Obama Never Is To Blame

If you said Obama has inherited this mess when it comes to the oil spill you are right, but not for the reasons you think. It was not inheriting an oil industry that was under regulated it was decades of heavily regulated oil policy that forces companies to drill off shore because our congress will not let us drill in our own yard,an approximately 100 yard drill area in ANWR, Alaska. Meanwhile Obama's friends in Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia are taking advantage of oil in their own areas. Obama's own party is to blame for not allowing us to drill on land so that we would not be so dependent on foriegn oil. I am not one to blame Obama for this, or his lack of response, or emphasize how many rounds of golf that others did when Bush was in office.

Obama Supporters, at what point does Obama lead and show what he is doing than falling back on what appears to be every liberals favorite excuse for failure, now even in their own marriages, blame it on Bush. Two stimulus packages, cash for clunkers, and several bailouts later and instead of admitting that was not the answer, Bush is blamed.

I did not hear bush blame the poor infrastructure in New Orleans, that made things worse during Hurricane Katrina, on the decades of corruption and lack of leadership by the Mayor of the city and Governor of the state that prevented money going to fortify the Levees. Federal funds went there, yet there were approximately 50 failures of those levees.

It is true that Obama does not deserve all the blame but, he did spend trillions of dollars in a short period of time and was in charge when we lost are AAA credit rating. There has been no effort to share any of the blame for where we are. It is as if Obama is sitting at home like you and me and watching things happen. What we need is a president that will honor his/her oath of defending the constitution. This will help the economy because the nature of the constitution is to restrain government from interfering in the business of the people and protect their rights so they are free to pursue that business. The constitution is for regulating the government and to stop the government from regulating the people.

With our current president, there always seems to be someone else to blame. Leadership does not look for someone to blame but, offers solutions and works towards them.

- Micheal Garry

George W. Bush: Commander-in-Chief of Two Wars Won

Mission accomplished! George W. Bush won two wars in the two terms he was president. How can I say this statement without being told I am crazy? Well it is pretty easy to explain how he won two wars. First you have to ask yourself how we define victory in war. I was always under the impression that they either surrendered or we took them out.

Let's take a look at bot Iraq and Afghanistan to see if they measure up to the definition of victory and if so what than do we call what we are doing over there in those countries. Iraq, there was a dictator that our closest allies and most of congress, up until it was not politically correct, believed had already or was in the process of getting weapons of mass destruction. The point of this topic is not to make an argument of why we went to war with this tyrant but, to make a point that we won the war against him. I suppose the first question and maybe the only relevant question to make the point, is the regime we went to war with in power? If Iraq is in a civil war, does have anything to do with the previous war against Saddam Hussein? The answer to both is, no. The regime was soundly defeated and the civil-war that broke out may be a cause of the war but it is not the same war for the enemies of that war are no longer in power.

Afghanistan, another regime that was the harbor of terrorism and a threat to her neighbors. Again, not trying to justify the war but, question whether or not we can still call it a war. The Taliban have been removed from power in that country. Since defining war, the main goals have been either to get a surrender or take out the enemy. Afghanistan, like Iraq, is now just a theater of combat in a war we can not claim victory on. This war, is the war on terror. A war against an enemy that does not fight honorably with a uniform, but as cowards in some cases sending children to blow themselves up in their place.

The real puzzling thing of it is, we have let the liberals define what now constitutes a victory in war. We are not at war with either countries governments but involved in their civil wars in addition to both countries being theaters for the war on terror. We should send some of our troops home but, like any theater of war, we need to keep fighting the terrorists where they are. We are not fighting in two wars but, we are fighting in one, the war on terror.

- M. Garry

The Elitists

One of the most frustrating things for me is to have someone else tell me what's better for my life, especially when they are a politician. There is a big difference between professional advice for my own good and a law that demands my behavior to be a certain way for my own good.

These people, Elitists, who claim to know what's best for all, have done more damage to the freedoms our Founders made sure government could not take from us but would protect them for us, than any enemy has been able to do since our declaration.

Who are these Elitists? Any politician, or person supporting that politicians actions, making law that intends to protect someone against themselves is no more than an Elitist tyrant. You know the type, a person that is never happy, always trying to control what everyone does, believing everyone is stupid and does not know any better. Someone who is always insisting that there ought to be a law for literally everything.

