Our litigious society

Sometimes the system makes me sick. We have these laws in place, but they really don't mean anything because of LAWyers. I'll give you a few examples.

In my own experience, I have a 4 unit property that I bought for $312,000 and spent over $400,000 rehabilitating it from the previous owners' "deferred maintenance" (to be polite). Actually they were scumbag landlords of the worst kind. But I took the property from the run down $#!+hole that it was, remodeled each unit and did structural repairs as well as resolved drainage issues to make it nice and liveable.

Two years ago, I got these tenants who, because of their poor lifestyle (not to mention their poor habits in housekeeping) coupled with the fact that they are hypocondriacs who want to lay their problems on me got sick while living in the apartment. (The medical reports bear this out... the woman has had some form of "disease" over the past 10 years, either real or imagined, and was probably on disability more than she was at work!)

So one evening on the 26th of the month and said they can not live there anymore because they have toxic mold in their apartment and are moving out immediately. They demanded first and last month's rent, their deposit, moving expenses and replacement of their furniture. And all of this was caused by the fact they were pack rats and had stuff stacked to the ceiling against the walls. And they apparently never opened a window or door for more than a few minutes because they were always sick. With the reduced ventilation, they created the mold. I have had renters there before them, and after them, none of whom have had a mold problem.

Here's where the law comes in. The law says I have to be notified of the problem and be given time to resolve it. Never happened. It also says they are still responsible for the rent and normal 30 days notice to vacate. Again, never happened.

What did happen is this; the woman (let's call her fat-assed bitch for purposes of this story) takes her case to a scum-sucking attorney (who has more money than God), and he agrees to take her case to arbitration for no fee and demand a quarter of a million dollars... Sound fair to you? If it does, then you're probably a liberal living under rent control and "the man" has been doing it to you for years... that's why you can't get ahead!

At the time of this writing we are down to within several thousand dollars, much closer to the $5,000 dollars I offered her originally to settle the case than the $250,000 she originally demanded. With the help of my fantastic insurance company, Allstate, (who did not have to represent me because they don't cover mold) I think we are close to finalizing the number.

The only relief I can feel is that, at least the case will go away. And what makes me smile more is that she'll be broke again within a year. She's a victim and will always be one.

So here's a case where the law is one thing, but reality is another. What, we can pick and choose which laws apply and which don't? What happens if I want to obey one that you don't and vice-versa?

This is happened everyday. Look at the illegal immigration issue, for example. We already have laws on the books for years, telling people how they must enter the country legally and that it is against the law to cross our borders without the property paperwork. Yet it happens everyday, and our brilliant leaders in Washington are trying to pass a bill that basically says, "Screw the law. We'll just make a new law and make you all legal." It's like in football where they keep pushing the team down the field getting first downs every couple of plays.

And what about Gay marriage in San Francisco? Now let me say up front that I don't think government should be involved in this decision... but it is! It's a state law, in fact. But Mayor Newsom chose to ignore the law (break it) and marry gays anyway because he thought it was the right thing to do.

So here I am, I disagree with the IRS. I think taxes should be abolished. They are getting too much money from us already in income taxes, gas taxes, inheritance taxes and so on. Then the state has to get its cut in income taxes and sales tax along with the county and city getting their property taxes. Then you have the federal government tacking on taxes to all our utilities bills. When does it stop? Well, I don't want to obey this law. Friends of mine don't want to obey the seat belt law. Many drivers don't want to obey the insurance law for their cars. And why should we? If our government doesn't have to, then why should we? Think about it.

Mick O.

Immigration bill DEAD! How does this get reported as a loss for Bush?

True, Bush was pushing this bad bill down the throats of the American people and its elected representatives, but he LOST! You'd think Democrats would have opposed it too, just because they have been against everything the President has been trying to do since 2000.

Who wrote the bill? Senator Kennedy (D). So how is it a defeat only for the President as the media is reporting? BECAUSE THEY LIE! Or at least bend the truth to fit their agenda. And isn't Harry Reid (D) the majority leader? And he couldn't get 51 votes? After all, Democrats are in the majority, and he couldn't get his own party to go for a bad bill! So isn't that a loss for Democrats?

