Elizabeth Warren, (D) for Senate, Mass. – House Flipping History Does not Square with Stump Speeches – Hypocrite?

Elizabeth Warren, Dem for MA Senate, (Against Scott Brown), shown with house she "flipped" in OK - image Boston Herald)


Elizabeth Warren appears to have a bit more family history that might not square with her “persona” as a “champion for the middle class” – The Boston Heraldreported that Warren and her Husband made huge profits off foreclosed properties in Oklahoma, and lent money to family members at high interest rates to boot. The woman who is being groomed by the Democrats as the “Next Barack Obama” (NYTimes-Multiple source), apparently has more hypocrisy in her history besides claims to have begun the Occupy movement (Shades of Al Gore), and her fiasco of a claim that she was part Cherokee, to the extent that it appeared to have given her a job at Harvard. The list goes on and on – making her one of on the biggest shysters to come down the Massachusetts Turnpike (see Big Dig) in a long time.

The problem with Warren, is not so much her ideology , which as progressive as the President, and every college professor in Massachusetts (with few exceptions), Warren is the typical bongo drumming, down with capitalism, up with the people, taxes are great, share the wealth nonsense everyone in the Bay State is used to hearing – and for the most part ignoring. – Of course, not everyone buys into the Progressive Democrat ideology – with booksellers to bakers from the East Coast to the Western Hills, using the moniker for cities such as Amherst and the entire Bay State – as the “People’s Republic”. The difference between those die-hard, tie-died liberal progressive Democrats is that they are sincere in their belief structure, having of background of bongo drumming and the occasional protest against whatever strikes their fancy at the moment. Even criminal Speakers of the Massachusetts House are so transparent, that they are normally indicted – Massachusetts politicians maybe a lot of things, but for the most part, they are essentially honest and have a past, criminal or otherwise, to back that up.
However, the more we learn about Elizabeth Warren, the more it appears as if she’s taken advantage of the programs and the systems in a way that would make most EBT Fraudsters proud – and to top it off, has an excuse, or press release – handy whenever the next shoe bomb falls. All in all, the whole lying about being a Cherokee to get ahead, and get federal student loans, and into specific colleges, and into jobs, fairly commonplace – and not such a big deal, on the face of it – so Elizabeth Warren lack integrity. The fact that she’s flipped houses, for profit, and then goes on an “Occupy Wall Street Rant” – classic do as I say, not as I do elitist Progressive fare. However, she continues to offer these press releases stating that it’s overblown – seriously.

Warren who runs ads that do not tie her in any way to the Democrat Party, rather attempt to make her appear as independent as possible to Massachusetts voters – are so lacking in depth that no one east of the Boston Globe, the Herald and the Mass DNC knows who she is and what she is running for – a recent Democrat Convention held in Springfield, MA was underpublicized, except in a local daily, and a few blubs on local news – the bulk of all Warren stories, good or bad, are coming from out-of-state.

That strategy is not going to work for Massachusetts, assuming that one will get the vote simply because one has a “D” in front of their name, especially when the incumbent, even though a Republican, is one Scott Brown – popular. It’s rather hard to find anyone who doesn’t know who Brown is – but on the other hand, it’s difficult to find anyone who knows show Warren is – even down to the Cherokee Nation – and for Warren – she’s got too much fodder on the table now to try and play coy – she’s a carpetbagger from Oklahoma who has splaining' to do about her “dubious” past, and even that might not work. However, in order for the DNC plan of turning her into the next Barack Obama, so they can achieve another historic 1st (1st women President), they need a springboard, so they are using Massachusetts as a way to get Elizabeth some credence. They should back another horse, find another state, and go for it, leaving Warren to fare for her. It’s going to be a huge waste of money and comparable to the attempts of the SEIU and Wisconsin Democrats to topple Scott Walker in a recall.

