Whoops!

And the award for "Worst Time to Make a Political Point" goes to... the town of Amherst, Massachusetts.

Just a little over a day after town officials voted to bring in Guantanamo detainees to resettle in the town, FBI agents have arrested a man and charged him with plotting terrorist attacks. Why is this significant? The man was arrested in Sudbury, Massachusetts, a town about 70 miles away. Federal authorities claim that this man plotted to attack and shoot people in malls in America. Allegations state that on several occasions he flew overseas and attempted to join terrorists training camps. Furthermore, the FBI has tied him to two other man who were involved in the plot. FBI Agents state that this investigation has been ongoing for several years and that back in 2006 they arrested this man for lying to FBI officials.

So, there you go! Good job Amherst. Sadly, this is the second time this town has been awarded this. Back on 10 September 2001, just a day before 9/11, the town of Amherst voted to take down 29 flags that had been flying on phone poles downtown. The board and others stated that the flags were oppressive and scared them. I applaud you Amherst.

You can read about the arrest here.

Only in the People's Republic of Mass

Ok… maybe also in Vermont.

From the files of “Did I Just Read That Correctly” comes this article about a town in Massachusetts called Amherst.

Town officials voted last night (2-1) to offer their town as a resettlement home for two Guantanamo detainees if they are released from the military prison. According to officials these two men have been cleared by the military, have done nothing wrong, and should be freed to the town. There is only one minor issue standing in the way of this vote. That being current policy of the administration and the United States of America which states that no detainees can be relocated onto sovereign U.S. soil. In reality, this case is just another attempt of this small college town trying to dictate national policy.

I don’t know where to begin with this issue is just so mind-boggling. First, how about we send them to their homes and back to their friends and family. I mean, are we to grant these “gentlemen” legal status or citizenship? What message does this send to the families of 9/11 especially since two of the planes left from Boston’s Logan Airport? Even if these men were cleared and given the recent record of finding releases of Gitmo detainees being found fighting for jihad, isn’t it a bit dangerous to locate them in near a college with 35,ooo students?

What do you think? I honestly just can’t comprehend the thinking behind this!

You Say You Want a Debate?

During his address to Congress on 9 September 2009 he said that his door would always be open.

Just yesterday he repeated the phrase that he welcomes an open and honest debate.

Yet, do President Obama and Democrats truly want a debate? It appears that as of late their actions and words state otherwise.

Over the last week the administration has opened up a can of worms with its attacks on Fox News. Going after Republicans is one thing, but, Democrats raised the stakes last week with this new strategy. It started with an interview on CNN with Anita Dunn (White House Communications Director) in which she claimed that the news station is a wing of the GOP. Late in the week, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated the same when asked by the press during a briefing. The rhetoric picked up a grand fervor just this weekend when more lackeys of the administration (to include Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel) went on the television circuit of morning shows spewing forth more rhetoric. The attacks claim that Fox News is not News just Republican rhetoric, and that they bring forth a certain “perspective.”

Perspective? Well, it can be implied that this administration is saying that Fox News does not agree with the policies of the White House. Therefore, they are not a real news organization. They present a different argument which the White House could debate but instead simply tries to marginalize and shut down. So much for debate.

It’s not just the recent attacks of Fox News which brings the idea of open debate into question. Over the past few months Democrats have been doing all they can to not debate the issues. From declaring fake emergencies to pass legislation to voting for huge bills in just hours which no one has read. The White House went as far as to create an email and website for people to report anyone spreading false or misinformation about healthcare (meaning information that does not agree with the rhetoric of the White House). President Obama, himself, has said that he wants those who created the problem to simply step out of the way.

There’s more: If you don’t agree is global warming you are labeled a holocaust denier. If you oppose illegal immigration you are a racist. If you oppose gay marriage you are a bigot. If you support a troop increase you are a war monger. The list goes on and on. The truth of the matter is that Democrats think know what is better for you and truly just want you to sit down and shut up. They don’t want an honest debate because they know that people will question their true motives. If they did then everything that they are currently doing would not be such a rush.

And remember the true proof that Democrats don’t want a debate is the three words always uttered when all else fails. “Bush Did IT.”

Not Evil Just Wrong!

I can not wait to see this movie which comes out on Sunday 18 October 2009. Made by filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer this documentary explores the controversy surrounding the hysteria of environmentalism and global warming. The film delves into the true motives of the movement and those involved in it. Not Evil Just Wrong analyzes the cost of some of the legislation cuurently being put forth worlwide in terms of taxes, jobs, and people. It also brings up evidence that refutes many of Al Gore's claims in his own documentry. Overall, this film appears to finally bring a voice to the forefront for those who have not quite been sold on the idea of global warming and have until now been silenced.

