Saturday, January 31, 2009

Carl Levin lies while showing disrespect for the Constitution

The US Senate collectively is the biggest group of screw ups in any governmental body. No group has singlehandedly screwed up this country since the Carter administration.

Carl Levin has been in office for 30 years, first elected in 1978. Since then, he can almost always be counted on for embarassing this state. While there was this talk of "hope and change" during the last election, leave it to the senate to send the same group of old timers and screw ups back to Washington. Carl Levin leads the way in this state. More of the same.

Levin just ran his mouth again showing his distain for the constitution. There's many LIES given here, and he needs to be called out on them.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives described assault weapons in their Assault Weapons Profile as weapons “designed for rapid fire and close quarter shooting at human beings.

That's not what was banned under the old law. What was banned were mostly RIFLES. Rifles are not designed for close quarter shooting. "Rapid rife" firearms were banned in 1934 without a special Class 3 licenses (and those are restricted to those built before 1986). Carl, you need to shut the hell up if you don't understand an issue, but where else could I expect more ignorance than from the US Senate.

That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are massed produced mayhem.” Unlike semiautomatic hunting rifles, which are designed to be fired from the shoulder and rely on the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, assault weapons are designed to be fired at the hip and to maximize their ability to rapidly shoot multiple human targets.

Now that is just one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in my life. The "evil" AK-47's are shot from the shoulder. So is the AR-15, MP-5, and all pistols.

The report also outlines the dangerous weapons race law enforcement officers have been forced to enter in an effort to counter the increasing likelihood that they will be confronted by a criminal wielding an assault weapon. In addition to the common criminal, assault weapons are high attractive weapons for terrorists. The ease which with they can currently be purchased, combined with their designed ability to inflict as much damage possible, make them ideal tools for conspiring terrorists. Just last year five men were arrested in New Jersey with a stockpile of assault weapons, while planning to attack the United States Army base at Fort Dix.

Under the ban, I could have stockpiled a ton of pre-ban fireams easily. Nothings changed since the ban. The rest is just political speak and crap by someone who has high disrespect for freedom.

Despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community,

Like who outside of a few chiefs, which are mostly politicians whose job is to kiss the mayor's rear end?

Now, four years later, 19 previously banned military-style assault weapons, some capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute, are once again pervading our streets and neighborhoods.

This is the biggest pile of crap of all. 600 rounds a minute? Why don't you prove it, son? You get one of those pre-ban firearms, and fire off 600 rounds in a minute. I'll even let you pre-load all the magazines first. If you can't do that with one of these formerly banned so called assault weapons, sit down and shut your damn mouth. There is no way in hell I could fire off 600 rounds in one minute with a semi-auto with a standard magazine. 10 rounds in one second, with 20 standard magazines (30 rounds). That means I reload twenty times in a minute. I'm not sure I could even pull off 600 rounds in a low recoil Ruger 10/22 with a teardrop magazine (50 rounds - 12 reloads) in a minute, let alone with a AR-15 or a semi-auto knockoff of an MP-5 or Uzi (Full auto). This isn't an automatic firearm we're discussing here, but the firing of one bullet per one trigger pull.

Here's the thing that is ALWAYS the case about gun grabbers. They can not rely on the facts in making their argument. They rely on lies and deception in their fight against freedom. They lie about not taking our guns away, lie about the facts in order to scare people, lie about saying it does not apply to hunting weapons, and lie. The reason why gun grabbers like Levin lie is because they believe that only the government should own firearms and that us rubes can not be trusted with them. When only the government has guns, it's called a police state.

It's time for real change. Unfortunately, the people of Michigan wanted more of the same and re-election this fool. Don't blame me. I voted for Jack, and Rocky before him.

And one again, if you don't know the fact Levin, sit down and shut your damn mouth, son.

The New RNC Chair - Michael Steele

Yesterday, the RNC elected Michael Steele to be RNC chair. While he wasn't my first choice (Saul Anuzis), he wasn't my last choice either (Mike Duncan). One thing I do like about Steele is that he didn't make his name in Washington. He came out of the ranks of state government, as the Lt Governor of Bob Ehrlich. He also was, along with Newt Gingrich and JC Watts, tied in with GOPAC which works on building farm clubs of Republican officeholders.

