pressure from corporations who own where we work and from the government itself to really squash any kinds of dissent or any kind of questioning of it" Hello Pot? This is the Kettle!

A little over a year after taking office, we have now seen the Obama Administration make significant changes to National Security language. The words jihad and Islamic radicalism have been removed from a key document outlining the US security strategy. We've seen a policy released that states that we will won't use nuclear weapons on most countries no matter what they use on us. We've seen the Attorney General of the United States say that (another) 9-11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, should be tried in a Federal court in New York City but that Osama bin Laden would "never be tried in a US court" because he would most likely be killed before he was captured and they wouldn't "read Miranda rights to his corpse." We've witnessed Homeland Security (under the Obama Administration in April 2009) issue warnings that there will be rises in terror threats from home grown right-wing extremist organizations because they may be gaining new recruits by playing on fears about the recession and the election of the first African American president.

What we have also witnessed however is two very clear attacks on American soil (the first since September 11, 2001). In November 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 American citizens and injured another 30. On December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab was apprehended after attempting to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Both of these attacks are now linked to a Muslim cleric who is also an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki and the Obama administration has now authorized the killing of this American citizen.

So can someone please tell me the difference between issuing a "Wanted Dead or Alive" type of statement about a monster who claimed responsibility for killing almost 3000 Americans and the authorization of a "kill or capture" order for an American born Muslim? Why do we issue vast warnings about right-wing extremists when there wasn't a single arrest of a tea party protester at any of the hundreds of tea parties (at least none that the author is aware of since I am sure had there been the main stream media would have been all over the story) across the country over the past year? Why do we remove "Islamic radicalism" from our National Security language when actual attacks on our homeland are attributed to a Muslim cleric? Why do we joke about reading Miranda rights to a dead Saudi man but then turn around and issue a kill order for an American citizen? And why do we vilify a President who uses the Patriot Act to assist in our protection yet we glorify another President who strips us of the right to choose our own (or lack thereof) health insurance and who has lied time and time again in his bid to take over one sixth of the economy?

I am confused and befuddled by this seemingly parallel universe and sometimes wish for a DeLorean so that I can speed down the road at 88 miles per hour so that I can get back to the future where I hope that this mess has been fixed by another trip back in time.

Please feel free to follow me on Facebook

We have a history

Is it right to continue with something just because there is a history behind it? By definition, everything and every situation has a history.

Should we continue to deny women voting rights simply because there is a history that did not allow them to? Or should slavery still be a mainstay in the south because there used to be plantation owners who owned slaves? Both of these statements are as ridiculous as the blanket statment "We have a history."

History cannot be changed that is true but our interpretations and reactions to past events can be changed. We must strive to make informed decisions on future actions based on consequences from previous experiences.

George Santayana said "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it. " I think that this (and its many variations) might be my favorite all philosophical quotes because it applies to almost every possible situation in life.

What do you think that we could have avoided repeating if we studied the history (plainly written in an autobiography) and learned that President Barack Obama was the type of man who would find it necessary to surround himself with Marxists and Communists. If we had studied our history would we now be surprised that the President fills the Oval Office with the likes of Van Jones, Ron Bloom and Reverend Jim Wallis.

What do you think that we would learn if we studied the history of any of the politicians that we elect to represent us and write our laws? We would find that there are some who cheat on their wives, their taxes or their business partners. We would also find some who are honest and hard-working individuals who have histories that feature service to our country and their communities . Which history should we use to aid us in the election of lawmakers that will be charged with caring for the future for our children?

The answer is both. So please do your homework. Study your history. Before you enter the ballot box know the history of the people for whom you press the button or pull a lever. The truth is some history should be avoided and some should be revered.

Frankie Says.........

So I think that the folks that run the schools in Florida have finally gone off the deep end. After last fall's debacle in Broward County where students were to be punished for not watching a speech by President Obama we now have a case in the Orlando area where a student is being threatened with suspension for wearing a bracelet to support Breast Cancer Awareness.

At first I thought that this might be an April Fool's Day story but then I realized that the ridiculousness of it had to be true. Apparently a 14-year old boy wore one of those plastic bracelets (thanks Lance Armstrong) printed with the phrases " I love boobies" and "Save a Breast". The school administration says that the bracelet caused a commotion. Really? I seriously doubt that the student wearing the bracelet was walking around chanting the phrases on his wrist.

The only conceivable commotion I can think of would be from other students (most likely other 14-year old boys) making comments about breasts and boobies. And if a teacher or administrator can't handle fourteen year old boys talking about breasts and various other female body parts than you probably are teaching the wrong aged students because that's all they are thinking about anyway. So why take the armband away? It raises awareness for breast cancer and countless other bands in an array of colors represent a myriad of other causes. So why take it away? Because it says "breast" and "boobie"? Unless your health teacher is referring to the female anatomy in health class as her lovely lady lumps well then I really don't see the issue.

I thought that schools today (especially those in Florida) were most concerned with teaching youth to be good global citizens? Isn't showing support for a disease that one out of every three women will be diagnosed with a worthy global initiative? Maybe its only okay to show support for a cause if you a part of a mandatory service work program?

I wish that I could say that Frankie was still wearing his bracelet but sadly the school's administration succeeded in their bullying tactics (can teachers be members of a service employees union?) and he has stopped. He told a local news agency, "I just don't want to get in trouble anymore." Sounds like a real trouble-maker huh?

So here's my idea. Every parent with kids at Tomlin Middle School and everyone else who thinks that this entire situation in completely ludicrous and out of control should adopt a new slogan...........

FRANKIE SAYS SAVE THE BOOBIES!