Here's the deal. People were involved in this, and that should give us hope that we can change things in this country for the better. Now we need to do two things: 1) campaign to get the border fence built and 2) get the two border agents who were jailed for doing their jobs RELEASED!

Now that's an amnesty I could go for!

Mick O.

Environmentalists and BIO fuels

Here's a thought about liberals and their push toward bio fuels. Liberals are sensitive people who want to take care of the poor, even those in other countries who are suffering. But liberals love the environment to a fault. So much so that they hate oil.

So what happens? They push the government to pay for programs to develop fuels created from corn and soybeans that cost more in energy to produce than we get from it. Second of all, we are paying taxes to subsidise farmers to produce corn for ethanol.

If you were being paid to produce corn for the government with a guaranteed paycheck, would you do it? And what do you think would happen? Either farmers will have to pay more for corn to feed our food sources like beef, pork and chicken or cut back on the livestock. What happens next? Prices for food starts to go up because there is less livestock being raised by the farmers and ranchers.

Of course this affects the cost of milk too because... why? Corn costs more! And for what? A really inefficient alternative for oil... Hmmm, something's wrong here.

Mick O.

Environmental nuttiness

Here's a story for you. We bought a property in the Lake Tahoe area because it's a beautiful get away. But the environmental agencies abound up there trying to keep things from being developed. Good enough.

But then you have the Sierra Club who has lawsuits to keep the Forest Service from cutting or removing dead trees from the forest. So what happens this week? There's a fire which is worse than it should be because of all the extra dead wood in the area.

So what happens because of this bad fire? Smoke. Smoke that fills the air and affects air quality. Air quality that the Sierra Club is worried about!

Every time people try and control nature by laws and restrictions, they end up making it worse by the unforseen consequences. So now tree-hugging environmentalists who love clean air and clean water have ruined the air quality in one of the most beautiful places in California!!!

Mick O.

Hyphenated Americans

I am sick and tired of hyphenated americans. It is a form of political correctness that is supposed to make people feel different because being American just isn't good enough anymore. But doesn't that dilute rather than make stronger? I mean you, take an alcoholic beverage. Isn't straight gin stronger than a gin-tonic?

So why do black people get away with being African-Americans? Most of them have never been to Africa and probably couldn't find Sierra Leone on a map if their lives depended on it. And Mexican-Americans? Many of them using this title are not legal anyway.

Which brings me to women with two or hyphenated last names... Is this a code for LIB? Seems to me a conservative woman would either a) change her last name to her husband's after marrying or b) keep her last name and be independent. But what about Hillary Rodham-Clinton? Then she becomes Hillary Rodham. Now she is just Hillary Clinton. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!! Or is that the definition of liberalism? Changing one's mind... on a whim.

Mick O.

Government - what is it good for?

Remember that song, "War"? Well, our government has become irrelevant! Is it time to change it? Here's my reasoning:

Most Americans are against this "immigration" bill, yet the elected officials refuse to give it up. In this case, the majority of citizens are smarter than those voted in to solve these problems and are against this bill in all its incarnations.

So is it time to get rid of the House and the Senate and go to direct vote? A true democracy! We certainly have the technology to make it happen.

Just a thought.

Mick O.

About bumper stickers

First of all, how many conservative bumper stickers do you see? Not many! Conservatives tend to play things close to the vest, it seems. About the only "controversial" expression you see on cars from Christians (who may or may not be conservative) is the fish that has become the Christian symbol.

I am convinced that liberal expressions are meant to be "in your face". Look at the above example and then tge liberals' response to put a fish with feet that has "Darwin" written across it. Or the bumper sticker "Dog is my co-pilot" to oppose the "God is my co-pilot" slogan.

But I never saw a bumper sticker that solved a problem!

Mick O.

Obese children and the government

Everyday there is a new "crisis" in the media. This time it is our obese children.

How can this be with all the poverty they are reporting in our country? Wouldn't it make sense that if everyone is so poor, all the people would be skin and bones because they are so poor?

But just the opposite is true. Kids are fighting obesity. And why? Could it be because they are not allowed to play games at school? And what about this latest "disease" called video games?