Congratulations to Steele, but now it is time for the RNC to get to work to take back the majority from the idiots like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and the fools in the US Senate (more than any other political body) who are FUBARing this country. While much has been made about technology being a major difference in these elections, it is one aspect out of many that needs to be addressed, and not the biggest. The biggest is to bring the ideas back, and ideas do not come from Washington DC.

Part of the reason of the 1994 victories was put in place before the Contract with America. It didn't start with Rush Limbaugh or talk radio. It didn't start with the internet, then dominated by the right and/or libertarians. It didn't start with Newt Gingrich, although he was one of the major people responsible for the comeback. It started with reforms in state governments. John Engler and Tommy Thompson with their welfare reforms started the changes. In 1993, Virginia and New Jersey flipped in their gubenatorial elections.

In 1994, The GOP picked up 12 gubenatorial seats, in addition to its congressional victories. These pickups were in the South and West as one would think, but also in the Northeast. New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Connecticutt of all place. They also held in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. They held all their seats in the Upper Midwest at the time as well. Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, and Illinois. Now a lot can be be said for reasons of the changes since then, not the least of which (In Ohio and Illinois) were crooks in state government like George Ryan (Chicagoland politics is even more corrupt than Detroit and New Orelans) and Bob Taft. In off year elections, governors usually lead the ticket. That's the case in Michigan as well, which will be an open seat as Granholm is (thankfully) termed out. Those lead the way.

One thing I was not doing when Howard Dean was elected DNC chair was laughing. Most of the GOP was laughing at his 50 state strategy. I wasn't. Many democrats were cringing and said that Dean was wasting his time. I was also cringing, for a different reason. The problem I saw was too many followers in the GOP, and that leads to trouble and complacency. When the main principles of the GOP are supposed to be less government and more freedom, and when Bush is leading a big spending spree, trouble is on the horizon, and peaked with this stupid bailout. Much of the base stayed home in 2008.

What Steele and the RNC need to do is a simple, but three-fold strategy.

1. Keep the base. By keeping the base, I do not mean exclude the others that aren't part of the base, but without the base united, nothing will happen. The GOP can not under any circumstances become democrat lite nationally. Now I understand that certain people can not win in some areas on some social issues (which mostly should be left to the states - let California be California, Alabama be Alabama, and Ohio be Ohio), but the big spending, bailouts, and trash like that needs to come to the end, especially on the federal level.

2. Don't concede a damn thing. Candidates should be run everywhere, and should be supported everywhere. What the hell have the democrats done for Detroit over the last fifty years? They destroyed it, and it started with the "white progressives" running it. On the same note, what efforts have the Republicans made in Detroit to compete? Jackshit. They ran against Detroit, without having a plan for reforming Detroit. This isn't limited to Detroit. The GOP concedes most fights against incumbents before it starts. This is especially true in the Senate. It should be easy to run against senators. They, more than anyone else, screwed up this country, and have been around forever. There's no way North Dakota should have two democrat senators. There's also no way that 1/2 of the seats should have been conceded before things even started in 2006. Arkansas (Still locally very democrat) had no Republican candidate. A first termer had a free ride. That's unacceptable.

3. Ideas win. Campaigns should not begin and end with "They suck." Yes, they do suck, but that's not enough of a reason for the middle to vote against somebody. It did not work in 2004 for the dems, and it did not work in 2008 for the GOP. In 1994, a vote on these issues was promised - and delivered (Votes on issues happened, some didn't pass)- if the Republicans took control.

Going back in time

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (Description)

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. (Bill Text) (Description)

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. (Bill Text) (Description)

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. (Bill Text) (Description)

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. (Bill Text) (Description)

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (Description)

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (Description)

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. (Bill Text) (Description)

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation. (Bill Text) (Description)

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. (Description)

Unfortunately, when the trouble happened, largely from 2002 to 2006, the GOP got away from those ideas, and we had spending increases, and balanced budgets from the Mike Pence wing of the party shot down. What is needed today is a new contract on these 70% issues that Americans support and are the backbone of the GOP. This needs to be pushed in 2010. Be the leaders, kick Pelosi and Reid to the curb, and make Obama follow until 2012, and kick him out.