You can buy this film here.

Is America Bi-Polar?

It seems that as of late we as a nation are no longer questioning the actions or motives of our politicians. We don’t truly fact check speeches, look at voting records, or even look at the major stances of our elected officials. That is to say we don’t research and investigate the people who have the same letter next to their name as the party that we belong to. Across the aisle, however, we are quick to attack with half-truths and sometimes spotty evidence to condemn the other letter.

The two-party system is as American as apple pie and, quite frankly, is quite rotten. Most Americans are not active when it comes to politics and when it comes to voting all they look for is either the letter D or R. Politics in the United States has essentially become a zero-sum game with one philosophy winning out every few years over the other. The problem is that when people recognize what these politicians really represent they quickly vote for the other letter without knowing where that politician truly stands. However, a few years later, when these new policies fail people vote for the other letter in hopes of returning to normalcy. Just look at the swift swing for Democrats in Congress in 2006 and the Executive branch in 2008. People voted simply on the fact that whoever was the D was not the R which had become synonymous with then President Bush. Yet, in truth no one really looked at what the Ds genuinely represented. Now there is a major ground swell forming for the Rs once again in the upcoming 2010 elections. It has become obvious that in American politics there is no common ground.

Is there truly no common ground? As of right now, no. However, if one looks at recent polls there is a glimmer of hope. A Rasmussen poll on partisan trends in early September showed that 37.5% of people considered themselves to be Democrats while on 32.1% considered themselves to be Republicans. Why is this significant? Well, that means currently 30.4% of people considered themselves to be Independents. This group constitutes almost a third of Americans and is nearly as large as the other two parties. Yet, because there is no true third choice or party (or there is no appearance of) this group more often than not will lean towards either the D or R. There is a void big enough at his point for the possible emergence of a new party.

If you don’t believe me that people will stick to their letters then try this experiment. Talk with a friend, co-worker, or college student about politics. Ask them which party they identify with and then play this trick. Ask them what they think about their candidate’s stance on a subject, but, state the opposite of their actual position. I guarantee that 95% of the time the person will say that they agree with their candidate’s supposed position. John Ziegler has an amazing example of this in his movie Media Malpractice. So what you ask? Well, this is quite dangerous. If we start laying down boundaries over letters instead of really looking into what candidate x or y stand for then we open ourselves up for something we did not want. We will be ruled by people who don’t represent our beliefs, ethics, or morals. We will lose control over our country, rights, and freedoms.

So, honestly, is American truly bi-polar? No! WE are just led to believe that we are.

Moral Equivalence!

I have come to find that this administration and its following suffer from the egregious idea of moral equivalence and the philosophy of moral relativism. To offer a fairly glib interpretation of these two ideas I state that moral equivalence is the idea of justifying one’s behaviors, ideas, and actions by comparing them to another’s. The other’s behaviors, ideas, and actions are usually portrayed as either equivalent in their wrong-doings or are considered to be the greater of the two evils. Therefore, as the lesser of two evils it essentially gives the person(s) carte blanche to do as they will. Moral relativism is the idea that ethics and morals are not universal, but, instead are always to be put in the context of one’s culture, history, and society. While I do slightly agree with this philosophy, I believe that when person(s) take it to the extreme and put ethics and morals into such a narrow purview that it can become dangerous. Both of these practices can be used to consolidate power over a populace and take away essential freedoms without notice.

So, where am I going with this, you might ask? This has been a long summer with many controversial ideas being put forth, both good and bad. Debate has been roaring over healthcare, cap and trade, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, taxes, the sky falling, kids singing, birds chirping, food, tires, unions, dogs, and just about a million other things. Well, debate has been roaring on most of these issues from most sides of the political spectrum. Over the last few months I’ve noticed this ever growing phenomenon which has quickly become one of my biggest pet peeves. It’s a phrase uttered by both politicians and the common man when they can’t win a debate or simply don’t want to actually have an honest discussion over an intense issue. What is it you might ask? Well it’s three simple words. “BUSH DID IT!”

Yes, most debates over these last few months have ended with those simple three words as if it were some magical get out of jail free card. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard these words come out of the mouths of my friends, family, and the common man when trying to have an honest debate. More so, I am amazed when I hear local, state, national, and federal politicians at town halls or on television actually utter this phrase. It is amazing, however, because this works. You heard me right, it works somehow. The person merely says this and the debate ends then and there; if one keeps on going one will just hear those words over and over. I always conjure up the image in my head of the child in kindergarten who knows that they are wrong, but, instead of acknowledging it just puts fingers in his ears and screams, “lalalalala, no, no, no, I’m right, you’re wrong,” while running away.

