Archive for April, 2010

Admitting The Truth

April 30, 2010

   With the passage of the law in Arizona, giving police officers the authority to question and verify the legal status of people that they suspect of being illegal aliens, there has been a lot of talk about racism.

 The critics of the law say that it gives officers the power to racially profile Hispanics. The critics say that officers will be pulling over every Hispanic just to check their citizen status.

  Every time that the Democrats and the liberal media start talking about how it is racial profiling to check Hispanics for legal status, they are admitting the truth.

  The truth is that we have a runaway problem with illegal aliens that are Hispanic. We know this. Even the Democrats and the liberal media know this.

  So when a state, such as Arizona, takes matters into their own hands, which by the way they have the Constitutional authority to do, they are said to be racially profiling.

  How come no one gets upset when the FBI racially profiles a serial killer as being white and between the ages of thirty and forty? Because statistics show that the majority of serial killers are white and between the ages of thirty and forty.

  Statistics also show that the largest number of illegal aliens are Hispanic. This is not racially motivated, it is fact. Are their illegal Canadians here? Yes. Are there Irish and Germans here illegally? Most likely. There are also without doubt radical Islamist here waiting to attack us, some may even have come in disguised as Hispanics.

  So should Arizona officers be wasting their time checking the status of grandma O’Hara? You know, like the airport security is forced to do, while passing over arab passengers, just to seem as if there is no racial profiling going on.

  Look I believe that anyone who is stopped for reasonable cause and who is suspected of not being here legally, should be verified, no matter their skin color or their language skills. But we have to admit the truth here. We have a serious problem with Hispanic illegal aliens. Our school systems are not being overburdened with illegal Irish immigrants. Our hospitals are not being forced to shut down due to illegal aliens from Canada(well maybe they are a little bit, due to socialized medicine in Canada, but that will change as soon as our plan goes into effect). Our prisons aren’t overrun with German gang members .

  So once we admit the truth of the problem, then we can begin to solve it. Look if you have a dripping faucet in your up stairs bathroom, and a ruptured pipe under the kitchen sink, which are you going to fix first?

 I say we fix the ruptured pipe on the southern border and then we can fix those dripping Canadians.

  Asking Hispanics to prove their status in Arizona is no more racism, than investigating white males in an area surrounding what seems to be a serial killing. In both cases, crimes have been committed by un-known suspects. In both cases officers must use all of their instincts and resources to solve the crime. We wouldn’t expect law enforcement to turn their backs on a serial killing, just so as not to be accused of racial profiling would we?

  But I guess serial killers are not a large enough potential voting block to attract the attention of the Democrats and the liberal media.

Could Someone Please Explain This For Me ?

April 28, 2010

  In  2005, Rep. Mike Castle (RINO-De) sponsored HR810, titled the Stem Cell Research Bill of 2005. Of course Rep. Castle voted yes on the bill.

  Basically the bill was intended to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that uses human embryonic stem cells. The bill passed the House on o5/24/2005, it then passed the Senate on 07/19/2006. The bill was vetoed by Pres. Bush. The override of the veto failed.

  In 2007 the exact same bill was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Harry Reid as S5 and titled the Stem Cell Research Act of 2007. Again the bill was intended to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research using human embryonic stem cells. Rep. Castle again voted yes for funding this research. Again the bill passed both the House and the Senate and was vetoed.

  Now I could make all the arguments about how I feel that embryonic stem cell research is so closely tied to abortion. How the research using these stem cells could in my opinion lead to more abortions in the future. That in my opinion, even if the stem cells are obtained from donated embryos that would be thrown away anyway, that it is still the wasting of human life. Even though Rep. Castle considers them “medical waste”, his words not mine.

  I could make all of those points, but what I really want to ask is, how do all of you so-called fiscal conservatives out there who are supporting Mr. Castle in his Senate campaign, justify spending federal dollars to support this research? If the research were worth developing wouldn’t private companies be flocking to fund it? Actually there is quite a bit of evidence that embryonic stem cells could cause more problems than they can cure. And yet Mr. Castle insist on pushing and voting for this sort of legislation.

 Is this the type of fiscal conservative and small government candidate that conservatives are looking for? Not this one .