I hope Michael Steele is up to the task and gets the RNC straightened out from the mess it's in. He has a chance to be the hero much like Haley Barbour was when he took over a "down and out" GOP back in 1993.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Howell School Board signed contract without reading - again

After what happened with the contract regarding the former super, I figured the current board would learn by the previous mistakes. It appears that they did not do so here according to the Argus.

From the Argus

The Howell Public Schools Board of Education on Monday approved a contract with the district’s second-largest union despite board member concerns that they had not read the agreement.

The district’s contract with the Howell Educational Support Personnel Association — which represents nonteaching staffers such as secretaries, financial assistants and food service workers — is valid through June 2010.

I don't know if this is a good contract or not. That's not my complaint about this contract. My complaint is with the process. Board members and trustees need to read the contract before signing off on it. It's just common sense. Robert Parker, one of the three votes against this (Along with Ed Literski and Debi Drick) said it best.

“This board has enough interest, when you have the second-largest bargaining unit, to have an obligation to look at the contract,” Parker said.

Trustee Wendy Day agreed, but said it would be unfair to not approve a contract she said met the requirements the board gave its bargaining committee.

“I do not want HESPA to be punished for discussion that came up today,” Day said. “I think this is a good contract.”

Always read the contract. Always. The last thing needed is a rubber stamp. I don't expect boards to be micromanagers, but if your name is going on the record as approving the contracts, you better read it first. Contracts are the most important matter school boards deal with.

I like Wendy(who explained her vote on her site), but I could not disagree more with this comment. I don't think she's shocked by my view on this either as she's well know how cautious I am on financial matters going back to our time on the GOP executive committee. I think HESPA would not have a problem with the board reading the contract. They shouldn't have a problem with it. I hope it is a good contract, but reading it first would make sure it was a good contract. It's not a matter of punishment, but of checks and balances between the admins, union, and the board. Is this a good contract? I wouldn't know unless I read it. This vote should have been tabled until the next meeting.

Lastly, if there was any reason for the Howell School Board to read a contract before signing it, the Argus reminds us of what happened back in 2002.

In 2007, it created a stir when the Daily Press & Argus reported that some former and current board members at that time were not aware that the contract of former Superintendent Chuck Breiner did not have a “just cause” clause, which allows a district to fire a superintendent for good reason without incurring additional financial responsibility.

The newspaper’s review of the contracts showed the clause disappeared from Breiner’s contract starting in 2002. Breiner worked as superintendent from 1999 to last year, when he accepted a board buyout offer valued at more than $202,000.

Read before signing. Kudos to Bob Parker, Ed Literski, and Debi Drick for NOT voting for contracts before reading them. This should have been tabled until the next meeting so everyone could read it and make an informed decision. It's just common sense not to sign a contract you don't read.

MIGOP Chair update

This just in, according to Right Michigan

Jack Hoogendyk has dropped out of the MI GOP Chairman's race. That leaves former Slovakia Ambassador Ron Weiser as the last man standing barring any late addition. It looks like he's our next chair.

Good luck to Ambassador Weiser.

Jim DeMint tries to get Senate Leadership to wake up, gets attacked for his efforts

The Senate proves once again that it is the most inept body on the face of the earth. This time it's the GOP senate leadership being the problem....again. Jim DeMint tries his best, but this is his response.

From Politico

Just after November’s election, Republican senators huddled in a closed-door meeting to consider a package of rules that would have tossed Ted Stevens out of their conference, imposed term limits on party leaders and otherwise changed the way the Senate Republican Conference does business.

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who proposed the rules, saw quickly that they weren’t going to be popular with his colleagues. So one of his staffers urged him to withdraw the proposal setting term limits on the GOP leader, and DeMint hoped the others would remain packaged together so they could be considered in a single vote.

But Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee took issue with the staffer and quickly called a vote on the term-limit proposal before DeMint decided to withdraw it. Then party leaders proceeded to call up each of DeMint’s other proposals separately, creating a long series of votes that DeMint lost badly.