I just want to quickly look at this phrase and tell those who utter it how dangerous this argument truly is. First, does a person’ former action always justify another’s? One can aptly retort with the phrase that we were once taught as children; do two wrongs make a right? The answer is simple. No, they don’t! I am not going to stand before you asking to suspend habeas corpus because well President Lincoln did it. The idea that because someone did something wrong allows you to do something wrong is extremely ludicrous and quite scary. Which brings me to my second point; I recall that when President Bush did these same exact actions you were screaming bloody murder. I recall people in the streets protesting and becoming upset over these actions of our former president. Yet, when our current president does the same exact thing it is all of a sudden fine. If it is was wrong in the past then why is it right now? You have already made the argument that action A is illegal and immoral, yet you justify it by saying, “well it’s ok when our guy does it because the precedent has already been set by a former.” Seriously? Either it is wrong or it is not, you cannot have it both ways.

I honestly hope that eventually we can get beyond this and actually debate these topics. There are many sides of every story that need to be explored and heard. However, what this does is kill the debate and we are all none the better. Our politicians and government need to answer the hard questions and should have the feet put to the fire. If we blindly accept what they offer us then we will soon see the end to individual liberties and freedoms. At times we should explore the precedents that have been set, but, they should not always justify our actions. What is right for one administration is not always right for another. Keep debating and keep questioning and move forward!

I can imagine that I will get asked the following question, “Why didn’t you question Bush then, where were you then?” First, I would like to say that I was not too fond of him I opposed many of his policies, like the bailouts and his stance on immigration. Second, though, I would like to ask you, “are you not doing the same thing that you are accusing me of doing?”

It's good to be back!

Well, it has been a long summer! Who knew that moving would take several months? But, I'm finally all settled in and have a connection to the internet. So, I will be back up and posting. It appears as if the political climate has changed rapidly over the last few months. Debates are coming and going that affect everyone and everything in the United States. Needless to say, it should be an interesting next few months, between healthcare, cap and trade, unions, and the myriad issues currently being raised. If you notice, there has been several changes to the blog. I figured new times should lead to a new layout. Hopefully, you continue to read.

Thanks,
Matt

They Don't Even Want It!

I have become a fan of Steven Crowder over the last few weeks. His comedic style of presenting political arguments brings some change to the debate. Recently, he posted this video which, I feel, many should watch when it comes to debating "Universal Healthcare."

In this video Steven Crowder, who has dual citizenship in the United States and Canada, displays what the typical Canadian goes through to be treated. Needless to say, it does seem to be a process that I would want to go through in the states. The best part, though, is that several times he is told it would be better to get PRIVATE insurance. Even Canadians don't want Universal healthcare! So, why are we wanting it?

A few months ago I had several friends from Ottawa come to visit Massachusetts. During the night one of them, who was not used to the bedroom in which he was in, woke up and hit his head on a shelf near his bed. Two of his Canadian friends took him to the Emergency Room down the road. That afternoon I caught up with them at a barbecue and laughed at the fact that my friend had his head wrapped in bandages. In the end he needed several stitches to close up the hole in his head.

What I found surprising was that all of them were smiling. After a few visits to the ER I've become wary on going because it is a miserable experience. Yet, these guys were amazed by their experience there. I asked why. Well, they were surprised that they were seen within a little over an hour after coming into the ER. In the end they were only there for over two and a half hours. They admitted to me that had they been in Canada it would have taken at least six to ten hours. I find this appalling! One of my friends even admitted that he had private health insurance, which he paid for out of pocket, in Michigan. He stated that it was easier and cheaper to drive over the border to see a doctor than it was to get involved in the system.

Is this what we want? I sure hope some of us wake up and start asking questions before we are forced with this monstrosity.

And the Point of This is?

Today, I attempted to watch the hearings on the appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS). After almost a half hour I changed the channel completely disgusted with the farce that was being perpetrated.

The point of a confirmation hearing is to find out whether or not a person is qualified for a certain position. This is usually done by asking tough questions and listening to a person's response. Essentially, it is the scariest job interview in America. Now, some positions don't need much to be done in order to get confirmed. However, in this case we are interviewing a person who will sit on the highest court in our nation for the rest of her life. With that said one would think that our Congressmen would take this seriously.

Instead, during my brief viewing, I was treated to a joke of a pagaentry. All of the Congressmen were simply grandstanding and giving long winded speeches about the life story of Judge Sotomayor. They were congratulating her on her hard life and upbringing and blah blah blah. It was almost as if these men were running for office shortly and wanted the American public to know where they stand politically.

