I Love This Country

I love this country – these United States of America. I was able to serve in both the Army and the Air Force. My time spent in those organizations was not always pleasant, but despite any adversities and ideological differences there was an underlying patriotism within me that, if necessary, I would sacrifice so much as my own life to preserve the freedoms, principles and morals so dear to the population of this Nation.
What now? How might we define any principles and morals upheld by our very own government? Sure, we can attend the churches of our choice, we can have open conversations with friends and acquaintances about our personal values, but political correctness seems to obstruct the free expression of feelings by anyone in or seeking public office. Special interest groups have so amassed themselves with their outspoken agendas that politicians are afraid to speak whatever they might truly stand for or believe.
How can a country with the foundations of this one have allowed a select few to prevent prayer in schools, invocations at ballgames and even the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school? We send young men and women into foreign countries to defend the fundamentals of democracy, yet the very country for which they battle has turned from a democratic society to one frequently governed by a court system. Yes, there are provisions for our Congress to overturn decisions made by our courts that are totally contrary to the foundation of our Nation's beliefs; however, the positions of the two parties supposedly representing the people are so polarized that they refuse to work together to accomplish anything of substance for the good of all.
It appears that a quote attributed to Joseph Stalin was prophetic in its pronouncement of collapse from within. "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within".
Just how might someone with great wisdom define "the Republic for which it stands" as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance? For what do we stand? Shall we increase the amounts taken from those who are determined to educate themselves and work hard and give more to those who choose to allow the "government" to provide for them? As we are forced to remove any references to God from public places along with tributes representative of faith from public locations because they are "offensive" to a tiny minority, shall we not have to ultimately destroy our churches to pacify those same malcontents? Is it to be incumbent upon our society to give privilege to those who classify themselves as minority – whether defined as race, sexual preference, or gender? Shall we allow a federal government, whose powers are specifically limited in our constitution, to determine what freedoms we may exert and to control every facet of our lives despite the fact we have the alleged power to vote?
I truly wish and pray there would come a resounding groundswell of enthusiasm to find individuals willing to espouse their true feelings, willing to run for public office and actually able to succeed in becoming elected. Stalin's predictions can be overcome. I hope that within my lifetime the ground begins to quiver from other than a quake!

Worthless time

The effort is probably no longer worth it. The state of the union, meaning what once was a great nation, stinks. The people have allowed elected idiots and appointed judges to destroy every value upon which this country was founded. The complete lack of respect for God, the total loss of moral values and the absence of good sense is attributable to our elected officials who care for nothing but their re-election and their power. Shame on them for allowing the greatest society in history to fail. Certainly an "F" would be the grade given to virtually every facet of our federal government and by far the majority of state and local governments. Just as a student has failed a course in school, sometimes lessons are learned and a passing grade might later be earned. Unfortunately, I don't see anyone studying their lessons. I see blame for all ills in this country being leveled by all elected officials at their opposition party. Occasionally someone will make the statement "I accept resonsibility for....". Define that. Does change come about or does the responsible party receive punishment? Nothing but empty words. Federal judges, appointed for life, have far exceeded any boundary imaginable in their ridiculous interpretations of our constitution. The constitution is very well written and easily understandable and needs no interpretation - it says what it says - and for judges to broaden the meanings of what is written was never imagined by the founders. The federal government is empowered to do certain things- everything else is reserved for the states and simply because a judge determines otherwise is absolutely unconstitutional. BUT, when rulings are taken to appellate courts or sometimes even to the supreme court, the judges are unwilling to genuinely use the exact wording of the constitution and discard rulings made by lower courts far beyond their intended reach. Are you kidding me - one or two people can file a lawsuit removing prayer and the pledge of allegiance from schools and some idiotic judges grant the wishes of a miniscule minority above the desires of the vast population? The supreme court judges, sitting under Godly wording, uphold the removal of God from public places - who do they really think they are? Easy answer, they believe themselves the true deity and abuse their powers beyond imagination. Like I say - an earned "F" in every category. Until the people of this nation realize the ruiness course on which it is headed and wipe out the elected politicians and replace them with genuine people, an "F" is the best that can ever be expected and the consequences more dire than imaginable.

