Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Is Boeing Issue An Indicator of the Future

Government always knows best or they would like us to think so.  They know what is the best health care; they know the best car safety; they know the best drugs and they know what is best for labor unions. None are correct except the last.  Labor unions are best friends with big government. You see both of them believe that others know better than you.
In the latest merger of ideas between government and labor unions, we find the desire for a business (Boeing) which wants to create a second manufacturing plant in another state (South Carolina) which just happens to be a right to work state in order to lower its cost of manufacturing for its new 787 Dreamliner plane.
 Seems to me a good idea for several reasons.  Not only are the plants not in the same geographic area so natural disasters would not effect both plants.  Additionally, employees could be drawn from different pools of workers some of which might never move to Washington. However, the last positive is the lower cost of labor in South Carolina which has brought a charge by the National Labor Relations Council (NLRB) .
The charge is that Boeing is retaliating against their Washington State workers by opening this plant in South Carolina.  Since the new plant will be non union, the unions are up in arms. Maybe if the union had worked with the company on other issues in the Washington plant, this would not have happened.  Regardless, the Republican candidates, notably Pawlenty and Romney, have seized on this as an issue and I say rightly so.
Once we start protecting unions against the best interests of the country, we are in trouble.  Now let me make one thing perfectly clear.  Unions have their place and they came into being at a time where there were major concerns for the workers of the United States. I get that and agree wholeheartedly. However, over the past 90 years more or less, the pendulum has changed and the unions are now stronger than the companies and it is time for a move back to the center.
A company must have the ability to handle its business so as to make a profit and to do what is in its best interests.  Once the government gets involved to protect the union, it completely changes the dynamics.
This move by the NLRB is wrong and should be resisted.  Boeing should be able to make the decision to open a new plant and pay the wages commensurate with the skills of the people employed.  If the pay is too low, people will not work there or they will join a union to increase the wages. Seems simple to me. What about you?
We are listening and want to hear from you.
Here is an article from TheHill's  Blog Briefing Room that gives more information on the issue.

Pawlenty: NLRB’s suit against Boeing evokes 'Soviet Union circa 1970s'

By Ben Geman - 06/11/11 10:55 AM ET

GOP White House contender Tim Pawlenty is ramping up his attacks on the National Labor Relations Board for its complaint against Boeing over the company’s decision to open a non-union airline production plant in South Carolina, allegedly retaliating against unionized workers in Washington state.
“The NLRB decision and what they are saying to an American economy as to where and how they can do business is outrageous. This is not the Soviet Union circa 1970s or 1960s or ‘50s,” Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, said on Fox News Friday.
“The idea that we have a federal agency telling an American business in a supposedly free market that it can’t grow a business or start a business in another state is one of the most outrageous things I have seen,” Pawlenty said.
Boeing opened a 787 Dreamliner assembly plant Friday in South Carolina.

The NLRB alleges Boeing decided to place the plant outside its longstanding Washington production hub “in retaliation for past strike activity and to chill future strike activity by its union employees.” The complaint seeks to require Boeing to maintain the second production line in Washington state.
The NLRB complaint has become fodder for GOP candidates seeking to show their pro-business bona fides.
Pawlenty has attacked it repeatedly, and it has also come under fire from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Democrats and liberal groups are fighting back against criticism of the National Labor Relations Board as they grow worried that the attacks could diminish the labor board’s authority.
A hearing in the case before an administrative law judge is set for June 14 in Seattle.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Debt Limit Discussion Tactic Proposal

Earlier this month (June 7) Dick Morris wrote on the website, TheHill, a proposal  to help shape the debate on the Debt limit. As you know the House does not want to increase it and the Senate does (along with the White House.)  How will this get solved, who knows but Dick writes a very positive approach the House could take to set the tone for the issue. 

Take a look at the proposal and let's discuss it.


Published on on June 7, 2011

We all wish Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) the best of success in his talks with the Senate and the White House and hope that he is able to negotiate a deal for major spending cuts in return for a debt-limit increase. The concept of a one-for-one ratio between debt-limit increase and spending cuts is particularly attractive, provided that the spending cuts are not overly back-ended.

But we must be alive to the possibility that the talks will not prove fruitful or that the Speaker will have to come back to the House with only half a loaf.

In that event, House Republicans need to fortify their position -- in advance -- so that they are able to battle against the White House even at the price of a government shutdown. To prepare this position, Republicans should pass legislation assuring that government funds continue to flow in two critical areas despite the failure to raise the debt limit:

1. The House should pass a conditional increase in the debt limit of $200 billion, to be used only in the event that the secretary of the Treasury certifies:

a. That all of the borrowed funds would be used to repay creditors and lenders

b. That there is no other source of funds to meet these needs and avoid default on our obligations.

2. The House should prioritize the expenditure of tax revenues in the event the debt limit is not raised so that:

a. Military personnel will continue to be paid
b. Social Security checks will continue to be sent out.

By taking a default, military pay and Social Security off the table, the Republicans will put themselves in a position to sustain and win a battle over the debt limit.

Obviously, the Senate will refuse to pass this legislation. But its passage by the House will make it clear that the Republicans do not want their actions to cause default or any interruption in military pay and Social 
Security payments.

The Republican members of the House should sign a memorandum indicating their support for this prophylactic legislation to fortify our position in the event of an inadequate outcome to the budget/debt-limit negotiations.

Unless the House Republicans pass this one-house bill, they will never be able to prevail in the propaganda war with the Democrats, which would follow the collapse of budget negotiations. And, unless they prepare their ground in advance by passing such a bill, the fiscal conservatives will have no alternative but to accept whatever the leadership negotiates. Just as they wouldn't challenge the Speaker's continuing resolution deal because of their fear that soldiers would not be paid, so now, fear of default will weaken their courage.

House freshman Republicans must realize that if they back down and accept a bad deal on the debt limit, they will never recover their credibility with their constituents. The Tea Party types will not be happy with half a loaf, and freshmen run a serious risk of primary fights if they try to sell a watered-down compromise.

On the other hand, passage of this one-house bill would strengthen Speaker Boehner's hand in budget talks with President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). It will a signal to the administration that the House will not be stampeded by fear of default and that only serious cuts in spending will be acceptable in return for a debt-limit increase.

The American people do not want the debt limit increased. They understand the futility of borrowing more and more and continuing big-spending ways. If the administration chooses to battle over this turf, there can be no better fight than this one. The people are with us.

Delta Response

In my email this morning, I received the following email from Delta. (I had asked you to write and wanted you to know that I had also.) I appreciate the time and energy spent on creating this email, it still does not address one outstanding issue which is, why did the troops have to pay in the first place. They are defending our country and if they want to bring a tank on the plane (assuming it could get into the baggage compartment), it should be allowed.  I am going to write back to Delta and we will see. However, here is the email.

Dear Tom,

RE: Case Number 3578397

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We realize there may be concerns
regarding members of the United States military traveling with us on
active duty and we want to take this opportunity to address some of
their issues.

We want our customers to know how deeply Delta respects and admires the
men and women who fight every day for our country. As a company, we
have very strong ties to the armed forces, with countless employees,
family, friends, and loved ones serving actively or on reserve, and many
more who are retired from military service. Delta understands what it
takes to travel as an active duty member of the military which is why we
work hard to ensure our policies allow active duty military personnel
traveling with us additional flexibility.

Effective June 8, 2011, Delta Air Lines will increase its baggage
for Active duty U.S. military personnel traveling on orders to
or from duty stations to four (4) checked bags in Economy Class and up
to five (5) checked bags in First and Business Class on Delta and Delta
Connection carriers
at no charge. This change is also applicable to
dependents traveling with active military on orders. Previously the
allowance included three (3) checked bags in Economy Class and four (4)
in First and Business Class. Weight restrictions will still allow these
bags to weigh up to 70 lbs. (32 kg) and measure up to 80 linear inches
(203 cm), which offers added flexibility over the standard 50 lbs. and
62 linear inches (157 cm). Because of weight, balance and space
constraints, Delta Connection carriers will accept up to four bags at no

As an enhancement to these policies, active military presenting military
id will be allowed two free checked bags (up to 50 lbs. and 62 linear
inches) during personal travel.