Why? Brown broke the mold – not the mold as in now everyone who is a Republican will get elected (although there are a few house seats that are going to be extremely competitive and could give the Congress a few more Republicans), but the mold that puts people in a mindset of “vote Democrat if you’re a Democrat” - Independents, if one must be reminded are the majority “party” in MA, and they no longer care if someone is “a friend of Barack Obama’s” or “A Kennedy”. Therefore, stand up Elizabeth be proud of your hypocritical land-flipping, your claims of being on the “Trail of Tears” (sarcasm), and anything else that might come up – (the Herald is most likely saving the better skeletons for September and October) – and run for a statehouse seat. You could then get elected to the Speaker of the House (just as good a platform for a woman, historically, in Massachusetts, and just as lucrative a job opportunity!) If all else fails, after the indictments are handed down, Warren could enjoy a massive state pensions then take to the airwaves, as a talk show host – maybe grab a spot next to Carr’s on WRKO.

As a feminist, one must realize that not every woman who comes down the pike (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York just to name a few turnpikes), is worth the vote. One must be discriminatory, when looking for someone who would represent not only the people, but women in general – as a first of anything, or as a Senator or elected official. It is imperative that the credentials be almost squeaky clean – maybe a blur, but not to the point of continued “revelations” of character flaws. Why? Women have a hard time being taken seriously, still earning less on a dollar despite multiple attempts dating from JFK forward to enact “Equal Pay Laws”, maligned for everything from biological to fashionable, women themselves eat their own (See Hillary Clinton, most qualified candidate in the past decade for President, thrown under the bus, by alleged “feminists”), so why would a flawed candidate believe for one minute that they would be qualified to not only take on the Senate, but stand for all American women? The danger in electing Warren isn’t that she’s incompetent, or that she stretches the truth, or that she’s a Progressive who sits at Obama’s right hand and has become his biggest Romney attack dog – the danger is that should she be elected, she’ll be the one all women are judged against, especially in Massachusetts – making it impossible or implausible that another woman running, even a competent woman would be able to make the grade. Is it Warren’s fault? Not entirely, it’s the DNC and their failure to completely vet; their arrogance in thinking that anyone they choose to be the Next Barack will just be so elite, no one would dare question their choice. (The DNC isn’t the only major party with that problem – See Scott Brown early election with the RNC stayed out of the race until it became glaringly apparent that here was a race and he had a snowballs chance in Hades that he just might win and make history.)

To recap, Warren is a lovely woman, grandmotherly, sweet, in her ads, but a tool none-the-less of the DNC, she has made at least one glaring hypocritical error, and of course, figured out how to best the system by being “American Indian” – perhaps thinking no one would buy her being another “minority”. Due to the benign ads, no one has a clue that she’s a Democrat – which might play in her favor, except she’s unknown and Brown is known – for doing a lot and working for the state. He may have those who disagree with him, especially within his own party, but that’s a non-starter. When name recognition is a problem, something is wrong – and for Warren to get her name out there, she’ll have to bring all the baggage with her – then the PAC ads will begin – and that will be the end of it.

Although polls show this to be a close race, one must recall the Massachusetts polls of the past, specifically with Scott Brown, where he was the underdog, by upwards to 15 points, 3 days before he won by 5. In Massachusetts, when one is known to be doing their job, Democrat or Republican, people remember, and instead of voting just because someone is of a certain prominent party, or in support of ObamaCare (the TAX), or in support of “middle class families, losing their homes”, while having flipped houses, one will vote for the Devil the know – rather that the Devil that they don’t.
It’s that simple.