There are reports that schools have banned such playground favorites as "tag" and "dodge ball" because they are too violent and encourages winners! So could we not say that schools might be part of the problem? Lack of exercise could easily add to the problem!

After all, on the diet side they have created all these healthy school lunch programs (paid for by you and me). And they've taken away the soft drink and candy machines, haven't they? So shouldn't our kids be getting healthier?

I guess this is just another one of those mysteries we'll never be able to solve.

Mick O.

Jane Fonda wants impeachment... who cares?

Jane Fonda is the latest idiot who wants President Bush and Vice-President Cheney impeached for war crimes... Don't you think she should have made a protest of Sadam Hussein? No, it doesn't fit her agenda.

So who cares? Apparently a bunch of her liberal pals. Another one of those groups with its benign sounding name "The World Can't Wait" is behind the push.

What does Jane Fonda know about war... or anything for that matter? When she runs for President or some other elected office and wins, then I will listed. Until then... shut up!

Mick O.

Big government - is it good for America?

People are selfish and want their own way. Even in the case of people who say they have bigger issues the support, those issues are still self-serving. Anti-war? People are against war mostly because of their self-centered interests. Maybe they have a child who might have to go fight a war they don't believe in. Or maybe they are 60's throw backs who are into peace and love. They hate war but want to kill George Bush. Get where I am going here?

Let's look at animal rights activists. People are so pro-animal that they are willing to kill people to save animals. Are we not animals and doesn't that seem just a little hypocritical?

Environmentalists are willing to give up their cars to ride bicycles only to ignore the fact that big oil is responsible for the plastics that make up their helmets and other synthetic parts for the bikes!

Finally there is big government. All these social programs which are about to go bankrupt should be trashed. But what about the money that we all paid into them to keep them afloat this long? That's how they continue to perpetuate them. I mean, how many people are willing to give up their social security if they could stop paying now as long as they are willing to receive nothing when they retire? I am. But not many are.

So my theory is that government is being left alone because of the selfishness of its citizens. Wrong is wrong, even if it helps you. More about this later.

Mick O.

Take back America, and from whom?

I have been hearing this slogan, "Take Back America" for some time now from liberals. Take it back from whom? And who is going to get it?

Seems to me we still vote for our leaders (for better or for worse) and that the public, for the most part, is uninformed about the issues. It's called delegation. We delegate our power to people who have the time and energy to research and make good decision on our behalf.

But is this happening? I don't think so considering the latest crop of legislation coming down the pike. Politicians have always been and will probably always be doing things in the best interest of... themselves!

Look at Harry Reid in Nevada who used his power to manipulate federal regulations to make his own land deals. And how about Senator Feinstein who was steering government money toward her husband's company? Of course, we have heard about Republican Duke Cunningham's adventures in corrupt politics. And the list goes on and on!

The job of politicians is first and foremost to get re-elected. And why? So they can pass laws for the rest of us from which they are exempt! So to take back America is a ludicrous statement. If we really wanted to take it back we would abolish most of the government, cut programs and roll back all the regulations and taxation that we now "enjoy"!

So it seems to me, the ones that are using that catch phrase want to take back America to the socialism that was repealed by conservatives who want government OUT of our lives.

Less government sounds good to me.

Mick O.

This used to be a free country! Fairness doctrine? Anything but!

To be an informed citizen these days you must be vigilant about all the crazy legislation and regulations coming from our well intentioned public officials. It's like the days of the Minutemen all over again. Grass roots beat back the illegal immigration legislation, at least for now. So take the new "Fairness Doctrine".

It is anything but "fair". They give it that name to silence any argument because, afterall, who doesn't want to be "fair"? This in itself is propaganda. What the Fairness Doctrine would mean is that talk shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would either have to alter their format to accommodate opposing views or radio stations would be forced to air programs with opposing views; in essence, equal time.

So why does government get to make this decision? Shouldn't the private sector and free market make that decision like it does now? After all, if Air America was so great, why did it go bankrupt after only a little over a year in business? Because it was BAD! With this new doctrine, we or the station owners would be forced to pay (either directly or indirectly) for shows that draw no audience. How can this be good for business?