Petraeus Resignation

General David Petraeus did a fine job as a general. He did what he was supposed to do as a lifelong soldier. His predecessors did the very same thing when they were in charge of a "war". He led the surge in Iraq and became widely known for his leadership no matter what the eventual outcome of the military's efforts might be.
The only other "wars" we have been involved in without a declaration of war were in Korea and Vietnam. The wars of: 1812, Mexican-American, Spanish-American, WWI, and WWII were declared wars done in accordance with the constitution. Since WWII, our armed interventions, or police actions, or freedom movements, or whatever our military sojourns into foreign countries might be called, have been authorized by the use of the "War Powers Act". The constitution states that only the Congress has the power to levy wars, but does not limit how that might be accomplished - the intent was quite clear, but the brilliant Washington minds found a way to pass that power to the President with the War Powers Act and then in 1973 a "joint resolution of Congress". These empowered the President to act without further consent from the elected officials and blast away at will.
I'm really digressing into another subject, but shall return to Petraeus in a short.
Generals are supposed to win, but to win they have to wage war-that is the ultimate test of their dedication and leadership. How many peacetime generals have found their way into headlines, or news broadcasts, or can be remembered by the average person? In Korea, over 33,000 Americans died at a cost (in 1950's dollars) of over 54 billion. Vietnam left us with over 58,000 dead Americans and an expense (in 60's and 70's dollars) of over 111 billion dollars. How about the results-lives and dollars well spent? Please define the winners. Now, the Iraq "war" has cost some 4500 American lives along with over 30,000 seriously wounded with a price tag over a trillion dollars. Have the generals won? Has America won? The names of generals MacArthur, Westmoreland and Patraeus became famous as a result of those wars. Oh yeah, Bush, the one whose Presidential powers were used to start the Iraq "war" let us know we had won in Iraq in 2003 with his "Mission Accomplished" speech. All this leads to another blog subject such as, should Patton have marched onward, should Truman have allowed MacArthur to continue on his way, did Secretary of Defense McNamara lie and should Cheney have been believed about WMD's in Iraq? Who should control wars, generals or politicians?
General Petraeus did the same thing in Iraq as General Westmoreland in Vietnam. He asked for more troops. He was essentially the coach and he did what he was tasked to do and he did what generals want to do. The difference between a general and a football coach is the coach can't send 45 men onto the field against a team of 11 no matter who they might try to convince. Generals, with the support of the President, can win the battle. The war, however, seems to never end. Petraeus received more troops and he received great notoriety. He retired from the Army and was appointed head of the CIA. Now we begin to venture into some unknown territory. Is the CIA an intelligence organization or another branch of our military? Why would a general, accustomed to doing what generals do, lead something that is designed to provide intelligence? Once again, a subject for another writing.
All this leads to the subject of the resignation. The published reason is that the general had an extra-marital affair with his biographer. That's no doubt true, but how would that lead to some ultra-moral decision that he must resign? Certainly, there is no precedent for that even at the presidential level. Could it be that the attack in Benghazi, which left 4 Americans, including an Ambassador, dead might find a tainted trail leading to the CIA? Our President, in response to the attack, upheld the first story given the world by our government that the cause of the attack was the production of a movie offensive to Muslims. He said, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence-none!". Now, either the President was involved in attempting to mislead the world or the President himself had been misled. What is the primary source of the "intelligence"? The CIA. Either way, there lies a host of questions about the organization under the leadership of Petraeus and numerous inquiries are underway to find out both what the CIA knew and what involvement the CIA has/had in Libya. History, whether it is learned quickly or decades from now, will surely show that just as McNamara lied about Vietnam and Colin Powell was misled into telling the world about the non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, there is a story about the CIA and Libya that will become an embarrassment to our country. So, just as any wise general would do when he realizes an unstoppable missile is on its way to his location, he ducks and runs. Smart military strategy.
The whole point of this diatribe is simple. Somewhere, really high up in the anointed city, there is a truth that the outsiders, the American people, are not supposed to learn. The anointed ones, in their city of vast wisdom too complex for plain folks to understand, will spin this like a top.

Election 2012

Strange things happen in this world every day. Sometimes they are noteworthy, other times they come and go and are seldom noticed.
It seems fitting that when strange or odd things take place in public elections, the results should become highly newsworthy and the public (voters) should pay very close attention so as to avoid future oddities. The vote is a very sacred tool given to Americans in a fashion not found in other countries around the world. The vote gives the populace the opportunity to select whom they believe is the best person to represent them in a given elected position. Ideally, individuals will learn about the various candidates for whom they might vote and make their decisions based upon an informed and intelligent review of the persons seeking office.
I have to suppose that the ideal situation does not always exist. Perhaps, just slightly maybe, eligible voters actually go to the polls with absolutely no reasonable purpose and cast their vote in a fit of misguided affiliation or complete ignorance. Perhaps.….
Consider, if you will, the victory given to Alabama Republican, 77 year old Charles Beasley. Mr. Beasley regained his old seat on the Bibb County Commission in Central Alabama winning with 52% of the vote. Great job on the part of his supporters, however Mr. Beasley had passed away on October 12 - several weeks prior to the election. Well informed voters?
A much more important elected position was the Orange County Tax Collector in Orlando, Florida. Mr. Earl K. Wood, a Democrat, was re-elected to the position he had held for 12 terms, nearly half a century! He was just coming into his own and really learning the job requirements at 96 years of age. Despite the fact Mr. Wood was oft criticized for seldom coming into the office, he retained his position with 56% of the vote. Oh yeah, he too had passed away in October – weeks before the election. This might give one pause to consider that not all voters are completely prepared to make the wisest of decisions. At least in this instance only 56% of the voters who actually went to the polls voted for a dead man.
Can it be worse? What about re-electing a Representative to the United States House of Representatives who has not been in his office since summer of 2011? Democrat Jesse Jackson, Jr has held one of the highest elected offices in this nation since a special election in 1995. Among his most recent credentials are his in-patient treatments for bi-polar disorder and deep depression – some particularly worthy attributes for a U.S. Representative. Add to that resume the fact that he is being investigated by both the House Ethics Committee and the FBI for a variety of wrongdoings and criminal activities. Without him even offering a campaign, he has succeeded in retaining his elected office by winning with over 70% of the vote. Surely, the people who have kept him in this high position have some great insider information to which the general population is not privy. Educated vote? Intelligent vote? Informed vote? A vote for a person best suited for the job? A vote cast by individuals concerned about the performance of an elected official? A vote by anyone with any concern for the future of our nation?
And to top it all – Hussein Obama as president. What might I say other than ????????