Dissecting Massachusetts - The 2010 Mid-terms - From Dysfunctional to Viable – The State GOP and Baby Steps – Analysis

Jennifer Nassour, the Face of the Mass. GOP, image Massgopconvention.com

It began with the hope that Massachusetts would step forward and join the rest of the nation November 2, 2010 by electing Republicans to both state and congressional offices – it did not happen – reality is that change of that magnitude does not happen overnight. From the press, both local and national, to progressive community organizations, to a Democrat organization has roots in every possible nook and cranny in the State; the odds were stacked against the election of Scott Brown in January of 2010. When Brown won, against the odds, expectations for the GOP rose inside the state, however, from the outside, the pundits, specifically Beltway and the Massachusetts Press, continued to pound home the fact that Brown’s win was an anomaly and would most likely not be repeated. When the mid-terms steamrolled into November 2nd, the GOP losses were taken in stride by the press and the pundits, as if the State GOP and the Massachusetts electorate acted in a manner that was par for the course.

The celebratory Press touted the reelection of Democrats from the State and Federal offices without once acknowledging the fact that these incumbents had to fight for their positions, using every means available, the majority of them for the first time in decades. The adjectives used in the press regarding the State GOP were predictably negative and dismissive; most recently an article in the which speaks to the State GOP and finger pointing at party chair Jennifer Nassour .

Smoke and mirrors are in play at this point in the game, along with some local political maneuvering that is typical of any party when faced with a loss (GOP) and the possibility of a trend developing (State DNC and Press). One has to look realistically at the facts about what took place in Massachusetts during the past two years, to understand the magnitude of the state politics – it is far from business as usual – no matter how often the pundits, the press, and the majority party attempt to hammer home a growingly tired message.

This resurgence is said to have begun with Scott Brown and his election to the U.S. Senate in January, however, the truth of the matter is, there were individuals Republicans across the state who had already committed to running for offices (State and Federal) long before the Brown candidacy was announced. These individuals, along with the states individual conservatives, several of the Town and City Committees and a growing Tea Party movement, were specifically responsible for Browns win. What surprised many who had worked tirelessly for Brown’s campaign was how quickly his election was dismissed as an anomaly – these grassroots activists and candidates knew that it was just a beginning, and that, having grown tired of a State that was overburden with taxes and entitlement programs, and a deep seeded opposition party, the road to victory would be long and arduous. The State GOP’s convention in April was shockingly well attended, and the party atmosphere that pervaded was buoyed by the Brown win, a win that was the result of those activists, the majority of whom were not in attendance. The candidates who emerged from the convention to run for the State offices: Charlie Baker specifically, appeared to be more than capable of taking the Governor’s office and then summer barbeque's and visits with local GOP offices began, and despite the constant drumbeat of press releases from the State Party Chair, Jennifer Nassour, the press barely looked at Baker, instead focusing mainly on Patrick and Democrat turned Independent (for the election) Tim Cahill, if the race or any race were mentioned at all. Nassour one must understand, did not control the Baker Campaign, that was left to others, and reports from the South Coast suggest there was little effort put into that area from the beginning to the end on Nov. 2nd. Cahill, who took 8 points, (higher than any other independent running previously for Governor), was the key to Deval Patrick’s victory, and should have been minimized from the outset (Monday morning quarterbacking).

By the time September rolled around and the Commonwealth held its late primary contests, the candidates which emerged had little time to get out and amongst the electorate, raise funds and get out the “vote”. It was not that the electorate was apathetic; it was that Massachusetts was being touted nationwide as a state that was “safe democrat”, across the board. This sends a message that funds diverted to Massachusetts are basically wasted. One race did get national attention and that was the race in the 4th Congressional District, where Sean Bielat ran against a growingly annoyed Barney Frank; Bielat’s campaign did get the money necessary to mount a solid challenge, while the balance of the state’s federal and state challengers had to rely on individual in-state contributions and loans. What is most interesting however, and goes unmentioned is the fact that all 9 offices had to be defended, for the first time in decades, and that the usual 75% or more votes accumulated by Congressmen such as Frank, Neal and Tsongas, were reduced to 50plus% leads over their GOP challengers. They were forced to spend money, the state DNC and the National DNC were forced to spend money as well as bring in the President and former President Bill Clinton in an attempt to buoy up incumbents, who by all reports outside Massachusetts , were virtual shoe-ins.

