Between Friends

"...I went out there....in search of experience...to taste and touch and to feel as much...as a man can... before he repents... I went out searching... looking for one good man... a spirit who would not bend or break who would sit at his father's right hand...

I went out walking with a bible and a gun...

the word of God lay heavy on my heart I was sure I was the one... now Jesus don't you wait up. Jesus I'll be home soon. Ya I went out for the papers, told her I'd be back by noon. Ya I left with nothing but the thought you'd be there too...looking for you. Ya... I left with nothing, nothing but the thought of you... I went wandering. "

This is one of my favorite songs by the one-and-the-only, man-in-black, Mr. Johnny Cash on lead vocals, and Bono and U2 backing him up.

I don't know about you but "I went out walking with a bible and a gun" is a dream I've had more than once, these days more than ever.

I'd like to see Obama do as McCain promised, and appoint to members of his panel at least a few republicans -- including Lieberman, Guliani, McCain, Huckabee, Gingrich. I doubt if he will do so. But who cares what I think.

What do you think?

Today's news headlines reveal a few things and I'd like to get your take on it.

Not unlike other new president-elects, Obama is not going to delay making an impact via the use of his executive powers. According to the Associated Press, Obama's transition chief [Podesta] says Obama is now reviewing President Bush's executive orders on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas. Questions: 

1. Do you agree that he should take action immediately following his inaugeration?
2. If so, do you agree with his potential reversal of these two Bush administration policies?
3. If not, why not?
4. Do you think Obama is wanting to take these immediate actions only because he can [as president], or because these actions are a way for him to prove to his voters that he means business [that his promises of change were not just empty promises]? 
5. Of all the promised changes he made during the campaign, what top 2 changes are you most interested in seeing Obama tackle during the first 100 days?

Before I reveal my answers, first let's reveal my position -- I'm a fiscal conservative yet an independent voter but campaigned and voted for McCain; I vehemently opposed Obama and almost everything he stands for, advocated or promised to do. But not unlike McCain, I will reach across the aisle and try to support him. My answers:  

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes on both issues. I understand conservatives' mindset in regards to both issues -- domestic drilling in Alaska and off the coast makes sense on one hand and yet, on the very same hand, it doesn't make a damn bit of sense. I favor more drilling off our coasts because we are already doing so; however, I oppose drilling in Alaska due to the environmental impact on unspoiled lands. Frankly, even if we could tap desposits immediately, without millions of dollars in investment nor decades of drilling, I'd still oppose drilling in Alaska. And even if tapping these supplies could end our reliance on foreign oil, I'd still oppose oil exploration in Alaska. As for the stem cell issue, I agree that embroyonic destruction for medical research is a slippery slope from an ethical and moral standpoint. If you are pro-stem cell harvesting, on one hand, you're asking scientists to play God. Then again, medical researchers already do play God. Medicine is research based -- always has been and always will be. Plus, we exploit nature and animals; and so why not include our own cells in that mix? If stem cell research offers a scant chance -- even a 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th chance -- of finding cures for cancers, multiple scelorsis, spinal cord injuries and all other conditions, why not do it.

Q3: N/A.

Q4: Sure he can take immediate executive action as the new president, an authority he'll have immediately upon inaugeration, without having to get congressional permission. But I don't think he's taking these two actions into consideration only because "he can and has the power and wants to prove something." I think he wants to take these actions for at least 2 primary reasons: First, not unlike any other president, Obama's efficacy will be demonstrated in the first 100 days in office. It will be important for him to get out of the gate quickly and get under his new belt, at least a couple of victories that are easy to achieve; and these achievements will communicate to his voters that he is living up to his promises for making changes. If this proves to be correct, I would have to say that Obama is smart for tackling these two issues first. Then again, these two issues represent opportunities that do not require him to have a specific, itemized plan of attack. All he need do is reverse the Bush orders. And because Obama is a man who talks the talk but lacks a plan that walks the walk, the only choices he has would seem to be changes that do not require much thought nor effort.

Q5: As a non-supporter, I have a "top 2" issues that I don't want to see Obama tackle: [1] A tax cut for "95% of Americans" -- even though I am among the 95% of people who will supposedly get a $500 to $1000 check, I don't want what I have not earned. And I sure as hell do not want everyone who is on welfare and not working,  nor paying any taxes, to get what they have not earned. None of the 95% of Americans have earned yet another free government-provided -- taxpayer subsidized -- benefit. Only one group of Americans have earned money from the government: women and men in uniform who have served in a combat setting since 2001.   

[2] A three-way tie between the promise of healthcare insurance for everyone, withdrawal from Iraq and slashing DOD expenses which will weaken our military not unlike what happened under Clinton's  watch.

Had we had a healthy DOD budget in 1995 through 1998, when CIA operatives twice discovered the cave where Osama Bin Ladin was hiding, we could have taken him out by cruise missle and literally prevented 9-11 -- and prevented the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and prevented thousands of Americans' deaths -- and prevented the billions and billions of dollars being spent on these activities. 

If I could feed Obama one idea for one thing more for him to focus on during his first 100 days, it would be producing for the American people, an itemized list of exactly where that $740 billion bailout went to the financial industry -- and why AIG has been given an additional $40 million just in the last 24 hours. 

Obama is now part of the "government" he has opposed pre-Nov 4th and must be held by the same harsh standards as Bush has been held to -- namely, that as president, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. No middle ground. Yet the liberal media will not press him to cease all of those worthless generalities -- on what his plans consist of and where the money will come from to fund his promises.