The issue that arises is that this whole process is rendered pointless if one is not going to ask the questions to find out what are the Judge's qualifications. It appears as if she is simply going to get the job because she was appointed by the messiah... I mean our current President. Knowing that her appointment is all but quarenteed our Congressmen see this as an opportunity to run for office and get there two minute soundbyte out there to the voting public.

This is a scary idea. It goes to show that our Congress is only serving themselves and not the American public. They are more concerned with staying in power then things like the Constitution, our nation, or what happens to you or me.

In the end I doubt we will ever know what the Judge stands for until she starts to rule on laws that will affect you and me. Is she good or bad for the position? I don't know because yesterday I did not hear even one question asked about her qualifications, what she believes in, how she has ruled on cases, or anything that would help me determine whether or not she is right for the job. Maybe our Congressmen can start asking real questions or maybe its simply time to vote these clowns out of office and enstate term limits.

Oh by the way Judge Sotomayor has had four of her decisions overturned by the Supreme Court.

More Double Standards!

If one wanted an example as to what is wrong with the American justice system, he could simply point to the case of Donte Stallworth.

Earlier in the year, after a night of drinking, Stallworth decided to drive home. On his way home he struck and killed a man who was on his way to work. It was proven that Stallworth was under the influence of alcohol while driving after a blood test determined his BAC to be .126. He was then charged with OUI manslaughter and faced the possibility of fifteen years in prison. The average prison sentence in the state of Florida is usually between five and eight years.

However, Stallworth is a professional football player (for the Cleveland Browns) and a celebrity. So, after pleading guilty to the charges, he was sentenced to serve only thirty days in prison (yes you did read that right). Well, as of this morning this person is walking free after serving only twenty-four days of his sentence. Now, his license has been permenantly suspended and he faces eight years on probation. The NFL has also indefinitely suspended Stallworth.

Does the punishment fit the crime? Of course not. Instead this is another classic example of celebrities and athletes being treated better than the rest of society. The law has become a joke to these people because they know they can get away with murder. If you or I were charged with this crime we would probably be in jail for the full fifteen years. Instead this person gets to go on living his life while another man is dead.

No wonder why there is such disillusionment within the confines of the legal system. People know that there are double standards in the law which will work against the common man. Now, I'm not advocating that the common man should get the same treatment as a celebrity. Instead, I advocate the opposite. Justice is suppose to be blind! A celebrity should have the same standard put upon them as the common man. The rich man should be equal to the poor man and the middle-class man. Asian, Black, Latino, White, Blue, Green, or whatever color one is should not matter. Our system was based on the idea that all men and women are treated equally under the eyes of the law. No one person is better than the other.

This horrific episode just goes to show how flawed the system truly is.

Double Standards!

Yesterday, a calm and composed Senator by the name of Jim DeMint (R-SC) attempted to introduce an amendment to a bill being debated on the floor of the Senate. The amendment was based from a similar one introduced into the House of Representatives by Ron Paul (R-TX). It would call for an open audit (GAO) of the Federal Reserve and for the findings to be reported to Congress by the end of the 2010 fiscal year. However, shortly after his speech the Senate Democrats quickly countered the amendment by citing an obscure rule.

The rule is known as "Rule 16" which prevents certain items from being added on to legislation. There is sound reasoning behind this rule, yet, there is also a slight issue with the opponents of this amendment in invoking it. This issue being that most of the amendments proposed to this legislation by the Senate Democrats violate "Rule 16." After being rebuked, Senator DeMint promptly went into action to bring this to the forefront.

This video serves as a great example as to whats wrong with our current Congress. When a rule serves to help out one party it is envoked in a flash, yet, ignored by that same party. There is a double standard for the party thats in power. Neither group is willing to "reach across the aisle" and instead our legislation is always held hostage along party lines. This is contrary to what the American public was promised during the last presidential election. Both parties are guilty of this practice and in the end the ones suffering are the American public.

Must Read for the Weekend.

Common Sense: The Case Against An Out-Of-Control Government by Glenn Beck.

I heard about this book and given Glenn Beck's track record I decided it would be worth checking out. As most of you know Glenn Beck has a talk show on radio in the mornings and on Fox News in the evening. He has written several other books that you should check out.

Now, for those of you who watch or listen to Glenn Beck on a regular basis you will find the arguments brought forth in the first half of the book to be nothing new. The first hundred pages are a rehash of arguments he has made on his radio and television shows. He does, however, clear up some of the arguments by providing some good examples. For those of you who are not regulars to Mister Beck then the first half is definitely work looking at. There are some good arguments to be made.