Four years ago, one had a Dickens of a Time finding an active Town or City GOP, today, there are more in place, some of them functioning, some not. One local Western Massachusetts City Committee, held the last meeting in the Spring, and decided to sit out the summer and the election, in order to “help the candidates”, where reason would dictate that time would have been better spent coordinating with local Tea Party groups, and recruiting new members, knowing full well that Democrats were registering as Republicans by the hundreds, and had been since January of 2010. How much of an impact did that have on the races? It is hard to tell, however, one can bet an engaged City Committee coupled with grassroots organizations could move Massachusetts towards a purple hue in a matter of two election cycles.

The grass roots are neither disheartened nor disbanded; of course, there were the usual few days of angst over having worked so hard to find that one’s chosen candidate had fared well, but missed the mark – it is a natural course of events. However, the State GOP, including the Chair Jennifer Nassour, would do well to understand that those grassroots actives are now meeting and looking towards 2012, with specific goals and targets in mind. The word is out on the ground - hold onto those signs.

It is naiveté on the part of those grassroots organizers? Hardly as they understand how close so many came with so little financial backing to unseating deeply entrenched incumbents, and how, within a matter of 13 hours Democrats, aided by Community Organizers managed to rouse thousands to the polls in order to ensure the State remained blue.

Although it is also natural to blame the “head coach”, in this case one Jennifer Nassour, the State Party Chair, one must also take a moment to understand that Ms. Nassour came into an office that had previously done little to nothing, with the exception of electing Mitt Romney to the Governor’s office. There was no base, or a small base to energize, coupled with a group of city and town GOP Committees that may or may not get involved (other than an annual barbecue, golf game or cocktail party). No mean feat to pull off an election to the position of dog warden under those circumstances, given the time frame. Therefore, if the State GOP and Ms. Nassour are remotely interested in taking the gains made in 2010 (and yes, there were gains, considering the overall results), then it is time to tap into every single group, regardless of how the Tea Party may play in Boston, or Northampton, or Amherst, or the Log Cabin Republicans may play in Worcester, or if a candidate might not be up to the Country Club sniff test – they all need to be incorporated into one machine, given a good deal of attention – including listening to ideas that are sound on how to roll out the 2012 elections to win more seats, even Congressional seats – it is possible, but it takes time to build an organization, and one has to have the will and the ability to work with every available hand on deck.

So to those who think someone else may be better suited to Chair the State Party, they had best have the interest of all the Bay State Conservative factions in mind, or the party will self-perpetuate. That is the Party infrastructure, not the individual grassroots candidates and organizations forming in more cities and towns by the day (there are an astounding number of these conservative committees in Massachusetts), and those will be taking the credit for moving a state legislative, senate or Federal Congressional candidate forward to victory in 2012.

In conclusion, it is easy to play the Monday-Morning quarterback, however, looking at the overall results, given the restrictions of time (both as Chair and in the general cycle form the primary to the election), Nassour performance was just fine. She worked with what she was handed, and although one can agree more could have been done to take advantage of grassroots and attempt to get those existing Committees to organize on the ground to get out the vote for all candidates, one must also agree that type of herculean effort takes a bit more time. Yes, Virginia, there is a conservative base in Massachusetts, one that has grown to be competitive with the Democrats, one that has watched tactics and is prepared to follows suit, but one that must be acknowledged and given the tools necessary to get out the vote – and it can be done, in 13 hours, on both sides – if instead of bickering or finger pointing, the work begins today. If not, then, like the Brown election, it will be those grassroots standing alone, who will, office by office, stand up to business as usual in Massachusetts. It will not happen overnight, it will take decades if the various factions in play do not work together.