I think my answers to reveal my independent mindset and openness to what Obama is striving for, even though I didn't favor him. I give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that he indeed can pull the two parties together; and at the same time, pull himself towards the middle of the democratic mindset -- away from the far left liberal side.

Caution: Long Harsh Rant Ahead -- Rough Draft, Unedited -- Read At Your Own Risk. Note: This is my new policy on political blog posts: Posts are written to get something off my mind; posts are not written to please you, nor to agree with the liberal mindset [a mental disorder, according to Michael Savage; and according to me, due to dependency on others versus oneself]

Not unlike other fiscal conservatives, these post-election days have found me feeling somewhat depressed and more important, concerned about what the future holds and the direction our country will take.

As a small business owner the election results have already impacted my business -- and knowing other small business owners and a handful of CEOs and other senior corporate executives, I can attest their companies are also bracing for the worst.

What does that mean? It means we're putting our business expansion plans on hold. It means we are putting our talent recruitment plans on hold. It means we are now looking to cut costs across-the-board not unlike large, Fortune 500 corporations do -- by hiring high-priced CPAs to handle our finances, by taking advantage of every single government loop-hole out there and frankly....

Offshoring in two areas -- establishing an office overseas rather than doing so here [in Illinois]; and instead of recruiting local talent for our business development [expansion] plans, which we would do under a fiscal conservative, we are looking into offshoring these talent recruitment needs as well.

Be it Ireland, India or Canada, the cost savings will be huge. Why is cost control so important for businesses? Unlike the lower socioeconomic classes -- 100% of whom voted for Obama -- we business owners in the middle-class pay enormous taxes.

Unlike the large corporations we small businesses do not have S-corp or C-corp legal status; and so we cannot hide from the taxman. As a small business, federal and state taxes combined eat almost 50-percent of every dollar -- 50% of every dollar! Imagine your own tax rate being that high. You too would want to cut every cost possible; and conserve and save every cent possible.

And since few people have this awareness of what small businesses deal with in terms of expenses, let me make it clear -- the State of Missouri and federal government both expects [demands and requires] that money is given to them first, and off-the-top. Taxes are paid before any other expenses are paid. That leaves only 50-percent to pay for everything a business needs including its employees and their benefits.

Of these remaining 50% of revenues a business must pay 100% of its bills including all of the compensation packages -- salary and all benefits and other perks -- to employees including owners, management and workers at all levels. Not to mention all of their other expenses, as well as costs for innovation, technology, increased customer services, etc.

This leaves scant  profitability. And this under the Bush Administration! And since small businesses [that are not an S-corp nor C-corp] are paying 50% of all revenues in taxes, and Bush is a so-called conservative, what the hell can we expect from Obama? 

All of the spending promised by Obama during his campaign -- ie, earmarks -- have to come from somewhere. He cannot provide government-funded "healthcare insurance for every American" and "send every child to college" -- and "rebuild and invest in the infrastructure for America's roads and bridges [transportation]" -- nor do any, much less all, of the other things he freely promoted and promised to provide if he were elected -- without raising taxes! You can only "tax the rich" so much. To do everything he has promised requires raising taxes on individuals and businesses.

Prior to the election he promoted "ending the war in Iraq" and then, using those saved monies to fund his exponentially liberal spending interests. But the war in Iraq is not one of those "quick fixes" -- and no matter how much we wish it could be ended and the war reversed, and all of those billions of dollars freed to fund other things, it is just not going to happen -- because it's not realistic nor feasible. And so where is that money -- those trillions of dollars required to fund all of his promises and earmarks -- going to come from? If you really think that the 2-to-5% of Americans who will see a tax increase are going to contribute enough money to cover Obama's spending, I suggest that you do a google search on "economics 101." Only an idiot would think that's possible.

Speaking of Obama's Iraq plans, did you notice how he's already changed his mind? Immediately after the election -- on November 5th -- he came out with a revision on his Iraq withdrawal plan, one that is not too different from what McCain promoted. And a liberal-minded cable news program [CNN] reported this. 

And so that pre-election talk of his about using the money from having ended the Iraq war spending was just that: nothing but pre-election talk -- and not unlike marketing hype and slick sales copy, this is the first bit of evidence [source: CNN] that Obama has been deceptive and worse, he will not have the funds to cover the costs of his promises.

He will either have to break those promises and move toward the middle-of-the-road in regards to spending -- becoming a moderate democrat rather than stay put as a far-left liberal loon -- which will be yet another round of deceptions/ mis-truths/ lying during his campaign so as to persuade voters to "trust him" -- and in the process, suspend and/or completely reverse his plans for all of these new government-funded initiatives -- or,  should he not move toward the middle-of-the-road, nor suspend nor reverse his spending initiatives, all of that money to fund all of those promises is going to have to come from somewhere. And let's face it, not even a higher tax on wealthy Americans is going to supply that much money. There will be a higher tax levied on everything and everyone, beginning with businesses -- all businesses, and especially small businesses because in every market the number of small businesses drastically outnumbers the large corporations. 

Take the Greater St. Louis Metropolitan Region, for example. According to the Regional Chamber and Growth Association (RCGA), only about 6% of St.Louis-area businesses are large corporations [S-corp or C-corp] -- just a few hundred of them. 84% of businesses are small to mid-size companies. And the sum of these small businesses employ far more people than the large corporations combined. 