Rush Limbaugh's show is entertaining, educational and thought provoking. Though I often agree with his views, when I do disagree, I at least understand his position because it is explained so eloquently, unlike the radicals on Air America.

Take Al Franken. All he did was insult President Bush and spew hatred about our country. Other hosts were of the same opinion and said pretty much the same thing, something that Americans seemingly do not want to spend their time listening to. And why would we? We have the greatest country in the history of the world and have achieved world dominance in a relatively short period of time, mostly because of the freedoms we enjoy.

Now the government wants to take another freedom away from us by deciding what we should be listening to on the radio. As if network news, both television and radio and newspapers weren't enough. And if you think the media isn't biased, then your head is stuck in the sand.

So I propose that if the liberals impose a new fairness doctrine, we lobby our representatives to add the provision that we get to have balance in our newscasts too. How much news would we get if with every point, they had to present a counter-point? A lot less, would we not? Hey, maybe this Fairness Doctrine thing wouldn't be such a bad idea!!! I, for one, am sick of the Bad News Bearers!

Mick O.

Congress approval reaches an all time low!

Is anyone surprised? Look at the record and you can see that they've done little (sometimes this is good!) to improve our lives. They've promised to guarantee illegal aliens permanent status and make them legal, something that a majority of US Citizens are against. But are they listening? Some of them are, but the leaders, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, McCain, Graham and many more, are not. Many Democrats are to be congratulated for voting against this amnesty. But it will be back... in spite of our feelings. Down goes their popularity.

The Democrat majority has constantly been mired in bringing non-binding resolutions and nuisance investigations to cater to their kook fringe base. As I have always thought, these people are loud, but not the majority. George Soros may have a lot of money and be able to manipulate the press. He claims he and his buddies "own the party", but they still only has one vote each... I hope! And because Democrat leaders have no backbone to stand up to these people, down goes their popularity.

Now they are talking about raising taxes on the rich... exactly who is this? You and me who collect a paycheck, not the Ted Kennedy types who have their money in off shore accounts, trusts, corporations and foundations. But they never tell us that. And what tax has helped give me more money, even when I didn't have any? NONE! And people are catching on to the class envy... at least the sane ones are. And again, down goes their popularity.

Finally, they want to tax big oil and put other restrictions on them. Hillary wants to take the profits of big oil and put them into alternative energy projects. Oh, sure, that's going to help gas prices! Like government intervention in ANYTHING has ever solved a single problem! To quote Dr. Evil, "Righttttt...." Anyone who believes that needs to take a basic economics class or read Thomas Sowell's new book. There are solutions out there, but you can be sure government isn't one of them!!!

Mick O.

Hollywood and good guys versus bad buys

This is not about the media, per se, but about their pals in Hollywood. Here's what prompted this thought.

I decided to go back and read some of Tom Clancy's books, even some that I have seen as movies. Knowing that Hollywood often embellishes novels that are put on the big screen, to the point where they are often unrecognizable (James Bond movies, for example).

My most recent reading adventure was Patriot Games and, surprisingly, found that very little was changed about the story, except the ending! Here's what surprised me. In the end of the book, the terrorists are captured, but in the end of the movie they meet a horrible (and much deserved) death. But why is Hollywood obsessed with making the bad guys in fiction die while blatantly turning a blind eye to the real threat in the Middle East?

Over and over, Hollywood stars play the parts of real hard-ass good guys who kill the bad guys while we cheer them on the screen. Then as soon as they are out doing interviews, they are big peace activists... Why is this? Don't they really believe there is good and bad? Right and wrong? And that their nemesis, George Bush, is really one of the good guys (even if he is wrong on immigration) not Sadam Hussein?

Mick O.

Communism by any other name...

The most recent outrage is Danny Glover hanging out with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Apparently Glover has angered many people in that country because Chavez sent a ton of money the actor's way to make a movie that the locals feel could have been better spent by the people of Venezuela. Which leads me to this point.

Socialists like Glover, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Alec Baldwin and Ed Asner (to name a few... anyone notice the common denominator???) want to change the US to socialism (Asner is a Communist by his own admission). My suggestion is this; why not go to a country that already HAS communism/socialism as its policy instead of taking a country that was founded on opposite principles and change it? After all, if living under a dictatorship is so wonderful, why not move to Venezuela or Cuba or some other socialist country and leave those of us who want FREEDOM alone?