Cooperative Senate

With all my rants about the inefficiency of our elected Congress, I have to give pause and show how our Senators can actually come together for a common cause. With little fanfare and hardly any news coverage, on Sept 12,2012 the Senate was able to pass Senate Resolution 553, known as the FPAD, by unanimous consent. There were no naysayers from either party and they actually acted in concert to pass this resolution and designate September 22 as the official FPAD.
Unfortunately,neither the liberal CNN nor the conservative FOX channels provided news coverage of this momentous vote and left the vast majority of Americans without adequate knowledge of this important day.
FPAD is the acronym for Fall Prevention Awareness Day! The Centers for Disease Control has compiled statistcs for the many billions of dollars wasted annually on persons over 65 years of age who are either injured or killed by an accidental fall. Obviously, with the awareness created by FPAD, citizens over 65 will have a huge advantage in the FAF (my acronym-Fight Against Falls). Imagine, if you can, reaching the age of 65 and no one having made you aware that you might fall and injure yourself! Even worse, what if you have far exceeded 65 and never had the opportunity to celebrate FPAD. You might fall down...
I write not to diminsh the real pain and suffering which is experienced by elder folks taking a tumble, but to point out the time spent by Senators actually drafting resolutions and taking time on the Senate floor to explain and pass those resolutions. Somehow, I have to believe there are slightly more important issues with which they might spend their time.
It is refreshing to see that elected officials can agree on passing something. It is saddening to look at the voting records and realize that, on a roughly 90% average, the votes are strictly along party lines. One has to believe, despite their party affiliation, that there are some good ideas actually presented by members of both parties. The current party system is reminiscent of the relationship between the crips and the bloods-either you're with us or you're against us. No crossing lines is tolerated by either side and dire consequences follow if one steps away from their own party to vote as they please. If the importance of the party itself and the hopes for re-election were not paramount within our Congress, we might have a bit better country in which to live.

Important Quotes - A Great Nation

I apologize for the length of the following list of quotes, but I believe them to be appropriate to the state of our nation and the direction in which it is moving. The very first one is, no doubt, the most profound. The troubling aspect of it all is reading quotations from our own president and the direct contradictions he represents to this country's great history. He takes pride in making changes to long held principles upheld by the previous 43 elected presidents. Change – you betcha, we've got it like we haven't had in 236 years of freedom. It's not all the president's fault. We have been on a disastrous course for too long and he simply embodies the antithesis to the ideals of our founding fathers. Please read all the way through.


From Joseph Stalin:
-America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within



From the Communist Manifesto (Necessities for success)

-Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
-A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
-Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
-Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
-Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
-Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
-Free education for all children in public schools.



From Adolph Hitler:
-The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan
-The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
-If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
-What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.
-I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.


From Karl Marx:

-History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy.
-The bureaucracy is a circle from which no one can escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge.
-The bureaucrat has the world as a mere object of his action.
-The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.
-A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain.



From Hussein Obama:

-You know, my faith is one that admits some doubt.
-Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.
-America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
-It was not a religion that attacked us that September day. It was al-Qaeda. We will not sacrifice the liberties we cherish or hunker down behind walls of suspicion and mistrust.
-We are not at war against Islam.
-I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
-I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody
-And we have done more in the two and a half years that I've been in here than the previous 43 Presidents to uphold that principle, whether it's ending "don't ask, don't tell," making sure that gay and lesbian partners can visit each other in hospitals, making sure that federal benefits can be provided to same-sex couples.
-The thing about hip-hop today is it's smart, it's insightful. The way they can communicate a complex message in a very short space is remarkable.
-We can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.
-We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party.
-I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator.
-I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.
-We've protected thousands of people in Libya; we have not seen a single U.S. casualty; there's no risks of additional escalation. This operation is limited in time and in scope.
-The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.


