Post #307 Missing Michelle Bachmann's 'Cajones'

Well, not yet.

As of this writing, Michelle Bachman is still a Presidential candidate. But I do expect her to drop out soon -- it's inevitable. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are way out in front in money -- the cool alternative vs. the hothead.

If Republicans are smart -- [rolleyes] -- and really want to win the White House in 2012, they'll rally around the cool alternative instead of the hothead. In one debate, Romney said of Obama: "He's a nice guy, but he's gotta go." -- a much more appealing sentiment to moderate voters than the hotheaded rhetoric coming from Perry, Cain, et al. To win the election of 2012, Republicans must not stir up Obama's base and drive away moderates -- which is exactly what they are doing.

But I'll miss Michelle Bachmann.

Now, don't get me wrong. With the possible exception of Rick Santorum among the Republican candidates, a President Michelle Bachmann would most scare the stuffing out of me. Her lack of knowledge and judgment is terrifying. It's not what you know; it's what you know to be 'right' that is actually 'wrong.' A lack of knowledge can be overcome if you have the judgment to know you need to study.

But at least she had the 'cajones' to run -- unlike other people who criticized President Obama's every move as tho they were a candidate themselves but eventually decided to instead fly around the country raising millions of dollars by stirring up fear and resentment.

If Michelle Bachmann needs to raise money to pay off her campaign debt, sell a T-shirt --"Michelle Bachmann: Bigger 'Cajones' Than Sarah Palin." I'd buy one. :p

Post #306 War Is Over!

Foreign policy -- you either get that right, or nothing else matters....

* * *

Good evening,

I'm writing to tell you that all US troops will return home from Iraq by the end of December. After nearly nine years, the American war in Iraq will end. Our servicemen and women will be with their families for the holidays.

The war in Iraq came with tremendous cost. More than a million Americans served in Iraq, and nearly 4,500 gave their lives in service to the rest of us. Today, as always, we honor these patriots.

When I came into office, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. As Commander in Chief, I ended our combat mission last year and pledged to keep our commitment to remove all our troops by the end of 2011. To date, we've removed more than 100,000 troops from Iraq.

This is a significant moment in our history. For more information, including video, please visit WhiteHouse.gov/BringingTroopsHome.

The end of the war in Iraq reflects a larger trend. The wars of the past decade are drawing to a close.

As we have removed troops from Iraq, we have refocused our fight against al Qaeda and secured major victories in taking out its leadership -- including Osama bin Laden. And we've begun a transition in Afghanistan.

On the first day of my Administration, roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year that number will be cut in half, and we'll continue to draw it down.

As we welcome home our newest veterans, we'll enlist their talents in meeting our greatest challenges as a nation -- restoring our economic strength at home. Because after a decade of war, the nation that we need to build is our own.

Today the United States moves forward, from a position of strength.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Post #305 Free John Edwards! :p

Well, an out-of-control prosecutor has succeeded into turning the most hated man in North Carolina, John Edwards -- personally, I would like to see him hounded to his unmarked grave, into a noble victim. OK, maybe not so "noble" -- :p

George Holding, the U.S. attorney at the helm of the investigation, recently announced his plans to seek a congressional seat as a Republican in 2012 after the conclusion of the Edwards investigation. Holding contributed to the campaign of former Senator Lauch Faircloth in 1998, whom Edwards defeated for the U.S. Senate.

And now we have a 'witch hunt.'

Yes, it disgusts me to think that Edwards paid 'hush' money out of his campaign funds to cover up his affair with that "freak," Rielle Hunter -- to use Edwards' own word. But I think, too, what we have is a prosecutor who continued to abuse his governmental office until he got something to stick.

What stuck?

Um, $900,000 went directly to Rielle Hunter -- not to the Edwards campaign -- to cover living, medical and other expenses. Prosecutors argue the donations exceeded legal limits and were campaign contributions because they were meant to be used to hide his pregnant mistress from the public during his 2008 presidential run.

Even if the motivation is true -- and I think so, do not go there:

Edwards is the first person ever to be criminally prosecuted under the theory that such payments -- going from one person's private account to the private account of someone other than the candidate -- can be deemed a campaign contribution. There has been no such civil enforcement action, either.

Giving money to a candidate's pregnant mistress is not a campaign contribution. Maybe it should be.

The thing to do is to write that giving money to a candidate's pregnant mistress is a campaign contribution into the rulebook -- call it the 'Edwards' rule. But to allow a prosecutor to retroactively change the definitions invites more and more prosecutorial abuse -- and wastes of taxpayer money.

Edwards, a slimy sleezeball, played by the rules as they were written at the time. It's time to move on.

Post #304 Who Lost Continental Tire?