“No doubt,” DeMint said, Republican leaders were “trying to humiliate” him.

Let's look at what the old system has got us. The Senate revived the bailout. Ted Stevens invented the bridge to nowhere. The senate spends more than the house and voted for that bridge 80-20 or something like that. The same people who screw up get promoted and are part of the club. DeMint, who is a relative newcomer to the senate. McConnell has been there for years. Alexander is new, but was a Tennessee governor and has been a politican insider for ever.

As Republicans seek a way forward after two disastrous elections, social and fiscal conservative activists off Capitol Hill are rallying behind DeMint because of his unrelenting style to force his party to return to its small-government, free market roots. DeMint, 57, said in an interview that he’s not dwelling on his previous battles with the GOP leadership and sees areas where his party’s leaders and the Obama administration can work together to solve the country’s problems.

But DeMint is less willing to compromise with Democrats than many in his party, and some Senate Republicans doubt his fiery tactics can lead their party out of the political wilderness when the public is seeking an end to legislative gridlock.

DeMint’s critics, including senior Republican senators and top aides in the Senate, say his refusal to work within the norms of the body — by showing deference to party leaders and chairmen and building support behind closed doors without airing concerns first to the news media — undermines his ability to draw support for his cause.

The problem right now is that there is too much deference to "leaders" and not enough leadership that deserves deference. Right now the GOP needs to do two things more than anything else.

1. Formulate a clear plan of opposition plan to Obama's big spending. Noticed I said "plan." That doesn't mean simply saying that Obama's plan sucks (which it does). It means coming out with a good alternative to Obama's plan and communicate it to them.

2. Clean up the corruption. Don't tolerate the Ted Stevens types anymore.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Mr. Obama obsessed with talk radio

Mr. Obama and his cult of personality is not happy with some of the resistance to his big government "stimulus package." He then goes on and takes a shot at Rush Limbaugh. I'm surprised he didn't go after Hannity as well who got under his skin a few times during the campaign.

From the NY Post

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

I don't know what Rush Limbaugh said. I do know that his big spending package sucks and won't stimulate the ecomony. It is "Bailout part 4" and another "crap sandwich", to use John Boehner's term. I do think it is funny that someone who just took office and is supposed to act like a president is being a bitch already about Rush Limbaugh of all people.

The Dems, Mr. Obama's own party, have a sizable lead in the house and a major lead in the most incompetent body of government on earth, the US Senate. That does not count Republicans like Hatch, McCain, and Voinovich. Obama does not need any Republican votes. Why is he having a whiny hissy fit and acting like a bitch about Rush Limbaugh? I didn't know Rush even had that sort of power. I don't normally listen to Rush and usually listen to classic rock instead, but I'll probably turn on his station Monday at some point just to get the reaction.

Not everyone is going to agree with you, Obama. Be the man and suck it up. If you are that concerned about Rush Limbaugh, how are you going to deal with Bin Laden?

And then Mr. Obama says this about complaints.
I won

So what? Son, I'm going to explain how things work. We're the board of directors. You work for us. We don't work for you. We don't have kings in the United States. We don't serve the government. Your job is to work for the country - us. If enough board members want you out, you're fired. That's how things work. You won since you were not George W Bush. You keep putting in poor plans like this stimulus plan, and keep showing your arrogance streak, and you'll end up being something that George W Bush was not. A one-termer, like the worst president in my lifetime, Jimmy Carter. If that happens, I'll be right there laughing at you when you are fired, cause nothing pleases me more in politics than when arrogant wannabe kings with giant egos get knocked down to size. See Joe Schwarz in the 2006 primaries.

On the side note, I think the Republicans need to pick and choose the battles that are fought. Don't come across as TOO obstructionist, or you'll get another 2002 election. However, pick the right battles, develop (I didn't say recruit) the right candidates, form the right plan beyond "they suck", and watch them overreach, and there could be a 1994. One thing the cult of Obama will learn quickly is that their leader isn't going to measure up. They expect Jesus, not Jim Jones. When Jim Jones Obama does not deliver, what will happen? What will happen after all the hard work those cultists did for him is responded with say, a continuation of Bush's Iraq War policies? No prosecution or further investigation of Bush or his admin? When there is not a lot of changes outside of the face and speaking? If these people are scorned, watch out in 2010. I'm not referring to the democrat and the party partisans here, but the strictly Obama cultists. If they are scorned, they will do what a sizable number of conservatives did in 2008....stay home because of their views of McCain and dissapointment with Bush.