The reason why I say that this is a must read is for the last sixty or so pages. Glenn Beck includes Thomas Paine's original "Common Sense." I remember reading Paine while in college and didn't give him much thought. Yet, after rereading this piece I found myself to be amazed at the arguments he brought forth in 1776 and how well they applied to government today. Honestly, its an amazing piece of work which should be closely looked at even today.

Overall, its an easy read and a very short book, but, it is very profound.

You can buy this book here.

Double Speak!

As most of you are probably aware, the Senate today passed a bill which would put the Tobacco Industry under the regulation authority of the Food and Drug Administration. Many people are applauding this landmark legislation which has been in the works for over forty years. People like me, however, are a little worried about the precedents this law will set.

Now for the sake of this argument I will agree with those who feel that smoking is the ultimate evil in our society. Cigarettes are evil and those who smoke them are "unhealthy" and shady individuals, blah, blah, blah. Ok! I get it! Smoking is a choice and certain people have decided not to while others enjoy it. I chose to smoke and I chose to give it up. That was a personal right and freedom that I had. The right to choose to commit a legal action.

However, this new legislation would allow the Food and Drug Administration to step into a "PRIVATE" industry and tell them how to run their business. Tobacco companies will be forced to give up the list of items contained in its product. It will be forced to cut back on its advertisements. It will be forced to drop the labels "light", "mild," etc. from cigarettes. It will even be forced to change the amount of nicotine in its product. All the while the same industry which the government has just stepped in to control will be forced to pay for all of this regulation. Really? Is any of this constitutionally allowed? As of right now, due to previous lawsuits, the Tobacco Industry has been forced to run ads against its own product. I find all of this to be completely ridiculous. This legislation will allow the government to make decisions for a private group under the guise of the greater good. Their hopes are to ween people off of this evil product. The issue here is that it sets a horrible precedent. What will be the next industry which the government will deem "unhealthy" and force to regulate? Now, our economy is not socialist (yet), but, this does lay down the framework for eventual government control in all industry. Something that is the exact opposite of free market capitalism.

Now, the prime issue I take with this legislation is the double speak from our politicians. I am beginning to wonder if politicians have short memories or they just don't care what they do. The reason I think this is because of a piece of legislation brought up a few months ago. Now, the hopes of this bill will to be able to change a product that people are addicted to and hope that they will never use it anymore. Yet, a few months ago the government passed SCHIP (children's healthcare reported on this blog a few months ago) and raised taxes on cigarettes. The reason why they raised these taxes was to pay for the whole program. Now, I ask the government this! If people stop smoking won't we raise less tax revenue to fund this and other programs? What will we have to tax instead? Didn't this administration promise me that my taxes wouldn't go up a dime? Seriously? I just don't understand how these politicians work.

Now to make it clear, this is something that both sides of the aisle have supported. It has been the first time that I've seen legislation pass with support from both Democrats and Republicans. I find it funny how both sides are willing to curb your freedoms. I find it funny how the first time these guys have worked together there are issues of constitutionality in a bill. Washington D.C. is just getting more and more out of touch and ridiculous as the days go by.

By the way, is there any way we could regulate KFC and have them give us the secret recipe for their fried chicken? I would actually support that.

Sad but True!

This story would be utterly hillarious if it were not true! However, today I had an amazing experience at my local post office that I must share with my readers.

The story starts over the weekend while searching for jobs on the internet. I have been looking for jobs in North Carolina where I intend to move in a short period of time. Finally, after weeks of searching I found the perfect job (the job itself is unimportant to the story). Yet, to my dismay I noticed that they only accept applications that are mailed through the United States Postal Service (USPS). No faxing, no FedEx, No UPS! "No problem," I say to myself as I fill out the application and come up with a cover letter. I was slightly worried though because come Monday I had only four days to get the application in.

Anyways, come Monday afternoon I walked into my local post office and strolled right up to the counter. Now, its been years since I have actually mailed something besides an e-mail and used USPS. So, I was a bit worried about mailing it via the regular service and having it take more than four days to get to North Carolina. "No problem!", I said again to myself, "I'll just pay a few bucks extra." Now to be fair, the lady behind the counter was amazing and extremely nice to me. She put in the zip code into the computer and showed me the rates. To send it through the mail and have it take the normal 3-5 days it would have just cost me a $0.44 stamp. The next option was a two day delivery for $4.95 (or about 11.25 times the normal rate to get it there a day earlier). The final option was for $17.99 (40.8 times the regular amount) to get it there by noon the next day (mind you this is just a regular letter in an envelope not a package). "Five bucks is steep, but no big deal," I said. I pulled out my money when the lady quickly excused herself. Now, I had told her that the letter was a job application and she went above and beyond to check something for me. She came back and told me that the USPS could not guarantee that the letter would get there in time, even if I paid the two day rate!

