Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Back in July I wrote concerning the voter fraud that took place during the hotly contested Minnesota Senate race. As more and more time passes we are becoming aware of the extent of the crimes involved, not only in Minnesota but in states all over this great country.

Recently an amateur citizens group in Houston uncovered rampant voter fraud. They determined that "Houston Votes", a voter registration group headed by Steve Caddle, who also works for the SEIU, was engaged in massive voter fraud. Why is it that it is always the amateurs who manage to uncover what the professionals seem so oblivious to? Anyway, among the findings were “that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.”

This is nothing new. In the past, both SEIU and ACORN have proved to be the “shock troops” of phony registrations which have led to voter fraud. During the 2008 election, both groups were instrumental in delivering fraudulent registrations and have been charged across the country in connection with fraudulent voting.

Now we have this gem coming in from the Federal Government itself. In October 2008, the National Right to Work Foundation (NRWF), filed a complaint alleging that SEIU violated election law when it required local affiliates to contribute to its political action fund. The union amended it’s constitution that required each local to contribute $6 per member to the international's political action committee. Those locals that didn't comply would be charged the difference between what they owed and what they raised plus, a 50 percent penalty. Locals would then pay the penalties from their general funds to the political action committee. However, these funds are not allowed to be used for political purposes.

A clear cut violation of the law, right?

The Federal Election Commission's general counsel thought so and found the union to be guilty of violating election law when it required the local affiliates to contribute to its political action fund. However, the FEC's full board nonetheless voted to overrule its staff attorney and subsequently dismissed the original complaint. As a result the union has now been allowed to amass a $9 million war chest for the next election. On top of that, they failed to provide the complainant (NRWF) with a detailed finding until well after the time had lapsed to allow for an appeal.

This coming on the heels of Christopher Coates, former voting chief for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, testifying about the dismissal of charges against members of the New Black Panther Party who carried truncheons at a polling place in Philadelphia. Coates testified that the Black Panther case was dismissed “following "pressure" by the NAACP and "anger" at the case within the Justice Department itself.” Coates explained that “That anger was the result of their deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of white voters who have been discriminated against." Mr. Coates is hardly a poster child for the right. Previously he served as counsel to the ACLU.

Just ask yourself these rhetorical questions:

Which political party generally benefits from Voter Fraud?

Which political party has worked to prevent Voter ID Law?

Which political party has close ties to both SEIU and ACORN?

Not sure if this qualifies as “Change that Matters.” Sounds more like politics as usual to me.

This is not an indictment of any one political party, this is an indictment of the political system which believes that the right to free and honest elections is secondary to the interests of those with enough money or power to alter them.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Anger?


Crackpot
Demented
Insane
Crazy
Racist
Tea-Baggers
Losers
Wing-Nuts
Rednecks
Loony-Tunes
Nut Jobs
Dummies
Stupid, Extremists, Violent, Sickos, Clowns,......................

Is it just me or have others been noticing the increase in derogatory comments being made lately?

In watching the various media outlets, there seems to be a “ratcheting up” of the nasty comments directed at both the Tea Party and conservatives in general. It has actually turned vicious. The words above capture only what I would call the PG version. There seems to be a predilection by many to using curses to “enhance” their opinion.

While most of the video pundits come across as cackling, obnoxious, pseudo- intellectuals, the one interesting aspects of the written commentary is the extremely poor spelling. I’m not sure how you expect to be taken seriously when your paragraph reads like this: “these people are straight up looney toons. we might as well have spongebob squarepants and bugs bunny join the group cause this group is very unrealistic. sure i deffinitly think obama is doning a pretty crappy job in office, but im not gonna go as far as the tea party goes in expressing their oppionion.”

Really? It’s 2010, we all have spell check. I read that and wonder what exactly the Board of Education, nationally and locally, is doing for our kids.

How did we get here? For the sake of full disclosure I am both a member of a 9/12 group and I also attend Tea Party events. I am labeled as a Republican, but I would amend that title by saying that I vote based on my beliefs and not by party position. Sadly, I am of the belief that nine times out of ten I am voting for the lesser of the two evils and not better candidate. I would like to believe that anyone who knows me would attest to the fact that I bear no resemblance to the derogatory slurs listed above.

I have sat here and pondered both what I have seen and what I have read. I hate to admit that not only am I appalled, but I am truly perplexed. Consider this for a moment:

If you hold up a sign claiming Bush is the anti-Christ and a baby killer, you are exercising your protected 1st amendment right. However, if I hold up a sign claiming Obama is a socialist, I am a hate mongering racist

If you riot in the streets against a policy you dislike it is an acceptable form of public disobedience to get your point across. However, if you gather peacefully to show you displeasure with government waste, you’re an extremist.