Continental Tire is a BIG international company -- based in Germany, I believe -- that was looking for a place in America to build a $500,000 plant with 1300 jobs, and we, Louisiana and our dim-witted cousins in South Carolina were the finalists. The plant is locating in South Carolina. End of story? No, North Carolina Republicans and Democrats are blaming each other over who 'lost' Continental Tire.

Democratic Governor Beverly Perdue's son works for the law firm that helped Continental Tire chose a site in North Carolina as one of the finalist sites -- a site that is owned by a Democratic state senator and political supporters of the Governor.

Republican Senate leader Phil Berger said the proposed deal with Continental "reeked with cronyism." "She had nothing to do with that site," Jim Bradshaw, who heads the Brunswick County Economic Development Commission -- they offered the site at the middle of the stink. The company had considered eight locations in North Carolina before focusing on the one in question, but there is no evidence it preferred that one because of political relationships -- as of today.

"I don't know if I have all the information to connect those dots," Berger backpedaled. A Republican having trouble with the dots -- imagine that! Hey, look up Bev's skirt, there might be some WMD up there.... :p

So, who lost Continental Tire?

Jochen Etzel, CEO of Continental Tire the Americas, said at a news conference, "South Carolina offered us the most compelling business climate that allows us to create these jobs with competitive pay and benefits for the people of this great state."

Um, well, what kind of "business climate" does South Carolina have? Well, they have an industrial park with the infrastructure built in, including a research facility associated with Clemson University -- two automotive firms have already located there. And South Carolina offered a $31 million bribe.

Continental Tire demanded $45 million from us. The Republicans balked.

Last month, in a letter to Governor Perdue, Berger raised objections to paying $45 million demanded by the company -- up front. "We all share your commitment to attracting jobs for North Carolina," he wrote, "but the negative impacts to North Carolina’s fund availability for education, overall fiscal stability and economic strength outweigh the speculated job creation in this instance." The Republicans offered $45 million spread out over 15 years.

From where I sit, the Republicans lost Continental Tire. But they should also be proud of not giving in to extortion. Only time will tell if this was a good decision of if, as Perdue said, that Berger concluded "the jobs were not worth it."

It seems obvious to me that North Carolina should invest in their own move-in ready industrial park and education, But the Republicans are too busy cutting thousands of education jobs here in North Carolina.

Or we need the NC JOB Fund -- the North Carolina Just Ol' Bribery Fund. Give it a try -- it worked for Rick Perry. :p

Post #303 Welfare In Florida : A Crime To Be Poor?

I got another "Fwd" e-mail -- "Hooray for Florida!!!!" -- and was asked to "Fwd" it if I agreed 100%. No, I do not agree 100% with that e-mail, and I refuse to engage in narrow-minded stereotyping to as a reason to violate the Constitution.

The e-mail said: "In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, 'If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.' Applicants who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment. Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving funds for three years! Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional ?"

This policy is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. The Constitution says that the government may conduct searches based on the reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed, and it is unreasonable to suspect a welfare recipient of a crime just because they receive welfare.

That is not just my opinion; it is an opinion held by the courts, including the Supreme Court -- Scalia and Thomas, you may have heard of 'em. :p

Yes, I am aware that 'peeing in a cup' is NOT a big deal, but that, too, has been ruled a 'search' by those same courts. You know, a search of your home computer is NOT a big deal, either -- how about we target those lazy Social Security recipients who scam the system?

The problem, I think, is that many people are mistakenly thinking the Bill Of Rights applies to private employers. Of course, the truth is a private employer can violate an employee's rights willy-nilly and order searches -- non-evasive searches will not raise a peep. Nor should they -- when conducted by a private employer.

The first rounds of testing in Florida showed that 96% of welfare recipients were clean -- a better average than the general public -- while 2%.were dirty and 2% refused to take the test. Maybe they should test college students... or politicians. :p

But people say -- as the e-mail stated: "It's completely legal that every other working [person has] to pass drug tests in order to get a J-O-B" -- FALSE: I've never taken a drug test to get a J-O-B and do not know anybody who has. Indeed, being a policeman is the only J-O-B around here that requires a drug test.

The e-mail began: "I-95 will be jammed for the next month or so........Druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida .."

A joke or an exaggeration is NOT funny when it leads to discriminatory policy -- such as, most child molesters are bald men, let's take all bald men downtown and give 'em a psychological test to prove they are OK. That's NOT funny if you're bald! :p

You want to help? Call the police 'tip line' and report a welfare recipient you know to be using drugs. Or tell the lawmakers to spend money on more police or rehab instead of targeting 'them' with drug tests. Or de-criminalize drugs.

Making sure 'they' are drug-free may or may not be a worthy goal, but try a different -- constitutional -- approach.