New Bedford Fishing Industry Targets Obama on Martha’s Vineyard – End “Catch-Share” Regulations

Port of New Bedford, Fishing Main Industry of the MA 4th Congressional District - hindered by regulations image working waterfront.com

New Bedford Massachusetts is known for its Fishing Fleet, one of the nation’s largest fleets, and the largest employers in the 4th Congressional District. NECN (New England Cable News)reported that several New Bedford based fishing boats headed out to Martha’s Vineyard, where the President is vacationing to protest the “Catch-Share” Rules put into effect in May 2010 by NOAA’s “Office of Sustainable Fisheries” .

Catch-Shares limit the number of fish by species to be taken in any given season, and was instituted in Congress in 2006 under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Authorization Act of 2006 by the 109th Congress, Barney Frank, the 4th Congressional District Representative, representing the City of New Bedford, argued that local fisheries have a “stake in the shares”. However the Bill, originally instituted in the house and sponsored by retiring 10th District Congressmen Bill Delahunt (D), was based on science, some argue, that is not specifically sound.

The initial legislation was pushed by environmentalist concerned about the population of the oceans fish, and “shares” were designed to be sold, by the government to businesses, allowing for a type of “currency” which could be sold, the “share” is essentially the number of fish one can legally catch by species as enacted by Congress. In other words, the government also regulates the fishing industry.

The question is who is standing up for the small business owners, those fleets that sail out of New Bedford and Gloucester in Massachusetts to the Crabbers of Alaska? Ironically, the same individuals who implemented the bill in the first placed are now asking to relax the rules in order to allow for a little relief. Senator’s John Kerry (D) and newly elected Senator Scott Brown (R) were joined by several Congressional Representatives, including Delahunt, Frank, Tierney and McGovern in the request to add flexibility to the rules n several areas (Gloucester Times. Perhaps they should have thought about possible changes in scientific data and allowed for flexibility when writing the original legislation. (Brown excluded)

Brown, in the same Gloucester Times article states the areas high unemployment as reason for relaxing the rules. Once a “fleet” has met its catch limit, they are essentially “grounded” for the remainder of the season, to allow for the fish to repopulate.

How important is the fishing industry to the United States? The Top 10 U.S. Seaports, by Tonnage (most recent date 2006 are by order of most fish caught:

1. Dutch Harbor-Unalaska, AK: 911.3
2. Intracoastal City, LA: 400.7
3. Reedville, VA: 372.5
4. Kodiak, AK: 332.8
5. Empire-Venice, LA: 285.7
6. Pascagoula-Moss Point, MS: 212.1
7. New Bedford, MA: 169.9
8. Los Angeles, CA: 164.5
9. Astoria, OR: 164.1
10. Gloucester, MA: 148.4

By Value the top port is New Bedford, MA, making the industry critical to the 4th district and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Massachusetts ranks 3rd worldwide, behind first place China, and second place Japan.

Although highly unlikely that Obama will hear the pleas of the Captains of the Fishing Industry while out on Golf Course, it is also highly unlikely he would or could do anything about the plight of the fishing industry as those purse strings are controlled by members of the House and Senate(i.e. Congress) This coupled with the fact that Obama’s preference is to appoint academic experts to look at a given situation for months prior to coming to any conclusion, if there is one, would make that request futile (the Gulf Oil Spill comes to mind).

Congress and the Senate combined with the help of Obama since 2008 have regulated and added more formerly self-directed businesses to government control than any in history. From health care, to student loans (government interest rates on student loans are at 10% plus - where the banks were at prime and no longer allowed to issue student loans), to the auto industry, to mortgages and that list includes the now suffering fishing industry. (As nothing has been done to repeal or de-regulate any aspect of this industry under the 109th or the 110th congress.)

What are the fishermen and fleets out of New England, Alaska, Louisiana and other top ports to do? Vote for those who would be most likely to deregulate and hope the 111th Congress will reverse the most egregious of ACTS passed into law which have done nothing more than add to the nations economic woes.

The port of Gloucester was brought to national attention by the film “Perfect Storm” in 2000, a film which highlights the intense dangers of the fishing industry.