The point: it's not the large companies and their deep pockets that will pay for Obama's plans. It's the small businesses and their shallow pockets that will be picking up the tab for all the spending. And given our taxes are already high -- 50% of all revenues -- and that's under a republican administration, we can bank on having to pay even more money to the government under a democratic administration; and having to pay astronomical sums of money to a liberal administration.

Only an idiot or a person who flunked out of 5th grade math would not be able to grasp these simple, ultra basic -- economics 101 -- fundamentals.  Of course, then again, the lower socioeconomic classes do not work; have not graduated high school, much less college; may lack a GED; thus, have no clue how to add and subtract. Evidence shows [Fox News] a majority of these folks do not pay taxes because they do not hold a job; and are on welfare and thus, are taking money from taxpayers -- people who do have jobs; people who work hard to earn their money; and from businesses/ employers who pay the bulk of America's taxes.

And so, these lower class Obama voters do not contribute to America's economic strength nor financial viability -- instead they stand there sit there with their hand held out looking for free stuff from the government [which comes from our hard-earned money; which comes from our own sacrifices and investments] -- want more and more and more and more! But of course! Who wouldn't in their situation! Their situation being a 100% self-imposed situation where you are rewarded [by government] for making no contribution whatsoever. Oh wait. These folks do make a contribution to America's pandemic obesity and adverse health crisis. 

And to bail them out of their own poor decision making in regards to their own health and fitness -- or lack thereof -- of course they want free healthcare insurance! Who wouldn't want things free? I'll tell you who. Those people who are self reliant, that's who. Those people who do not rely on government, that's who. Those people who are not on welfare nor food stamps nor section 8 housing in nice neighborhoods for dirt cheap rent. 

Only those people understand that progress and betterment and improvement -- be it their own health, fitness and wellness, or their earning power and wealth --  is born from self sacrifice and investment in oneself -- sacrifice and investment of money and energy and effort and time that is measured in months or years, if not decades. We don't demand handouts nor sit on our asses expecting hand-outs. We work.

We work long hours. Do you think the people -- myself included -- like working 12 hour shifts or 16 to 18-hour days? I think it's safe to say that we all would love to live the "Lotto Winner's Lifestyle" -- whereby you do absolutely nothing and yet have money in the bank. Sadly, a great many people -- 100% of whom just so happen to be liberals -- erroneously think that people like Donald Trump -- or August Busch III, Andy Taylor, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Marc Cuban, Kirk Kerkorian and all other wealthy CEOs and investors -- owe them [the liberals] opportunities for living this kind of life and lifestyle whereby they are given whatever they want, demand and expect, without having to invest a dime or any of their own time. Nor make any sacrifices whatsoever.

The typical Obama voter is a taker. Not a giver. Vice president-elect Joe Biden is a perfect example. He contributes less than 1/100th of his annual income to non-profits. I believe and history provides some evidence here, that if all the wealth were indeed collected and then, distributed to those who did nothing to earn it, those same people would not part with their "new money" with anyone -- they'd not share it to their fellow man. They expect that additional money to also come from the same sources that "gave them" theirs. Those takers would not become givers. Takers are always takers. Period.  

Back to my initial rant -- we buisnesses are now playing a wait-and-see game. Holding back and hoping Obama doesn't make us pay even more taxes than we already pay -- and looking for and making cuts in any and all areas right now. 

Because folks have elected a president who's out to punish the folks who've made great sacrifices and investments from their own pocket to get where they are, I will try to adopt the same mindset and sense of entitlement -- and attempt to do as little as possible, yet reap maximum benefit. If Obama covers the costs for healthcare insurance and I am paying $6500 per year for my own coverage, why bother to continue to do so? Given the government is going to cover that cost why pay for it out of my own pocket? Instead of contributing money to scholarship funds for youth, why bother continue doing so? The government is going to pay for college. Instead of expanding business in the U.S. why not do as other, much larger companies are doing, and expand overseas where the taxes are exponentially less, and where the labor is high quality yet less costly? Instead of looking to relocate elsewhere in Missouri, why not relocate to a state that requires no income taxes -- like Nevada or Florida? Instead of hiring people for mutual benefit, and paying them well, why not pay them a minimum wage and cut their benefits, and have the government take care of those costs. All of those and more will keep more of our -- we business owners' -- hard-earned money in our own pockets.

America is not a socialist country. But if Obama gets his way -- and the democratic controlled congress makes his pre-election promises come true -- that's exactly what this country will be -- a socialist republic. 

That said, even though my team lost the championship game, not unlike any true winner and good sportsman, I salute the winner for having won. But in this case, I cannot salute the man himself nor his campaign team and cabinet. I will however give him the same chance any and every other president gets -- the 1st 100 days in office will be an indicator of what we can expect. 

This paragraph was pulled from this morning's AOL home page for the "news of the day" -- as you read this, ask yourself these questions: Would you want your full name and city and photograph printed in any media -- attached to a revelation such as this about you? Or about your mother? Or your sister? Or your wife? Or any woman whom you know and love and care about -- and whose health, safety and well-being is of concern.

Here is the paragraph -- cut/pasted verbatum from the AOL main news page:

"Marcelle Uptain of Milton, Fla., ... 'I have a little steel box with a key [in my home closet] and I was thinking about taking [all my savings from] my checking account out and putting it in there,' said Uptain, 83."