Yes, you read that right! I was paying extra for two day delivery, yet, the government could not "guarantee" that my letter would get there in TWO DAYS! WAIT WTF! I looked at the lady took my letter and told her "No Thanks!" and left. Now, I will commend her because she could have just screwed me over and took my money, but she was honest. However, this raises a big concern to me. The government is wondering why the USPS is losing money (and by losing I mean hemorrhaging) and yet it doesn't know about incidents such as this. How would you feel if you ordered a large pizza and had it delivered, you paid with your credit card up front, and they promised that it would be there in 30 minutes; yet, you end up receiving it in 90 minutes and it turns out to be only a medium? You would never buy from that place again.

However, this is a problem with government. First, off your taxes pay for the USPS. Therefore, you are paying for ineptitude such as this. Second, it proves that government can't run a business. I think that this is a perfect example to explain why I am upset that the government now controls 60% of GM. GM is going to end up like the USPS. A company with an inferior product, which can't compete, and will hemorrhage money. All the while you and I will be paying for it. Another great example in this region of governmental failure is that of AMTRAK. Government has proven that it can't compete against private interests and business. So, it should just stop trying.

As for the job the application didn't get sent out! So, I would like to extend a big thank you to my government which keeps promising me help in finding a job, yet stopping me in one form or another from getting it!

Media Malpractice!

Above is a trailer for a must see movie. John Ziegler on election day interviewed several supporters of Barack Obama and recieved some very interesting answers. Every single person could state the negative press coverage of Sarah Palin and John McCain, yet, no one could even answer simple questions about Biden or Obama. How could this be? Well, Ziegler answers this question in his documentry title Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted .

I had the pleasure to view this movie the other day and I was, for lack of a better word, amazed. I remember during the election ripping out my hair in frustration over how the media was treating the McCain/Palin ticket versus the Obama/Biden camp. Yet, I thought it was just my bias becoming ever more apparent. I am by the way a moderate Libertarian. However, this documentry covers the inheirant hypocrisy and double standards the medias used throughout the election cycle to garner support for Obama and recieve high ratings.

Ziegler shows that this is true because it didn't start during the general election, but earlier during the race for the "Democratic Ticket." He shows how the media turned on the Clintons and shifted support towards Obama helping him get elected. The film ends on a funny note too when Ziegler points out that after the election the media showed its true colors. I'll save this one for you to see.

The overall story here, is that the media stole this election from us. Journalism is dead! They did not act in a responsible manner by reporting the truth and both sides of a story. This is scary because the media controls us and is now hand in hand with our government. In the end it will mean less people will be thinking for themselves as our freedoms and liberties will be taken away.

Needless to say, the media and Hollywood has bashed Ziegler over this film. They have labeled him as hateful, a racist, a stupid conservative, and a man with an agenda. By the way Ziegler himself admits that he is a moderate Libertarian who has only given money to the Democratic Party!

You can buy this film here.

Term Limits?

Have you ever noticed how newer politicians are very gung-ho and want to get things accomplished while those who have been in power for years don't want to rock the boat?

Have you ever noticed how newer politicians tend not to be corrupt while those who have been in power for years are rife with it?

Have you ever noticed how newer politicians have great ideas and want to innovate while those who have been in power for years want to keep the status-quo?

After yesterday's post I began to rethink these questions and the idea of term limits for government. It is very, very rarely that I advocate for something that is not in the Constitution (either state or federal), yet, I think that this would be a ground-breaking idea. I would love to see officials at the state and federal level to bring forth an Amendment limiting the time a person can be a Representative or Senator. I feel that this alone could solve several problems with corruption and could get the juices of innovation and ideas flowing once again.

After FDR the United States of America stated that it did not trust a person as the PRESIDENT to serve more than two terms. So why do we trust others in these positions to serve a lifetime? It gets to a point when a Senator has been in office for three decades that he is no longer serving the public, but, simply himself. Corruption tends to be more rampant with those who have been in power longer. Bad decisions which affect the state and country tend to be made by these same politicians. Its just mind-boggling!

Now, I have no issue with a person being a Representative then becoming a Senator and then going to the federal level and doing the same. This gives a person experience while still holding him accountable. As for specifics I think (but I'm open to discussion for this) that Representatives could serve 4 to 5 two-year terms while Senators should only serve 2 six-year terms. Its that simple!