We are continuing to work with the soldiers individually to make this
situation right for each of them. We regret that this experience caused
these soldiers to feel anything but welcome on their return home. We
honor their service and are grateful for the sacrifices of our military
service members
and their families.

Our military men and women deserve a high level of flexibility in their
travel and we hope that this clarification will support our efforts to
provide them with a travel experience reflective of our appreciation for
their service.

Thank you for writing.


Pauline P. Gomes
Coordinator, Customer Care
Delta Air Lines

Israel's Betrayal

Chip Wood writes a very interesting article on the situation that Israel faces and the Obama betrayal of its only ally in the Mideast. He also points fingers at some of the President's strongest supporters. After reading this article, could anyone vote for this man?  Here is the article. Please let me know what you think.



Obama Betrays An Ally… Again

June 10, 2011 by Chip Wood
Obama Betrays An Ally… Again
President Barack Obama wants Israel to retreat to its pre-1967 borders.
When a woman showed up at the Soroka Medical Center in Beer Sheva, Israel, she had burns covering more than 45 percent of her body. A tragic accident at her home in a Gaza refugee camp came close to taking her life.
There was never a thought of turning her away simply because she was Palestinian. That’s not how things are done in Israel. Jewish doctors worked day and night to save her, without expecting that they would receive even a penny in payment.
After extensive treatments that did, in fact, save her life, Wafa al-Biri was released from the hospital and returned to her family in Gaza. She was told to come back for a routine follow-up and assured there would be no charge for that visit, either.
Al-Biri returned to the border between Gaza and Israel and asked permission to enter. A routine security check revealed she was carrying enough explosives in her underwear to destroy the clinic where she was treated and kill not just herself, but the doctors who worked so hard to save her.
And that, my friends, is what it’s like to live in Israel these days.
As terrible as this story is, here’s a sequel that’s even more horrible: Had al-Biri succeeded in her deadly mission, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would probably have named a public park after her.
This is the kind of enemy Israel faces. These are the sorts of people who have taken a solemn vow to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. They have been taught — and they honestly believe — that they have a sacred duty to kill any infidel they can. (That includes us, by the way; Jews are at the top of the list.)
Here’s the point of today’s column: These are the same people the President of the United States wants to guarantee sanctuary a stone’s throw (or a rocket’s launch) from Jerusalem.
Make no mistake about it: If Barack Obama’s insane policy of forcing Israel to retreat to its pre-1967 borders is implemented, the very survival of the most loyal friend we have in the Middle East will be at risk.
If you opened this article hoping to find a word of sympathy for the Palestinian cause, you will be sorely disappointed. I want to correct some of the appalling lies that have been told about the Palestinians’ so-called “noble struggle” for their homeland. First of all, the Israelis did not drive a single Arab from their “sacred homeland.” Arabs living in what became Israel in 1948 were welcome to stay. They might not enjoy all of the rights, privileges and advantages of the people who won the war. But they were not slain, enslaved or driven from their homes.
I visited Israel. I was a guest in the homes of several Arabs whose parents (and in some cases, whose grandparents) decided to stay. Every single person with whom I spoke was glad to be living in Israel. They were grateful for the opportunities they had, the affluence they enjoyed and the security they felt. Their lives were so much better — and in so many ways — than what their relatives in surrounding lands endured.
The women in particular were glad they were not subject to the ancient traditions of their Muslim ancestors. They were proud to be educated and independent. Not for them concealment behind a burqa that left only their eyes exposed.
They did not hesitate to tell me their greatest fear: that the jihadists in neighboring countries would start a war that would destroy them, their families, their homes and their homeland.
While I was in the Middle East, I also visited some of the refugee camps in Jordan, Syria and Egypt. Or rather, I visited camps in what used to be those countries, before they waged a surprise war on Israel in 1967… and lost.
In the aftermath of what became known as “The Six-Day War,” thousands of Arabs fled from what had been their ancestral homes into neighboring countries, where they were herded into concentration camps and forced to stay for the next 30 years.
Please understand what I’m saying: The Arab countries surrounding Israel refused to let their brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews assimilate into their own lands. Instead, they were kept in unbelievable squalor for a generation. Whole families were confined to one room in a mud hut, with no electricity and no running water. And they were forced to live like this not for a year or two, but for decades.
You will not be surprised to learn that the camps became breeding grounds for terrorists and suicide bombers. I, for one, believe it was planned that way.
In speech last month, Obama insisted Israel agree to return to borders that did not even exist prior to the Arab war against Israel. Since I agree that to do so would be suicide, I was glad to see that Israel’s prime minister wasted no time in rejecting our President’s outrageous demands.
I thought Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint meeting of our Congress was incredibly powerful. A lot of U.S. Congressmen obviously agreed, because they interrupted him with applause more than 50 times. It made the Democrats’ reaction during Obama’s State of the Union speech look pallid by comparison.
I have a few comments before I sign off and turn the rebuttal over to you. I always enjoy my readers’ responses. But I’m especially looking forward to seeing what some of you have to say when you comment at the end of this piece. First, let me make two more observations.
One is that I wish our President were one-tenth as passionate in defending our country and our interests as Israel’s prime minister is in representing his. We used to have Presidents who were proud of their country and eager to defend it; I hope next year we will elect one again.
The other is a question: What is it with Jewish people who live in the United States? No sooner had Netanyahu returned to Israel than a Zogby poll came out, stating that the majority of Jews in this country still support Obama.
To any sons or daughters of Judah reading this, may I ask you something? Don’t you realize that your people, their country and their noblest aspirations are being sacrificed by a scheming, amoral politician who happens to inhabit the White House? Wake up and smell the coffee, people, as my teenage grandchildren would say.
By your votes and your financial support, you are contributing to the destruction of everything you say you hold dear. Stop listening to media that have betrayed you and a leadership that has abandoned you. Open your eyes. Listen to your heart. Recognize the truth. And then join those of us who believe we must find someone else to represent this country, our people and our sacred principles.
Until next time, keep some powder dry