The story is on how hard the elderly are affected by the economy. The same economy that is hitting most of us hard -- including the many crooks, criminals, con artists and other creeps out there waiting and actively looking for any opportunity.

These stupid, moronic journalists and their equally-moronic editors and publishers piss me off at times. This being one of them. What about you?

What do you make of stories such as this -- in which a journalist puts in print for all to see, very personal things that should remain private and must be protected?  

According to the Associated Press, a Saugatuck, Michigan businessman "was so frustrated with the condition of a public bathroom [in the western Michigan tourist town] that he cleaned it himself -- and billed the city for $156.00."

Steven Oswald's customers complained to him about the filth in this bathroom and having checked it out himself, he agreed. He called the city but the city manager -- ie, city administrator -- defended his city's cleaning policy, and refused to send an employee out to clean the facilities.

So, Mr. Oswald cleaned the bathrooms himself -- not only spending his own time, 45-minutes worth of his own time, but spending his own dime. He bought all of the supplies and cleaning agents used. And he cleaned and disinfected both of these public bathrooms -- and did the same thing that I would do -- and have done! -- namely, send a bill to the city!  However, the city's administrative council is not sure whether or not they'll pay him. In my opinion, they'd better pay him! -- and probably will pay him. What say you? Frankly, had I cleaned those bathrooms I would have billed the city for a lot more money than $156.00! Why? Consider the outcome.

His work helped the people who were visting -- and spending their money in that city -- and his efforts benefitted them in two key ways: [1] By taking action on their behalf, he demonstrated that he cared about their interests, concerns and needs. In essence, he gave a damn! And when people give a damn, it's invaluable. [2] A filthy  bathroom is a serious public health issue. Research shows that both hepatitis A, B and C remain active for a very long time -- Hep A is a food-borne virus that is spread by fecal material; Hep B and C viral particals are spread by blood and bodily fluids, including fecal material  Since most people do not wash their hands after using the bathroom, these contaminants are everywhere -- door knobs, toilet seats and handles, sinks, stall doors, towel dispensers, etc. 

Fecal material may be -- and often is -- also full of other viral and bacterial and pathogenic elements including e.coli and salmonella and shigella, etc.

So Oswald improved the city's perception -- after all, just imagine if you were one of the people who complained. This person listened to you and took your concerns to heart, and acted in your own best interests -- at his own expense. Not only did that benefit the city -- and it's image [as a place that cares about tourists and residents' health and well-being], it saved the city a tremendous amount of money.

Given the city relies on tourism -- and tourists spend money -- and tourism is a big businesss, and an industry worth spending money to protect, Oswald saved that city an exponential sum of money. Plus, he helped avert and prevent a potentially serious public health outbreak -- saving the city even more money.

And what price is all of that worth? I'll tell you what it's worth -- a hell of a lot more money than $156.00! Sure, you could argue that Mr. Oswald's initiative was a public service. But he went above and beyond -- and his fee is only for his time and dime. Had he billed as both a consultant and provider he could have billed based on the value he created. That fee would have been far more.

So my advice to the city of Saugatuck, Michigan is to pay him. Immediately. Before he reads my blog and realizes he grossly undervalued the value of his own efforts, and submits a different invoice. 

Have you ever done a "public service" such as this? If so, what did you do? Did you consider sending a bill to the city -- or to a corporation? If so, what was the outcome? 

On September 10, 2001 that heading -- Divided we stand; United we fall -- would have made no sense to anyone. People would have said "hey, you have that reversed; it's supposed to be "United we stand; Divided we fall." The tragic events of the following day changed everything. On September 11th we learned a lot -- about ourselves; as individuals and as Americans. One thing learned is...

In this country we do not stand united. We are united only when we fall -- and we are united for only a short time after we fall. Then, just a short time later, once the dust settles, it's back to business as usual -- namely, conflict and more conflict. Day-after-day-after-day. People everywhere are in conflict.

There is conflict within familes. Conflict within communities. People have conflict within their own mind. There is conflict among persons of the same race and ethnicity. There is conflict within all of the political parties. We have conflict in workplaces. Conflict is everywhere. Today, more than ever.

Sure, conflict was alive-and-well before 9-11 but that day made us all acutely aware of it. Before 9-11 we thought we were a united United States but perception is not always reality. It took a horrendous tragedy to get us aligned and united. First, it was 9-11. Then, Katrina. Next, it will probably be within the next week courtesy of Ike.

But our unity only lasts a short while. Then, in its place comes even more conflict than before. On and after 9-11 we were united in our horror and anger including to whom our fingers-of-rath pointed toward. That quickly changed. A similar pattern revealed itself in the wake of Katrina. Will Ike yield the same? We'll know soon enough.  

Despite its weaknesses our country remains strong. We must bolster and build on our strengths -- and stop trying to strengthen our weaknesses; in the process, wasting money and losing opportunities to strengthen our strengths. If we continue as is...   

We're getting closer to the point were we're "divided as we stand; divided as we fall; and divided after we have fallen." Unity is evaporating; and when our unity is lost, so are we.  

Will our "disunity" threaten the unity that makes the United States the United States? -- Or is it reaching critical mass already -- ie, is it already underway? What can and must be done to reverse this trend?

Prior to the Republican National Convention, Barack Hussein Obama talked incessantly about John Sidney McCain. Now that the RNC is over, every time he [Obama] opens his mouth -- and voices disparaging remarks about or disdain for -- it is directed to Sarah Palin. Not McCain. 