Now it's time for this big spending package to be defeated, just like the big bailout during Bush's term should have been defeated. You can say a lot about the partisan nature of this site at times, but one thing I am is consistent. Big spending packages are usually bad, no matter who's administration signs them.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Inside baseball (RNC, MI GOP races)

I'm violating the 3rd rail of my site. I generally do not comment much publicaly on inside baseball measures that are not elections. It often causes more trouble than it is worth. Right now we have two significant races affecting the GOP. One is for RNC chair. The other is MI GOP chair.

I'll start with the MI GOP chair. I am currently undecided in who I am supporting, assuming that I am a state delegate for the next convention. I have been a delegate every time I chose to run for the spot, so I assume it is likely I'll be at the next meeting. Ingham County Chair and former State Senator Norm Shinkle was running, and dropped out and supported Former Slovakia Ambassador Ron Weiser. That means two people are running now. Ron Weiser and State Rep and US Senate candidate Jack Hoogendyk. I know both Norm and Jack who are both good people. I do not know Ron Weiser. I don't claim solidarity to the "West MI" clique or the "East MI" cliques, etc. etc. I've backed those firmly in the West MI clique in the past, and those in the East MI clique in the past. I will continue to back those in both camps.

I have three questions for each of the candidates.

1. How are you going to keep the State Senate, AG, and Sec of STate seat, and how are you planning to take back the house, governor, and State Supreme Court back from the dems?

2. How do you plan to assist candidates who are running - specifically.

3. How will you build on the current foundation set by Saul and his administration and which would you do the same or different?

Those three questions and answers will determine whom I support.

Now for the RNC, there are six candidates for that position.

1. Saul Anuzis
2. Mike Duncan
3. Michael Steele
4. Ken Blackwell
5. Chip Saltsman
6. Katon Dawson

1. Saul Anuzis. Saul is great at logtistics and communications. That's his specialty. Many chairs want to be part of the cocktail party crowd. Saul will go to the grassroots meetings instead. Saul also is not afraid to go on TV to go after the dems, or to ruffle feathers. He's a solid conservative (fiscal, life, guns), and is working to make sure the GOP is fiscally conservative again. I remember how on Granholm's tax increase, he was doing his best to try and firewall that from going into law. It didn't happen, but he showed that the Republicans need to stand for something and not follow the leader of Granholm which started this downward spiral going back to 02-04.(Johnson/Sikkema) I do have one concern. Who will Saul hire in DC for election consulting? Saul is a delegater, like a lot of CEO's. After 2004 I talked with him about election mailings and strategies since I had some concerns about some of them and what happened in a few races. I think that is his one major weakness in Michigan. If that is addressed, and I think it can be as Saul IS a delegater, then Saul can be a great chair for the RNC. Election strategy is my only concern, but it is a concern. I think it is less of one in DC for him than it is in Michigan with the cliques. DC has it's cliques, but Saul isn't as tied to/against them than he was to a degree in Michigan.

2. Mike Duncan, the incumbent, needs to go. The RNC, NRCC, and NRSC hung out to dry so many winnable seats and got involved too often in primaries, spending money that needs to be used to win seats away from democrats. That's not to get to the next part. Mike who? I've never seen him. He's the RNC chair, and I couldn't pick out his face in the crowd? That's not good. Lastly, he was Bush's guy. I've frankly had enough of the Bush years and the big spending and the "big government conservatism." Sorry, Mike. It's not personal against you, but just how it is time for Boehner to step down from leadership, it's time for new leadership in DC that is frankly not tied to the establishment crowd.

3. Michael Steele. His claim to fame is running successfully as Bob Ehrich's LT in Maryland back in 02. Ehrlich as governor, Steele as LT Gov. He ran in 06 against Ben Cardin and did not win.