Chip Wood is the geopolitical editor of He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Newt On The Ropes

It was just released, the leaders of Newt's campaign for President have resigned.  What does this mean for his Presidential hopes?  Will he get new staff? What effect will this have on the others in the race?
All good questions and which  will play out over the next year and a half. However, as I have never been hesitant to predict the future, here are my ideas.
Until recently I have always thought that Newt was one of the most brilliant thinkers in the Conservative movement. His approach to the problems facing the United States have most of the time rung true with me.  However, since he has been running, there seems to be something amiss. His approach to the Ryan proposals was ham-handed and his comments on Sarah Palin are just plain weird. He seemed to want to make himself different, but it just came out wrong.

If  all these differences were his idea or his campaign management, I do not know but there was something strange going on.  Newt should have tried to differentiate himself from the rest of the crowd by the force of his ideas. He did not need to get into the mud, he just needed to present innovative conservative ideas which would make him different.  By trying to be something different than Newt, he (or his campaign managers) made a mistake.

However, he was never my candidate.  I thought and still do, that he has too much baggage.  Most people have heard about the marital issues and those who believe in family values are not impressed with the way in which he divorced his ex-wives. There is something missing when wives can be spun off with scarcely a sidewards glance.  Obviously Calista is concerned as she is by his side most of the time. Does she know something that we do not?

It is my belief that Newt will create another team of people to run his campaign, but my prediction is that the campaign will soon end as he will not get the support in the first primaries. He probably will be one of the first active candidates to bow out. On the other hand, if a new team could return to Newt being Newt, there is a chance he could be viable.  Unfortunately, that is a low percentage bet.

This is not to say that Newt cannot have a role in the campaign of the eventual Republican candidate, that is if he can go back into the visionary role that he so aptly showed in the 1992 elections. If he does that, he can and will be a valuable contributor to Conservative politics. Can he, is the question or will he be so hurt that he goes back to teach at a University?  I would hope we would not lose him.