If you burn the US flag it is ok because of the way this country is perceived as conquerors and colony builders around the world. But if I fly the Gadsden flag I am right wing nut job.

You can engage in voter fraud and election tampering without threat of reprisal, but if I win you immediately claim I stole the election and demand a recount.

As a media pundit you can make outlandish claims and ridicule me, but if I present clear verifiable facts I am a loony tune.

If you support abortion you an advocate for women’s rights. If I oppose I am a religious zealot who “wants 14 year old girls to be forced by the government to have abortions.”

If you start a politically motivated organization, funded by a foreign billionaire, you are a grass roots movement. If I get together with others to voice my opinion we are “astro-turf.”

If you believe the scientists who claim global warming is real, you are a concerned environmentalist. If I believe other scientists that say the claims are exaggerated than I am an intellectual retard who shouldn’t be taken seriously.

If you have a politically embarrassing moment in your life, you laugh it away as some meaningless inside joke and refuse to acknowledge such trivial issues. If I have the same, I am branded for life and hounded about it at every opportunity.

You demand to have your voices be heard. But when it is our time you shout and ridicule us in an attempt to drown out what we have to say.

Remember in March the whole Health Care Bill Debacle? According to the left “Teabagging racists chanted 'Nigger' 15 times at civil rights hero Congressman John Lewis, as they spit on Congressman Emanuel Cleaver.”

Yet, in an event that was covered extensively there is no video or audio of anyone saying the word “nigger” once, no less a “chant” of 15 times. This despite several large monetary rewards being offered for this proof. Nor did any of the Capitol Police Officers walking with the group hear it. In an attempt to validate his claims of being “spit on”, Cleaver contends that a person was arrested by that he declined to press charges. Unfortunately for Cleaver, the USCP stated that “We did not make any arrests today."

What I do find amusing in a sadly disturbing way is that you have the left screaming about some fictitious racist remarks being said while simultaneously using a sexually derogatory remark against the alleged offenders………….huh? Seriously?

Do you see the hypocrisy in all of this?

I have said this before and I will say it again. I tend to spend a lot of time watching news outlets and researching issues. Probably too much time according to my family. But when you stop and really look at what is being said, and the facts being offered, you begin to ask questions. I have watched the left ridicule and mock those on the right, including Glenn Beck, but I have yet to hear them actually prove him wrong.

I have looked into some of his “conspiracy theories” as the left calls them and I have yet to find out where he is lying. Maybe you disagree with him because everyone else you know does, and that’s okay. But do you actually listen? I don’t agree with a lot of people, Beck included sometimes, but it is based on an articulable opinion. However, he does raise a lot of questions that need to be answered and not simply mocked.

The left seems to think that simply ostracizing a person, or just calling them crazy, is a compelling argument. It isn’t and you should not be conned into believing it is. Remember the quote from Catch-22: “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”

This country is not great because we copy the rest of the world. This country is great because for the most part we put the time and effort into creating things that the rest of the world copied. Our problem for the most part is that we began to read the headlines telling us how great we were and then began to feel remorseful for our success.

If you disagree with me, fine. I truly believe that we can accomplish great things if we think and talk. Sit down at the table and explain to my why you feel I am wrong. Maybe you will bring something that has eluded me and I will change my way of thinking. Or maybe the reverse will happen. All I ask is that you treat me with dignity and respect.

Don’t try to scream over me, mock me, ignore me, or belittle me. That is not what this country is about and I believe we all deserve better.

So what do I believe in?

Friday, September 24, 2010

Political Mockery or Hubris, you decide.


I’m sitting positively apoplectic over this outrageous example of political hubris. If you are trying to raise a family under the specter of tax hikes, home foreclosure & unemployment there are no words to describe how incensed you should be.

This country is facing an economic meltdown. As of today we have a National Debt of 13.5 trillion dollars. Unemployment is almost 10% nationwide. Home foreclosures are at epidemic proportions. And the list goes on.

So what are our exalted elected officials doing to make things better?

Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert appeared and "testified" before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration. Mr. Colbert appeared as an "expert" witness on the plight of migrant farm workers at the invitation of the subcommittee's chairwoman, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).

Come on………………. Seriously?



There are no words to describe how enraged we should all be at this type of behavior. This is OUR Congress. As imperfect as it may be, we still depend on our elected officials to represent us, not make a mockery of our political system by allowing this. Illegal Immigration is a serious issue facing this country. Irregardless of what side of the fence you are on, to have it become the subject of comedic fodder for someone’s ratings is offensive.

If Congresswoman Lofgren chose to appear on Mr. Colbert’s show, I have no problem. Oh, that’s right, she did. But now she decided to take it one step further, beyond comedy, and to disgrace our political process. However, at a time when many American are struggling just to survive, is unconscionable.