A few months ago I heard a laughable argument from a local Representative now Senator by the name of Jennifer Flanagan (surprise, surprise a Democrat) . She was being interviewed on local television by some unknown who was lobbing her softball questions. However, she did ask one good question; that of term limits. What was Flanagan's response? That term limits were a bad idea cause nothing would get done. NOTHING WOULD GET DONE? Yes, you heard that right! She argued that it took soooo long to settle in and that the legislation calendar was toooo short. That nothing could possibly get done in time if their were term limits BECAUSE people would be worried about running for a new office and spending time on their campaigns. Something I might add that they already do. So, what are we paying these people to do if they say that they have too little time to actually ummmm work? I have no clue and I ask all of you voters to seriously consider term limits and vote hacks like this out of office.

Of All Places!

I would like to start of this post with a challenge to my readers! Think for yourselves and question what you hear from the media! Don't take everything at face value and look into things that are brought up. Yet, at the same time keep and open mind and listen because you never know when you might hear a good political debate or even a point that might be interesting. Hell, I hope my readers even question what I write. My job here is to bring up and start debate and not be the be all and end all of the facts like the television media claims to do.

With that said, I was driving home this morning and I heard an amazing political debate from a very unlikely source. It was three radio djs from a local rock and roll station (107.3 WAAF Boston). Now one would not expect a morning show on a station such as this to have a stimulating discussion, but the "Hillman Morning Show" with Greg Hill, LB, and "Spaz" did just that. For over an hour they had an amazing debate in which callers would phone in and get very animated over. I at times wanted to pull over and call in to bring up a few points, but, I figured I would never get through.

Sooo... what were they discussing? Well it turns out the former Speaker of the Massachusetts Congress (who stepped down a few months ago in the midst of a scandal) is possibly going to be indicted for fraud and accepting bribes. While acting as a congressman Sal DiMassi accepted bribes between $4000 and $25000 to push forth legislation or help companies get government contracts. So what, just one corrupt politician it doesn't matter, you might say. The issue that arises is that this is the third (yes the third) Speaker to step down in a row while in the midst of a scandal for corruption. Not only that, but several representatives have been caught for committing crimes while in office. Several of these people are facing jail time as we speak.

Yet, for some odd reason we keep electing these corrupt politicians into power in this state. Then we wonder why the state is so horrible. Why does this keep happening? Many of the callers to the "Hillman Morning Show" discussed the one party dominance in the state. I would agree with this statement. Most of our politicians are from one party, the one with a capital D. They have been in power for decades in this state (except for a few Governors between 1990 and 2006). Others stated that no one shows up to the local elections in this state. This is very true and Greg Hill pointed out that the people who do show up are those who have something to gain by voting for a certain person (i.e. a job, money, or a government contract). I wanted to call in and make the point that almost all of the elections that these people win are because they are unapposed. So who else are you going to vote for?

Needless to say, Massachusetts is rife with corruption. So, for those of you that live there here is what you do. Vote! Show up and vote these politicians out of office! Run! Run for office on an independent ticket make others think and have a choice! Quit complaining! Stop moaning about this after the fact and be proactive.

Anyways, I wanted to thank the team on the "Hillman Morning Show" for airing this topic. Keep up the good work guys! You can hear their show on weekday mornings on 107.3/97.7 WAAF (Boston).

Welcome Back Jay Severin!

Earlier today, after over a month long suspension, Jay Severin returned to the airwaves. He is back in his 3-7 pm time slot on 96.9 WTKK (Boston).

For those of you not in the loop Jay Severin was suspended on 30 April 2009 after making disparaging remarks towards the "Mexican Community" (you can read the whole story from this post). Issues arose over this suspension from day one. Many point to the fact that the only reason why this occurred was the fact that the swine flu "epidemic" was all the rage in the media. Therefore, his comments made Mexicans look even worse and possibly caused more tension in their communities. The problem here is that Jay has made this remarks throughout his career and for some odd reason only now did it become a polemic.

I am afraid of what has resulted due to this. WTKK has sent a clear message that if one does not like what a controversial radio talk show host has to say all he needs to do is call and complain. What happens when Michael Graham or Michelle McPhee or others make border line comments? Are they going to be suspended as well? This is a classic case of "Freedom of Speech" disappearing in the United States. Its sad too because it is ever so easy to avoid this time of speech if one does not agree with it. Simply turn the dial and surprise surprise no more talk on your radio.

As for the show, for his first time back I would say it was barely above par for one of his shows. Jay Severin began with a three minute apology to his fans and critics. The apology was typical "Political Correctness" BS and one could get the sense that he was merely reading it because he had to and not because he wanted to. The topics of the day were about average for his show and at times it got annoying when every caller would simply call to say welcome back.