4. Ken Blackwell. I like the guy since he wasn't tied to the corrput Taft liberal republican machine in Ohio and their tax increase/gun grab support. More importantly, Blackwell spoke up and fought that when it was not the in thing to do. Taft was convicted of four misdemeanors while in office, and Blackwell was not a part of that. Unfortnately, he lost badly in his gubenatorial campaign.

5. Chip Saltsman - Mike Huckabee's campaign manager and former policy advisor to Bill Frist. He did a good job in Tenneesee from keeping it from being Gored in 2000.

6. Katon Dawson - South Carolina Chair. I don't know much about him, although South Carolina is the most GOP state in the South up and down the ticket.

For MI GOP Chair, I'm undecided. For RNC, I support Saul Anuzis.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Eric Holder - Unacceptable - Janet Reno part II

While there isn't a chance in hell it will happen, the US Senate needs to tell Obama that Holder is unacceptable and that he needs to pick someone better.

We do not need someone with disrespect for freedom and someone who thinks the government is above the law like Eric Holder and Janet Reno believe. For the record, Mulaskey and Gonzalez were poor AG's. Ashcroft was a disappointment. Reno was even worse than all of them.

Why is Holder unacceptable?

1. He was deputy AG for Janet Reno. That alone raises red flags. While Reno was the Butcher of Waco, Holder wasn't part of that as he joined in 1997. There was still plenty of problems during his tenure in Stonewall Reno's cabinent.

First off, the pardons. Those have been covered in much of the news. Clinton pardoned FARQ terrorists, and Mark Rich. There was also the stonewalling of Clinton's contributions from Chinese government. While most of the hype of Clinton comes from the Vince Foster death or the Lewinsky (big deal) scandal, the worst was taking the money from Chinese government. Reno put a stop to that, and Holder was part of it.

2. Just recently, he affirmed his distain for the 2nd Amendment with his amicus brief. There's the brief. It was signed by the Reno "justice" department, including Eric Holder. The most incompetent security official in American History also signed it, Jamie Gorelick (who was also part of Reno's department). Seth Waxman (part of Reno's team) was also part of that team and is well known to gun owners in the 1990's. Just as it was a long eight years for gun owners facing discrimination from Reno, it will be another long four years under Holder as AG, as he spits on the constitution just like Reno did.

3. As a US attorney, he went after a law abiding citizen on a technicality over the DC law. This shows his overzealousness and shows an almost Mike Nifong style of judgment. From Legal Times.

In its letter (pdf), the NRA cites a criminal case from Holder’s time as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia in which a New York man was convicted of carrying a pistol without a license. Robert Bieder, who was licensed to carry a gun in New York, had brought the gun to Virginia for recreational purposes and, while returning to New York, stopped in Washington to visit the U.S. Capitol with his daughter. When he tried to check the gun with the Capitol Police, Bieder was arrested.

“Pursuing this trivial case to such lengths imposed substantial costs on taxpayers, with no benefit at all to public safety,” reads the NRA letter. “A reasonable prosecutor might have exercised his discretion by sending Mr. Bieder home to New York with a far better understanding of the District’s strict gun laws. That Mr. Holder chose to do otherwise raises serious questions about his judgment.”

I know some democrats are going to mention Bush's AG's. I'm not a fan of them either. Ashcroft was a disapointment. Gonzales was a crony. Mulaskey is what I expected as he is a friend of Chuck Schumer. Reno was the worst of all of them though, going back to Waco, and her stonewalling. Holder is a yesman to Reno, and has shown distain of his own towards the constitution and needs to get defeated.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Annoying laws

Everybody does it....

That's the response from the City of Brighton. They cited some similar ordinances from Fowlerville and Green Oak, among other places.

From the Argus:

Brighton gained national notoriety for making amendments to its harassment ordinances, which were dubbed its "annoyance ordinances," but it's certainly not the only place with such rules.

Seventeen other communities in Michigan have similar rules, including Fowlerville and Green Oak Township in Livingston County.

Fowlerville has an ordinance identical to that of Brighton, and it states, "No person shall insult, accost, molest, or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign, or motion, any person in any public place."