These Elitists are the biggest threat to our liberties because, they do not believe in ones ability to self govern. The cornerstone of freedom is individual responsibility for without that, freedom withers away for the Elitists to decide for you. The Elitists rely on people to give up their responsibility to gain their power over us and extinguish the fires of freedom, it is up to us to feed those flames, it is up to us to tell government to stay out of our lives and conduct the business that government was meant to do and was restricted to by the Constitution of The United States of America.

- M. Garry

Summer of Peace & Music, Now the Winter of Our Despair

It was 1969, Woodstock, the summer of Peace and Music a coming together to make a statement. What was that statement? For all I could tell, by reading about and listening to what my family told me, it was 500,000 or so of this nations children that refused to grow up and take responsibility for anything. They came together promoting love(with anyone), peace(even if it meant unconditional surrender to our enemies), drugs(society stability be dammed), and music(the music was not bad).

Listening to the music of the times and that which was played at Woodstock, made statements of ant-war, anti-establishment. Somewhat of a libertarian mish mosh of views not very well spoken, more of a selfishness in that, it was all about them no matter what the consequence. Was it a liberal view of the Tea Party of today? Hardly, there was really no clear message other than they wanted all war to end but, they expected our enemies would stop fighting when we did. They wanted to do their drugs and expect that no harm would come to them by their neglect of their families, jobs, or health, with a large amount of deaths by overdoses at Woodstock, with celebrities, and with others who would partake in drug use around the country. The only message that was well received was, they did not want to take any responsibility for their actions. A Tea Party, they were not.

Now we have come full circle and the "Woodstock Generation" has achieved positions of power in the media, in the government, and the Democrat Party. This generation, with its spend now pay later, class warfare, redistribution of wealth, and any and all schemes to give government more of our freedoms, have cost us dearly. It is time for those children to grow up and take responsibility for their own lives and leave others alone to theirs. It is time to come down from the high, back from the trip, and discover that real world problems can not be solved with sugar coated candy ideas but with, tough choices and individual responsibility, only with this can we make it through to the next year as a free people. I can only hope, for our children's sake, that the generation after mine will defend freedom and not use government as a means to an end but, as a way of ensuring everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed without limits or judges to tell them, they have made too much.

- M. Garry

Everyone Has Equal Rights Not Equal Abilities

Liberals often talk about how there needs to be a level playing field and they act has if the people that are successful in this country have won life's lottery and if the field was level everyone would be successful. The truth and reality of life in a free country is, some people have different starting points in life but, all have the freedom, having an equal ability, to be at a similar finish line.

One important outcome of our independence was that we became free to choose our destiny. A pauper could live like a king and a king, if lazy and foolish, could end up a pauper. Winning life's lottery could really be said for the children born from royalty or leaders of tyrannic forms of government in history, like Rome, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Communist China, etc..., that live in luxury while the people live in squalor. That is a fate that can not be changed, there is no freedom to create opportunities for one to advance any higher than what they are if their families are not in the circle of power.

The problem with the liberals idea of a fair playing field is, all though we are all treated equal, we do not all posses equal ability. Therefore, without taking from someone else, it would be impossible to level the playing field. Some may have to work harder than others to achieve the same goals, life is not fair, you make due with what abilities you have and the motivation to carry them to fruition.

To give an example, not everyone can play in the NFL, there are players that are natural athletes that make the team with little effort and their are others that have to work very hard to just to miss the cut. If liberals had their way, the NFL would have to allow for lessor talented players to make the team to make it fair. All their really accomplishing is lowering the level of performance and quality of the product. Just like everyone does not have the ability to make the team, not everyone has the ability to play on the same playing field as others.

In the land of opportunity, we have the freedom to take our abilities as far as they will go and our motivation will take them. Americans are successful not because they won life's lottery but because of hard work and determination, not giving up when the road blocks of life get in the way. Let's also not be critical of those who inherit wealth from their family, this wealth at some point was achieved. Besides, who among us would not want our kids to be financially secure if we had the means and who is anyone to say that it is wrong to leave our earned money to our loved ones.

Like most liberal notions, it has good intentions but, a perfect world solution does not work in an imperfect world where everyone is different. We all have equal opportunity but, we are all not with equal ability. What does work for everyone is for government to limited its intrusion into our daily lives.