It amazes me that a country with the track record of success that the USA has with all its freedoms can constantly be assaulted by people who think they have a better idea… as if these ideas haven’t already been tried. Communism worked pretty well for the Soviet Union, didn't it? Oops, I forgot. That country collapsed under the weight of its policies! And look at Cuba... what a wonderful place it has become under the despot dictator, Fidel Castro. I hear there are a few streets that have holes where the whole car doesn't fall into! (People blame the US embargo for Cuba's plight, but every other country in the world trades with them, so it has to be something else that's wrong. Want to guess, anyone?)

I see Michael Moore has a new movie that bashes the United States (usually conservatives, not liberals like himself) that I will not want to see, just as I wasn’t able to stomach “Bowling for Columbine” or that piece of trash, “Fahrenheit 911”. But I can see from the previews that it is another arrogant socialist hit piece aimed at Bush. Fortunately, we live in a free country (sort of) and I can choose NOT to see it. I'm sure the mind numbed robots who flocked to see his other movies will enjoy this one just as much.

And what about all these politicians who are pushing a lot of socialist ideas? Since when is everyone in the United States guaranteed health insurance? And how is anything the government going to come up with going to be a good thing that will work? I mean, just the sheer economics of it guarantee failure. If we can't pay for our health costs by ourselves, how is pooling our money by way of taxes going to do any better? First we have to pay for that huge, expensive, bureaucracy we have been talking about to manage the system, then how much money will actually be left over to put toward health care? Can you say deficit spending (again)? Run a company like this, and it would go out of business in the first month.

Finally, has anyone listened to Hillary lately? Her latest rant is she's going to, and I paraphrase, "take things away from certain people and give them to others who will use them properly." First, who is going to decide who these certain people are, and who will decide what is proper use? If you think you are going to be one of them, think again!

Mick O.

Why don't we know this about Iraq?

A friend sent me this today.

1. Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?
2. Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
3. Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and38 new schools have been completed in Iraq ?
4. Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?
5. Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?
6. Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?
7. They have five 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
8. Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
9. Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a commando Battalion?
10. Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
11. Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?
12. Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
13. Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
14. Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
15. Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
16. Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
17. Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW! WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW? OUR MEDIA WOULDNT TELL US!!!

Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves TWO purposes:

1. It is intended to UNDERMINE the world's perception of the United States thus MINIMIZING CONSEQUENT SUPPORT, and...
2. it is intended TO DISCOURAGE THE AMERICAN CITIZENS!!!!

These acts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site. HYPERLINK "http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?1juopKqem63qrX3RSnAjo093TvxjPVgaYH8_

Now why would they do this? All I saw today was this: "Bomber kills 10 in hit on Iraqi police".

Anyone wonder why they newpapers are losing subscribers and news stations are losing viewers? BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE TIRED OF THEIR PROPAGANDA AND BAD NEWS! It's time to cancel another subscription!

Mick O.

More on "Immigration"

Here's what we need to do now that the senate amnesty bill has been temporarily defeated. We need to let our representatives know we are serious about this problem.

We need to close the borders. Last year congress passed a bill to increase border security and build a fence, but have yet to fund the proposal. We need to lean on them to follow through on this issue NOW!

Second, we need to change the law that says anyone born here is automatically a US citizen. This privilege should be given ONLY to legal citizens having children. My suggestion is to start a campaign to get this changed.

Who's with me?

Mick O.

A country divided... but who's responsible?

Liberals have been accusing Bush of dividing the country. Maybe that's true in a roundabout way. Listen to the sound bytes and then tell me honestly who you think is dividing the country.

First of all, the Democrat debates have been nothing but Bush bashes. I have never heard Bush say anything negative about their party, but not one of the questions that was asked was answered without a shot at some Bush policy. Do these people realize that he is not running again?

I have a theory that they are pandering to their big contributors, the Moveon.org types who HATE Bush. The more they bash the president, the more money rolls in. The more they promise to pull out of Iraq, the more support they get. But isn't this kind of talk what's dividing the country?