From Howie Irwin:

I love this country – these United States of America. I was able to serve in both the Army and the Air Force. My time spent in those organizations was not always pleasant, but despite any adversities and idealogical differences there was an underlying patriotism within me that, if necessary, I would sacrifice so much as my own life to preserve the freedoms, principles and morals so dear to the population of this Nation.
What now? How might we define any principles and morals upheld by our very own government? Sure, we can attend the churches of our choice, we can have open conversations with friends and acquaintances about our personal values, but political correctness seems to obstruct the free expression of feelings by anyone seeking political office. Special interest groups have so amassed themselves with their outspoken agendas that politicians are afraid to speak whatever they might truly stand for or believe.
How can a country with the foundations of this one have allowed a select few to prevent prayer in schools, invocations at ballgames and even the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school? We send young men and women into foreign countries to defend the fundamentals of democracy, yet the very country for which they battle has turned from a democratic society to one frequently governed by a court system. Yes, there are provisions for our Congress to overturn decisions made by our courts that are totally contrary to the foundation of our Nation's beliefs; however, the positions of the two parties representing the people are so polarized that they refuse to work together to accomplish anything of substance for the good of all.
It appears that Joseph Stalin was prophetic in his pronouncements of collapse from within. How might someone with great wisdom define "the Republic for which it stands" as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance? For what do we stand? Shall we increase the amounts taken from those who are determined to educate themselves and work hard and give more to those who choose to allow the "government" to provide for them? As we are forced to remove any references to God from public places along with tributes representative of faith from public locations because they are "offensive" to a tiny minority, shall we not have to ultimately destroy our churches to pacify those same malcontents? Is it to be incumbent upon our society to give privilege to those who classify themselves as minority – whether defined as race, sexual preference, or gender? Shall we allow a federal government, whose powers are specifically limited in our constitution, to determine what freedoms we may exert and to control every facet of our lives despite the fact we have the alleged power to vote?
How I wish there would come a groundswell of enthusiasm to find individuals willing to espouse their true feelings, willing to run for public office and actually able to succeed in becoming elected. Stalin's predictions can be overcome. I hope that within my lifetime the ground begins to quiver from other than a quake!

Obamacare and the Supreme Court

It was a sad day for all citizens of the United States when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, ruled that Obamacare, as it is known, is constitutional. It was highly anticipated that the liberal side of the court would blindly kowtow to the wishes of this administration, but equally expected was that the justices endowed with some level of good sense would recognize the unconstitutional aspects of a ridiculous law. Justice Roberts, in a grand display of idiocy, sided with the liberals on the court and actually wrote the opinion for the majority upholding the law as constitutional. I have to wonder if he, or any of the other justices, has ever read the constitution. The interesting part of this whole debacle comes from his Honor's own majority opinion. From the written opinion: "If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes." He adds "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income".
The Obamacare bill, which was passed by Congress, is a healthcare bill which provides (amongst many other absurdities) penalties for people not having health insurance – it is not a taxation bill and it does not address the penalties as being a tax and was not passed as a tax law. (This bill and its implementing regulations contain over 2,100,000 words. The Bible has approximately 830,000 words. Did the justices read that?)
The reason I find this so interesting is that only the Congress is empowered to levy taxes. Not the Supreme Court! With good reason. The Congress is elected by, and supposedly mandated by, the populace to represent them in all matters. The justices are appointed and haven't the same oversight afforded the people as with the Congress. A direct quote from the constitution states: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
How do these majority justices, led by Roberts, feel the Supreme Court can mandate a tax on anyone for anything? By the way, the taxation on gasoline to which he refers is, by the court's own rulings and definitions, considered an "indirect" tax. In that light a taxable consequence is only generated by the action of the ultimate taxpayer (i.e., the purchase of gasoline or goods and services, etc.) and the tax is collected by an intermediary, such as a gas station or retail outlet, and it is paid to the government by the one collecting the taxes. An "indirect tax" is completely different from a "direct" tax. A direct tax, such as the income tax, is levied upon the individual and paid directly to the government. The Supreme Court, with fewer liberals who don't know or care about the constitution on the team, has repeatedly ruled that "direct taxes" must be levied on an equal basis (albeit different brackets within the income tax system are allowed) and never in U.S. law has there ever been allowed a direct tax levied disparately upon different individuals. Justice Robert's written opinion makes it obvious that he, and the majority justices, believe they can determine the need for, and mandate a direct tax on the distinct group of citizens who do not have health care insurance. A direct taxation levied by any government must meet exceptionally high standards or risk becoming the very thing which caused the founding of the United States.

"The unconditional, inexorable aspect of the direct tax was a paramount concern of people in the 18th century seeking to escape tyrannical forms of government and to safeguard individual liberty. An 18th century writing about this kind of taxation explained:
“ The power of direct taxation applies to every individual ... it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments. ... The power of direct taxation will further apply to every individual ... however oppressive, the people will have but this alternative, either to pay the tax, or let their property be taken for all resistance will be vain. [2]"

If Chicken Little were to gaze upward today, he might be correct in his pronouncement of the falling sky. The sky over this Nation is in the worst situation since its inception. Conditions have not been created overnight and the politicians from both parties have, for years, contributed to the current financially burdened, sloppy State of the Union, which has far exceeded all limits imagined by the brilliant Founding Founders.
This Obama administration, with an ultra liberal (read -socialist) president lacking credentials, experience and respect for boundaries of government and fraught with inexperienced, young, misguided advisors and workers, is attempting to socialize and essentially destroy the greatest Nation in history. The power of the pen and the vote remain the only tools for Americans to use to try to lighten the sky which has so brilliantly illuminated a Nation founded, under God, offering freedom and democracy to its people. It only takes a few minutes to write Congressmen and Senators and no matter how long it takes, vote your convictions. (Please!)
Howie

Thomas Jefferson Quotes

I rather believe 'ole Tom had a good bit more on the ball than anyone we've had as president in my lifetime. Certainly, Hussein Obama doesn't share the ideals of a true forefather. How sad we can't have people elected to office who share the wisdom expressed here rather than powermongers who want little more than re-election.