Congresswoman Lofgren and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), should resign their chairmanships immediately.

Welcome to the new America folks. You can rest easy knowing that your elected representative is enjoying themselves in DC on your tax dollar and the Emperor Nero is providing the soundtrack.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Andrew; the Angry American (Re-Deux)


Almost a decade ago I started composing emails which I sent to my friends basically outlining my feelings on world events. Obviously, little has changed as I have now branched out from email to blog. Honestly, do you know anyone who doesn’t have a blog these days?

I thought I would take a moment to dust off the explanation of my little nom de plume.

Back in those early days, the U.S. was being blamed for any and all problems everywhere in the world. Voters thought politics had hit rock bottom and that they had begun to dig. Little did we know that it wasn’t the end, but just the beginning. We were being inundated by a multitude of issues ranging from the aftermath of 9/11, the Iraq war, In God we Trust, Terrorism, Immigration, Gun Control, Economic Issues and the incompetency of the United Nations.

Sadly, in the last decade we haven’t seen much improvement. 9/11 only seems to be relevant once a year, politicians are still bemoaning the fact that it is the other parties fault, Political Correctness is still trying to lock God in the ideological broom closet, entitlement babies not only abound but are expecting more, illegal immigration is still rampant, gun control advocates are still screaming about how better life would be if we got rid of all the legal firearms, the Economic situation still seems to allude us and the UN,…………. Is still really irrelevant.

But I want to make it clear that my choice of the signature “the Angry American” is not intended to describe me as someone with inherent bitterness. In the beginning I admit I was angry. Actually the anger was based on being reactive to issues. But with time I matured (at least I would like to believe I have) and I began to look at them, not as isolated events, but part of the larger picture.

For the record I would like to say I was never angry because of differences in opinion. I firmly believe that healthy debate is a cornerstone to democracy. I might not agree with you, but without the ability to have a dissenting voice we would be no better off than any other totalitarian regime.

What I would simply ask all of you is this. It is time that we stop accepting the news fed to us in talking points. I don’t care who you listen to, Beck or Olbermann, Hannnity or Maddow, O’Reilly or Matthews; or from where you get your news: Fox or MSNBC, Huffington Post or Drudge. What I ask is that you please DO NOT accept this as the be-all, end-all.

It’s all spin, we all do it. Ever watch a “news clip” showing a damning statement? Most likely spin. Go watch the whole clip first. I grew accustomed to this in my law enforcement career. The griping news coverage of that vicious police assault. Yeah, not so much. What they failed to show is usually the prior 15 seconds where the defendant is not acting very much like the HS Honor Student photo plastered all over the news. Spin people.

All I ask is that you treat the news media (and politicians) like you treat your kids. Trust, but verify.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Sharia Law & the Media

This is long, please bear with me.

Most of you who know me, know that I am not prone to jumping the gun. I do not immediately forward the latest and greatest internet tome claiming to prove that the political machine in the United States is actually the love child between Russia and China. Although……………. But I digress.

I don’t believe that we do ourselves justice when we blindly follow any politician or media darling. That’s not to say they aren’t telling us the truth, but blind trust is actually what got us here. If I am told something, I am willing to accept it at face value but I also strongly believe in the old adage “trust, but verify.”

However, I am reminded of the scene in The Passion in which Pontius Pilate says “Quid Est Veritas?” What is Truth?

Last night I was watching Hardball with Chris Matthews. I know many of you will be shocked by that admission. For the sake of full disclosure I have also been known to watch Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Bill O’Reilly, and Ed Schultz. I think it is important to hear both sides of an argument and then make your own decisions. This brings me back to last night. Aside from all the rhetoric and name calling (a subject for a future entry) I was troubled by what Chris Matthews was “spinning” in connection with comments made by Newt Gingrich at the Values Voter Summit. On his show Matthews, along with Washington Post reporter Eugene Robinson, lambasted Gingrich for his comment that "We should have a federal law that says Sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States.” But is this something that should be dismissed with derogatory commentary and childish laughter?

Before we look further, let us answer the question what is Sharia Law? Sharia is the sacred law of Islam. Muslims believe it is derived from the divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an, and the sayings and example set by the Prophet Muhammad. All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law and is administered by Islamic Judges.

Unless you are a clairvoyant, none of us can truly predict the future with absolute certainty, however we can use the past and the present to guide our thoughts. So is the former Speaker of the House correct? Or do we owe Messrs Matthews and Robinson a debt of gratitude for pointing out the absurdity of this commentary?