This is not only very interesting. It is very telling -- for Obama's obsession with Palin reveals a great deal about his own character and his insecurities. Not to mention his prejudice towards caucasion women.

Listening to Barack Obama, it is very evident he is more threatened by vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin than his arch-rival [presidential candidate] McCain! His opponent for the presidency is McCain. Not Palin. How very interesting this is. After all, not all that long ago he poo-pooed another caucasion woman -- a woman who shares many, if not all, of the same traits and qualities as Sarah Palin. Obama ignored the strengths and value of having Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate.  

That's a pattern, folks. And that pattern -- Obama's feelings of superiority over women whom he perceives as being and, more important, whom are stronger and more competent than himself -- sheds insight on what you can expect from him.

Clearly, this dynamic offers proof Obama is threatened by women -- secure, strong, self assured, intelligent, independent, competent, confident, capable, self assured, christian, patriotic women with moral fiber. We already know that Ms. Obama lacks most, if not, all of these qualities -- courtesy of Michelle Obama's own words. She's a black woman with a chip on her shoulder; a woman who sat next to her husband for years in "Reverend" Wright's congregation, shouting "Amen" -- voicing agreement -- to the hate speech directed to caucasions. Including during the 8 years the Clinton's lived in the White House.  

So the way I see it, Obama now has two very serious strikes against him -- and each of these strikes is on a zero tolerance issue; and to have 2 strikes against oneself is very telling -- actions and choices reveals a man's inner self -- namely, Obama's true colors in regards to how he TRULY feels and thinks about women, and what his REAL values are. Whether a man is a democrat or republican, you have to ask yourself just one question: Do we really want our President of the United States to favor only those individuals whom he sees as being weaker than himself?

I think not. 

Women in this country are finally getting it -- Obama has dealt, what to them is, the last straw -- and they are "mad as hell and not willing to take it anymore" -- and rightly so. McCain's jump in the polls is attributed, in large part, to this factor. Women in this country have suffered just as much as African Americans; however, unlike blacks, women continue to get the short end of the stick.

And for women to see one of their own be treated with such disespect and disdain -- by a U.S. presidential candidate -- is reprehensible and unacceptable and unforgiveable. Not only has Mr. AND Mrs. Obama revealed their true colors, their words have sealed their fate. And this is it for him. In 2012, you can bank on a woman presidential nominee from the DNC. It will be the only way the DNC can hope to win the White House.  

Another reason Obama is threatened is because of the Republican Party's marketing of Sarah Palin as a reformer who can bring change to Washington. Obama talks the talk -- of change and reform. But McCain -- and Palin -- have walked the walk. And talk is cheap. What counts is action. BOTH of the The RNC's nominees have that record.

So, of course, Obama is scared! And rightly so. All he does is talk trash. Whereas both of his challengers have actually done it -- driven change and fought their own party and sought reform. A track record talks and bullcrap walks.

Go Sarah Palin, go! 

RE: Illegal Aliens

I say get rid of them -- 100% of them. Deport them. Imprison them. Kill them -- that is, those who commit violent crimes against those of us who are here legally. Whatever it takes to get them out of this country, just do it. I don't care how. Just do it. Enforce the goddamn laws we have in this country that protects the integrity of the country and protects the Americans who are here legally -- who do, for most part, respect and honor the laws on the books. I know what you're thinking. If there are fewer -- or no -- illegal aliens then who will do the work that "Americans are not willing to do?"

Hogwash. Take a look at who is cramming that message down your mental throat. The politicians and majority shareholders -- and executives -- of big businesses that's who. The more you believe that c-r-a-p, the more those bastards feel justified. Make no mistake, Americans would take these jobs if the employers treated them with respect, including paying them at least the minimum wage and benefits.

Because the companies only want to pay -- and are allowed to only pay -- workers $2.50 per hour -- and require 12 to 14 hour shifts with no lunch breaks -- and pay no benefits -- they cannot find Americans willing to work in those jobs. Gee I wonder why. Guess what. The CEO and management in that same company will earn 20 to 50 times as much as one of these workers. And so, is it any surprise that no self-respecting American would have interest in taking such a job? Ladies and gentlemen the point is simple: This is NOT an issue of "Americans are not willing to do the jobs illegal aliens are doing." This is -- and only is -- and issue of Americans are not willing to tolerate sub-standard working conditions -- nor sub-standard compensation. Period.

It's the latter that gives corporate executives -- of Fortune 1000 corporations and large, private corporations -- and other millionaire shareholders investing in these companies -- their money and wealth. The less they pay out in labor costs, the more money they collect and keep in their 401ks and the more value that accrues in their stock.

So it's not an issue of Americans will not take the jobs performed by illegal aliens. But let's pretend for a moment it's true -- that Americans don't want -- and will not work in the -- jobs that illegal aliens perform in this country. So what if those "jobs" go unfilled. I say so damn what if the businesses -- "that rely on illegal labor" -- are forced to shut down. However, bankruptcy is not even likely to occur. More times than not these companies will only have to adapt and become more efficient in their processes.

Innovation is always driven by a need to do things differently. So these businesses will have opportunities to create and engineer new systems and processes and will have to find and administer leaner strategies. Opportunities they now have but choose to ignore taking advantage of. Why? Because these companies prefer taking the easy road -- if they find workers willing to work for $2.50 an hour without benefits and other compensation, they need not have to do anything any differently.