It is obvious that Newt leaving the stage would help a number of candidates including Mitt Romney, the current front runner.  His name recognition made him  viable potential Presidential material. If and when he pulls out that vacuum has to go to the other "names" in the race.

In later posts, I will go over the cast of candidates who are placing their hats/bonnets in the ring and let you know who I think will be the eventual winner to be the Republican candidate.

As usual, if you disagree or agree, please give me your thoughts.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Delta Screws Up Big Time

The news today that struck a chord with me was  Delta Airlines charging returning soldiers from Afghanistan over $2800 in fourth bag charges. This is an outrage and later in the day, the company decided to change its policy so that four bags now can be shipped by military personnel and not pay an extra charge. Why limit it to four?

This is a continuation of the policies (this was before Delta and Northwest  merged) that were in force several years ago when a major snowstorm hit Detroit. Planes sat on the runway for up to 9 hours. Toilets overflowed, no food was left and passengers were threatened with jail if they stood up. No one at the airport would make a decision to move planes out of the gates and allow the waiting aircraft to unload. It was not until one of the pilots summoned the guts to call the Chairman of the Board and tell him about their dilemma.  Of course, things really moved then.

After today's experience, I am convinced that Delta (and Northwest before) is a top-down management company and those in the lower rungs are afraid to make a decision that upper levels might disapprove as it might mean their termination.  Why did it take a video posted to the Internet to get action. Why could the gate agent's supervisor not make that decision? Seems pretty obvious to me.

If Delta did not have the majority of flights from Detroit, I would avoid them totally. However, instead of letting the market control the number of gates available for different companies, the FAA controls it. Once again government strikes to restrict our choices.

I would like all of us to write Delta and ask them to remove all bag limits for military service personnel travelling on active duty. This is the least that the company could do to honor those Americans who are serving in our Armed Forces.

Obama's Vaunted Economic Team

Economists, meteorologists and psychics are occupations who can forecast future events and when those events fail to materialize, are not blamed.  Everyone knows that you cannot forecast the future, right?  Well, the vaunted ones who have lead Obama's Economic Team have ALL bailed.  Not one of the "super-econs" are still there.  All have resigned and gone onto greener pastures like academia or think tanks.
Probably the most memorable is Christina Romer who forecasted that the unemployment rate would never rise above 8% if Congress passed the Stimulus. It hit 8% and did not stop until it had eclipsed 10%. Hey, that's only a little more than a 25% miss! You remember they say, you can't forecast the future!
Why have these economists all missed the mark? My opinion is that they come from the wrong point of view. They believe in big government solving  the issues facing the country. These type of solutions have never worked, in fact, there are those who believe the Great Depression was extended by years by the passage of Roosevelt's legislation, the New Deal.  The same has occurred in our present severe recession.
When government spends money to provide temporary jobs, it does not create anything. For example, I had to laugh when Obama talked about all the "shovel ready" jobs that were going to be created by his jobs program.  The jobs that were being created went to people who already were in the construction business, therefore they were no new jobs.  In fact, even though I grew up on a ranch and can run tractors and the like, I would never be hired to run a bulldozer, steam roller, grader or paver as I do not have experience.
Another interesting part of the Obama road program is occurring outside my office.  They are rebuilding the road which carries an immense amount of traffic.  The existing concrete is being removed and  a new 12 inch pour of concrete being laid.  There are two problems. First the road bed is being compacted but there is only a shallow stone base under the new pour. Secondly, instead of having steel placed within the pour, it is only being installed between the lanes.

The roads that are being constructed are designed to look good initially but not to last.  In 2-5 year (I predict and, of course, I will not be held responsible since you cannot predict the future) these roads will start showing stress and within ten they will have to be rebuilt again.  It might be great politics to brag about the number of miles of road reconstructed but if they fall apart in a short period of time, is that really the best solution?
Government economists whether they work for our government or any other around the world, have a deplorable record. The record speaks for itself whether it is the Soviet Union's ten year plans which produced less each year or the Obama team which was totally wrong on all of its forecasts. When are we going to hold them responsible?

