Sunday, November 25, 2012

Having Cake and Not Be Able To Eat It At All.

Well, the unions killed the goose that laid the golden twinkie. The tasty Hostess Company will not return as it was.  Some have asked the question, "Was Hostess not too big to fail?" Apparently, the union bosses involved did not have as much influence with the White House as the auto worker union bosses did. Imagine, if you will, federal money being borrowed for bailing out Hostess, but thy feds telling bond owners to take a hike, firing the CEO and making the unions part-owners of the company and non-union suppliers left out in the cold.  That is what happened with Chrysler and General Motors.

As usual, union bosses screwed things up.  It is ludicrous, especially in this dreadful economy, to expect a company devoted to sweet snacks to survive without cutting their expenses. You would think that even a union thug was smart enough to see that striking against court-ordered restructuring of union benefits would leave Hostess with no other option but to cut their losses and sell off their assets. But it has been a long time since union bosses have been realistic about strengthening the workers' positions. Mainly, union bosses are trying to feather their own nests and currying political connections.

Mexico can make the products much cheaper and maybe just as tasty. Hopefully, other companies will buy the brands and they can continue the iconic brand of Hostess alive, perhaps in more business-friendly states. Most of us would prefer to have our tasty treats made in our own country, or even in our own states or towns, but unions are making it more and more difficult for people to have good jobs. Right-to-work states, for the most part, have more work and more jobs. Supply and demand is still the best control in any economy. If you build a company, workers will come. If you are a thriving company and want and need to keep good workers, you will naturally pay more and offer  more benefits than your competitor. If your product is wanted, you will prosper. If your product becomes less attractive to the consumer, you need to change your product or, perhaps, cut the cost of your product to make it more appealing. This is the simple reality of business in the free market place. However, when the unions enter the equation, reality is suspended for many. There is never an end of company money, as far as union bosses are concerned. The investors and management are always "fat cats" who are trying to live big on the backs of the workers. Have you looked at how big union bosses live? Have union members asked union bosses to cut back?

GM, as George Will recently noted, had become a health insurance company for its employees and twice as many retired employees, and which had to try to sell enough cars on the side to pay for all of the employee benefits. The only fix that would preserve the status quo for unions and their Democrat cronies was to have the big "Auto-Bailout". It was actually a union bail-out, but that is getting too technical . Hostess is doing the only practical and honest thing it can do, after filing bankruptcy several times since 2004, trying to keep the company and over 18,000 jobs afloat. I only wish General Motors had done the same thing. GM might have come back leaner and meaner and with products the country and the rest of the world want and can sell without government subsidies. Can you imagine a government subsidized twinkie? Michelle Obama might have a say in what goes into it. It would be like the Chevy Volt: nobody would want have one, let alone eat it.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

The Man Who Knows Too Little

Who would have thought the spirit of Sargent Schultz, of Hogan's Heroes fame, would possess the body of our wonderful president--note the sarcasm dripping from that statement.  Our president, Barack Hussein Obama (umm, umm, umm), seemingly is unaware of anything that he should know. Just as he was unaware of  the gun-running operations of the Justice Department to Mexican drug cartels which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and one of our border agents, Obama has no idea what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. It has been nearly two and a half months and when questioned about what happened and why, his response is, in essence, "I know Nothing!" To be honest, he does not actually put it that way. His usual response is actually an effort to sidestep the question with an irrelevant suggestion that he is offended that anyone would suggest that he would be politically motivated in any way. Or, he declares that "we are trying to get to the bottom of it" and "we will bring the perpetrators to justice".  His notions of actual justice being brought to bare would be laughable, if I thought for a moment that it was at all funny. 

We have a real problem with the Benghazi event. We are not being told why Stevens was in Benghazi, a hotbed of terrorist activity, on 9-11, after telling his superiors at the State department that he feared for his safety and requesting more security, with a light security team. Why was he meeting a Turkish official just hours before he was attacked and killed? Why? What did he do while 4 Americans were being murdered? What did the president know and when did he know it? Who was calling the shots?

We also have a real problem with the news media, who gets excited about an extra-marital affair by CIA head, David Petraeus, while they give the president a pass on the a fore mentioned questions. Granted, a FOX reporter dared ask a question, but the other news organizations have been silent. They are constantly protecting their Messiah--Obama is obviously the closest thing they have to deity in their lives--from any political harm. Any evenhanded observer would know that a Republican president would not be able to skate through such a debacle as Benghazi gate without an anal exam by the press. It is what the press is supposed to do. The fact that they choose not to, is a very serious problem for the nation. Ignorance may be bliss, as they say, but it is also the very road to destruction. Did I just coin a phrase? I hope so. When a political storm strikes a presidency, the press should not be providing a rain coat for him to keep from getting wet.  America, WE Have A Problem!

Did Your Vote Count?