And if they need not do anything any differently, well, they make even more money than the money they are already making from not having to pay a higher wage and benefits. It's called a scam folks. And it's pushed by the politicians that support this -- be it through amnesty plans or a policy of keeping the borders open -- primarily because these same politicians -- both (D) and (R) politicians -- are getting financial incentives from the big corporations that are benefitting financially from the hiring of these illegal aliens.

It's fraud -- and deception -- of the American worker -- and individual and family.  

So what if the big business' shareholders -- and executives -- have to take a hit and earn less stock dividends. So what if the business has to get more efficient or downsize or go out of business. That requirement to adapt and change is good for them and us. We the people have to adapt and change whether we like it or not. So why then are big businesses given such a break? Money. That's why.

All of that money saved and earned by these big companies -- doing the hiring of these illegal workers -- is lining the wallets of the politicians and executives and shareholders. Not unlike the fat that lines their arteries. 

And here's another -- very related -- matter. There are many small companies that face the same labor shortages in the same markets served by the big businesses -- or in other markets where there are no illegal aliens.

Guess what happens when those companies cannot recruit enough workers? They are forced to get more efficient or downsize or go out of business.

So let every other damn business have to do the same, especially Fortune 500 and large private corporations. Tyson Foods, for example, has been busted for hiring thousands of illegal aliens. Large construction companies do the same. In my opinion, based on what I see, there are certain municipalities in St. Louis County that seem to draw -- and are becoming a mecca for -- Mexicans, many of whom are here without a green card.

There are some communities in our region with a significant number of Mexican-owned businesses. These same communities have hundreds of single-family dwellings that are occupied by multiple families -- dozens of people living under one roof is the norm in Mexico and among Mexicans living in America. This practice is what creates a breeding ground for infectious and communicable diseases -- and is why we have a resurgence of tuberculosis -- among other highly contagious diseases -- in this country.

This is an altogether different issue of a public health and safety nature. But then again, not really -- after all, the political and business practice of allowing and welcoming and nurturing relations with illegal aliens in this country forces us to have to deal with 100-percent of these issues that exist only because of the presence of illegal aliens.

The practice of hiring them -- and paying them so low -- exacerbates the issue because it forces them to HAVE to live as a large group under one roof. 12 illegal aliens living together, each working at $2.50 an hour can pool their money. Despite their illegal status the banks and credit unions and mortagage brokers are lending them money.  It's a major issue that extends well beyond the border and beyond the issue of jobs.

These municipalities welcoming illegal aliens with open arms should face the same scrutiny as any business doing the same -- if not more. And one more thing about these big businesses doing the hiring of illegal aliens: They are getting a huge unfair edge over their competition -- namely, small businesses. Small businesses lack the resources that big businesses have at their disposal. Small firms cannot retain top-notch attorneys and CPAs who are responsible for -- and are often hired specifically and only for -- finding or manufacturing or developing or exploiting the loopholes in corporate and labor laws that allow them [the businesses] to do whatever it wants to do. Small businesses don't have the money to have lobbyists either. And so small businesses are not unlike Americans -- they are all getting screwed just the same. 

Yet small businesses employ more people than all of the large corporations combined. And small businesses drive the economy. The politicians always commend the small businesses in their speeches and press conferences. Yet it's BS. They could care less about small business. They favor big business and their big money going into their own big pockets. The corporations act as a corporate bank for them -- they feed them money; they probably literally have a "kitty" set up on the side with the politicians' name on it.

Bottom line, if someone is here illegally get rid of them. If they're on the border and causing trouble get rid of them by killing them. Otherwise you'll end up in court and your family will have to listen to the illegal alien lying in their testimonial against you. 

What say you?

How do you think and feel about the illegal alien situation in this country?

Are you seeing increasing numbers of Hispanics -- and multiple Hispanic families living under one roof -- throughout our region?  

Do you support Senator McCain's "amnesty for illegal aliens" plan?

And what about Obama's plan -- do you support it? I don't even know what it is.

P.S. Just for the record, we're not talking about "Mexicans" -- nor people from any other country -- who are here in this country legally. The discussion here is about the legality of these illegal aliens -- irrelevant of where they are from. And so this is not a racist issue nor an attack against a certain country. This issue is a legal issue. Period.

And the problem is an all-American problem -- born from decades of PC [political correctness] BS and people in positions of power in politics having no balls.

In January 2007 two U.S. Border Patrol agents were each found guilty and sentenced to prison terms of more than 10 years duration each -- Agent Ramos was sentenced to 11 years; Agent Compean received 12 years -- as a result of an incident that occured at the border -- on U.S. soil -- on their watch [during duty]. The incident conisted of an armed conflict between these two U.S. Border Patrol agents and Illegal Alien Drug Smugglers [IADS] -- along a section of the border that is notorious for firefights between the two parties.

The IADS -- armed with AK-47s and other automatic high-powered weaponry -- and carrying millions of dollars worth of drugs -- were intercepted on American soil by the two U.S. Border Patrol agents -- each armed with only a service revolver.  The agents shot one of the IADS and that is what they were tried in court for -- or more specifically,  prosecuted by an American attorney for having "illegally" fired their weapon.  