So if government is not the answer, what should we do.  We minimize government spending to things that we, as individuals, cannot do. For example, we cannot defend our borders (of course, the government is not doing a good job of that) nor employ a military, we cannot regulate interstate commerce, and we cannot collect foreign tariffs or conduct matters of state.  We should get out of regulating education which should be a local issue, we should get out of Obama Care, and we should get out of many of the programs that are nice but for which we cannot afford.

Do you agree?

Michelle Malkin talks about the Obama Economic Advisors, I think her take, as usual, is right on.


Malkin: Obama's Egghead Economic Saboteurs

By Michelle Malkin
Official motto of the White House economic team: Those who can, do. Those who can't, fantasize in the classroom, fail in Washington and then return to the Ivy Tower to train the next generation of egghead economic saboteurs. Life is good for left-wing academics. Everyone else pays dearly.
Take Austan Goolsbee, please. President Obama's "fresh-faced" University of Chicago econ professor arrived in Washington in December 2008 to fill two slots: chief economist/staff director of the president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and member of the Council of Economic Advisers. In September 2010, he replaced CEA head and fellow academic Christina Romer, who retreated to the University of California at Berkeley last August when unemployment hit 9.5 percent. (She infamously projected that the Obama stimulus would hold the jobless rate below 8 percent.)
Goolsbee's primary task: translating all of the administration's big-government theories for us dummies. As Goolsbee put it to his university's student newspaper: "We've certainly seen in previous crises that it's quite important to explain things to non-experts. The American people can confront any challenge if they're comfortable with the approach."
And what exactly was the nature of Goolsbee's vaunted expertise? Making money as a business rescue-and-recovery expert without ever having had to meet a payroll.
Goolsbee, the 15th wealthiest member of the Obama administration, has raked in assets valued at between $1,146,000 and $2,715,000. He also pulled in a University of Chicago salary of $465,000 and additional wages and honoraria worth $93,000, according to Washingtonian magazine. As I've noted before, the government research fellow and Obama campaign adviser was a champion of extending credit to the un-creditworthy. In a 2007 op-ed for The New York Times, he derided those who called subprime mortgages "irresponsible." He preferred to describe them as "innovations in the mortgage market" to expand the pool of homebuyers.
Goolsbee'sStartup America" winners by drawing a trough of broken light bulbs (symbolizing entrepreneurial ideas) piling up in a "Valley of Death" because they lacked government support.
A comical choice of imagery given the Democrats' enviro-nutty ban on incandescent bulbs. But I digress.
When Goolsbee joined Team Obama, the unemployment rate was at around 6 percent. When he announced his resignation on Monday, the jobless rate stood at 9.1 percent. Romer and Jared Bernstein (former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden) had predicted unemployment would drop every single month after August 2009 due to the Obama stimulus. Bernstein bailed on the administration in April 2011 for the sanctuary of a liberal think-tank. He'll also now ply his failed wares as a financial pundit.
These hapless command-and-control ideologues were preceded by Peter Orszag, who hung his "Mission Accomplished" banner over the White House budget office in June 2010 after fewer than two years on the job, and by former National Economic Council head and hedge fund manager Larry Summers, who was caught sleeping on the job -- literally -- more than once during his brief tenure. Summers packed his bags in September. He was followed by Princeton economics professor and former top Obama Treasury Department official Alan Krueger in October 2010.
White House aides have lamented that the economic team is "exhausted." Apparently, Obama is tired of hearing from them, too. The Hill newspaper reports that he has stopped receiving daily economic briefings that were once treated with the same emergency status as national security briefings. So, the central planners continue to be paid to fail -- while their boss looks the other way at the destruction, whistling into what he calls America's temporary "head winds."
Nice non-work if you can get it.
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Weiner--A Humorous View

Yesterday, Andrew Klavan wrote a very humorous article on Pajamas Media.  As I read it, I think he makes  some very interesting points which I think should be considered when evaluating Weiner.  Are there reasons for his actions?  Well, discover what Klavan says.  If I say any more, I will spoil the article for you so, I am going to stop here.

Here is the article, please tell me what you think.