The question must be asked. I wish I didn't have to be the one to ask it. But, since no one else will, it falls to me. Did Barack Obama actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election? My answer is an unequivocal no. It was not a free and fair election. In fact, if we as a nation don't acknowledge the reality of what I am saying, we may never have a free and fair election again in the future of this once-great nation. You can look it up, as they say, but here are some facts that may have eluded you:

The Obama campaign willingly accepted foreign campaign funds.  They were not obliged to accept it but they did. They accepted illegal campaign contributions in 2008 and got away with it, so why would they not expect to do so again. They favorite mantra of Obama is "Nobody told me anything about it!" He refused to identify donors of $200 or less, though most of the funds were supposedly small donations.

Did anyone other than my friends and family see the videos captured by James O'Keefe of the Project Veritas--remember him exposing the ACORN people trying to facilitate prostitution rings?--showing Democrats operatives willing and eager to help commit voter fraud by allowing people to cast numerous votes.

And again, as is the case when Democrats run the Defense Department, our service men and women were systematically denied the opportunity to have their votes count. If there was public service union for our members of the military, I suspect that they would be driven to the polls, given coffee and pastries and told who to vote for. But, the very people who fight to allow us the freedom of voting have to jump through unrealistic hoops to do the same.

Then there is the photo ID requirement. Democrats believe that photo ID requirements suppress the vote.They do, of course, but only illegal votes, which Democrats apparently need in very close elections. The same logic should be used in most everything where photo IDs are normally required. Photo IDs suppress illegal activities like writing bad checks, credit card theft, purchasing illegal substances, illegally driving a car, getting into the Democrat convention, etc. By coincidence, Obama won every state where open voting--no ID required--was the law. I mean seriously folks, there is absolutely no good argument for not requiring someone to provide proof of who they are before the perform their sacred American duty of casting a vote. That right to have your vote count one time and only one time should be protected. Yet even when governments try to provide photo IDs at little or no cost to the voter, Democrats are against it. The obvious answer is that it cuts down on their cheating options.

In Philadelphia, Republican poll inspectors were forcibly removed from voting sites where Obama was the winner of nearly 100% of the vote. In Ward 4, where a poll watcher was wearing an Obama shirt
, the vote was 9,955 for Obama and 55 for Romney. Really? In today's economy? 9,955 to 55?  Obama also won 44 Cleveland voting districts by 99.8%. In one Ohio county, Obama won with 108 percent of the registered voters. Then there are the numerous reports of voters trying to vote for Romney in an electronic voting booth but every time they pushed the button for Romney, Obama's name was marked. It never seemed to happen the other way around. Who knows how many people did not catch the "glitch"? Interestingly, Romney received 3 million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008 while Obam snared 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. But Obama the 4 most critical swing states by only 500,000 votes. It was also reported that about 5 million independents who voted for Obama in 2008 changed this time around and voted for Romney.  This would suggest that nearly 5.5 million Republican and Romney independent votes were either did not show up or their votes were not counted.
So I ask again, did Obam win? Yes. Did he actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election? If you think so, you are delusional. If you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent, and do not care, and think that the ends justify the means, you are killing this great country. Granted,voter fraud has been around since this country began. Fraud has determined the outcome of way too many elections in local, state, and federal levels, but we do not have to like it and we do not have to quietly accept it.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Yes, I Am Disgusted!

Well, what can I say? True to my word, I am disgusted by the election results (see my last blog). The news media, for the most part, has become the enemy of truth and the unofficial --it might be official, actually--PR arm of the Democrat party. I have literally grown to loathe them for their failure to live up to their responsibility. I have no hope that they will even give lip service to trying to get to the bottom of the Benghazi Cover Up. But I am even more disgusted by the idea that a small majority of the American electorate has finally arrived at the place where they want to vote themselves more free stuff rather than to vote themselves more freedom. Let there be no mistake about it: Free stuff is not free. You have to pay for it with your moral soul. In my mind, we have now officially joined the rest of the socialist world. The road back will likely be long and hard.

We have also reached a point where a small majority seems to have bought into affirmative action in political terms. In 2008, America elected its first "Black" president. America was anxious to do so. It would be a sign that racism had been overcome. To do so, they would elect a man whom they knew virtually nothing about. In 2012, America elected a man that had proved in 4 years that he was unqualified and unprepared to do the job. To elect him to a second term, they had to reject a man who had much better qualifications and a wonderful track record of success. It is obviously a case presidential affirmative action. Our small and silly majority felt it necessary to give Barack Hussein Obama a do-over, to see if he could do it better this time. The problem is that they still do not know who he is, because they have to be spoon-fed information, as they have become accustomed to in the necessities in life. Like a child who will not eat his broccoli though it is really nutritional and would help make him healthy, they refuse to be educated  about things which will make them smarter and wiser  Yes, I am disgusted!  I'm keeping this short so I can go cry!