Green Oak Township's harassment ordinance says it is unlawful for a person — with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — to "engage in a course of conduct, or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose."

Although the laws are on their books, law enforcement officials said the rules rarely result in actual tickets being issued for civil infractions. Typically, police officers only have to show up to get compliance.

One common saying among gun owners is that there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books. One other saying is that everybody breaks the law every single day. Part of the reasons for that is that there are hundreds of thousands of laws on the books that are unknown, vague, unenforced, but still there.

That does not mean that we should ignore them. If it is a bad law - REPEAL IT! The POTENTIAL of a current law on the books being enforced in arbitrary situations that are vague, hard to define, and hard to defend, is bad enough. I don't care if it is "only a civil infraction" and I go irate when it is "only a misdeamenor." Misdeamenors are a very big deal for me. I do not have and can not get them on my record. I can go to jail for misdeamenors, and even civil infractions cost over $100 when court costs are figured into the matter.

Chetly Zarko, an Oakland County political consultant, covered this is depth on his site, Outside Lansing. There's some good reading there.

Green Oak's officials are going to get a call or visit from me real soon about this. Harassment I can understand. Annoy or Alarm are tough to define, and tough to defend against.

These "catch all" laws are ridiculous, especially when there is adequate laws for the real problems. Disturbing the peace has solid definitions. Disorderly conduct (Drunk and disorderly in some other states) despite it's vague sounding to the public, has solid legal foundations through statutes defining the conduct on the state level, as well is common law foundations and precident.

The City of Brighton continues to dig a hole with there comments.

First, from the Cops.

He said these rules help people resolve neighborhood disputes that aren't of a criminal nature. As a civil infraction, he said, police have more opportunity to use these rules to deal with problems "that seem to not be resolving themselves."

Civil Infractions are a ticket. Is this a budgetary measure turning law enforcement officers (LEO's) into revenue enhancement officers? (REO's) Tickets are rarely contested in court as well, since it often costs less to pay the fine rather than go to court and hire a lawyer to fight this. (And I never recommend being a fool for a client).

That doesn't account for the laws already on the books. Disorderly Conduct. Disturbing the peace. Etc.

Kinaschuk pointed out the rules are necessary today because society has changed.

"We don't go and talk to our neighbors, and we don't know our neighbors as we used to," he said.

Officer, who is "We?"

A more reasonable comment comes from Fowlerville, although they have the ordinance.

Although the laws are on their books, law enforcement officials said the rules rarely result in actual tickets being issued for civil infractions. Typically, police officers only have to show up to get compliance.

Fowlerville Police Chief Tom Couling said the harassment ordinances are "very infrequently" enforced with a ticket. He said cases typically involve neighbor disputes over noise or barking dogs.

Noise ordinances are constitutional, and dogs certainly can qualify. Those are different than these vague "annoyance" statutes. The more telling quote is that they rarely result in actual tickets being issued. That shows that frankly, this law is not needed.

It's time for the City of Brighton to man up and admit it did something stupid in following Royal Oak's annoyance law and repeal it.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Media loves style over substance

That is the mantra of the cult of Obama. It's about the celebrity, and I wasted my time reading this Free Press editorial that is reprinted in the Argus.

From the Argus

Barack Obama's inauguration has to feel right.

That's no small task when the nation is marking the historic first election of a black man to the presidency while facing an economy in the tank, a confounding war in Iraq and uncertainty around the globe.

Too little pomp, and the event would seem to reinforce — especially for African Americans — the notion that minority milestones inevitably receive short shrift. Too much gala or glitter, and the country might be repulsed at the ostentation during a time of such obvious hardship for so many.

So it really is about tone, which isn't necessarily defined by money or size alone. It's about what Obama says, what's celebrated (and how) during the ceremony, and what message the new president hopes to deliver to Americans.

What a bunch of superficial malarkey, Bullshit, Crap, Caca, Doo doo, excrement, Manure, Horsefeathers, Poop, and as the late George Carlin says, "Good ole, number 2."

As bad as Obama's ideology and voting record has been, it is his cult of personality and the media's cult of personality around him that probably grate me the most. The media is obsessed with "Camelot" and JFK/RFK and wants to create American royalty and the next "Bobby." (Sadly, some Republicans want to do the same with Reagan, who while a great president, was not king - but at least I remember Reagan).