To see where we might be heading, we must first look to other countries that have seen an increase in their Muslim communities. These increases came about as a result of bringing to Europe their former colonial subjects. These came in the form of refugees and cheap labor from such nations as Pakistan (UK), Turkey (Germany) and Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia (France). These initial communities were small and comprised only a fraction of the host countries population. At this point one can begin to see what impact, if any, Sharia law has had on the host country. Initially, Sharia law was not seen as an obstruction to the recognized law. It was applied discretely within small Muslim enclaves in order to remedy minor cultural issues. However, after two generations of high birth rate and immigration, those communities have grown to where the Sharia law now challenges the Judeo-Christian foundations of their host European nations.

In United Kingdom, Islamic imams now outnumber Christian pastors. In 2008 the leader of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, conducted a lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice and stated "as a matter of fact certain provisions of Sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law. The application of Sharia in certain circumstances, if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion, seems unavoidable?"

In Germany, Muslims have successfully argued Sharia law in court to defend the right of men to beat their wives as well as to practice polygamy.

In France, home to an estimated 14 million Muslims, including 9 million illegal immigrants, the government no longer controls the densely populated, predominantly Muslim ghettos that encircle most major French cities. As a matter of fact, France is projected to become a majority Muslim nation by 2040. It is estimated that The Netherlands will become Western Europe's first majority Muslim nation by 2015.

Closer to home, Canada for years has been quietly condoning the application of Sharia law among Muslim immigrants by sending multiple welfare checks to polygamous Muslim men who raise multiple families in Canada. Additionally, the Muslim community of Ontario sought to have the Sharia officially and legally recognized by the government. The Premier of Ontario refused to recognize Sharia. However with the Muslim population, currently believed to be 1 million, is growing at such a fast rate, the outcome of further debate might not be the same.

That brings us to the United States. Now, the population of Muslims in American is small compared to the global population. Estimates put it between 5-9 million. The pundits, like Mr. Matthews, will tell you that is small in comparison to other religious groups and they are correct. However, what they don’t say is that the rate of population both younger then the general US population and is increasing at a dramatic rate. According to the 2000 US Census, Muslims experienced n annual growth rate of 6% versus 0.9% for the total U.S.

Consider that if you took an average of 6.5 million and grouped those into one block of people, they would comprise the population of the states of: Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana and Rhode Island; along with Washington DC and the US territories of Guam, US Virgin Island, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Now all of a sudden that doesn’t seem as insignificant as it did a few moments ago does it?

Now, armed with what I have just said, ask yourself this question, “whom do I believe?” Without assailing the bona fides of Messrs Matthews and Robinson, I don’t know if there diatribe against the former House Speaker, or their snide comments about his intelligence, qualifies as a substantial argument against what he said. In all honesty, what you have just read here is 99% more than what you would have gotten from either the video segment or the newspaper article. I guess they believe their personal opinion trumps the facts.

According to Mr. Robinson “There is no left-of-center movement dedicated to fighting the steady, stealthy insinuation of Sharia into America's legal system because no such thing is happening. Gingrich invents an enemy and then demands to know why others haven't sallied forth to slay it.” But what if?

In June 2009, a family court judge in Hudson County, N.J., denied a restraining order to a woman who testified that her husband, a Muslim, had forced her to have non-consensual sex. Judge Joseph Charles Jr. said he did not believe the man "had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife because he was acting in a way that was "consistent with his practices." According to Mr. Robinson, the judge was wrong and that the error was corrected. But, the fact is that an American judge actually took it into consideration and used it in coming to his verdict. What happens next time when it is not overturned? Will that become the foundation for future judgments? And most importantly, should I not worry about this simply because Messrs Matthews and Robinson tell me so? One has only to look at the long laundry list of less than stellar verdicts issued from the bench to see that judicial prudence does not have a stellar track record.

We live in a “new” America. In the (exaggerated) words of our President “if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”. Is it unreasonable to think that this growing population would not seek to have its culture and beliefs adequately protected and represented within the framework of the law? I don’t think so and I am certainly not reassured by the disconcerting laughter of Mr. Matthews.

Don’t think that this can happen here? It did.






For those of you who are under any misconception, four American citizens were arrested for engaging in their 1st Amendment right. State Representative Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, called for an investigation by the attorney general’s office on the matter. What I find funny (sad) is that the Mayor of Dearborn, John O’Reilly, claims that the arrestee's “pretended to be arrested." Uhm, maybe someone should tell the Mayor that the trial for one of the “pretending” defendants on the charges of "Disturbing the Peace" and "Failure to Obey a Police Order" was set for September 20th.

The media will tell you this is an aberration, but what if it is actually just the beginning? These are American law enforcement officers trampling on individual rights. Law enforcement making mistakes? Jurists making mistakes? What is next? When do the mistakes not get fixed? Is it wrong to believe in the old adage “better to be safe than sorry.”

I ask YOU to decide. Not based on what you hear, but what you invest the time to learn.