NC 9th Fight Over…

Yes, there was a lot of ballyhoo over a House of Representative special election that took place Tuesday night. It was between Dan Bishop, a Republican State Senator, and Dan McCreedy, a moderate Democrat.

First the history…the whole NC 9th District came into national attention back in the 2018 midterm elections because it was in that particular election that a Republican had engaged in voter fraud. The election was eventually thrown out, and a new election was scheduled. McCreedy was the Democrat that sought the seat in 2018, so he’d been running for over a year and a half, and had pretty much gotten the edge in name recognition. Bishop had been a State Senator, and wasn’t nearly as well known.

The national liberal media wanted to build this up as a referendum on Donald Trump, saying that since Trump won this district by some 12 points in 2016, if the Democrats were to flip the seat, it would show that Trump wasn’t as popular. Well, Trump went to Fayetteville, North Carolina the night before the election and held a rally with a standing room only crowd. That crowd, along with most of the other 9th District decided on going Republican, sending Bishop to DC to represent them.

First and foremost, this isn’t a “referendum” on Trump. That will be done next November when Trump seeks reelection. This was an entirely different election. This had a negative built in for the Republicans because of the voter fraud issue, even though Bishop had nothing to do with that. It also had a built in edge for the left, as McCreedy had been campaigning for a year and a half longer than Bishop. He should have had more name recognition!

So, the lesson to be taken from this special election is, North Carolina is still in Trump’s corner…he can still pack ’em in there, and yes, even though people are leaving liberal northeastern states in droves because of outrageous taxes (much like what’s happening in California), it doesn’t matter. In this election, the 9th Congressional District went with the Republican, like they’ve always done. And no amount of northeast carpet baggers can change that.

The same will be said across the rest of the country over the next year or so, but you won’t hear about that. And you won’t be hearing about how NC-9 is a red district either. You’ll hear how Bishop NARROWLY beat McCreedy. Well, he beat him. He probably shouldn’t have, but he did. In the end, party affiliation matters, and McCreedy joins the ranks of the unemployed.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Time To Dump “Labor” Day?

I was reading a Gallup poll the other day and it got me to wondering. Today is “Labor Day”. It’s a time to celebrate all of those women who’ve given birth. No…actually, it’s supposed to be a time to celebrate unions. It’s an old holiday, starting back in 1887 in Oregon as the first state to recognize it. But is it still relevant today?

The Gallup poll suggests not. Back in the day, and certainly in the east coast and west coast, and the rust belt, unions were a big part of society. But they’ve been on a steady decline. Throughout the early 21st century, labor unions have held pretty steady at 13% of the country subscribing to some form of union membership. In 2018 that number dipped to 10% for the first time ever signaling a general decline in labor unions.

What I find interesting is that the largest sector that still utilizes labor unions are government workers. 36% of government workers (city, county, state, and federal) are in a union (most likely AFSME). If you were to take government workers out of the mix, only 6% of the US population is in a union.

So, that begs the question, is it time to dump Labor Day as a holiday? I mean, don’t take the holiday away all together…just rename it something more relevant in today’s society. Maybe with it’s proximity being so close to 9/11, we could call it “Freedom From Terrorism Day” to remind us of that terrible tragedy some 18 years ago. Maybe we could call it “Build The Friggin’ Wall Day”, urging all Americans to take a pilgrimage to the southern border and help build an un-climbable wall to keep illegal aliens out. Whatever we decide to call it, shouldn’t it be changed?

I mean, if we’re dealing with only 6% of real American workers (not governmental employees), there has to be something that actually involves more than 6% of the population. Hell, there are almost as many Democrat candidates for president as there are members of unions in this country!

Don’t get the idea that I’m trying to take the holiday away. You deserve the holiday weekend, and besides it marks the “official” end of summer. So, we have to have the holiday there for something. But at the very least, let’s get something in there that actually fits more than 6% of Americans, shall we?

Oh…and Happy Labor Day!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Does The GOP NEED The Left?

I’ve heard this question debated in several different forums in the past, and it’s an interesting question. You can ask it about either the Republicans need the Democrats, or you can ask it about the Democrats needing the Republicans. Either way works. And in actuality, I’ve come to believe that yes…you do need the opposition…for several reasons.