I was so delighted to have my blog return to Pajamas Media that I really wanted to start off by writing about something important, an issue that really makes a difference in people’s lives, or an idea that perhaps you hadn’t thought of before, that might change the way you look at things. But then I realized: I haven’t made any jokes about Congressman Anthony Weiner’s penis yet. So here we go.
As everyone knows by now, Weiner allegedly tweeted a photo of his erect Democrat to a young woman and then allegedly lied about it while yelling at (and even calling the cops on) reporters who were trying to get at the truth. For purposes of this paragraph, the word “allegedly” means “obviously.”
Of course, being a professional writer, I would consider it beneath my dignity to make some sort of coarse remarks about all this in which the congressman’s name is used as slang for male genitalia or the word “tweet” is used as what we professional writers call a “slant rhyme” for female genitalia. Instead, I wanted to take a serious look at this situation and get at the reasons men such as Weiner behave in this grotesque way.
I blame women. No, really. Women — by which I mean each and every single member of the female gender — you know who you are — need look no further than themselves to explain why Weiner-types behave toward them in this fashion. We men are always hearing complaints from women about how badly we treat them, what pigs we are, how pushy and abrasive… on and on. But what these same women conveniently fail to mention is that this stuff really works on them!
Charles C. Johnson writing about Weiner’s johnson at Big Government reports that the media has long described Weiner as “a lean, mean dating machine,” who has “a bevy of babes surrounding him,” wherever he goes. In other words, this guy has been cleaning up in the romantic department. Arnold Schwarzenegger didn’t seem to have any trouble getting dates either. Neither did alleged serial rapist Dominique Strauss-Kahn of the IMF. Chicks dig these creeps!
So, then, ladies — what do you expect? All we guys want is for you to love us. If this is the sort of guy you follow after in droves, this is the sort of guy we’re encouraged to be. And I have to admit: I don’t get it. I look at Weiner and I see a rude, arrogant, entitled and clearly dishonest little piece of Democrat thoroughly convinced of his wholly non-existent superiority. Physically, he’s a dead ringer for a turtle that’s been pulled out of its shell. And as for his manners… did I mention he takes pictures of his absurdly eponymous package and sends them to women on Twitter!
And that’s the sort of stuff that wins you over, ladies? Well, if it is, expect to see a lot more of it. It’s Darwin 101: men evolve to attract the opposite sex. By natural law, women get what they want from men… it hardly seems fair for them to complain about it when it turns up in their inbox.
So women, here’s some free advice. Stop dating creeps. It only encourages them. The day Weiner can’t find a warm twit to tweet his weiner to is the day you twits find tweeter weiners to tweet your twits. I think you all know what I mean.


Finally, Congressman Weiner started down the right road. He acknowledged that he had lied to the press and that he had sent  pictures to not one but six different women. So this is a place to begin, where does he go from here?
My suggestion is that Congessman Weiner resign.  His fellow New Yorker (Christopher Lee) did when he sent pictures of himself to a woman. The irony is that Weiner was one of those who demanded that Lee resign.  Reminds me about the old saw, "those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones."
Minority leader, Representative Nancy Pilosi, has started an ethics investigation to find out if there have been any violations of law. Did he use government provided cell phones, computers, office space to conduct his twitters?  Did he do it on "government time?"  Of course he did.  He thought that he was above the law and could do anything, anywhere. 
The major difference between Weiner and Lee is that Lee was a Republican and his fellow party members asked him to resign and he did.  Democrats do not do that to their own. They will continue to support him as they did Barney Frank when it was discovered that his partner was running a prostituion ring out of his house.  It will be very interesting to see how this evolves but I am not so sure that he will resign.
My suggestion is that all who read this blog should write their Congressmen/women and demand that Weiner resign.  If they get thousands of emails with this demand, they might decide to do the right thing and have Weiner become a regular citizen again.

Here is what I wrote my Congressman last night:

Representative Peters,

It is time for Representative Weiner to resign. He has sullied the honor of the House by lying to the public. Not only did he twitter x-rated material to unsuspecting females but then denied it for several days.