"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we
shall become as corrupt as Europe." -- Thomas Jefferson




"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who
are willing to work and give to those who would not." -- Thomas
Jefferson




"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the
world." -- Thomas Jefferson




"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson




"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results
from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson




"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson




"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
in government." -- Thomas Jefferson




"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson




"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas
which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas
Jefferson




Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks
and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Political Correctness

Please enjoy these clips from Ronald Reagan and catch the true meaning of what he had to say as our president. Only takes 4 minutes. Political correctness??? Our country is 236 years old and it has been 23 years since Reagan was in office. That means that in only 10% of our nation's history we have drifted as far asunder as we now find ourselves. What a sad time it would be if the founding fathers could see what a mess has been made of their hopes, dreams and dedicated work. I hope and pray that some of us who have seen a great and proud nation, true to it's heritage, can pass along enough ideals to get back on the right track.

Buying Friends

Just received the information below this morning. Obviously, there are still some morons who believe giving money to other countries buys us friendship. That's as stupid as a Hatfield buying a McCoy a drink!! The dollar amounts below don't begin to take into account the millions of dollars spread around by the CIA to both governments and private citizens. I assume that, since our country is broke, to continue these payments our elected brainiacs will either get a Mastercard or take out a second lien on the White House.. By the way, CIA - isn't that an intelligence agency? When did they become another branch of military? That will be another study for future post. How they vote in the United Nations: Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded inboth the U.S. State Department and United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67%of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67%of the time Morocco votes against the United States 70%of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the United States 70%of the time Jordan votes against the United State 71%of the time
Tunisia votes against the United States 71%of the time
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73%of the time
Yemen votes against the United States 74%of the time
Algeria votes against the United States 74%of the time
Oman votes against the United States 74%of the time
Sudan votes against the United States 75%of the time
Pakistan votes against the United States 75%of the time
Libya votes against the United States 76%of the time
Egypt votes against the United States 79%of the time
Lebanon votes against the United States 80%of the time
India votes against the United States 81%of the time
Syria votes against the United States 84%of the time
Mauritania votes against the United States 87%of the time
U.S.Foreign Aid to those that hate us: Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States,still receives $2,000,000,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. Jordan votes 71% against the United States receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually.
WHY? WHO IN THE WORLD STARTED THIS AND WHY? THEY ACTUALLY BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS THEM. Perhaps it's time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.

Slippery Slope from Supreme Court

As frightening as the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare is what is contained within the majority opinion written by his honor Roberts. Most legal arguments (trials) are settled using precedent: rulings which have been established in previous courts which have the effect of establishing or interpreting law. Once a court has made a ruling, that stands as law unless later overturned by another court or on appeal. In some situations the appeals process makes its way to and is accepted by the Supreme Court for arguments. Whenever the Supreme Court writes an opinion, the content of that opinion carries the full weight of the highest court in the land and means that what is expressed therein has been considered by that court and cannot be appealed nor overturned. On page 45 of the 193 page decision on O'Care, his honor writes that "suppose Congress enacted a statute providing that every taxpayer who owns a house without energy saving windows must pay the IRS $50" and goes on to say "No one would doubt that this law imposed a tax and was within Congress's power to tax." In my opinion, by him including that verbiage he has opened the door for a crazed liberal Congress to tax, without restraint, any targeted group they wish to choose. How about "anyone with a house exceeding 2200 square feet, or owning a car newer than 4 years old, or having more than $10,000 in the bank, or ------------you fill in the blank. Considered as a whole, either the written opinion represents the loose lips of a fool or it bares the nasty teeth of a court willing to give a government unbridled ability to control its populace through taxation. With this language in a written opinion expressed by the majority in this court, there stands no chance of challenging a targeted taxation enacted by any Congress. All the more reason that votes are more important than ever!!

Happiness

Being happy doesn't mean everything is perfect in your life. Happiness comes when you can see beyond the imperfections. Ignore problems you cannot solve and work toward correcting the problems over which you have control, but do not dwell on them. Wait to worry! Tomorrow's problems may get solved before they arrive and almost always present themselves in a different form from what you worry about. Life on this earth is too short to spend it in worry, turmoil, and stress. Smile, laugh and be happy with things as they are. Do not lose the opportunity for happiness in the moment worrying about the future nor wishing for different in the present. This should also be on my mirror for daily reading!