When government is working well (which it hasn’t been for some time), you need to left in the case of the Republicans, to show the idiocy that they display and would lead by if in fact they were given the chance to lead. The Democrats need the right, basically for the same reason. Because both sides represent not the middle, but more of the fringes of the party. There are no more moderate parties in our political system. You’re either conservative, or you’re liberal.

When government is working not so well, you have ballast. I talked about that yesterday. If you have just conservatives, you have a tendency to go overboard and push things too far to the right (and yes…there is such a thing as going too far to the right!). If you are liberal, well…we know they are always pushing things as far left as they can through incrementalism. By having two parties, you get a balance of a sort. It’s not a perfect system, but it does show a little bit of ability to bring whichever side is running things back closer to the middle. And regardless which side of the aisle you’re on, you have to understand that America is a slightly right of center country. We’re more moderate than either the Republicans or the Democrats would like us to believe.

And that is exactly why the current crop of Democrats are going to fail. It’s exactly the reason Barack Obama failed as president and had to issue so many ill-fated Executive Orders. He couldn’t get things through Congress, even when he had both Houses under his party’s control, because the American people didn’t stand for the “transformational change in government” that he was trying to sell to us. Had America realized what he was talking about during the election, he may not have won by as great a margin. I doubt he would have lost to someone as inept as John McCain, but it wouldn’t have given him any sense of a mandate.

The current crop of Democrats have pushed the party so far left, that someone like a Joe Biden seems almost conservative in comparison. He also looks very worn out and tired, and that’s what 50 years of politics will do to a person. But the problem is, most of the Democrats still in the field vying for the nomination, are much farther left than most Americans are. The Republicans learned that lesson some ten years ago when the Tea Party tried to push the GOP to the right. They pushed too far and it led to losing seats in both the House and the Senate.

In the end, as sad as I am to say it…the conservatives actually need the left, and the left actually needs the right to survive. Otherwise, one side pushes too far and we become either Nazi Germany, or Venezuela. Neither are very good choices if you ask me!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

9/11 First Responders Deserve Fund Renewal!

Think back if you will about 18 years ago. It was a sunny morning in Toledo, Ohio. I was sitting at my desk at work and my boss came in and said that an airplane had just crashed into the World Trade Towers in New York. Some time later, he came back and said that a second plane had hit the Towers. It was 9/11. It was a day, like when JFK was killed, or when man first walked on the moon that we will remember where we were, what we were doing, and the feelings that went through us when it happened.

The responders to that tragedy were quick on the scene. As thousands of people were fleeing ground zero…these brave men and women were running in. They weren’t thinking of the fact that they were going to put their lives in danger that day, or that they were most assuredly going to be dying early from the toxicity that they were wading into. They put others first.

The House of Representatives, in one of the only moves they’ve actually accomplished that had any semblance of meaning this year, voted overwhelmingly to fund the 9/11 Victims Fund for another 70 years. If they had voted that down, it would have been over after December, 2020. Instead, should the Senate pass it (as they most certainly will), the program that gives restitution, and not a lot of it to the men and women who were injured, who’ve contracted cancer and other dibilitating and fatal diseases, a chance to at least have some of their medical bills paid.

However, Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), have thrown a monkey wrench into the works. Why? Because they want to know how the $10.2 Billion fund over the next 70 years is going to be paid for. They spend more than that on lunch, and yet have the audacity to question whether this program should move forward.

One of the people that has been very active in this program is Jon Stewart. Yeah, the same Jon Stewart that does the talk show. And it’s a rare instance I find myself agreeing with him. I do in this case. Stewart has given untold hours and countless interviews to bring these victims the compensation they so richly deserve. He’s called out both Paul and Lee for their actions, and I for one, applaud him for doing so. If we can’t take care of our heroes, we don’t deserve to take care of anybody. Stewart is right on this one, and Paul and Lee are dead wrong.

Like the Veterans of our military, who come back to face incredibly incompetent medical care through the Veterans’ Administration, the heroes of 9/11, the people that were on the scene giving selflessly of themselves deserve better. Money is no object in this case, especially when there has been no fraud, no abuse, no misplaced funds. This is one instance where a federal government assistance program has done exactly what it was intended to do. To not allow this program to continue is a crime!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Going Back To Obama?