Tea Party in Boston – AP suggests 10,000 in attendance, while focus remains on Palin and Brown.

Tea Party held in Hartford, 2009 - Image TMP

The Associated Pressis suggesting that the Tea Party in Boston will draw an estimated 10,000 people today – the article then goes on to speak to the absence of Senator Scot Brown, who will be in Washington going about the people’s business. The deluge of articles on the subject, from the Boston Globe ”Welcoming Palin to Boston” to Business Week’s ”Palin’s Boston Rally With Tea Party Fails to Draw Senator Brown”, one might get the erroneous impression that the Tea Party is all about Palin and Brown. What the press does not seem to understand, or wishes to ignore, is the fact that neither Brown nor Palin are of import in regards to the Tea Party Movement, other than the fact that Palin is speaking (and Brown’s presence is not required.) The Tea Party Movement is a rally designed to protest excessive taxation and certain State and Federal policies that place an added burden on the “masses”, and also play fast and loose with the Constitution.

There are big questions that aren’t being asked (or are being avoided), for example: why are independents and Democrat joining the movement? Followed by: How come the Tea Party Organizers are mainly women? Finally, how many Tea Party chapters are there? Basic demographics might help the media understand why the Tea Party is making headway where traditional political parties appear to be standing still, or more to the point, attempting to downplay (The Democrats) and align (The Republicans) with members of this movement?

It is in reality a movement by and for the people, with an undefined central leadership, but the ability to communicate across state lines in order to draw significant attention (through large crowds in rallies) to policies they feel are not helping our economy, or more to the point, the middle class and those who are bound by fixed incomes. They are patriotic, and contrary to the continuous media sledgehammer, educated, every-day, Americans who are fed up with the way the government appears to ignore the people that fund and hire. One can meet a Tea Party activist in the grocery store (or outside collecting signatures for a particular fiscally conservative candidate), in the library researching the constitution, arms loaded with books including the Federalist Papers, and the guy next door.

On any given day of the week, a Tea Party meeting is taking place in towns and cities across the country, and on any given Saturday, one might find a band of protesters on a street corner holding signs and waving flags. A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that 24% of the general public considers itself part of the Tea Party Movement, with an additional 10% with a close friend and or relative belonging to the group.. In addition, 48% of those polled believe that their views are more closely aligned with Tea Party philosophy opposed to the 44% who believe they are closer in view to the Obama. The kicker, 52% believe that any Tea Party Member understand the Constitution better than their Congressional Representative. (Rasmussen).

Obviously, major political parties, the Obama administration and the press are aware of these statistics, which is most likely why the continual downgrading of the Movement, with a focus on Palin and Brown, (rather than the aforementioned) is what one finds in the daily news.

This morning, as the Tea Party members from across Massachusetts, and New England gather in Boston, it will be the rally itself, rather than the headliners, that should be the wake-up call that business as usual is on the way out, and that the people will exercise their right to hire or fire their representatives, both at the state and the Federal level, should they not reign in spending. It is a simple theme that transcends politics and politicians and resonates with every American regardless of party affiliation. That is the bigger story.

Obama to Move to the Middle – Class – State of the Union to Include “Tax Credits” – Congress to Work on Job Creation! Who’s Buying This?

Barak and Jimmy - image conservative report.wordpress

Obama’s State of the Union Address which will be telecast Wednesday night, January, 27th, will include a slew of “tax credits” aimed at the Middle Class. The President now believes that the “Middle Class” is under assault, however, his tax credits, will be offset by the Bush tax cuts due to expire this year. What is lost on those who blindly follow, yet refuse to read, is that the Bush Tax Cuts included the child tax credit, eliminated the marriage penalty and gave across the board relief in the form of a tax reduction. This will now be offset by the following proposals by the Obama administration: begin with new mandates on employers to “encourage” retirement plans – this will encourage “savings”. (This will result in additional paperwork, an expense that the actual private sector employers left, can hardly afford.).