Intoxication Manslaughter

Re: Intoxication Manslaughter Many years ago I had the unfortunate displeasure of serving on a jury in an intoxication manslaughter case. There had been three people, two males and a female, killed in what could only be described as an horrific accident. The car had flown through the air for many feet and had struck a tree while airborne, ejecting the driver, nearly unharmed, and killing the three passengers. During the course of the trial we were told that the new "intoxication manslaughter" law required that a blood sample be taken from the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal accident. In this case, a sample was taken at the scene in the paramedics' vehicle. A police officer rode in that vehicle, in which the driver was taken to a hospital, and another blood sample was taken there at the officer's insistence. We were told that sample was not tested for many hours. As part of the prosecution's initial presentation we were given, and made to look at, not only pictures from the scene of the accident, but also pictures of the autopsies performed on the deceased. These pictures were then mounted to an easel and placed in front of the jury box, for effect, and left there throughout the trial. The pictures were so indescribably awful that, contrary to the Judge's instructions, during the very first break the jury took there were jurors who were openly ready to charge and convict the driver with any crime the court or prosecutors might offer. As the trial progressed we were given the results of the blood tests. At that time, the legal limit of blood alcohol for intoxication was 1.0 (it is now lower). The first test, given at the scene, showed a level of .9 – absolutely legal and below the level required to convict on any of the pending charges. The second test showed a level of 1.1 – high enough to convict based upon legitimacy of the evidence. One of the paramedics who had been first on scene stated unequivocally the defendant was in shock but did not show any signs of impairment nor did he smell of alcohol. He had no reason to believe the defendant might have been intoxicated. A very poor witness for the defense, a doctor of questionable credibility, gave testimony about how the second blood sample may have been tainted by fermentation for having been held so long before testing. The prosecution essentially presented only the one blood test, which showed the defendant over the legal alcohol limit and the pictures from the crash. The lawyer for the defendant was appointed by the court and was not nearly as capable in his presentation as compared to the huge team of prosecution lawyers. We were later told, after the trial, that due to the magnitude of the accident other lawyers were unwilling to accept the case as they assumed they would lose. As soon as deliberations began, the jury was split with some voting guilty and some voting innocent. The innocent side of the voters claimed there was reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defendant was intoxicated and others claimed he was and yet others stated it didn't really matter – he had been drinking and people were killed, therefore he was guilty in their minds. As jury foreman, I sent a couple questions to the judge for clarification. One was " if a person who is intoxicated is driving through an intersection with a legal green light and a completely sober person runs the red light in that intersection, hits the intoxicated driver's vehicle and dies as a result of that accident – is the intoxicated driver guilty of intoxication manslaughter?" The answer, based upon the wording of the law, "yes". Later, a question was posed " if a person has driven to the next block of their own street, entered a friend's home and become legally intoxicated and returned to their vehicle intending to drive home but decided not to drive and remained in their vehicle, realizing their intoxication, and were struck from the rear while sitting still by a sober driver who died as a result of that accident, is the intoxicated person guilty of intoxication manslaughter?" The answer, according to the law, "yes". The charge given the jury in our case consisted of answering some very simple questions: 1. Did an accident occur? 2. Did someone die as a result of that accident? 3. Was the defendant a driver in that accident? 4. Was the defendant intoxicated? If the answer to all was yes, he was guilty, if the answer to any was no, he was innocent. The basic facts presented were: there was an accident, someone died as a result of the accident, the defendant was a driver and, according to the prosecution, he was intoxicated, according to the defense he was not. They both provided proof. Should anyone have had any doubt? It would be like one side showing a coin claiming it is heads and another claiming it is tails. Both may be right, both may be wrong. In a criminal trial, however, a jury is ordered to determine beyond a reasonable doubt which side is right. Question four was the sticking point. If there existed a blood test totally exonerating the defendant from this charge, how could the jury accept only the test that proved him guilty? There was, it was argued, reasonable doubt based upon the blood tests and at various times some jurors actually vacillated with their votes. After greater than a reasonable, time the judge was notified the jury could not reach a unanimous decision. The judge responded that since this was the first case to be heard under this new law, the jury would not be released until coming to a verdict. There could be no hung jury. Period! The coin had to be heads or tails and the jury would remain until a determination was made. The method of that decision, be it affirmation of one side's argument or a compromise to end the endless haggling would be unimportant. A verdict would be rendered. The jury had been told they would be the ones to determine the punishment phase in the event of a conviction and we had been given what the options would be. Without belaboring the hours of deliberation, a deal was finally struck wherein the defendant would be convicted but the jury agreed unanimously the sentence would be the minimum allowed and would be probated. The verdict was presented to the court and, after hearing additional arguments, the jury was sent out to decide the appropriate punishment. Since that had been pre-determined, it took only a few minutes to put into writing and the jury returned – to an almost packed courtroom consisting of many interested parties. Everyone in the courtroom seemed amazed at the rapidity with which the jury had reached the punishment decision and when it was announced, the level of anger and angst expressed in that courtroom was overwhelming. The family of the female who died was understandably grief stricken while the families of the males who died were relieved. During the punishment hearing phase, the families of the males had actually asked that the defendant not receive any jail time as they did not attribute complete blame to the defendant. The bulk of irate folks present had no family ties to anyone involved but were present to see "justice" served and, by their determination through blinded vision, it was not. When all was completed, the judge asked if any jurors would meet with the lawyers who had questions about their presentations. I remained and was stricken and sickened by the questions asked by the attorneys who reminded me of a group of thespians wanting a critique on their performances. Not ONE single word was mentioned about guilt nor innocence. As a matter of fact, it was brought out at that time that the convicted driver had actually gotten into a road race, had come to a major curve in the road and was stricken by the other vehicle causing him to jump the curb, fly through the air and the deadly crash ensued. Why had that fact not been given during the trial? It was explained that had nothing to do with the questions that had to be answered in an intoxication manslaughter case. Why had the driver not been charged with some other crime of which he was absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty? Because the combination of the incredibly ghastly scene of this crash and the fact there were three people dead due to someone else's actions would probably WIN at trial when there was some level of evidence pointing to intoxication. My primary point of writing this is to let you understand not all circumstances are as they seem. Probation may very well be justified in some instances. A ruling of complete innocence may be justified when a jury hears testimony not given to the general public nor the news media. The strong possibility exists there have been other cases where judges and juries, privy to facts in a case not given outside the courtroom, may have rendered verdicts or sentences unfavorable to outsiders opinions. Maybe this case, today, would have been bargained DOWN to simple manslaughter rather than intoxication manslaughter with stiffer penalties. Maybe justice could have been truly and truthfully served. A secondary reason for my writing this is to attempt to rid my psyche of my personal guilt or seek forgiveness for having allowed myself to be bullied and intimidated by a judge into voting to convict another human of a crime I did not believe he committed. I could not be certain if it was heads or tails – one test he was completely innocent of the crime with which he was charged, the other test guilty. Certainly, he did something horribly wrong and perhaps there was a law which would have properly punished him. He was not, however, guilty of intoxication manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. Any law which, by the language it is written, prohibits any and all facts pertinent to the situation from being presented by both sides is a poor law and I believe contrary to the intent of the laws of our land. Anyone sitting on a jury empowered to change a person's life forever should have all the facts having to do with the case and neither prosecution nor defense should be given an "edge" by disallowing pertinent facts. Truth, not good acting by the lawyers nor twisting of facts, should determine the outcome of a trial.