- M. Garry

The Mayor, The Prince, and The Pauper

Recently, the Mayor in the city of Cleveland came out and blamed the Governor of Ohio for cutting funds for the city. The Mayor claims this will force the layoffs of many police officers. At face value many would look at this being sympathetic to the Mayor who is trying his best to make due with what he has. I invite you to take a look closer at a city's problems resembling that of many other failed communities that refuse to acknowledge an economic formula of raising taxes that will not work. The Mayor, after year after year of big spending and high taxation now gets upset that the state Governor is forced to make the tough financial decisions that the Mayor and his party have refused to deal with.

Mayor Jackson is only a part of the of the problem and the many Mayors before him. Cleveland and the County it resides in is a one party town that has held the City and the suburbs hostage for years. All you have to do is look at the lake front to see evidence of this, it is an outrage.

I would now like to introduce you to the Prince. The Prince or the businesses that own a big portion of real-estate in Cleveland and are responsible for clogging up plan after plan to develop the lakefront, build a convention center, and other projects that have been held up or outright blocked. There is major collusion between the Unions, city, and business, with the Democrat Party securely in their pockets. I would say FBI investigations leading to many arrests in the county and especially the Auditors office is a good indication of this travesty.

Now we meet the pauper, or those citizens that have not left Cleveland for greener pastures. These citizens pay some of the higher tax rates around Ohio. So what happens when you consistently raise taxes on your residents and work force? Some people lose their homes and have to move, some find jobs in city's that have lower taxes on their local income, and the ones that can't move cut back on spending to local businesses and eventually less taxes make their way to the city. These local policies that increase spending and raise taxes end up placing more people on welfare and get rid of the people who can leave until all that is left is a tax burden with not enough taxable income to pay for it. The poor suffer the most when taxes are high.

In a one party town; The Mayor raises the taxes, The Prince with no competition, has no motivation to expand, and the Pauper is stuck with the bill. Dan Gilbert could be what Cleveland needs but, if the Paupers do not wake up and figure out that the same people they vote in office are the ones that are holding them back, I fear Gilbert and people like him will not have the patience or incentive to stick around and save Cleveland from itself.

- M. Garry

No Interpretation Required

I am not an expert in Constitutional law, I am however a student of it and beneficiary of its limitations on government. There are people who believe this document is alive. There may be a misunderstanding in what a living document means.



There is a vigorous process in making any changes or further amending the constitution. However, the formal process in which to make changes makes it a solid document that can not be changed on a whim but by 3/4 of a States legislature. This makes it a solid document, not easily changed. What liberals mean by a living constitution is for the constitution to be interpreted subjectively by the times we currently live in rather than objectively with a strict interpretation of it.



Through Judicial activism it has been made into a living document by making rulings that circumvent the process, disregarding words of the document, and substituting it with what they feel was meant. If the government takes the constitution and interprets it for their own purposes you do not have a living document but have a dead and meaningless document and a bigger and more intrusive government with nothing to stop it from interpreting what it believes to be its best interest with no protection for the individual. To save the Republic we need to have a discussion about what the government has the authority to do to its citizens.





- Micheal Garry

The Sliders

When considering many issues in life as an individual or society, it is important to carefully consider all things before we make a decision. Everything we do has consequences to it, good or bad. Some of these consequences haunt or reward us throughout our lives and others cause us joy or pain for mere moments. There are decisions we make as individuals and as part of the society that sometimes create other issues and thus more decisions to be made, we call this the “Slippery Slope”.



The Sliders in society are the people that continually either make decisions without regards to consequences, ignore wrongs or are ignorant accomplices to wrongful actions of another. The most common excuse I hear by Sliders I have come across is that everybody does it. When they say this, they attempt to excuse themselves from being an accomplice by their support, when they actually, by their excuse, become part of the problem with no solution. It leads us down a slippery slope of making it an acceptable behavior for the next person. I am sure you can think of many examples that in the past were unacceptable even rude but today, because of the Sliders, is normal.



The Sliders have brought this country of ours to its knees by their looking the other way and letting things slide with our government. We have gone down many slippery Slopes and one could not be more obvious than the ever growing government. Our most dangerous Sliders are the politicians that lead us without making careful decisions. These economical and social decisions made by our politicians have led us to the brink of both economical and moral decay. They are the most dangerous of Sliders because with their ignorant accomplices come individual loss of freedoms and the tyranny that comes with it that affects us all.



Of course, not all of us our willing accomplices to letting things slide. The greatest example of this country in its battle against the Sliders is the Tea Party. Not only is this a group of Patriots that refuse to keep going down the slippery slope but, they are replacing the Sliders in office with politicians that will bring us back on sure footing. They have succeeded at making tax cuts a debate of how much rather than if we should cut. The Tea Party has waged war against the Sliders and trying to wake up as many of the ignorant accomplices at the same time.