Obama also plans to almost double the tax credit that families receive for the costs of child care. One has to ask what happens to the millions of families that cannot afford “child care” per se – those that use the “latch-key” method, let alone those who have older teens who are not about to go into a “child care” setting.
Here’s one for the ever growing budget: adding more to the federal fund that helps working parents pay for child care – most often those that need assistance to pay for child care under federal guidelines are not the middle class.

Adding to the federal deficit through Job Creation - although the President and his like-minded Congress and Senate agree that American’s need job creation, they apparently have no clue as to how to achieve job creation in the private sector. This is evidenced by a new proposal being pushed through Congressto the tune of $80 billion dollars in the form of a “Job Creation” package. Job creation defined by the administration is to save jobs in the public sector and then designate the balance of the monies (being printed out of the Congressional basement) to “shovel-ready” projects. (See all the infrastructure work and thousands of private sector constructions jobs created by Stimulus 1?). Perhaps it would do well for the administration to take a step back and review a bit of history.

Although not found in history books, per se (as they are mainly written by Progressives, a group with an agenda, less a clue), there are archives of newspaper clippings and articles and books written on subjects (Google Books and Amazon.com) such as: Jimmy Carter's failed Job Stimulus program. A program which worked so poorly that between unemployment and inflation (which resulted when the U.S. dollar was worth less than the Canadian Dollar and the Cost of Oil rose through the roof – one should refer to recent articles where: the Canadian Dollar is strong compared to the U.S. Dollar and the price per barrel of oil continues to rise)the mix of unemployment and inflation caused a “misery index”. That index name leaves no room for speculation.

Recently, Obama gave an interview to Diane Sawyer of ABC in which he noted he’d rather be a really good one-term President as opposed to a mediocre two-term president. One, our President is considered a progressive (political ideology that is based mainly on socialism) and b); there are concerns that that he does not have a clue. Obama was being somewhat predictive in his interview with Ms. Sawyer, yes; he will be a one-term President – more than likely. The question of a “really good” one-term president, now that’s a different story. Then again, Jimmy Carter believes he was a “really good” one-term president too, and there are textbooks that are there to back him up.

Senator Elect Scott Brown (the Pride of the Bay State), has a clue. In one of his initial campaign ads, a video of John F. Kennedy discussing tax cuts (not mentioned in text books), was morphed into Scott Brown talking about – tax cuts! It was not designed to compare Brown to Kennedy as so many who cannot read believed. Clearly stated in the ad was that there were difference between the men, but that one policy that worked, regardless of political party or ideology, was: Tax Cuts

Apparently Brown did his research, while, some holding higher offices have not. In order to give true relief to the American public, including those from the bottom to those on the top, we need less “stimulus” and much less “debt”, in order to function and bring jobs (private sector) back on track. Which, it is obvious from the preview of the President’s State of the Union, that’s not going to happen.

As the second year of the one-term Presidency of Obama begins, let us hope that someone, somewhere gives that man several teleprompters loaded with articles from the 1970’s that explain, in detail, where he may be going wrong. Perhaps he’ll get it in time to stop the bleeding of the Middle Class, those on fixed incomes, and those who are seeking employment in the private sector.

How bad is it?

Sam’s Club, (owned by Wal-Mart) is being forced to layoff 11,000 employees. This is not high end luxury retail we’re talking about, this is deep discount. Apparently, the fact that rising costs due to rising taxes on every business that has anything to do with production, from food to clothing, has been lost on the administration. Our nation is at the point where, should this pattern continue, no matter what spin the political powers that be put on the misery of the people, no matter how many times Bush and Cheney are mentioned by a Progressive Democrat who is hell-bent on not getting elected (See Martha Coakley), the fact remains – that the “Buck Stops Here”, and it has. Republican or Democrats in both houses need to jump on the Scott Brown train and take a look at what can help the People, party politics aside, or they will soon be joining the ranks of the ever increasing unemployed.