Stimulus Money

Stimulus Payments This is a payment given by the government to members of the populace who qualify based upon income (or lack thereof). The idea behind stimulus payments is that the individuals receiving the money will spend the "government " money on goods and products and stimulate the overall economy. There are a few problems with stimulus plans. First, the money is coming from collected taxes paid by the people who won't be receiving the stimulus, who could have spent it themselves if it hadn't been collected as taxes. Next, it is money found momentarily in the coffers of a broke government, which could help the economy by paying off some of its own astronomical debt. Just as important as the above problems are a few sad facts about where the stimulus money will go. If used to buy a new car, it will probably go to Japan or Korea. If used to buy a new TV, it will likely go to China. If the money is spent on gas for the car, it will go to the Arabs or another Middle Eastern country. If it is used to buy fruits or vegetables, the money will go to Mexico or Honduras. If a new computer is purchased, the stimulus will go to China, India, or Taiwan. In the event that generally useless but "important stuff" is bought, the funds will go, again, to China or Taiwan. Clothing purchases will help the economy of Vietnam, China, or Indonesia. So, how do we stimulate the U.S. economy with the "stimulus" funds? The most obvious place would be to shop at garage sales and purchase the stuff that someone else has already bought to help all the other countries. The snowballing problem there is that the seller will likely use the money to buy more "stuff" and support the foreign economies even more, so this isn't the ideal place for spending the money. There are only a few truly American ways to spend the stimulus money. First, buying a house will help somewhat. At least the builder, who may be an American, will have a job despite most of his income going to illegal aliens who will send their share to their home country. The lumber will likely have been grown here so there is a chance of helping our own economy. Next, and even better, is to spend the money on beer – domestic beer! Stuff brewed right here in the good old U.S., at least partially from crops grown here, might keep some of the money in domestic circulation. Another opportunity to help our own economy is to buy a Harley Davidson, a Milwaukee product, which is not only American, but fun to ride. Speaking of fun to ride, one might hire an American prostitute, not a foreigner who will send the money elsewhere, and they will spend their proceeds right here. They should be legalized and licensed then they, too, could become taxed and their taxes would add to the stimulus pot. This all leads to a simple summation. Get your stimulus money, find a ho in a biker bar, marry her and buy her a house and sit around drinking beer from now on. BE AN AMERICAN.