Joe Biden isn’t a spring chicken. In fact, the top three candidates for the highest office in the land aren’t either. Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump are all in their 70’s. So, you have to excuse them a little bit when they start to screw up.

Take Joe Biden’s latest campaign gaffe. At least I think it was a campaign gaffe. He said he wants to take America back to Barack Obama’s term in office. And I got thinking, “Whoa! Why leave prosperity to go back to ‘the new normal’?”

Remember back in Obama’s term? In his last six quarters in office (that’s a year and a half for those of you that are mathematically challenged), the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was a paltry 1.5%. We were told that was the “new normal”. Well, during Donald Trump’s first six quarters in office (again, a year and a half), the GDP was 3.0%. That’s a 100% improvement over Obama…and we’re not counting the devastation that was at the end of the Bush presidency and the beginning of the Obama presidency. That’s why I only show the last year and a half of Obama’s term. Fair is fair after all.

Need more proof? During Obama’s last 21 months in office, his administration could claim that there were 157,000 new jobs. In Trump’s first 21 months, his administration could claim there were 214,000 new jobs. The average wage during that time under Obama rose $1.31 a month. The average wage during the same time in Trump’s presidency rose $1.84. After the Trump Tax Law went into effect, that average shot up to an average increase of $2.31 per month. That’s a 76% increase over Obama’s numbers.

Want to talk unemployment? Sure…under Obama, in the last 21 months in office, the unemployment rate dropped 13%. Same time frame for Trump? It dropped 23%.

So, why on earth would Joe Biden be wanting us to go BACK to a time when we were less productive? Why would we go back to a time when there were over 25,000 MORE federal regulations? Why would we go back in time when there were more racial tensions and violence than what we’re seeing now? Remember Ferguson, Missouri? Baltimore, Maryland? Chicago, Illinois, Cleveland, Ohio? You’re not seeing near that type of violence in the streets today. And yet, Biden wants to return to those days?

How many scandals can you count during the Obama administration? I tried to count it up and lost track at 35. Of course, Obama claims that he didn’t have any scandals during his time in office. He forgot about Benghazi…he forgot about Fast & Furious…he forgot about the AP telephone tapping scandal…he forgot about James Rosen at Fox News… he forgot about Hillary Clinton’s email server while she was Secretary of State…and those are just the tip of the iceberg. And how many scandals has Trump had? I can count six if you want to include cabinet members that overcharged the taxpayer, and got extra perks they should not have received. They’re all gone now, by the way. But at least Trump hasn’t killed any ambassadors lately!

No, I’m sorry Joe…I’m going to stick with Donald Trump as opposed to going back to some of the most regressive and biased times in American history, not to mention some of the most corrupt administrations ever, and some of the worst economies since the Great Depression. You just forgot…but it’s ok. You’re old. You’re supposed to forget.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

So, How’s The “Tour” Going?

Remember about six months ago…the Clinton’s, Bill & Hill, decided they weren’t getting enough press in light of her devastating loss to Donald Trump in the 2016 election, and her not getting over it despite seriously depleting the stock of Chardonnay in the world. And their response? Go on tour! So, “An Evening With Bill & Hill” was born. It was going to be great too! Huge crowds, all paying top dollar to spend a few hours with a former president, and a former president wannabe.

Except it hasn’t quite worked out that way.

Oh, the initial response was okay. It wasn’t like the Eagles reunion tour by any stretch, but it was okay. And they played a couple of cities in the US before heading to Canada, where those folks love liberals. Except they didn’t, and there appeared in many magazines and newspapers, shots of half empty auditoriums, people yawning, and reporters who said they paid way too much for their ticket…in some cases, people were unloading their tickets on places like Stubhub for pennies on the dollar, and weren’t getting any takers.

Well, it hasn’t been exactly a roaring success in the States, either. Apparently, there has been a fire sale as far as the tickets are concerned. And, if you’re really interested in seeing the former first couple in person, you can now do so for less than the cost of dinner at Olive Garden!

In Seattle, the best seat in the house, which was originally priced at $1,785 can now be had for a paltry $829! And if all you want to do is get inside the auditorium, you can get tickets for as little as $20 on Groupon. Yes…they’ve resorted to selling the tickets on the famed “50% off” site! Officially, ticket prices in Seattle are going for $66 to $519 according to the New York Post, but you can always dicker your way down from there.