Saturday, November 3, 2012


Here it is the Saturday before Tuesday's election day. If I am to believe the polls at this point, I would be disgusted. There are five things that come to mind that would thoroughly disgust me this Tuesday:

Firstly, I would be disgusted with the mainstream media. Never, in my sixty years, have I witnessed a betrayal of the American people by the news media so profound to try to keep a politician in office. As ignorant and self absorbed as the general public can be at times, I am convinced that, if you held our nose to a pile of crap, even the biggest navel contemplators among us would likely recognize the smell as CRAP! Unless, of course, our olfactory senses had been fried by cocaine addiction--I actually believe drug abuse can push you to the left, philosophically.  Almost two months ago on 9-11--anyone remember the significance of that date? I do and it should be understood that it has even more significance to our enemies who are crazy Muslims--our consulate in Benghazi was attacked by Al qaeda affiliates and four Americans, including the Ambassador to Libya, were murdered. Earlier in the day, as a number of embassies were being overrun and Muslim crazies protested an anti-Muslim video on the Internet, which none of them had seen, but only heard about, our embassies started sending out messages of apologies to the Muslim world for allowing such a nasty piece of work to be produced. Mitt Romney came out at this point and said that we should not be apologising for having free speech in America. The media attacked Romney for trying to make political hay so quickly. Though Romney was right, the  media hounded on this issue for several days, until it was apparent that it had not traction with the general public. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, murder and mayhem was taking place in Benghazi.  For over two weeks the Obama administration tried to cover up the fact that they had hung Ambassador Stevens out there in Libya without sufficient security, lying the the American people about a supposed demonstration against the infamous video gone awry. When extra security was asked for, the embassy was told to make do. We--I use the word "we" to include others beyond my self here--still do not know why Stevens was meeting with an official of Turkey a couple hours before he was murdered. It is obvious to even the most casual observer--maybe not Giraldo Rivera--that the cover up by the administration was devised to mislead America about what they were doing in Libya and to continue the hoax that Al qaeda was on the run.  Such information might not be good for the president's reelection.  As I have said before, Where is the curiosity of the left-leaning news media? Do they want Obama reelected so badly that they will refuse to do their job? They never needed a Democrat challenger to carry the water for them when the went after Nixon, Reagan or the Bushes. FOX NEWS is the only major news outlet that can be taken seriously. The rest should be doing their job too!

Secondly, I would be disgusted by anyone who might be moved in their convictions about Obama based on his TV appearances post Hurricane Sandy.  You want to tell me he is more presidential now that he has been seen hugging disaster victims?  Again, he came out and made attractive promises to those who suffer, without any real follow through.  Anybody really believe anything he says? He made a huge number of promises concerning jobs, the economy, health care, divisive politics and such that he was unable to deliver on. Oh, and there was the one about the oceans receding. If anyone sees him other than what he is, an ACORN community organizer (agitator) with the power of the White House to spend tax-payer money to create more dependence, they are the blind following the blind. He has never done anything beyond selling two autobiographies and getting himself elected to political office. He voted present almost exclusively as an Illinois senator, did nothing for four years as a United States Senator, and mucked up everything he has touched as president. He was unable to make any decisions for fear of hurting himself politically, including calling for the hit on Bin Laden without being pushed into it by Hilary Clinton. Now he looks presidential? He said yesterday that voting was the best revenge. Presidential? I like Romney's response: Vote for love of country.

Thirdly, I always have a hard time understanding how people can vote for a president because they want him to accomplish certain things and at the same time cast a vote for a person who will instinctively work against that president to the best of their ability. I have noticed in the polls of various states, such as Montana, Missouri and Indiana, that Romney is favored by the state electorate, but that the Democrat running for that state's senate seat is leading in the polls. How stupid are you to do that? I could understand it if the Republican was somehow a Satan-worshipping, child-molesting cretin, but these are candidates who will support Romney's agenda.  The great statesman, Harry Reid--boy was that hard to say, even in sarcastic jest--has proclaimed that as Senate majority leader he will try to disrupt Romney's every move. Do you want to keep that clown as the Senate Majority Leader? Heaven forbid! I mean, PLEASE, HEAVEN FORBID! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. How about just shooting yourself in the head!

Fourthly, I would be disgusted if you have not made up your mind until you enter the voting booth. Polls tell us there are still some undecided voters out there. Really? What is wrong with you that you are unable to see what is going on around you. Are you as incapable of making a hard decisions--not that this at all a hard decision--as Obama has been most of his political career. Does it have to effect you personally? Do you not care more about the state of our country than you do about how your clueless friends will view you?

Fifthly, I would be disgusted if you as an American could not care less about this election. You have been given a gift! For whatever reason, you were born in the greatest country, with the most opportunity and freedom, that has ever existed in recorded history. This nation is special, because of unique constitution and the internal struggle we have gone through over the past couple centuries to make this an even greater country to live in. We are inadvertently, though I believe some are actively trying to lead us there, heading for destruction, as far as freedom and opportunity are concerned. Eventually the people who are asleep at the wheel will be jarred awake as our country veers completely off the road. We need a majority of careful and serious minds that comprehend our actual state. We need people to wake up and see where we are heading. For example, if we put our union concerns ahead of the good of the country without looking at repercussions, we are hiding our heads in the sand. We are ripe for destruction, it would seem. Maybe even over ripe. Do we smell rotting fruit or a clean breeze trying to reach us?

Please America, do not leave me disgusted! Vote for Romney and give him a congress who will help him get this country back on the road and heading in the right direction.