Obama can do whatever he wants for his inauguration. I couldn't give a rat's ass about how it feels to the Detroit Free Press, or anyone else as long as it doesn't waste too much of my tax money, and usually private funders take care of it. I didn't care how Bush's or Clinton's ceremonies went. That's his moment, good for him. I'll be watching to see what he does the next 100 days.

What bothers me about this editorial is that it is a magnification of the biggest problem in American politics and American attitudes today. There was no substance of any sort. It was all about "feelings" and "tone." It was not about substance, issues, and specifics on the direction of this country. It was the same old cult of personality which has been forced on us by Axelrod and Big Media going back to 2004 and Obama's DNC speech that launched his career. "Hope and Change." Hope for what, and what change? That's what I'm waiting for. Talk is cheap. Action counts. Politicians have been promising change for years. I've seen many talk the talk, and Obama was the best at talking the talk since Clinton, but walking the walk is what is important, and Obama has been a complete failure as a senator. So has 90% of the Senate which is a collective body of failures.

One of my favorite sports quotes can appply to this country in spades. Back in 2000, Michigan State's national title game dropped its first Big Ten conference game in 26 contests. Tom Izzo had this quote about his team. ""We've got to drop the pretty-boy attitude and adopt a meat-and-potatoes attitude."" I have no idea of Coach Izzo's politics, but his message to his basketball team and it's blue collar attitudes need to be adopted to this country's political systems fast.

Saturday, January 03, 2009

Stimulus Package? This only stimulates government

Right now, Mr. Obama is pushing for an "economic stimulus" package.

CHICAGO – President-elect Barack Obama urged congressional leaders Saturday to move quickly on an economic recovery plan, even as some Republicans are saying they want more time to review the details.

Obama said Congress should pass an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan designed to create 3 million jobs. The Democratic president-elect hasn't announced a final price tag on it, but aides said the cost could be as high as $775 billion.

"For too many families, this new year brings new unease and uncertainty as bills pile up, debts continue to mount and parents worry that their children won't have the same opportunities they had," Obama said in an address taped Friday and distributed on radio and posted on YouTube Saturday morning.

The nation's economy remains the top challenge facing Obama when he takes office on Jan. 20. The Federal Reserve estimated that lenders were on track to initiate 2.25 million foreclosures this year, more than doubling the annual pace before the crisis set in. One in 10 U.S. homeowners is delinquent on mortgage payments or in foreclosure.

I'm not just posting this to pick on Obama because he's soon to be your president, he just is the latest to run his mouth on this. Obama isn't the only one to blame for this way of thinking, and not just democrats are to blame here either. Many republicans fall into this trap as well when it comes to "stimulus" packages. Bush had his share of them as well, and I didn't like it then either.

Obama's quote is this and it deserves a 2nd mention. ""For too many families, this new year brings new unease and uncertainty as bills pile up, debts continue to mount and parents worry that their children won't have the same opportunities they had,"

What is a government big spending "stimulus" package going to do to help them? Nothing! This is like saying the Detroit Lions need better management, and in respose they fire Millen and promote Millen's assistants instead of cleaning house. Government stimulus packings is nothing more than government spending more money on its pet projects, and saying that it is to help the economy. I wonder how many bridges to nowhere are in this thing.

If government wants to really have a real stimulus package, there is an easy and simple way. Just as this Trillion dollar Bush/Boehner/Obama/Reid/McCain/Pelosi bailout did a crappy job for the economy, this 775 billion dollar proposal won't give a real jolt to the economy.

If you want a $775 billion dollar bailout, divide it up among the number of taxpayers and send a check. If you take the entire population of the US, about 300 million - including non-taxpayers, and send a check, it will come out to a $2600 check to everybody. I think it would be up around to $6000 if it went to only income tax taxpayers.

What would be better for stimulating the economy, letting taxpayers pay for some of their debts, or big government spending on its own pet projects? Their spending on pet projects doesn't pay my bills, or your bills unless you work for the government.

If Obama or Bush pushed for that, they would be heroes.