Even Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon and taking issue with Bush's policies. But they are taking the easier, softer way. And they are misreading their base. I have heard from many conservatives who are constantly at odds with the Republican leadership on many issues. Republican fund raising is way down... and will continue to be until we get a leader who will speak the truth.

Mick O.

Will our government ever run out of BAD ideas?

...And will the press ever cover them honestly?

The recent "immigration" bill is one good example of the government thinking it HAS to do something to fix a problem. Why? Nothing has been done for years and pushing though a bad bill is not the solution. In this case doing NOTHING is better than doing ANYTHING! And this bill should be described as ANYTHING. After all, they don't like any of Bush's ideas except this one??? Come on!

But let's move on. Currrently in California, there is a push to pass legislation that would impose a $2500 tax on anyone buying certain vehicles like trucks and SUVs then turn around and give the $2500 as a rebate to people who choose fuel efficient hybrids...

Now I am all for people driving whatever they want to drive, though I would like to see one of these little cars negotiate some of the snow storms or off road terrain of the Sierras as well as an SUV. However, I am NOT for our legislators (whom we elect) making a law like this, virtually punishing people for the car choices they make in order to strong arm them into choosing something smaller... all in the name of saving the planet... while we haven't even proven that it needs our help!

In effect, they are reaching into the pocket of people whose choices they don't approve and give it to someone who makes the choices they want. (This does not just happen with automobiles, by the way!) Taxation has been used forever to influence people's decisions for better or worse.

But in this issue, set aside the global warming scenario for a moment, and take a look a the proposal on its merits. For starters, if these vehicles were such a good idea, wouldn't they be flying off the shelves? Like wide screen plasma televisions, they would be selling like hotcakes AND the prices would be coming down because every car manufacturers would be getting into the hybrid vehicle arena. However, just the opposite is true. Honda just announced the discontinuation of Accord Hybrid due to "lack of interest".

The next thought is this... who in their right mind thinks 100% of this money that goes to the government in taxes will then make it back out to reward those who buy the energy efficient cars? When has the government EVER returned 100% of the money it collects? Well, in the case of social security, you might have an argument.

But take the Lottery, for example. The original proposal was passed because the money was supposed go to the schools. As it turns out, more of the money from the lottery has gone to pay the employees who run and administer the lottery than has ever gone to benefit the schools. Though the schools are constantly complaining that they don't get enough money, nobody has suggested changing the lottery system. Why? Because these workers became state union employees who vote Democrat, for the most part. And Democrats run California... into the ground!

But I digress. Why should we believe this big car tax will be any different? What I envision is a new government bureaucracy will be created (or at the very least, a new department) to collect, account for and redistribute these new found taxes. Then the program will start running a deficit because of the overtime, holiday pay, vacations, health benefits, pension, etc. of the employees and suddenly they will need to be subsidized. But the goal has been achieved... to create another bunch of governement reliant people who will vote for the hands that feed them!!!

Mick O.

Intellectual honesty about the war in Iraq

There are a lot of reasons for both Democrats and Republicans to dislike Bush.

On the Democrat side, they hate just about anything that is policy. It's understandable since Bush's approval numbers are so low (with the help of the media accomplices) that they would jump on the dog pile and start kicking.

And Republicans are angry by his increased spending, growing of government and his position on illegal amnesty. Granted, a lot of the Republicans are of the same mind when dealing with "undocumented workers", but real conservatives are unhappy with his position.

While the consensus is understandable, what is not is the way Republicans are looking at the war. Just because the media has made it unpopular (and I think the polls are manipulated to show that the US is getting tired of being in Iraq... but mainly because we haven't won the war decisively!)

It is easy to look back and say we "should have done this" or "should not have done that". Hindsight is always 20-20. But are we being led by a bunch of sheep? Do they look at the polls and decide where to stand on the issues? Where is their intellectual honesty that we have never fought a war like this and didn't know what to expect? Mistakes are part of war, even in the ones we win!

Our mistake was not going in and taking out everything and then building it back from the ground up like we did in Germany and parts of Japan. This half-measures approach has cost a lot of men their lives. But I still support the decision to go in and take Saddamn out! And at least one conservative voice of those running for president should be saying that.

It is for this reason that I am pretty sure Republicans won't win the White House in 2008. They are too divided on the issues. And even though MoveOn.org is mad at Hillary, there's a good chance she will be our next commander in chief, proving once again that the Clintons live under a lucky star.

Mick O.

How the media uses "softening" to push its propaganda

When I refer to "softening" it has nothing to do with stool samples, though the media reports have become a bunch of crap... What is does have to do is an organized effort of theirs to soften the words it uses to push an agenda. Examples are these:

"Terrorists" became "insurgents" in the Iraq war.
"Minimum wage" became "living wage".
"Illegal aliens" became "undocumented workers".

There are many other examples, but these are a couple that come to mind from recent news events. Now why would someone do this? In my elementary school civics class, we talked about propaganda and how governments use it to sway public opinion, hopefully in such a way that nobody notices the subtle influence.

One of the early examples from my childhood was that "Everyone is doing it." It was quickly pointed out that, indeed, not EVERYONE was doing it. But it's an easy cop on a one way broadcast or printed article to say that "everyone is against the war in Iraq," when there is no way to challenge that statement except a letter to the editor which would be published long after the original article were forgotten.

My point is this; that every day our language is being changed by people with an agenda. Take the word "dialog". How often in the past 6 months have you heard the new un-word "dialoging"? We talk, we don't dialog. But suddenly there is a need to dialog with our enemies. We need to begin a dialog with Hugo Chavez so we can understand him better. As Doctor Evil would say, "Right....."

People that come into our country illegally are illegal. Any wage that is set as the lowest common denominator by the government is the minimum. And terrorists in Iraq are coming from Iran and are NOT insurgents! Get it?

Mick O.

Does anyone else find Hillary's attack on rich people a little ironic?

After all, she is one of them. So is John Kerry... and John Edwards... and Ted Kennedy... and Jay Rockefeller. How can people believe these folks when they talk about raising taxes on the rich? Does anyone in their right mind really think they have not protected their assets and will not be coming after people's money? After all, where is the line between rich and upper middle class? Nobody seems to define that. It's just another label like "conservative" or "liberal" or "black" or "white" as if everyone is each of these groups agrees on every single issue.

Townhall.com reports this, "During a major campaign address delivered in Manchester New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton explained her intent to eliminate the so-called 'tax cuts for the wealthy,' and introduced new ways for government to spend American’s money." Is this American? It certainly has become so with Democrat policies, but is not what the country was intended to be.

My opinion is that Mrs. Clinton will talk to the left of left on issues before the primary to get herself annointed "queen bee" and then move center as the 2008 election draws near. Her willing accomplices in the media will totally ignore her previous statements when she contradict her earlier positions when she does so.

Read Austin Hill's piece at Townhall.com here. It will open your eyes.

Mick O.

Hillary's talking about tax cuts for the rich again!

The first false assumption is that the government deserves to tax us at such a high rate. As if it is a God given right of the politician to raise or lower our taxes. Remember the Boston Tea Party? This country was founded on the belief that people had a right to govern themselves without the heavy hand of a large government bureaucracy.

So how did we get to this place in history? In my personal opinion it was F.D. Roosevelt who is to blame. Even though he originally did not envision his government programs to continue in perpetuity, they have... and then some.

Consider all the government programs that our taxes have to pay for; social security,medicare, medicaid, the prescription drug program just to name a few. It goes on and on. The amount of government intervention in our lives is staggering. And with enforcement agencies like the FDA, EPA, IRS and so on, who's really running the show?

Anyway, on to my main point. Why do Democrats constantly use the "eliminate tax cuts for the rich" mantra? Are we really to believe that raising someone's taxes is going to make someone else's life one bit better? Hasn't so far! And how do they propose to do that with the myriad of tax laws set up to benefit people smart enough to accumulate some wealth? They don't, but it sells to the huddled masses who vote for them.

I, for one, am sick of it. It's a "bumper sticker" slogan that needs to be eliminated from our vocabulary. We need to applaud those who achieve and strive to become one of those people ourselves.

Next time you are in New York, see if you can catch a ride with Hillary on her next cross-country jaunt in the name of collectivism. You see, the dirty secret is that she wants to share YOUR wealth... not her own!

- Mick O.