Social Security

Social Security, by the simplest of explanations, was established as a means for older citizens to be certain of an income in the years after they were no longer employed. The premise was rather simple in that many people in their productive years would contribute to the fund which would be disbursed to a relatively fewer number of retired people and the fund would become self-sustaining. So as to guarantee the solvency of the plan, it became mandatory for all wage earners to contribute. By the same token, all those contributors would be guaranteed a payment in later life. I cannot locate any statements that ever promised the contributed dollars would actually provide as good or better return than had they been invested privately and it was not devised as a necessarily good investment on an individual basis. The plan simply couldn't exist with voluntary contributions. Had the government (better stated as elected officials) not robbed the account with IOU's and transferred Social Security funds throughout the spending process, the plan would have more than enough funds to continue indefinitely. Now, due to the insanity of spending by our elected morons, many in high places with guaranteed retirements are looking at ways to screw us out of that which was promised. I must have missed the fine print where it said if you save on your own and have substantial retirement assets you may not receive Social Security. If that's the way it's ultimately to work, the name may as well be changed to "Socialism Security" - take from those with and give to those without. Everybody contribute but the distribution is based upon "needs". Incredibly, there are many from both parties wanting to change the system to do just that as they are now calling Social Security an "entitlement" program just like welfare and Medicare. Damn right, by actual definition we are "entitled" to receive our Social Security as is everyone who has, or will be, required to contribute. Only by a loud cry made by a huge number of the "unwashed" heard by the "anointed" ones in Washington will we be protected. Anyone who doesn't believe in the power of the pen and the voice need only look at the changing of marriage laws in this country - (hell, I can probably marry my dog in some states). I would like to propose a groundswell movement entitled " Don't U Mess Around (with) Social Security. The acronym being "DUMASS". If word of this movement were to become widespread enough, then all anyone would have to send to their senators and representatives would be one word, DUMASS! I believe it to be a word easily understood by those who were supposed to represent the people who voted for them plus, with certain twisted connotations I'm sure the Washingtonians could apply, even greater meaning might be assigned to the acronym. Folks might actually enjoy mailing or emailing a simple message, DUMASS, to ones who receive a retirement equal to the full amount of their pay for as little as one term in elected office. There has been no discussion as to saving budgetary dollars by using an asset nor income basis for determining retirement for the elite leaders. Please contact your representatives and senators with your feelings on placing Social Security on a needs or asset basis because that would become "Can't Repay Any Promises", or" CRAP" for short. If nobody hears, then nothing gets done. Howie Irwin

Interview with God

Part of this was sent to me years ago in similar wording.  Much of it I added with what I believe I would have heard in this interview.  It should be on my mirror to read daily (if I could find my glasses).

 

I dreamed I had a chance to interview God.  I asked if he had time for me.

 He replied " My time is eternity, what would you like to ask me?"

 I queried " What surprises you most about mankind?"

 God answered: " That they get bored being children and rush to grow up and then long to be children again.  They lose their health striving to make money and then spend all their money trying to restore their health.  They think so anxiously about the future that they forget about the present and live neither for the present nor the future.  They live as though they will never die and die having never lived."

 I continued by asking: "What advice do you have for parents to teach their children?"

 God spoke: " Teach them that they cannot make someone love them, what they can do is allow themselves to be loved.  Learn what is most valuable in life is not what they have, but who they have in their lives. Teach them that a rich person is not the one who has the most, rather it is the one who needs the least.  Let them know it is not good to compare themselves to others for, ultimately, everyone will be judged individually. Teach them that money can buy everything but happiness and salvation.

Let them know it takes but a few seconds to open gaping wounds in persons they love, but it takes many years to heal them.  They must learn it is not always enough to be forgiven by others, they must forgive themselves.  Know that there people who love them but may not know how to express their love.  Teach them a true friend is someone who knows everything about them but remains a friend anyway.  They must learn to forgive by practicing forgiveness.  Teach them two people can look at the same thing and view it completely differently.  Let them know that people may forget what they say or do but will remember how they made them feel.
Teach them that, thanks to my son, an everlasting life of salvation is available if they will but repent and belive. "

 I thanked him for his time, for all he had done for my family, and all his blessings.

 He replied: "Anytime, I'm always here and if you'll just ask for me, I'll answer."

Democracy and Freedom

The following is a direct quote from a school superintendent in Illinois about parental response to a new ruling he has announced banning all Halloween costumes, candy, parties, etc. within his school district. This isn't out of context - it fully expresses what he had to say in further detail. I have to wonder who hires the district's sup and who pays him????

 "We knew what their response would be," he said. "We know they would feel strongly [about banning Halloween in the school district]. So, the reason we didn't go forward with the community hearings is because we knew they would be upset." 

 YGBSM!!!!!!!

Obviously he has read the book on officials in power - whether appointed or elected- the will of the people has no bearing, the lawmaker does as he pleases. Great concept, eh?

Jobs

Disregarding the absurdly high business tax burdens in our country, if you have a couple hours to waste look online at the laws with which an employer must comply if they have more than 50 employees. The search results are staggering, but you have to look at many resources to find all the requirements - ranging anywhere from Family Medical Leave to required sexual harassment training to the impossible OSHA laws. I'm beginning to understand China's success more and more. Now, look at either the direct insurance costs or the fines which have been enacted under Obamacare for companies with over 50 employees. Jobs??? It would take a fool to want to increase a small business to beyond 50 employees in this country. The cost of tax accountants pales in comparison to the human resource (similar to personnel, but has a better ring) expenses for an employer to try to comply with the laws of this land. I wish Romney's handlers had seized an opportunity to eloquently present some of the genuine issues which are stumbling blocks to employment growth.

Welcome

First and foremost, thank you for visiting my blog.  I have no idea where it's going, but it ought to be interesting.  One thing I can say for sure, this world shows no signs of leaving this particular blogger short of material.  Subscribe to my feed using the links on the page, share on facebook if you like it, leave comments, all the usual stuff...

Thanks again,

Howie