The prosecutor actually had the IADS -- who was shot -- testify against the two U.S. Border Patrol agents -- and of course [duh] he denied the agents' version of the events leading up to and during the armed conflict between them. Guess what. Mr jackass -- the prosecutor -- refused to allow the jury to hear about the history of this particular scumbag -- he is an illegal alien who has had previous armed conflicts at the same area along the border including incidents involving other U.S. Border Patrol agents. But the jury wasn't informed; the jury ASSUMED this was the first offense committed by a model Mexican citizen. And so the jury ruled in favor of the prosecutor. Giving the two men prison terms  and in prison is where they've been for more than 18 months. Away from their families and their children and their lives. Imagine that. All for having done their job.

I first learned about this case well over a year ago on Glenn Beck's radio program and then a few months later, on his cable TV news program. The newest piece of the puzzle is that the IADS who was shot has been on trial lately and the jury handed down his sentence today. Guess what. The jury gave the drug smuggler scumbag less time in prison than either U.S. Border Patrol agent.

Agents who were just doing their job -- namely, protecting American soil from low-life scumbags and smugglers like him. What those agents did wrong -- the only thing they did wrong -- was leave him breathing. And so the take-away lesson here is nothing new for most of us. For the rest of you, that lesson is simply this: Should you ever -- ever -- find yourself in a situation with another party who is intent on doing harm to you or your family or friends -- be it with a gun or knife or any other weapon -- kill them. Kill them outright or wound them, then kill them. Do not leave them breathing.

Throughout these 18 months -- of Ramos' and Compean's prison sentence -- at least 75 members of Congress have expressed outrage for both the prosecution and sentencing of these agents. These Congressmen and women submitted a letter -- bearing all of their names -- imploring President Bush to pardon these agents or at very least, commute their sentences, effective immediately. But...

President Bush has done nothing. Nor has the White House even acknowledged the letter from Congress. But in all fairness it is key to remember this issue is 18-months old -- and both McCain and Obama are Senators in the same House of Congress that circulated this letter. Yet the list evidently does not contain their names. So you mean to tell me that neither Senator and Presidential Candidate have taken a stand on this issue? Excuse me? It's sickening but not surprising.  

 What say you?   

Here are my arguments -- followed by a few additional -- related -- issues near the end.

• First and foremost, U.S. Border Patrol agents are paid to patrol -- and defend -- the U.S. Border. How could their role and mission and purpose be any less clear? Not unlike all of the agents serving on the Border Patrol, these two guys were -- and in my opinion still are -- law enforcement officers. And LEOs in this country take an oath to "protect and serve" the American public. That's exactly what they were doing! 

• Second, this scumbag was and is an illegal alien. Not unlike the other million or so illegal aliens in this country -- bringing in all kinds of infectious diseases from their third-world countries and flooding our hospital ERs -- he had no business on U.S. soil -- with or without a gun; with or without drugs, he was here illegally and should be forced to face whatever negative consequences may arise to onself as a result. Imagine what may come of you if you were to do a similar act on foreign soil. Hell, just the act of drug smuggling alone will put you away from the light of day in another country, they sure as hell would not put you on the stand to testify against their own police. If you doubt this, rent the movie Midnight Express. It's a true story -- and a damn good movie.

• Third, it was the illegal scumbag who chose to engage in armed conflict -- rather than "halt" as ordered -- and his weapon was an automatic assualt rifle of all things.

What a message to send to the Mexicans and other illegal bastards from other countries crossing over onto our soil. That message being "hey, come on over the border with your drugs and weapons anytime and have your way with us; do whatever you want to do and we'll let you do it -- not even our own LEOs will resist you nor ask your name." What a joke.

P.S. The Rant Continues

With all due respect to the U.S. Border Patrol, why even bother? Clearly, this is a precedent -- and if this is the way it's going to be, why bother -- why bother trying to enforce laws? The trend is alarming -- the laws we have on the books in this country mean nothing and will not be enforced -- at all -- nor for the benefit of Americans -- hell, instead our laws are put in force against us, for the benefit of the illegal alien drug smugglers and the Columbian and South American cartels whom they work for. And so who in their right mind has faith in the laws and the co-called justice system? I sure as hell don't. What about you?

Bottom line, why bother having law enforcement officers if the laws are not going to be enforced? And since I'm on this rant about "laws" and "justice" who in their right mind would want to serve in a law enforcement capacity? I mean, hell, if a person is in this country illegally, they are in violation of the laws! Yet LEOs can do nothing.

No wonder they all stand around at QT talking to the clerks or the Wonder Bread delivery driver -- and anyone else who may listen -- drinking their free coffee -- and eating their free corndogs and donuts. If they do anything else -- for example, law enforcement -- they may face getting their badge taken away if not jail time.

One thing is certain: Had a QT been at the U.S Border where this incident occurred Ramos and Compean would still be there -- on duty at the border -- right now.  

It's official. The Green Bay Packers have traded superstar QB Brett Favre to the New York Jets. In my opinion, this issue transcends sports. The root issue here has nothing to do with sports nor football. It's about respect...loyalty...integrity. Favre and his family have been dissed by the Green Bay Packers' management. How pathetic. I am glad he's taken it like a man and refused to tolerate that bullcrap. 