I mean, the Clintons are learning just how many people want to hear Hill recount her life-changing loss to “that man” which ruined her life’s dream of becoming the first female president, and smashing the glass ceiling. Apparently, it’s not that many. When the started this, they felt they could be in almost arena sized venues of upwards of 10,000, but it’s looking like they fit more into a cozier spot of about 500.

They have 13 cities in the US left on their tour…IF they decide to go through with it. I mean, they can’t need the money. Bill made hundreds of millions of dollars traveling the world as part of the pay to play scandal when Hill was Secretary of State. He was being paid up to $5 million per speech in exchange for Hillary allegedly giving them special treatment in whatever it was they were seeking. And of course, there were the donations to the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundations, both of which were found to be bloated with cost overruns, and couldn’t account for nearly half of the money donated to it (we know where it went, right?)

It proves the long believed theory in live appearances…you’re only as popular as your last concert date…or in the case of the Clinton’s, you’re only as popular as Hillary’s last rant.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Was Facebook Wrong?

Facebook is a public company, but it IS a company. And it’s drawing a lot of ire, both from the right and the left for it’s recent censorship. It permanently banned the likes of racist liberal preacher Louis Farrakhan; right-wing nut job, Alex Jones; and former Breitbart blogger, Milo Yiannopoulos, among others. And the question being debated is, is it their right to ban speech they apparently don’t want to hear?

Let’s be clear. They have most certainly violated the First Amendment rights of the people they’ve banned, but they can say they did it because of extreme behavior, not just censorship of one political viewpoint (though Farrakhan was the only liberal banned). Is it under Facebook’s ability to ban people they don’t want on their site, being a company, or, does the Free Speech thing stand in their way on that?

I gotta tell you, I’m torn.

I’ve come very close recently to banning people for using false information, inflamatory language, and name calling. I haven’t done it…yet. But it’s reached a point where I really am getting a lot of you complaining about it. And frankly, if the information the folks are spewing (there are several) is indeed false, inflamatory and not right, is it their right to spew hatred as they are doing, or is it my right as the owner of the blog to step in and say that enough is enough?

Donald Trump weighed in and blasted Facebook for the ban, and I can certainly see his point. But Facebook was never intended to be a political site. There are plenty of those around (even though I do have a Facebook page where this blog is posted daily). The mere fact of the matter is, it’s really easy if you don’t like what a Farrakhan or a Jones is screaming about to avoid their rants and their antics. It’s a little less easy on this blog post where you are coming to hear what I’m saying, which at times can be admittedly pointed and biased, and then you’re getting people called out by name, insulted, and sworn at. Frankly, I can see a difference in those two situations.

So, as I’m weighing the options of banning several of these folks myself, I find myself defending Facebook for their actions. But at the same time, I believe in the First Amendment, so long as it involves false and inflamatory information and the degredation of others. You don’t come here to be insulted just for posting your political beliefs. I try to respect the views of everybody, even when I don’t agree with them. But when the views become so vicious, so inane, and so damning, there does come a point where you have to say “Stop!” Facebook reached that point with these folks, and I will admit, all of the people they banned are on the fringes of their political side.

So, while I believe everyone has a right to be heard, does that mean everyone has a right to be heard here? That’s a question I’m pondering. The thing that those folks that are ranting about people posting on this website seem to fail to realize is, they actually could be facing legal problems. It’s one thing to disagree with someone’s position…it’s a totally separate matter to call them some of the names that are being used. They aren’t, after all, public figures, and just because they choose to publish comments online, doesn’t open them up to said criticism. At least not on this site.

So…you’ve helped me decide. In the future, if people are going to use inflamatory language, or swear, or call names of the readers of this blog, I will make sure you, my readers don’t get the chance to see them. I’ll take care of it before it ever gets to you. They are free to start their own blogs, and promote it however they want, but they can leave the garbage where it belongs. That doesn’t mean I won’t put out comments from the other side of the aisle. THAT is censorship. Those comments are most certainly welcome. I have always welcomed a respectful dialogue and debate. Where I draw the line is when readers are harangued and called names. Or when there incessant swearing and the use of false information. That won’t be tolerated.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed