Friday, October 29, 2010

Disagree With Obama? You're Now "the Enemy"...

In an interview with a Spanish language network several days ago, President Obama made some statements to the Hispanic community about voting in the upcoming election.  The President stated “But they (Republicans) are going to be paying attention to this election and if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying “We're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us”, if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder and that's I didn't think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2nd.”  (He stumbled a bit as he often does when not using his teleprompter.)
So apparently President Obama thinks people who disagree with him are enemies.  I’m 53 years old and I don’t remember once in my lifetime, no matter how strong the opposition was, a President calling those who opposed him “the enemy.”  He’s talking about Americans, citizens, and calling them, us, the enemy, and inferring we’re also the enemy of Hispanics.  Who is he talking about, you might ask?  Why, Republicans and conservatives and independents, and libertarians, and anyone else who disagrees with his goals and agenda.  So instead of having a difference of political opinion, which has always been one of the greatest things about America, we who oppose him are now enemies of the Obama administration and of Hispanic voters.  (By the way, in my 53 years I’ve also never seen a U.S. President sue one of his own states, for anything.)
Al Franken, wonderful, upstanding man that he is, apparently made reference to Republicans “running the car into the ditch” and said it’s up to the Democrats to pull it out and get it back on the road.  President Obama referred to Franken’s analogy and took it just a little further.  Obama said “We got this car up on level ground and, yes, it's a little beat up.  It needs to go to the body shop.  It's got some dents.  It needs a tune up, but it's pointing in the right direction.  And now we've got the Republicans tapping us on the shoulder saying, we want the keys back.  You can't have the keys back.  You don't know how to drive.  You can ride with us if you want but you've got to sit in the back seat.”
One has to be curious whether Mr. Obama was insinuating that like black people were in the 50s, Republicans must be treated like second class citizens and sit in the back of the bus because they’re not good enough to sit up front with the “worthy” people.  If so, I wonder what Rosa Parks, and even Martin Luther King, would think about that analogy?  And who would be the Rosa Parks of the Republican Party today, refusing to ride in the back?  I’m guessing maybe Olympia Snow…
Mr. President, your reference to those of us dissenters as the enemy has angered many people.  One of the reasons you are currently President of the United States is because of political disagreement.  If not for that disagreement, the government would be run by people who were like our founders.  And you, Mr. President, wouldn’t stand a chance of being President in that case.  Not because they were racist but because the founders stood for everything you oppose; freedom, fiscal responsibility, small, non-intrusive government, and integrity, which you do not have.
Step down, Mr. Obama, and let someone lead this country who still believes in its founding principles.  You obviously don’t believe in them yourself.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Who's Monitoring the Election...?

There have been several reports of voting machines in Clark County, Nevada, home to Las Vegas and Harry Reid’s base camp, automatically casting a vote for Harry Reid regardless of who the voter actually selects.  One woman, voter Joyce Ferrara, said when she and her husband went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democrat opponent, Senator Harry Reid’s name was already checked.  She said her husband had the same experience, as did several other people who were there at the same time.  Clark County voting officials deny there are any problems with the machines however, it has been discovered that the voting machines are maintained and serviced by technicians who are members of the Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU).

There are also allegations that Harry Reid’s campaign is handing out food and stickers to people in exchange for a vote for Reid. 

SEIU was a staunch supporter of President Obama in 2008.  I’m not saying there is any shenanigans going on but White House political director Patrick Gaspard is formerly the SEIU’s top lobbyist, and former SEIU president Andy Stern was the most frequent visitor to the White House last year.  It seems there may be a slight conflict of interest there but that’s just my opinion.  Maybe Stern was just visiting Gaspard.

The election in Minnesota last year, which Al Franken eventually won after numerous recounts and the discovery of “misplaced ballots” in the trunks of cars, etc., is a shining example of just how seedy things are getting in modern American politics.  Al Franken maintained all along that he had actually won the election and he was certain because he knew there were fraudulent ballots out there than would be “found” if necessary.  It surprised me that the state actually allowed these “found” ballots to be counted, yet they were and Franken won the election.  Is it so far-fetched to believe SEIU could be fixing voting machines in Nevada?  Why would any state allow an obviously partisan union to do the maintenance and service on voting machines?

The election this year is going to be extremely interesting, to say the least.  It also has the potential to be very frightening.  The Obama Justice Department overlooked and dismissed a case of obvious voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party in 2008.  Even with videotaped evidence Eric Holder dismissed the case and no action was taken.  So why would anyone believe that cases of voter fraud or voting machine tampering would be properly investigated and/or prevented if it will help the Democrats? 

I’m not accusing anyone of doing anything illegal.  I’m simply presenting the facts as I know them.  You can draw your own conclusions.  But pay attention to the election in Nevada.  As of October 26th, Sharon Angle had a 4 point lead over Harry Reid in the polls.  If Harry Reid wins by a huge landslide, something is definitely fishy.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Government Union Name Calling

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the union for Federal workers, produced and aired a radio announcement in support of Democrats recently.  I heard it for the first time today on a conservative talk radio station here in Lexington.  As a retired Federal employee, I felt strongly compelled to say something about this commercial and to explain why I find it offensive and distasteful.
I worked a total of 30 years for the Federal government, eight in the U.S. Air Force and another 22 working for the Federal Bureau of Prisons.  I retired from the Federal Medical Center for Federal inmates in Lexington, Kentucky, in 2007.  I never joined the union (the Council of Prison Locals, which is a branch of AFGE) while I worked for the Bureau of Prisons.  I never saw a need to join.  The only thing I ever really saw the union do was fight with management over any changes the union did not initiate, defend people who blatantly screwed up in an effort to prevent them from having to take any responsibility for their actions, and take monthly dues from their members.  Oh, I did see them stage a protest against a Warden once that they just didn’t like.  They invited the news media and made it sound like they were being sorely mistreated when, in reality, they just weren’t getting their way.
As I said, I never saw a need to join the union.  I went to work, on time, did my job to the best of my ability, didn’t complain or ask for a handout, didn’t abuse my sick time and vacation time, and didn’t expect anything more from my employer than I was due.  And on those occasions when I made a mistake, I admitted it and suffered the consequences of my actions, none of which was ever bad enough to warrant my termination.
AFGE’s commercial basically says Democrats are wonderful and will do everything to help America and keep her strong, saving and creating jobs and doing what’s best for the people and union workers.  And while it doesn’t tell people who to vote for, it says the Republicans are responsible for all of the problems we have right now and that Democrats are the ones who can save us – a bit less than honest.  What bothers me most, the one thing that stands out in my mind more than any of the others, is that in the commercial they, the AFGE , representing Federal employees, call Tea Party members “teabaggers”, which is a derogatory, sexual term that has been coined by several pundits and activist groups on the left.  The leadership of AFGE should be above this type of derogatory assault on people who have a different political opinion than theirs but apparently they believe this type of verbal assault is OK.
 I’m even happier now that I never became a part of AFGE because I would be embarrassed by their leadership at this point.  They come across as looking out for their members when, in reality, they want Democrats to remain in power because the union, all unions, will get a very large increase in funding from the Democrats they won’t get from Republicans.  And that’s the bottom line for AFGE and unions in general – money and power.  For the most part, members are merely a source of funds.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Freedom of Speech Under Assault

A union stage worker, setting up a stage for an upcoming political event in Los Angeles, was fired for refusing to remove his hat and turn his sweatshirt inside out while on the job.  The event was a rally for embattled senator Barbara Boxer and President Obama was scheduled to appear.  The worker, Duane Hammond, was instructed to remove his hat and turn his sweatshirt inside out so the logos and pictures could not be seen.  When he refused he was terminated from his job by his union supervisor.

What, you ask, was the logo and picture on the shirt and hat that were so offensive that it required Hammond’s termination from his job?  I’ll tell you.  Brace yourself, it may be difficult for you to read.  The logo was “U.S.S. George H.W. Bush” and “CV77”, the identification of the U.S. Navy ship on which his son is currently serving.

Hammond wore the shirt and hat as a tribute to his son’s service to his country to a place where the President was going to appear and speak.  Yet his boss, apparently either a staunch Obama supporter or afraid that someone in the political group would be offended by the logo, ordered him to make the logos invisible or lose his job.  Apparently National Public Radio isn’t the only company that limits free speech as a condition of employment.  We can add the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees to that list as well.

The IATSE (Local 33) union fired Hammond even after he explained his apparel and their meaning to his bosses. The attire didn’t explicitly support George H.W. Bush but merely bore the emblem and logo of the famous ship.  But apparently that was too much for the union to tolerate.

A union spokesperson said they are still investigating the incident but that if Hammond was fired because of his apparel he will be paid for the day.  That’s not exactly the point, is it?  Being paid for the day doesn’t excuse someone being fired, particularly from a union job, for exercising their right to free speech via a shirt and a hat, particularly if the logo and emblem aren’t vulgar.  Though I suppose there are those on the left who would consider anything bearing the name Bush to be vulgar.  But in the real world this type of  shirt is acceptable, unless you work for the IATSE.

The bottom line in all this is that this is the second incident in less than a week where someone has been fired from an organization on the left for exercising their right to free speech.  Some may say Hammond was trying to provoke an incident by wearing a sweatshirt bearing the name Bush to an Obama rally site.  I say prove that.  It’s a Navy ship, for God’s sake, complete with pictures.  I’m pretty sure if a worker had worn a U.S.S. Ronald Reagan shirt to the site no one would have said a word to him.  But we’re talking Obama, the left, unions, and free speech.  Oh, and the name Bush.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Treason is Still Treason

The recent, second release of classified war documents by the website Wickileaks brings real concern to many Americans, including me.  These documents, which apparently don’t reveal a great deal of information that wasn’t revealed in the first publication of classified documents, were released to various media outlets, such as the very liberal New York Times, even after the U.S. government asked Wickileaks not to release this type of information anymore.  Apparently Wickileaks has decided that releasing classified military documents is their duty to the world, regardless of whether or not it causes greater problems in the war against terror and those fighting it.
The greater problem here, however, is the source of these classified documents.  One active duty military man was arrested the last time and charged with releasing classified information.  Is there another leak within the military or did that same person give Wickileaks an enormous amount of information that they are only releasing over time?  If there’s another source within the military that source needs to be found, court martialed for treason, and shot if found guilty.  Releasing classified documents to the media should be a treasonous offense punishable by death, at least in my humble opinion.  Classified information is classified for a reason, and not just to “hide” it from the public.  There are many things that happen in a war that the public doesn’t need, or in many cases even want to know.  In wars, people die.  Sometimes innocent people die and more often enemy soldiers die.  That’s just the way it is and often these deaths can’t be prevented. 
Of course there are cases of abuse and even criminal acts that our military administration must deal with and it seems they have been paying particular attention lately.  Case in point, the five who are currently up on charges for killing civilians in Afghanistan in a game-like fashion.  When the military discovers this type of act they take the proper action to stop it and punish the offenders.  But like it or not, sometimes innocent people die in a war and it wasn’t anyone’s particular fault.  Those innocent people were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.  War is an ugly but necessary business.  No matter what the peaceniks say, as long as human beings have differing opinions on things such as politics, religion, homeland, borders, etc., there are going to be wars.  It’s been that way since the beginning of civilization and will be that way until the end of the world.
As for Wickileaks, I don’t know if anyone there can be prosecuted since they are only releasing what they have been given.  But if any action can be taken, I hope the government takes it all the way.  For those people who believe releasing classified military documents is a good thing, you really need to think long and hard on the reasons you are able to live and work in a free society.  The U.S. military, with its secret, classified and top secret information, is what allows you to live the life you have and is what will allow you to continue living the life you have in the future.  Forgive my bluntness but if you don't like the way we do things in this country there are plenty of others you may find more suitable to what you want.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

UAE: "It's OK To Beat Your Wife"

(AP)  “The United Arab Emirates' highest judicial body says a man can beat his wife and young children as long as the beating leaves no physical marks.

The decision by the Federal Supreme Court shows the strong influence of Islamic law in the Emirates despite its international appeal in which foreign residents greatly outnumber the local population.

The court made the ruling earlier this month in the case of a man who left cuts and bruises on his wife and adult daughter after a beating.

It says the man was guilty of harming the women but noted that Islamic codes allow for "discipline" if no marks are left.”

This news should be enough to make even the most Islam tolerant liberals step back for a minute and say “Something is wrong here.”  Liberals are always preaching about equal rights for women, human rights in general, and tolerance of other religions, particularly Islam, calling anyone who distrusts Islam “Islamaphobes.”  Yet here is evidence that Islam doesn’t believe in human rights for all, nor in equality for women. 
People who are concerned about Islam and their general attitude toward the Western world are criticized and even vilified by the left.  Yet Islam proves over and over that they cannot be trusted.  This ruling by the high court, in the UAE (which is supposedly our friend) is a slap in the face to all women.   Where is the National Organization for Women in this case?  Why aren’t they outraged and speaking out?  (Last week, when Jerry Brown called his opponent, Meg Whitman, a whore the California chapter President of N.O.W. said it was basically true, even though the National President said anyone using language like that against their opponent should drop out of the race.)  So I’m wondering if the N.O.W. will condemn this ruling by the UAE high court or will blow it off as not relevant because Sharia law allows it in other countries…?  So far the group Human Rights Watch has condemned the ruling but the N.O.W. has remained silent, as has the Obama administration.  One has to wonder why.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Juan Williams - Fired for Honesty

There is a lot of controversy over the firing of radio newsman Juan Williams by National Public Radio the other day.  According to NPR, Williams was fired because he made a statement on The O’Reilly Factor the other night saying he sometimes feels worry and fear when he sees a Muslim dressed in typical Islamic garb on an airplane.  NPR said statements like this do not coincide with NPR’s editorial policies and they terminated Williams’ contract.
Juan Williams is a fairly liberal news personality.  He has worked for NPR for ten years and has been a regular analyst on various FOX News shows for several years as well.  He normally expresses views in favor of liberal progressives and supports most of the things they stand for.  The incident in question involved his statement about his own personal feelings and was followed up by his insistence that he’s not alone in these feelings and it needs to change nationwide.  Williams has a long history of supporting and working for civil rights and is not considered a bigot by most people, including most Muslims who know anything about him.
I believe NPR fired Mr. Williams for one of two reasons or a combination of the two reasons.  The first reason, the one they stated, was because of his personal opinion that he expressed on The O’Reilly Factor about a somewhat irrational (but not completely) fear of seeing people in Muslim garb on an airplane.  Mr. Williams was not being disrespectful and, as I said, went on to say that many people feel this way, it was wrong and we needed to find a way to change it.  Apparently, if you are employed by NPR, you are not allowed to express your personal feelings in a public forum, while on your own time, for fear of your employment being terminated.  This seems not only irrational to me but possibly even illegal.
The second reason I can see is that Juan Williams is a frequent guest on FOX News and NPR detests FOX News and everything they stand for.   Being a non-liberal news organization (that is often vilified by the President himself in his childish manner) FOX is often the target of the other “news” organizations who broadcast only left-leaning news items and who openly back President Obama and the Democrats.  Since NPR gets its funding from the government, it is only fitting that they should defend the President and their money source, except they lean to the left even when a Republican is in office.  NPR was already unhappy that Juan Williams appears on FOX News Channel but they used this incident of him saying  something that disagrees with their liberal policies and beliefs to finally get rid of him.
Again, it seems to me it would be illegal for a company to fire someone simply for expressing their own personal feelings in a public forum, on their own time, that were not directed at the company itself.  If Williams had said something derogatory about NPR I could possibly see his termination being justified, although retaliatory.  But he was on his own time as a guest of a TV show speaking his mind.  Apparently you’re not allowed to express your true thoughts if you are employed by NPR, whether you’re on company time or your own.
So if you work for NPR and you can’t express your true thoughts, even on your own time, how can one believe NPR to be putting out truthful information?  If, as NPR says, Williams was fired for honestly stating his fears in contrast to their editorial views, then NPR basically fired him for honesty.  Hmmm.  That seems a bit odd for a news organization, doesn’t it?  Or is it just me?

Friday, October 22, 2010

France, Greece and the USA

For those people who support President Obama’s far left agenda, which is moving us steadily toward a Marxist/Socialist state, I ask you to please take a look at France and Greece.  France and Greece have had socialist governments for years, which included government run health care and early retirements with big pensions for most workers.  Their governments are in financial ruins because of it and now that the government is trying to make the necessary changes to bring their finances under control, the people who have benefitted from  these “perks” are rioting in the streets and telling the government they won’t stand for the proposed changes. 
France has decided to raise the minimum retirement age from age 60 to 62, a two year increase that would save the country a lot of money.  And because the people are so accustomed to retiring at 60 with big pensions, they are striking, rioting and protesting all over the country, basically shutting the country down.  In Greece the average retirement age is 61 and health care is provided by the government.  Greece is broke.  When their government said they were raising the retirement age by 5 years people went crazy and there was rioting in the streets.
Various European governments right now are telling President Obama that socialism and government health care will be a failure in the long run, yet he believes he can do it differently (and better) than those countries who have been doing it for years.  In addition, various European governments, including Germany, are telling Obama to stop spending and stop moving our country toward fiscal disaster.  He’s not listening to them on that subject either.
Funny how people get used to their government giving them certain benefits then, when the government asks for something in return, the people revolt.  The same thing will happen in the United States.  If our government continues to increase entitlements and handouts and give more and more to the unions simply to secure their electoral support, we are doomed as a nation.  Union pensions are already becoming an issue in this country and the unions are wielding a lot of power in Washington – lobbying for pension bailouts in return for campaign donations and votes.
It’s only a matter of time.  If we continue down the left turning path we’re on, the United States will be on worldwide television one day and the world will be watching our people riot in the streets because we’re broke and they’re being asked to accept cutbacks.  It can be stopped, but it needs to happen now.  Vote against the left-wing, Marxist/socialist agenda. 

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Godspeed Chad - stay safe

A dear friend of mine recently said good-bye to her son, Chad Wade, as he heads off to Afghanistan.  He's a United States Marine.  This is the second person I've known personally in the last year or so who's Marine son has gone off to war.  I can't imagine how they cope.

Those of you who know me well know my own son died in a car accident 8 years ago.  He was 17 and a senior in high school and he wanted to go to college then join the U.S. Air Force and fly fighters.  If he'd have lived to see his dream he would most likely be in Afghanistan today.  But he's not there.  I'm grateful he never had to see the horrors of war but, of course, I'd rather have him back.  But I can tell you first hand that while the pain of losing a child is horrible, it must be infinitely worse to live with the fear of your child's death on a daily basis.

The first woman I mentioned, who's son left over a year ago, apologized once for expressing her fears and worries about her own son knowing  I didn't have mine anymore.  I asked her to please never apologize for that and not to feel guilty for expressing those fears.  Not only did she have every right to worry but I know where my son is and have come to terms with it, while her nightmare was ongoing.  (He should be home by now and while I haven't had contact with her for a while, I hope he's home safely.) 

Every parent who says good-bye to a child who's headed for a war has my utmost respect and admiration, as well as my sincerest sympathies for the nightmare that is just beginning.  Every time there's a news report saying a U.S. service member was killed in Afghanistan those parents freeze and their hearts sieze up.  And I can certainly understand it.  Every parent I've ever met of a Marine thinks of each Marine in their son's unit as one of their own, particularly during war time.  So it doesn't matter if they didn't know him, each Marine who dies is one of their own. 

Chad Wade is headed back for a second tour.  He's a good man, a good son, a good husband, a great American and a patriot.  We will pray daily for Chad's safe return and for his wife and his mother, who suffer every minute he's gone.  I haven't even met him yet but I'm looking forward to that day.  Keep your head down Chad.  Thank you for your service to our country and its people.  You are greatly appreciated.  Thank you to all the men and women serving in our armed forces, whether in a war zone or not, but especially those in harm's way.  It is because of gallant people like you that we still live in the greatest country in the world.

Quoting the Declaration of Independence

Just when I think maybe I’m being too hard on President Obama and that he really means the things he says when he talks about his faith and the freedoms we Americans have, and that he really does love and respect the United States of America, something else happens that makes me instantly wonder again. 
Four times since he’s taken office, twice in the last two weeks, President Obama has quoted the Declaration of Independence but has omitted one particular phrase from the quote.  The first time I gave him the benefit of the doubt and thought maybe he just forgot to say it.  Then, when it happened a second time, and a third, and now a fourth, it’s obvious it’s not just something he forgot.  He purposely leaves out a part of the Declaration that the founders put in.
The words left out by President Obama must have some significance to him.  There has to be a reason he leaves them out every time he repeats the quote.  That quote:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  These are the exact words from the Declaration of Independence .   Yet, when Mr. Obama quotes that sentence he repeatedly says “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
President Obama, for some reason, leaves out the words “by their Creator” every time.  He recently spent some serious time trying to convince non-believing Americans that he was indeed a Christian and not Muslim.  If his Christian faith is so important to him, as he would have us believe, why would he leave out that particular phrase?  Why would he not give the credit to the Creator, as written, for those unalienable rights He has given to all Americans? 
Robert Gibbs was asked by Les Kinsolving, a White House correspondent, why the President omits the Creator in every quote.  Mr. Gibbs, in his typical Sergeant Shultz manner, said “I haven't seen the comments, Lester, but I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”  In other words (spoken with a German accent, with apologies to John Banner) “I know nothing, Nothing!”
Maybe he leaves them out so he doesn't offend those who disapprove of the words "by their Creator" in the Declaration of Independence.  Yet it's those rights that allow Obama to be President, and those others to voice their distaste with the words "by their Creator".  And statistics show there are more people in this country who believe in a Creator than who don't.
Not that Obama will care one way or the other, but I am personally offended by his continued omission of the words "by their Creator" when he quotes the Declaration of Independence.  Mr. President - if you're going to quote something, particularly something as incredibly important as the Declaration of Independence of the nation you were elected to serve, please quote it correctly.  If you can't, or won't do that, don't quote the document.  If you don't believe in those rights given by our Creator, step down and let someone lead us who believes in all we stand for.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Attack of the Unwanted, Mid-life Facial Hair

Somewhere between ages 45 and 53 I have come under the attack of unwanted, mid-life, facial hair.  It happens to most men (and some women) during middle age and now it has happened to me.  Those of you around my age know what I’m talking about.  Eyebrows that grow out of control; hair sprouting out of my ears; (I count the ears as part of my face) and even some sprouting on my back.  (Fortunately for me, it’s only a few on my back and not a forest.  I’m not knocking the guys with back hair but my wife said if I had a hairy back she’d shave me - by force if necessary.)
I don’t remember the exact year, or the barber who first asked if I wanted my eyebrows trimmed, but that was the beginning of the facial hair attack.  I was told by a barber, in 1998, that as I get older the hair on my head would turn gray and the texture would change from fairly fine to course.  So now, 12 years later, my hair is still slowly turning gray but the consistency is about the same.  Instead, my eyebrows have developed a mind of their own and are growing out of control.  Instead of being fairly fine and lying against my forehead, they are now course and growing like weeds.  They have to be trimmed at least once a week.  And if I didn’t take the razor to my ears every other day I’d have a bush growing from each side of my head. 
I don’t know why this attack of facial hair occurs.  It’s just something that happens to men around age 50.  It also happens to some women around the same time, which must be worse.  It must be terrible to be a woman with chin whiskers sprouting, particularly if you’re a very good looking woman.  (Geez, I guess that sounds a bit sexist, huh?  Sorry.)
My point is, this unwanted facial hair strikes many people in their early 50s and no one knows why.  As we age our minds go from infancy to childhood, to adulthood, to childhood and sometimes infancy again.  Our bodies do that as well, it seems, but not quite so quickly.  Many people in their 90s lose body hair or it becomes very fine and sparse but by then many are already in the childhood or infancy stage. 
Since you can’t really use depilatories on your ears and eyebrows, the only solution is trimming, plucking or shaving.  My ex used to pluck the hairs on my back occasionally.  When she was in a good mood it was quick and painless.  When she was in a bad mood or angry at me it was a slow and painful process.  Each hair came out individually in a long, agonizing process.
There is no known defense against the attack of the unwanted, mid-life, facial hair.  There is only a strong offense against it.  But it’s a never ending battle that must be fought at least weekly, if not daily.  If you haven’t reached this stage in life yet, be warned – it’s coming.  Gear up now with all the ammunition you need to fight the battle. 
Enjoy the time you have with your facial hair under control.  It won’t last…

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Who's Killing the Sea Otters?

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, government scientists identified killer whales as the No. 1 reason there are so few sea otters in southwest Alaska.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed five-year, $15 million recovery plan for sea otters in the Aleutian Islands considered a slew of possible reasons for the perilously low numbers found in some areas.
The draft recovery plan released this week said there is only one threat considered to have high importance: predation by killer whales, with sharks perhaps being a factor.
Nearly all other factors, including climate change and impacts from humans, were considered to have low importance.
Now, this news has to be driving the environmentalists and Greenpeace nuts.  Sea otters are getting fewer in numbers due to…  Mother Nature.  Not because of global warming, not because of hunting, not because the ice caps are supposedly melting but because Orca’s are eating them for breakfast, lunch and dinner. 
Don’t get me wrong  - I love otters.  River otters and sea otters have long been my favorite animal.  When I lived in Florida a few years ago I had a river otter that lived along the course of one of my daily walks.  When I lived in California, I used to go to an isolated area of the beach and observe sea otters on a regular basis.  I loved watching them dive down and get clams and mussels, then float on their backs with a rock on their stomachs, break open the mussel and eat it.  It was amazing and they were beautiful.
In 2009, several animal rights groups stated that although the Orca isn’t exactly endangered, its numbers are falling drastically and more efforts are needed to bring the population back up.  So if one animal near the endangered species  list is eating another that is already on the endangered species list, now what happens?  Do we talk to the Orcas about their diets and try to get them to change?  Do we relocate the otters to a less dangerous neighborhood?  Maybe the Orcas could join “Otter Eaters Anonymous”, and have weekly meetings where they swear off otters, thus increasing the population over time…
Whatever happens you know someone (humans) will have to stop doing something to save the otter.  Even though government scientists say it’s not the fault of man, some group or groups will decide that this report is wrong and that man is still the cause of every bad thing in the world – even those non-existent bad things.  You can’t believe government scientists can you?  After all, they are the ones who are pushing the global warming thing, climate change, rising sea levels, etc.  Hmmmm.
Maybe some violent leftist group can blow up the shores and icebergs where the otters live, thus forcing them to move somewhere else and flee those evil, ravenous Orcas?  They can do it in the name of conservation and animal rights – you know – like those who blow up ski lodges and ski lifts in the name of saving the animals.
Or maybe Cass Sunstein, Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, can lead the way for a lawsuit by the otters against the Orcas and against the evil men who may have possibly caused this to happen in some completely unverifiable way.   After all, Sunstein was the one who suggested, several years ago, that animals should be able to sue people using other people to represent them.  (Yes folks, this man is in the White House.)
Whatever happens, it’s bound to be interesting.  How do you stop a species from becoming extinct when another species that is close to becoming extinct is using them for food?  I’ll be interested to see how they work this one out.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Arrogant or Clueless?

In the “Politics and Government Blog” in the New York Times, Michael D. Shear wrote:  “President Obama said that he expected Republicans to offer him more cooperation after November’s elections, no matter the outcome.

In an hour-long interview with the Times’ White House correspondent, Peter Baker, Mr. Obama predicted that his political rivals would either be chastened by falling short of their electoral goals or burdened with the new responsibility that comes from achieving them.

“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Mr. Obama said. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.””

What Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to understand is that the majority of the American people don’t like what he’s doing and want the Republicans to stop him.  The majority of Americans want the health care law repealed.  The majority of Americans want the government to stop printing and spending money we don’t have.  The majority of Americans want the President to stand strong against terrorism and illegal immigration and stop doing things against the will of the people.

Is it arrogance that caused him to make the statement about Republicans that “the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”  Or is he simply clueless about the reality of the situation?  He makes it sound like even if the Republicans win, they will be lost without him to lead them.  It’s amazing that Mr. Obama can get his head through the White House doors, even the double wide ones.

The majority of Americans are sick and tired of what Mr. Obama and his Administration are doing to the country.  They want Mr. Obama to stop being the President of “Do as I say, not as I do” and work with the Republicans (and any moderate Democrat who is willing to step away from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.) 

Unfortunately, instead of seeing defeat in November as a notice that the American people are tired of the Democrats and their incessant, wasteful spending and Marxist leanings, Mr. Obama thinks that people want to elect new Republican representatives who will work with him, to advance his agenda, instead of working against him.  The man is so far out of touch he probably couldn’t find his own way off the White House property without help.

President Obama still believes he is the chosen one, someone who can make things happen just because he’s Obama.  Where this Messiah-like complex came from is anyone’s guess but he needs to come back to Earth and realize that he’s in way over his head; that the entire world really doesn’t revolve around him and that the people of the United States are getting fed up with lies and deceit disguised as “change”. 

Mr. Obama, when the Democrats get their butts handed to them in November, look long and hard at the results, then ask someone who’s not on your team what those results mean.  The people are tired of your pretty, if somewhat boring speeches and we want you to listen to us.  You may not like the fact that your arch enemy, FOX News, tells the truth about you but you’re even beginning to lose your mainstream, left-wing media support.  If that happens, your Presidency is toast.  What will you do then? 

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Nik - the Flying Wonder Dog

Sorry I didn't put anything up yesterday.  After reading this, you'll understand why.

Yesterday afternoon while Barrie and I were in the garage moving and packing things for our upcoming move to Florida, our two dogs, Nik and Lucky, were in the apartment entertaining themselves.  Nik was mostly lying behind the blinds by the sliding glass door in the living room, where he could see us as we carried things into the garage. 
Around 1:30pm, I went up to the kitchen to get some water and noticed a hole in the lower left corner of the window screen in the kitchen.  Parts of the screen had been chewed away and there were pieces of it in Nik’s food bowl.   Lucky was standing there watching me and Nik was nowhere to be found so I figured he was the one who had chewed through the screen and he was in his favorite hiding place, upstairs under our bed.  Not 30 minutes earlier Barrie had commented that maybe we shouldn’t leave the windows up because one of them might chew through the screen and escape. 
Without checking to be sure Nik was upstairs, I went back down and told Barrie she had jinxed herself and that one of the dogs had chewed through the screen.  (Please understand, I didn’t worry about Nik because this window was on the second floor, at least 14 feet above the ground.  In addition, he is 15 years old and he had never, ever done anything to remotely indicate he would jump from a second story window.)  We continued working for another hour or so, then went inside to clean up before returning the trailer we had borrowed.
We were going to get something to eat while we were out so we decided to let the dogs out before we left.  Lucky was by my heels so I called for Nik to come downstairs so I could take them out together.  That’s when I realized something was wrong.   Nik always comes when called, especially if you say he’s going outside.  I called out three or four times, even using the magic phrase “Let’s go outside.”  There was no response.
Finally I went upstairs to the bedroom and looked under the bed.  No Nik anywhere.  My first thought was that somehow he had gotten into the garage unnoticed and that we had closed him up out there.  I informed Barrie that I couldn’t find Nik and went to the garage.  He wasn’t there either.  I was beginning to get worried at that point because as much as my head didn’t want to grasp the possibility, I was wondering if he’d gone through the hole in the screen.  I knew he wasn’t lying on the ground under the window because I had just come in that way a short time earlier.  Yet, he wasn’t in the house.  We looked everywhere, from the bedrooms to the garage, to the living room, dining room, even in the bathrooms and closets behind closed doors.  Nick was not in the house.
I checked the garage one more time since it was fully loaded with boxes and furniture, but to no avail.  Nik was gone.
Barrie was still fairly calm at this point but we headed outside to look around.  Both of us had the same thought – if he hurt himself when he jumped/fell, he may be laid up under the bushes across the street.   We both looked there and Barrie started walking the path around the lake while I went through the neighborhood.  After about an hour spent looking for and calling him, and talking to anyone who happened to walk or drive by, we had to return the trailer to its owner.  We abandoned the search for a little while and drove the 20 miles to return it, hoping Nik would be on the porch when we returned.  Of course, he wasn’t there so we continued our search all around the neighborhood, using both vehicles and calling his name over and over.  One of the neighbors said he had seen Nik over by the pond earlier so we had an idea he wasn’t hurt, or at least, not hurt badly. 
As it began to get dark and we ran out of places to look, Barrie came home and the sadness was building.  She went inside and started a bath.  When I went upstairs to see her, she was crying her eyes out.  I felt awful and had no idea what to do.  Barrie has a habit of acting like she doesn’t care for that dog one bit but her tears screamed otherwise.  She’d had him for 15 years and her little buddy was missing and “he’s probably cold by now.”  It broke my heart.
She asked if I would go out and check a nearby neighborhood one more time and, of course, I said yes.  I drove around the entire area one more time but it was already dark and I couldn’t see anything.  I had to return empty handed and found Barrie in bed, with the TV on, staring into space.  Her heart was aching and I couldn’t fix it.
I left the front porch light on and told Barrie I would get up every time I awoke during the night and check to see if Nik had returned.  She eventually dropped off into a restless sleep and, true to my word, I got up at least 5 times during the night to look out and check on Nik.  But he just wasn’t there.
I awoke for the last time around 6, stayed in bed until about 7:30, then got up to take Lucky out and check the neighborhood one more time.  When I returned, Barrie was up and getting dressed.  She came downstairs and said “I’ll see you later.”  I knew she was going back out to search.  I asked if she wanted me to go with her (I was making flyers and posting lost and found ads online) and she said no.  I kinda knew she wanted to be alone for a while.  Once I got the flyers printed and notices posted, I got in my truck and headed out as well.
After about an hour of searching we saw an animal control truck parked near our neighborhood, running, with no one in it.  Someone on the street told us the officer was down the street a ways so I started walking  to find him.  Barrie circled around the other way and we found him a block or two away.  Barrie got to him first and asked if anyone had found a Jack Russell yesterday.  He gave her the number to call the pound and, miraculously, they had him!  The lady wasn’t sure but she knew that yesterday they had received a small Jack Russell with a red collar and a rabies tag from Banfield Veterinary Service.  It had to be Nik – the coincidence was too great.  We got all his paperwork and headed to the pound.
Barrie was still nervous and worried that it might not be him but when we showed Nik’s picture to the people at the pound they said it was definitely him!  Our lost child had been found!  It cost us $74 to spring him from doggie jail….
We got Nik in the truck and headed home.  Barrie let me drive so she could hold her little man on the way home.  After his big night – the escape, running around free, capture, prison food, prison shots and medication and a night spent sleeping in jail, Nik was tired and wouldn’t even eat the French fry Barrie tried to give him as a treat.  He stayed in her arms the entire way.  I asked Barrie to do me one favor – to “Please don’t ever again pretend you don’t care about this dog.”  She smiled and agreed. 
On the way home I had a thought that I shared with Barrie, mostly as a joke.  “It’s too bad Nik can’t talk.  He’d be able to tell us if he jumped from the window or if Lucky pushed him.”  Barrie’s response was “I’ve already thought of that.  The “good dog” pushes the other dog out the window so the good dog can have all the attention.  Hmmm….” 
When we got home and opened the door, Lucky came out and walked up to Nik and sniffed him all the way around.  Barrie and I had our own, different thoughts about this meeting and what the dogs may be communicating to each other.  My thought was Lucky saying “So, they caught ya huh, Nik?  Good try though.”
Barrie’s thought was Nik saying “Get away from me you mangey bitch!  You pushed me!!”  They didn’t really act like enemies though and I’m thinking neither of those thoughts was too accurate.  We took them on a walk then came back to the house.  Nik still wouldn’t eat anything but he did go up to the bedroom and crawl into his man-cave under the bed.  He’s still there now.
So the bottom line is this – for whatever reason, Nik chewed through the screen in the kitchen window, on the second floor, and jumped out.  Why he did it we’ll never know.  There are several small bushes under the window, any one of which could have broken his fall.  The dog is 15 years old so either he slipped out, was after something on the ground, or he thought he could fly.  He didn’t sustain any injuries that we can detect so apparently he’s good at it.  I don’t know who is more tired – Nik, from his overnight jail experience or Barrie, from worrying and crying herself to the small amount of sleep she actually got.  Anyway, it’s good to have him home.  It will be a long time before he gets to do anything by himself again….

Friday, October 15, 2010

Barrie's truck...

While we were in a store last night, someone pulled into the parking space next to Barrie's truck and raked the driver's side, from the rear wheel, across the quarter panel to just under the gas filler cap.  It wasn't a lot of damage but her truck is her baby and if I had done it, I'd have left town without a word.

We didn't know about it until we came out of the store.  One of the store employees had seen it happen and as we started to get into the truck, she came over and said "The guy driving this car (pointing at the car next to us) just hit your truck then went inside that restaurant over there."  I was on the passenger side at the time.

"Honey - come and look at this!" Barrie said loudly.  I knew something was definitely not good.  I walked around the truck and looked at the damage as Barrie threw her purse into the truck, locked the doors and asked "What did he look like and where did he go?"

"He had a purple shirt on, sunglasses and he went into that restaurant right there" the young lady said, pointing at a restaurant 3 doors down.  Like a woman on a mission, Barrie started toward the restaurant with me trying to keep up. 

I followed her into the restaurant readying for the fight I knew I was going to be in.  I figured if the guy had hit her truck then left the scene without any notification and went into a restaurant/bar, he was probably going to deny the incident and things would get ugly. 

As we entered the restaurant the maitre d asked Barrie if he could help her.  We were looking in all directions and people were wondering what was going on.  Barrie said "I'm looking for a man in a purple shirt with sunglasses!"

The maitre d pointed to the left side of the restaurant, around a partition and said "You mean that man?"

"That's him!"

I steadied myself as I walked toward the end of the partition.  If he wanted to cause a scene, or worse, I would be ready.  My years in law enforcement had prepared me for this if it was going to happen.  I stepped around the partition (Barrie was already there and walking toward him at a brisk pace) and saw my possible opponent...

The man was at least 65 years old, small, somewhat crippled, with thick glasses.  I have to admit I was a little relieved because I knew he probably wasn't going to give me much of a fight.  Barrie walked up to him and got right in his face and said "You hit my truck in the parking lot!"  The man replied "I didn't know I hit anything, his words somewhat slurred.  She then said a couple of things that I didn't hear but I think I'm glad I didn't.  "Call the police, Baby" Barrie said as we walked toward the vehicles.  To the man she said "You're not going anywhere until the police come."

The man followed us out to the parking lot, walking in a manner that suggested he'd probably had a few too many but being very cooperative.  He looked at Barrie's truck and said again "I didn't know I hit it."  Barrie, being really upset since her baby was damaged, responded "How could you not know you hit my truck?  How could you hit something and do all that damage and not know it?!"  The man mumbled something then walked around to the driver's side of his car, opened the door and sat on the seat.  Our friend Jen, who was with us, echoed Barrie’s words to me.  “How can he hit something like that and not know it?”

I was already on the phone to the police as I watched him, more than ready to jump on him if he tried to drive away.  He merely sat there with his phone in one hand, digging in the glove compartment for his paperwork.  I had called 911, but apologized to the dispatcher for using that number since it wasn't really an emergency.  (She didn't know just how close the man had come to losing his life if Barrie had put her hands on him.)  The dispatcher asked if anyone was hurt and I said no but also said I believe the man had been drinking, based on his movements, his slurred speech and his staggered gait.  She asked where I was and I told her "In the plaza behind and just south of the mall."  Her response was "Sir, that narrows it down to about 20 plazas."  I said "It's behind the cinema and we're in front of the Rue 21 store."  Apparently she was familiar with this store because she said "You're in front of Rue 21?  OK, I've sent out the call and an officer should be arriving shortly.  Is the man trying to leave at all?"

"No.  He's just sitting in his car and on the phone."  I wasn't going to tell her that if he tried to leave we might need an ambulance as well.  She also said we should turn on Barrie's emergency flashers so the officer could locate the truck more easily.  That done, we just stood there waiting for the police to arrive.

One of the waiters came out of the restaurant and asked what was going on.  He said the man was his uncle and he was concerned about him.  He looked at the damage to Barrie’s truck and mumbled something, then went around to check on his "uncle".  (As we watched them and talked more to the waiter we got the idea the old man wasn't his "uncle" after all.) 

After about 10 minutes of waiting, and Barrie getting more angry and anxious, someone else arrived first.  I can’t tell you how relieved we were to observe the arrival of Lexington's version of "Paul Blart: Mall Cop".  He pulled up in his truck marked "Maintenance" and asked if there was a problem.  Being the ever observant and dedicated security officer he was, he had observed the emergency flashers and immediately responded.  We informed him what had happened and that the real police were on the way, which I think hurt his feelings.  He didn't really say much about the vehicles but told Barrie he had determined there was no real emergency and she needed to turn her flashers off because they were causing a commotion in his parking lot.  She let him know the police dispatcher had instructed her to turn the flashers on and she would be leaving them on until they arrived.  I kept quiet but knew he obviously didn't understand who he was dealing with.

He noticed Barrie’s identification credential and asked where she worked.  She told him she worked at the Federal prison in Lexington.  He decided to inform her that he had retired from the state prison before getting his job in mall security, a fact that didn’t really impress anyone.  Barrie and Jen are both Feds and I’m a retired Fed so his status as a retired statee wasn’t that impressive.  And little did he know that if he pushed her too far, she would give him an ass whipping just as easily as she would the old man. 

After about 20 minutes of waiting the waiter from the restaurant said “I hope you guys didn’t didn’t have any plans.”  He was trying to be friendly, I think, hoping we’d go easy on his “uncle.”  I told him it was nothing important, we were just going to eat dinner.  He said “I can bring you something from the restaurant, if you want.”  I told him we’d let him know.  A few minutes later he quietly told Jen “He has some seeing difficulties and some mental issues but this is the first time I’ve ever known him to hit anyone.”

Finally we saw a police car pull into the parking lot - and go the other way.  Apparently the flashers didn’t work after all.  He turned around and came toward us and I stepped out into the driving lane to get his attention.  As he pulled up a second cop pulled in behind him.  They both got out, walked over and asked if everyone was OK.  We informed them that everyone was fine and showed them the damage to Barrie’s truck.  At that time a third cop pulled up and parked.  They got Barrie’s license, registration and proof of insurance, then went around to speak to the old man.  The first cop asked him how long he’d been in the restaurant and he said “Only for a few minutes.”  A forth cop drove up, looked over and apparently decided three officers was enough to handle this situation, and drove away.  I realize they thought they may have to deal with an intoxicated driver but I thought four cops for this one old man was a little much.  Must have been a slow evening.  Or maybe they, too, wanted to prevent an ass whipping.

The first officer on the scene talked to the man for a few more seconds, from a distance of about three feet, then came back over and said “I don’t believe he’s been drinking.  I think it’s just his disability.”  He hadn’t been close enough to smell anything and hadn’t asked if he’d been drinking, nor done anything that, in my opinion, would have allowed him to make that determination.  I think the cop felt sorry for the old man, who had gotten a cane out of his car and was now leaning on it.  Great prop and good thinking, I have to admit.  Wish we'd thought of it.

The various officers looked at Barrie’s truck, then at the old man’s car and assessed the damage.  While they were doing that the old man received a call on his cell phone.  He answered, then put a folder in front of his mouth to prevent us from hearing (which didn’t work) and said “I hit someone’s car in the parking lot.  I’ll have to call you back.”  The cop that arrived last wrote everything up and came back over, returning both drivers’ paperwork and giving them each a piece of paper with the case number on it.  The officer informed Barrie to call her insurance company and give them the information and they would handle everything.  That was it.  It was over.  The ending was a bit anti-climactic.  I think Barrie was a little disappointed that the old man didn’t get busted for DUI, or at least a good ass whipping, but it was over.  We all got back in the truck and headed to a restaurant for our dinner.

Needless to say, Barrie wasn’t in the best of moods.  We got to the restaurant and, of all things, one of the waiters looked a lot like the old man.  Barrie’s only comment was “He better not be our waiter.  That’s all I’ve got to say.”  Fortunately for him, he wasn’t.

We both started a diet on Monday.  Last night wasn’t a good night for that.  Barrie said “I was going to have a salad but I’m mad.”  The waiter came by to get our drink orders and Barrie said “I’ll have a Bud light, the coldest one you have!”  The rest of us ordered cokes and water and let her calm down.  She ordered her favorite chicken instead of salad but it was OK.  She needed comfort food.

By the time we had finished dinner she had calmed down somewhat and was able to laugh a little at the events, even though she was still fairly angry about her truck being damaged.  When we got home she posted a couple of things about it on Facebook, letting everyone know just how she felt about that old man, blind people driving and irresponsible drivers altogether.  We ended up making jokes about it and she went to sleep feeling a little better.

We called the insurance company this morning and they said they would handle the entire thing for us but we’d have to pay the deductable and they’d “try to get it back from his insurance, but it’s a long process and could take months.”  Otherwise, she said we could get the police report ourselves and call his insurance company and let them handle it.  You can guess which we chose.

We took the truck to her dealer to for an estimate.  It was $1480.00.  Of course, the truck is only a year old and she wants everything replaced like new.  And that’s what we’ll get. 

So that was our evening.  That old man will never know how close he came to experiencing grievous bodily harm.  As angry as she was, Barrie would have beaten the old man down, then beaten the “nephew” as well if he tried to interfere.  This morning, we’re glad nothing like that happened.  (Although I think she might have had a salad and a glass of water if she’d gotten to do that.)  This morning a man is still alive thanks to several things working in harmony.  Barrie does have the ability to control her temper.  I was there to prevent a mishap if she lost it.  And the old man himself, while he did hit her truck, was too pathetic in appearance to allow us to stay angry at him personally.  I’m just glad it wasn’t me who damaged her truck.  I’d still be on the run….

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Government Controlled Internet?

I’m going to be a little long-winded this morning because this issue is something that I believe is terribly important.  I hope you’ll read it and understand what’s really going on.

November 30th Could Be The Day the Government Seizes Control of the Internet  By Seton Motley

November 30th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could potentially engage in one of the largest federal power grabs we have ever seen.

After two years of this Presidential Administration and this Congress, that is saying an awful lot about an awful lot.

And what’s worse, the FCC would be doing it without Congress weighing in.  At the FCC’s November meeting – note the coincidental date of choice, AFTER the impending election – three unelected bureaucrats (of five) could simply vote themselves rulers of 1/6th of our entire economy – the information and technology sector.

Meaning the Internet that you currently enjoy – that has been a marvel of economic and information innovation and success – will be subject to vast new governmental regulations.  You didn’t elect these people – but they are on the verge of electing themselves Internet overlords.

And we are on the verge of having this new world – the all-encompassing future of First Amendment free speech in America – swallowed up by three unelected D.C. bureaucrats and their Commission.

This is one of the most important battles ever waged in Washington – and precious little is known about it outside the Beltway.

What we are talking about is Internet reclassification.  What that means is the FCC – which by its own admission doesn’t have authority over the Web – would just vote itself said authority.  By reclassifying the Internet – so that it would be subject to the same rules as landline telephones.

The FCC has no power over the Internet because the FCC doesn’t have power over anything until Congress writes a law saying they do.  And Congress has never done this for the FCC with the Internet.

It’s not just me saying this.  299 members of Congress have said so – a large bipartisan majority.  More than 150 organizations, state legislators and bloggers have said so.  So have seventeen minority groups – that are usually almost always in Democrat lockstep.

So have many additional normally Democrat paragons, including several large unions: AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America (CWA),International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); several racial grievance groups: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Minority Media and Telecom Council (MMTC), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Urban League; and an anti-free market environmentalist group: the Sierra Club.

So too has the unanimous D.C. Circuit Court – led by a Democrat Bill Clinton-appointee – ruling in April in the Comcast-BitTorrent case that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to regulate the Internet.

Most importantly, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has himself said so.  In an interview last week with the Washington Post, the Chairman readily acknowledged “(W)e have a Communications Act that wasn’t written for broadband.”

Mr. Motley lays out the possible intention of the FCC to seize government control of the internet, thus rendering it no longer a source of free information.  By free information I mean access to any website (other than those prohibited by law such as child pornography sites).  China regulates what its citizens can and cannot view, as does Iran.  It seems we may be headed toward that type of regulation as well.
The government already wrote itself the authority to shut down the internet in an emergency, even after chastising Iran for doing the very same thing during the civil unrest following the election that put Ajmadinejad back in power.   So the Obama administration, in another example of “Do as I say, not as I do” condemned Ajmadinejad for seizing control of the internet and less than two years later he has given himself the same authority.
Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s choice to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has said “a system of limited individual choice with respect to communications is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government, and efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not to be rejected in freedom’s name.”  In other words, he’s saying the government should definitely control information access and freedom shouldn’t be allowed to get in the way.  The FCC wants to seize control over the internet without the approval of Congress, which technically should be illegal in itself.  A Federal Court has already said the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the internet but the FCC is going to ignore the court and simply rewrite their own rules, bypassing Congress and telling the judge to stick it. 
Things like this should scare even liberals and progressives, who will also be effected by this action.  Liberals and progressives, I ask you to simply think about it – do you want the government telling you what internet sites you can visit?  If and when the government changes over to a Republican majority and/or a Republican President, do you want the Republicans telling you what internet sites you can view?  In many ways, it’s the same as the Fairness Doctrine.  The left wants to make radio airwaves “fair” by imposing the Fairness Doctrine, which would force conservative radio stations to air liberal shows as well, even though liberal radio continues to fail nationwide.  I wonder, if the situation was reversed and liberal radio was highly successful while conservative radio was failing, would liberals insist that conservatives be given equal airtime? 
We need less government control over our daily lives, not more.  The FCC must not be allowed to bypass Congress and seize unprecedented power.  If this is allowed to happen, when does it stop?