The former occupant of NY 26 did something similar and resigned. It is time that Weiner follow suit.

I hope you agree and will encourage your fellow Representative to do the right thing.
Will you join me and demand that Weiner resign?  If you do not agree, please explain.

Monday, June 6, 2011

Supreme Court Strikes Again For Immigration Enforcement

In GOPUSA today, Michael Rubinkam discusses the  immigration law enforcement by the City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania which the Supreme Court sent back to the Appeals Court   The law had never been enforced due to the fact that as soon as the law had been passed, it was challenged. By sending the case back to the Appeals Court, I believe the Supreme Court said loudly that laws regulating immigrants can be passed by cities and states. This should be a good sign that the Arizona law when it finally gets to the high court will get a fair hearing.

 I agree completely that we need to enforce immigration rules and all efforts by the states or cities must be supported.  Unless we decide that our laws have meaning and  we are no longer going to support the law breakers, we will lose our country. 

As I have posted  before, illegal immigration is just that, illegal.  There might be very good reasons for those who came to the US, but a good story does invalidate the fact that they are here by violating our laws.  Anyone who cannot understand that concept has other reasons for their support of the issue.

There are those who believe that the more illegal immigrants that come here will be a future voting block that will always vote for them.  And there are others who believe that these law breakers are important for our economy as they fill jobs that "Americans will not do" and that we need low wage people to make our businesses profitable.  Both arguments are not looking at what is in the best long term interests of the country.

Our country was founded on legal immigrants and should we not return to that process, the country will be eventually overrun by those who come here without proper authorization. When the borders are "virtual" and not enforced, the flow of people from around the world will increase until the time when the US will no longer be able handle the multitudes.

Additionally, there are a couple big differences between the immigrants of the past and these new ones. Prior to the 1980's, people who came here wanted to become part of the American experience.  They wanted to learn English and to become American citizens.These new arrivals want to maintain their language and have us accommodate them by having dual language forms.  They don't want to become citizens and would rather fly the flag of their native land.

Since its founding, the US has always been an attraction for those aspiring to better themselves and in the recent past, the social programs made coming here and surviving easier. Food stamps, welfare and most recently, Social Security make this country a virtual nirvana compared to the regions from where they came.

It is imperative that the flow of illegal immigrants be stopped and that a return of controlled immigration system be re-instituted. The City of Hazleton should be supported. We also need to support Arizona's efforts to control its borders.  On the other side we must bring suit against those cities who are "immigrant friendly" or "sanctuary cities". The leaders who pass these ill conceived laws are only hurting the United States. The short-term political gains will soon be overshadowed by the social ills that accompany these immigrants.

All right thinking Americans need to continually write their Representatives and Senators to keep the immigration issue front and center in the politicians minds.

What do you think?

The story follows:

Supreme Court orders new look at Pa. city immigration law

By Michael Rubinkam
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) – The Supreme Court ordered a federal appeals court on Monday to take a new look at a Pennsylvania city's crackdown on illegal immigrants in light of the high court's recent decision upholding an Arizona employer-sanctions law.
The high court threw out a ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that prevented the city of Hazleton from enforcing regulations that would deny permits to business that hire illegal immigrants and fine landlords who rent to them.
The measures inspired similar laws around the country, including the one in Arizona that deals only with penalties for employers.
The justices typically order lower courts to re-examine cases in light of a high court decision on a similar topic.
The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit ruled in September that Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act usurped the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration.
"It is ... not our job to sit in judgment of whether state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is warranted," wrote Chief Judge Theodore McKee. "We are, however, required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress."
Hazleton, a northeastern Pennsylvania city of about 25,000, wants to fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. A companion measure requires prospective tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.
Former Republican Mayor Lou Barletta pushed the measures in 2006 after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. Barletta, now a freshman congressman, argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city and overwhelmed police, schools and hospitals.
The laws have never been enforced. Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued to overturn the measures, and a federal judge struck them down following a trial in 2007.
Hazleton's act was copied by dozens of municipalities around the nation that believe the federal government hasn't done enough to stop illegal immigration.