However, Jay, it is good to see you back! I'm glad! Just do me a favor and don't stop to double think what you are about to say. Don't censor yourself because you might offend someone. Otherwise your show with become a piece of mediocrity (like all the things the liberals want).

Rewarding Bad Behavior!

One can not refute the fact that we are in a recession currently, and that jobs have been harder to come by. I have read several articles discussing one issue in particular. Apparently, teenagers have found the job market for summer jobs almost completely closed to them. This is due to several factors; the biggest of which is adults with degrees are applying for these same jobs. To his credit (and this is possibly the only positive comment I will ever make about this man) Mayor Tom Menino (D-Boston) has aggressively tackled this issue. Over the past few years he has allocated funds to create summer jobs for teens living in Boston. This program has worked positively, because it serves to not only help out the economy, but, it teaches kids a good work ethic and skills they will need for the future.

With that said, I was recently reading the Boston Herald when I ran across this article. According to the article, your tax dollars are going to help "at risk kids" to find summer jobs. The Department of Transitional Assistance has gotten its hands on some cash from the federal stimulus bill to give jobs to people who should not be given priority. It includes jobs for: court offenders (i.e. criminals), school dropouts, pregnant teens, and people who don't speak English. The kicker to it all is that this is available to kids whose ages are between 14-24. Since when is someone over 18 (or even 21) considered to be a kid?

While these people do need help in some form, there are two issues I take with this. First, shouldn't this go to kids who deserve it first? This is a program which rewards bad behavior. These "kids" made a decision to be deviant in some form and they should be punished for it. Even if that punishment is being pushed to the back of the line. Second, why are my taxes paying for people who I feel don't deserve it? You and I had no say in this program, at all, and many of us do not support these decisions. It's just unacceptable!

The final issue here is that the jobs are disappearing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Many local pools are closing (due to budget cuts), many local parks are hiring less, and many public works can't afford to employ as many. Given this and the issues of adults taking summer jobs, what are teens suppose to do this summer? Those who deserve these jobs are not getting them and your government is now saying "too bad, these poor kids who made deviant decisions need more help." Its sad when we reward those who don't deserve it and punish those that do. Good job Massachusetts.

VAT is Ridiculous!

President Obama himself, the other day, stated that we are out of money. Yet, he continues to tout and talk up his "Universal Health Care" reform. A program which will cost Americans trillions of dollars. I know what you are thinking! How can we afford a program worth trillions of dollars if we are out of money Mister President? Good question and here is the answer; its called a VAT.

In a story that the media has mysteriously not covered in depth or at all, lawmakers and experts are looking into the idea of imposing a "Value-Added Tax" (VAT). What is a VAT, you might ask? Well, its a federal level tax that you will pay on everything you purchase. The idea has been gaining momentum in the United States as deficits continue to grow out of control. President Obama and Congress want a report by 4 December 2009 to come up with ideas as to how to pay for everything we can't afford. This VAT is a globally accepted idea of which over 130 countries use. Academics are saying that a VAT of anywhere from 10% to 25% would be needed to pay for all of the programs Democrats and Republicans are putting forth. That means that you will now be paying a "sales tax" on top of a "sales tax" (for those states that have them).

This is just infuriating! The first question is, what implications would this have on the sovereignty of states? Many states (to include New Hampshire to my north) have no sales tax and do not want a sales tax. This is how they attract people to come live and stay in the state (unlike Massachusetts to its south). This would be a tax that the people would have no say in. It would be a power move by the federal government to show who's the boss and to expand well beyond what it should.

Also, why is this being thought of now? I don't know if those in power have noticed, but, we are in a recession. Our buying power is smaller than it was even a year ago. This could completely diminish our buying power. Yeah, it would be great to have health care; which oh by the way I already have, but, I would rather like to be able to go to the grocery store and ummm buy food. We can't buy as much as we could so we the people have tightened our belts and are doing that thing called buying less. Why can't our government do the same? Why not wait until we are out of a recession to look into these programs? Why not ask the American people by letting us vote on the ideas of a VAT or Universal Health Care?

Furthermore, in recent years I have accused Democrats (especially in Massachusetts) of just following the idea of tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. My friends have always rebutted, "No... We don't do that anymore!" Thus, we elected Governor Deval Patrick, President Obama, and our current Congress. Yet, what is the idea of a VAT which would pay for a program we don't want? Oh yeah TAX AND SPEND! Its time you tell your government to stop it before you are paying an extra $20-$50 for groceries everytime you go!

And by the way, didn't we start a war over being over taxed? I don't know I'm bad at history!

The Washington Post has a great article on this issue.