Now we know that it was the Packers' GM who rushed Favre's decision to retire -- and it was he who planted mistruths in the media. All that crap that Favre supposedly told the Packers, in the off-season and pre-season, was just that -- c-r-a-p. Then there's the issue of telling the 3-time NFL MVP -- the only player in the history of the sport with that honor -- "hey, if you want to play for us again you'll have to compete for your position with a junior player." Ya right. Imagine Marshall Faulk being told by the Rams' GM -- in the pre-season following his retirement -- "sure, you're welcome back but you'll first have to prove yourself as being worthy." A superstar player and future hall of famer -- wearing a Super Bowl ring -- told he'd have to compete for a role he's held -- without equal -- for years; and to have to compete with an unproven -- and untested -- junior-level player. Uh huh. Sure.

What an insult. That on top of the lack of integrity and lack of loyalty and lack of respect shown to such a player -- and person -- as Favre. The Pack GM is the one to ditch.

I don't know about you but I believe the Packers will regret that decision. The opposite applies in New York City -- Favre is a good fit for that team and they're hungry for a player like Favre. They've been wanting a QB of that caliber ever since Joe Namath left.

Don't know about you but I am looking foward to seeing those Jets games. More so than I am looking forward to the Rams games since Isaac Bruce is gone and Jackson is not likely to play. The Rams leave nothing to look forward to.   

I would bet the Jets win their opener and will give the Patriots a run for their money in game #2 -- they will not beat Tom Brady and Bill Bigocheat but it will be a good game. Like the Rams, the Pack will lose most of their games starting with the 1st one.

Who will have the better season -- the Jets or the Pack or the Rams?

Attention Fox2 IT Department: One of your humble bloggers has a [sarcastic] question:

Why oh why is the word crap a censored word on the blogs?!

Crap is not a bad word! In fact, crap is a very common word that is often said by people who don't even say any curse words at all. Ever! So, for these people, the word "crap" is their only outlet for expressing frustration or making an exclamation.  

I mean crap, these people who say crap are saying crap because they don't say the other -- more offensive -- words that take the place of crap -- be it BLEEP or BLEEP or mother BLEEP or son of a BLEEP. Furthermore, please explain this to me: how come I can say god damn and dammit-to-hell -- two words that are offensive to many, many people -- without censorship -- yet when I use the harmless word crap it gets censored? 

This -- Fox2 sensitivity with the word crap -- was just recently discovered. I had written a blog and used the word crap. In part because I didn't want to offend anyone had some other word been used. Since when is crap a bad word?! If you say crap during a church fellowship few people will take notice. Say the word god damn and every head will turn. 

So, why is crap -- oops, I mean c-r-a-p -- off-limits on the blogs? 

Crap was not one of George Carlin's dirty words. If one of our kids should say crap no parent will make them eat a bar of soap for it nor be counselled or grounded. If the kid says god damn it's a whole different ballgame. I would bet the pope even says it.

But what do I know. Maybe this crap about c-r-a-p is offensive to some. What about you. Are you offended by the word? 

My name is Cheetah and I am a Blogaholic.

Somehow, someway I need to set some limits. Problem is, limits are like rules and I tend to....um....walk outside the rule book. So what's the use.. why bother.

I wonder how many of us are future members of Internet Annoymous.

And of course we both know it's going to be an Internet-based group. That's like an Alcoholics Annonymous meeting being held at the bar during happy hour.  

1 thing I have learned is that I have developed some bad habits lately! Like putting c-r-a-p on my own and others' blogs instead of doing the many things that sit on my "must-do" -- and if I don't do it then my ass-is-in-trouble -- list.

Looking back over the last 25 or so years of adulthood -- or dare I admit it, semi-adulthood -- I cannot help but think of the things that I have done -- educational and professional accomplishments and achievements, personal successes, dreams converted from make-belief into reality, goals and objectives realized...

None of which would not have gotten done had I spent my limited time and energy playing on the Internet.  It's called an addiction.

If any of you are dream interpreters let's hear your take on this.  

Last night I had a horrifying dream. I was in some sort of a corridor with a cramped ceiling that had plants and branches immediately overhead, causing us to have to duck our heads now and then. I was the lead person and looking up, I saw what appeared to be the very tail end of a snake on a branch right overhead.

Then to my horror I saw the rest of the snake and what seemed to be a harmless black snake turned out to be a cobra and it was coming our way. I turned around to get the hell outta there but the other people were blocking my way. The snake's head was flared out and about to strike my face. It was at that very moment  when I probably let out a scream -- I don't remember!

But however it was I awoke, I did so in such a way that it scared the c-r-a-p out of my dog. She sleeps next to me -- yes, on the bed -- and when I came to she was barking at me like I was the mailman. Her ears were foward and her tail between her legs!  It either scared her or pissed her off -- or both!

I'm just glad neither of us wet the bed.

That tail of the snake looked exactly like a big rat snake I saw yesterday afternoon during my run in Creve Coeur Park. I almost stopped to pick it up -- a throwback to kidhood. I'm sure that's the reason for that part of the dream. The cobra aspect would seem to be some sort of warning but of what I have no idea.

Maybe it's a warning not to have that talk with my neighbor -- to ask her to please have some decency and keep her clothes on [and not have sex with her boyfriend] outside in broad daylight on their swimming pool deck. It's happened two days in a row.

Or maybe it's something else. Or is just yet another weird dream.  

Do you dream on a frequent basis?  Do you have nightmares? Do you remember your dreams? Have you ever walked in your sleep? Do you have lucid dreams?

I use to walk in my sleep as a kid -- and would even walk outside. Or maybe my mother is just making that up. Maybe she had dreams that I was having dreams of walking in my sleep. Who knows!