  And by the way, for all of you fellow social conservatives out there, here is another reason to not vote for Mr. Castle.  On 07/18/2007 Rep. Mike Castle voted no on S2754. This was a vote to pass a bill amending the Health Service Act of 2005, to develope methods for stem cell production, without the use of human embryos.

  So while Mr. Castle is all in favor of funding embryonic stem cell research, it would seem that he is against developing alternatives. Could someone please explain this for me ?

Judicial Common Sense Still Reins Supreme

April 28, 2010

Read about the recent Supreme Court decision to allow  a war memorial to remain, over- throwing a Federal Court ruling, stating that the symbol of a cross violated the so-called separation of church and state. It is decision like this that will be in question after another appointment by President Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme _court_mojave_cross

Christine O’Donnell Video

April 27, 2010

 Here is a link to a video of Christine O’Donnell speaking at Independence Hall TEA Party PAC.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx5wC6QauxU&feature=related

House Of Cards

April 25, 2010

  When I was younger I would often build houses of cards. I’m sure I don’t need to explain what these are, but just in case, I will.

  To build a house of cards you take at least one deck of playing cards, I would usually use two. You begin by leaning one card against another so that the two hold each other upright. You then begin to build outward in the same fashion, until you have create a fairly wide base of  “T” and “H” shaped connections.

  At this point you would begin to put a ceiling on the first floor by laying cards flat across the tops of the “Ts” and “Hs”, until you had completely covered the first floor.

  Now to build your house of cards as high as you could, you would repeat this process over and over again. In the natural progression of the building process each floor would become smaller than the previous one.

  As you progress higher and higher, it becomes harder to lay the next card, or to create the next “T” or “H”. It takes but one slight nudge of a single card to cause the whole thing to come crashing down, “like a house of cards”.

  Now let us look at the current condition of our economic system here in the United States.

  Our Founding Fathers believed in capitalism, they believed that every man should be guaranteed the pursuit of happiness. They did not believe that every person was guaranteed happiness.

 Now if we look at an economic system as a house of cards, we can see just how easy it is to cause it to come crashing down “like a house of cards”.

  In a capitalist system, the first floor is created by individual cards that help to hold each other upright. This would be people who go to work and pay taxes, it would also be those who are  innovative and create new products and ways to deliver services. It would include companies that produce the goods that we as individuals need to survive and who in return need us to purchase their goods which they pay taxes on. This is the base to our house of cards.

  The idea in this capitalist house of cards is to create the largest base possible, so as to support the next level. The more people you have on this first floor, the more stable the succeeding floors will be.

  Now in this capitalist house of cards the next step is to create the ceiling for the first floor. These cards represent government, which produce nothing and never was intended to. This level of government is laid over the base to protect the base and to strengthen the base. It should be just big enough to cover the needs of the base. It should protect the base from outside dangers, it should settle disputes among the base cards. This level of government should tax the base only to the amount that the base is willing to pay and should be responsive to the wishes of the base.

  Now in a true capitalist house of cards, this is where the building should stop.

  Unfortunately here in the United States , over the years , we have allowed those who would continue to build the house of cards higher and higher, to have their way.

  We were told that there was a class of people who could not live on the base level. That they could not add to the base in any way. That they could not work, or create or produce. We were told that this class of people, instead of being protected by the government and being a part of the base, that this class of people must be “SUPPORTED” by the government and so by the base.

  So now we have the base level, covered by and supporting the government level. And on top of this, the base has been asked to support this non-working, non-producing entitlement class. Now of course the first level of government is not sufficient to both protect the base and to administer to the entitlement level. So we must add another level of government to the house of cards.

  Now remember that all of this weight is being supported by the base. And as we continue to use our resources(or cards) to build upward, it is impossible to build outward, to widen the base. In fact as you build upward you begin to remove people from the base and add them to both the succeeding levels of government and to the entitlement levels.

  When building a house of cards, you are limited by the number of cards that you have to build with. The height of your house is restricted by the size of your base. In a true capitalist system this is also true.

 Unfortunately there are far too many people in the United States that believe that we can just continue to remove more and more people from the base and add them to the government level. They also seem bent on taking good hard-working and productive people and turning them into anther entitlement class. Unlike a real house of cards where each level becomes smaller than the proceeding level, in this economic house of cards being created, each new level is larger than the previous level.

 It doesn’t take an engineer to understand that if the base becomes smaller than the structure , there is a real chance , and likelihood of the entire system to come crashing down ” like a house of cards”.

Was This A Good Idea ?

April 23, 2010

 It has been reported that while at a 9/12 Patriots meeting, Michelle Rollins, candidate for the soon to be vacated U.S. House of Representatives seat, was asked a telling question. At least in my opinion.

  Ms. Rollins was asked if elected whether she would work to repeal the recently passed Obamacare healthcare plan. I can only assume that since she is running for the seat currently held by Rep. Mike Castle, that she may have felt the need to repeat his answer to this same question . Almost verbatim.

  Ms. Rollins said that “at this time it would be a waste of time to try to  repeal the legislation, since Pres. Obama would veto the repeal” . She also stated that there were some good things in Obamacare that she felt could be improved.

 So it would seem that Ms. Rollins leans more towards repair, instead of repeal. This it would seem puts her at odds with the majority of Americans and certainly put her at odds with her Patriots audience.

  Do we really want to replace one weak- kneed Representative, who is afraid to take the fight to the enemy? With another one who it would seem feels the same way.

  A fight not joined , is a fight not won!

Courage of Your Convictions

April 20, 2010

   I was hoping to be able to move on to more important topics. You know like the un-employment rate. The exploding deficit. The fact that the Democrats have hi-jacked the health care system of the United States.

  But no, the little brains around here what to continue to focus on the fact that Vance Phillips is taking a paycheck from the Glen Urquhart campaign.

  That’s fine I guess.  I am noticing that there are some new names showing up on the blogs. That also is a good thing I guess. The more people that join a conversation, the more ideas there are to share.

 But what really burns me up are the cowards. The screen name sissies. Don’t you people have the courage of your convictions?

  Or, is it that if your identities were known, your bias would also be known?

  Would your true identities prove what many of us already know. That this so called controversy is nothing more than a made up controversy. That those who are trying to keep it going are a group of people from several different factions.

 In my view you have some Democrats who are afraid to run against a real conservative such as Mr. Urquahart. Then you have some Republicans who are supporting another Republican candidate, who are afraid to run against a true conservative. Of course you have some people who just out and out hate developers and those who support growth. Then you have those who are just out for revenge.

  I have said a lot of things on this blog, that have angered people. I have been called names and had my intelligence called into question many times.

 I don’t ask everyone to agree with me, but I do stand behind everything I say and I have the courage of my convictions. I put my name to every word I post. I have never created a second anonymous screen name just so I can give a conflicting point of view.

  So I say to all of you out there who wish to challenge Mr. Phillips and Mr. Urquahart on anything they have done, either do it in your own name or crawl back in the holes you crawled out of. Put up or shut up.

Glass Houses ?

April 18, 2010

  The controversy surrounding  Mr. Vance Phillips, current Sussex County Council of Delaware president, seems to revolve around the fact that he is on the campaign payroll of a developer, Glen Urquhart who is running for the office of U.S. Representative.

  Many have a concern that because Mr. Phillips is on the payroll of the campaign, that in the “FUTURE” there “COULD” arise a conflict of interest. Mr. Phillips has stated that he would recuse himself if this were the case. This has not satisfied his critics. They then state that by doing this he would be leaving his constituents without representation.

  The critics cling to the phrase, ” APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY”, some have taken a liking to “PERCEPTION”.

  What follows is an attempt to point out that perception is a matter of which side of the fence you happen to be standing on.

   The numbers and names that I use here are public record, they come directly from The National Institute on Money in State Politics web site. I am not accusing anyone of anything, in fact I am sure that all campaign regulations were followed to the letter. Again my goal is to demonstrate that if someone wishes to see wrong doing they can take even that which is legal and twist it to seem as if there is wrong doing.

  I have chosen Rep. John Atkins 41st Rep. Dist. of Delaware(D), only because he has chosen to place himself in the middle of the Phillips controversy by contacting myself and other media outlets with his concerns about Mr. Phillips relationship with the Urquhart campaign. I have no doubt that I could do the same thing with the history of any sitting public official, and any former public official, from the president down to some small city councilman. I am equally sure that someone could also do this about Mr. Phillips and that is my point.

  Since so many people seem to be concerned about Mr. Phillips taking a pay check from a candidate, who happens to also be a developer, that “MAY” in the “FUTURE” come before the county council for consideration of some project and that this “MIGHT” create a conflict of interest, I ask those people, how do you feel about campaign contributions. Are these not payments to a candidate? Are we so blind as to not understand that in many cases they are payment for future consideration of some issue relating to the contributors interest or business?

  So let us look at Rep. Atkins’ 2008 campaign disclosure. First let me say that I commend Mr. Atkins for being his own largest contributor.

  I would like to also list the House Committees that Rep. Atkins sits on.

   Agriculture

    Corrections

    Energy

    Manufactured Housing

    Natural Resources

    Public Safety and Homeland Security

   Veterans Affairs

    I have gone through the 2008 campaign finance disclosure that Rep. Atkins and every other candidate must file. Including Mr. Phillips.

    Here are some of the highlights.  As I list the donations I will state the relevant committee as “I SEE IT”.

   Let me say once more that I am not making any accusation of any criminal act or any wrong doing.

   $250.00 from, The Correction Officers Association of Delaware, Dover(House Committee on Corrections).

   $200.00 from, United Troopers Alliance,Felton, De  (House Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security).

   $25.00 from, Manufactured Homeowners of Delaware (House Committee on Manufactured Housing).

   $500.00 from, The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Washington D.C. . $500.00 Chesapeake Utilities, Dover, De.. $100.00 Delaware Electric Cooperative. $100.00 Delaware Utility Workers. (House Committee on Energy).

 These last few are a collection of groups that do not pertain to any specific committee, but do draw your attention.

  $600.00 from, Independence Hall, (I believe this is a Schell Brothers project opened in 2008)

  $600.00 from Ocean Atlantic Agency of Rehoboth, ( this is a realtor association).

   $300.00 Jim Parker Builders of Millsboro, De (BUILDERS!!!!)

   $250.00 from , Eastside Developers Millsboro, De ( DEVELOPERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

   $250.00 from, Medical Society of Delaware Newark, De. (advocate group)

   $200.00 Delaware State Dental Society Newark, De (advocate group).

   Now I could take the time and research each and every vote that Rep. Atkins has ever made to find out if he has ever given any special consideration to any of these contributors . But we aren’t concerned with actual conflicts of interest are we. No in the case of Mr. Phillips , perception is enough.

 So can we say that there is a perception of a conflict of interest for Rep. Atkins when he accepts donations from two of the largest energy suppliers in the state, Chesapeake Utilities and Delaware Electric Coop.. Two companies that have constant dealings with the Legislature. I’m sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that Rep. Atkins sits on the House Committee on Energy.

  With Mr. Phillips, we are to be concerned that he takes a paycheck from a candidate for services rendered as a campaign advisor, because the candidate is also a developer.

 Are we also to be concerned that Rep. Atkins takes donations from, builders,realtors and developers?

  What services has Rep. Atkins provided?

  The point of this article is not to accuse Rep. Atkins or any of his contributors of any wrong doing, it is only to once again point out that anyone can take anything and twist it to their own advantage if they are so inclined.

  Now I know the “APPLES and ORANGES” crowd will show up and say that donations are legal, well so is what Mr. Phillips is doing. If not please someone show me the law. And remember, when you start throwing stones, ask yourself, am I without fault?

Substance Or Perception ?

April 16, 2010

  Last night I was contacted by a person who will remain anonymous, in regards to what they said was a breaking story. They told me that a story would be coming out today concerning the FEC report for the Glenn Urquhart campaign and the fact that it showed that the current Sussex County Council of Delaware president, Vance Phillips, is on the payroll of the Urquhart campaign.

   I must admit that at first I was concerned with the perception of a conflict of interest, the person who gave me this lead, also stated that they felt that this was un-ethical.

  I put in a call to Mr. Phillips so as to get his side of this controversy. He returned my call within a couple of hours . I spoke to him about the concerns that I myself had and those raised by the person who had alerted me. Mr. Phillips informed me that the same person had been calling other news outlets around the county and possibly the state.

  Mr. Phillips stated that, yes he was indeed on the payroll of the Urquhart campaign as an advisor. He let me know that there was nothing currently in front of the Sussex County Council and nothing pending that concerned Mr. Urquhart or any of his private concerns. Mr. Phillips also stated that if anything were to come before the council, that he would recuse himself from any votes involving Mr. Urquhart.

  At the time I was speaking with Mr. Phillips he was in fact at an event in support of the TEA movement and was with Mr. Urquhart. I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Urquhart on this matter and he also let me know that he had no business pending , and no business planned to come before the Sussex County Council. Mr. Urquhart also told me that he had not had any dealings with the council for several years past. Mr. Phillips did make a good point, that if Mr. Urquhart were attempting to buy influence on the council, this was a poor way to go about it, since he would actually be losing a vote by having Mr. Phillips recuse himself. Also Mr. Phillips is known to be a pro property rights vote on the council already.

  After speaking with Mr. Phillips and Mr. Urquhart I came to the conclusion that, at this time, this would seem to be a non- issue. I was not even going to post on this issue, but felt that since, in such a small state, this could seem to be a big story. I felt that it would be a good idea to post my opinion of this.

  So now here is my opinion. If the person who informed me of this, or anyone else , has actual evidence of misconduct on the part of Mr. Phillips, I ask them to contact me and I will be the first to post it. All too often in the political arena, perception becomes more important than substance. In this case ,at this time, I see no substance to make any charge of misconduct. The problem that Mr. Phillips and Mr. Urquhart are facing is that there are some people out there who wish only to project the perception of misconduct, for whatever reason.

  I’m sure that myself and others will now be paying closer attention to Mr. Phillips votes at County Council, but for myself, until I can prove through substantive evidence, this would seem to be all smoke and no fire.

Can The GOP Afford To Be Patient ?

April 14, 2010

  There is a lot of GOP members that believe, that we as a party, should take advantage of the current climate in the political arena. The thought is that right now American voters are in the mood to swing to the right in a big way.

  We have seen races in New Jersey and Massachusetts go to Republican candidates. Now of course some will argue that even these Republican candidates are not as conservative as some of us on the right would prefer. With this I agree. But considering the voting history in these states, it has to be seen as a victory for the conservative movement.

   Due to the heavy-handed approach of Pres. Obama, there is a growing number of both independent and Democrat voters, that want to move the country back away from the far left agenda of this current administration.

  This administration and its henchmen in congress have been on  a socialist, fascist, Marxist tear since taking office.

  We have witnessed the takeover of banks by the federal government. We have witnessed the nationalization of the auto industry. We have seen the deficit exploded due to bailouts of every kind. We now have a federal law that allows the federal government to run every aspect of our private lives, known as health care reform. Congress is currently working to reform the financial sector in a way that will give god like powers to the president to decide if any one company or industry is too big to fail, it will allow him to take over the company and to run it as he sees fit.

 We have a president that is giving away our nuclear deterrent, while playing at deterring Iran from building a bomb. He has shunned one of our closest allies,Israel. All the while making nice with dictators around the world.

  And after all of this and all that this president has said that he intends to do, we still have some within the GOP that say we must bide our time and take it slow. These moderates within the GOP would have us hold steady on their moderate course. They would tell us that we should again vote for moderates, even though polls tell us that moderates are not what the nation wants .

  Pres. Obama and the current crop of radical leftist in congress are steering this nation to the left at breakneck speed. The GOP cannot be satisfied with one step back to the right after allowing the Democrats to take four to the left.

  In the next two election cycles,2010 and 2012, the GOP must put up candidates that have either shown through their  record in office or who at least understand the need for a hard push back against the powers on the left.

  We can no longer afford the luxury of candidates that play both sides of the ideological battle field. We need candidates that truly believe in conservative values and who will fight and vote for  those values.

  We need national leaders who will respect the sovereignty of the states. We need state leaders who will resist the seduction of the federal handouts and all of the mandates that go with them. In short we need leaders who believe in the ability of the individual to make the choices that are best for themselves.

  We must return this nation to its founding principles. We cannot do this with half measures and compromise. In the same way that the leftist have seen fit to rob us of our God-given freedoms and rights, we must work to return them to ourselves and to guarantee them once again for our future generations.