- M. Garry

Going Green: Government sponsored religion

Some of us go to church or other place of worship and are concerned about right and wrong and the rewards and punishments that come with not living a morally correct life. There are some of us that either are agnostic or have declared the belief in the existence of nothing regarding a higher intelligence.



Where does Environmentalism fall?



Let’s take a look at today’s Environmentalist. They believe man is ruining the Earth. That is the belief that all other notions come from in Environmentalism. That by itself does not make it a religion but, what brings them to that conclusion does. Environmentalism is not just a religious view it also has economical and political parts to it (Anti-Capitalism/Liberal).



The biggest modern day environmentalist belief is that the Earth is warming and we are having drastic weather because of what man is doing. Sadly, Al Gore was not the first to propagate this notion, 30 years before, Liberals were sure that the Earth was cooling because of what man was doing. Strangely enough, they also called for more government to solve the problem. This meant more regulations and a higher cost of doing business in the states.



This makes it more of a religious movement because you have to take a leap of faith to make this conclusion when there is nowhere close to a consensus that would make it more than a theory. It also, like most religions, has a lifestyle that they believe you should live to avoid Hell on Earth or at the very least bad consequences of great environmental disasters that will come if you don’t. This includes what to eat, how much water, toilet paper, and electric to use, what car to drive, the list goes on. I would be fine, along with most Americans, with their religious beliefs until they start seeking legislation to force me to live the way they believe is right to achieve righteousness.



How is government supporting it? It is very obvious. Government is involved in what kind of light bulbs we use because of Environmentalists beliefs, E-Checks here in areas of Ohio and other states for regulating unproven standards to cars, government green energy programs, cash for clunkers, etc… All in the name of governments support and campaign for going Green. Even to the extent of pressuring car manufacturers into making cars that people will not buy. It’s only a matter of time before Earth Day is made a national holiday if this is allowed to continue. So, yes, I think you can make a good case for government sponsored religion. It is one thing to have a belief it is another to force your beliefs on the rest of us with laws, Happy Earth day!

- M. Garry

Tea Party Fever

Getting sick of seeing half your check going to who knows what government program? Tired of hearing the whining of public employees because people want them to start contributing more of their own money instead of yours to their own pensions? Do you feel grief hearing the President defend an act of war in Libya, after spending his political life attacking our last President for doing much of the same?



If you answered yes to one of those questions you might have Tea Party Fever. The good news, once you have a dislike for limited government and a liking for the Constitution and your individual liberty, you will never desire the chains of socialism. There is no cure but, it can be treated by voting out politicians that do not defend the constitution and fight for a limited government. The treatment is ongoing and must be done at every opportunity.



Once you have infected your politician it will spread and cause great economic upturns, a feeling of American superiority, and reduce the size of the government. This fever does not discriminate and has infected Democrats, Independents, as well as Republicans. The people infected when gathered in great numbers are peaceful, but their voices can be heard across the country (Including: Alaska & Hawaii).



- M. Garry

Making Law: The Politics of Statistics

Should we make laws solely based on statistics? After all statistics can be discriminating and do not always show the big picture. To begin with, most of these statistically based laws are not just, because they do not protect you from another, they protect you from yourself.



When they make a statistic, you only see focus on what they have diagnosed has the problem they would solve if they took this action and not revealing the truth of it, that it is more politically motivated than it is making you safer. You simply leave out what may be inconvenient to your stats and add that which is more favorable to them. You can use statistics for most anything to make an appearance of something being unsafe and once you make it an emotional appeal it is very hard to make any logical appeal at that point.



Once you go down this road and make it a precedent, how can you tell anyone who has just lost someone that you will not make a law to protect others from their loved ones fate. It certainly would not sound very well to tell them that you are sorry for their loss and that freedom comes with certain risks to keep it. So, a politician buckles to pressure and we make a law that requires you to wear your seatbelt, or denies you some other choice that protects you from no one but, is made law based on emotional appeal and statistics that will not reveal how many others have not been harmed. Not to mention motorcyclists have no seatbelt, should we make it illegal to ride them? More importantly the most important fact lost in this debate is your right to choose is lost. Yet, you still have a right to risk your life skiing at high speeds down a slope, sky diving, rock climbing, etc… All of those activities putting their participants at high risk.



The thing that is of most concern to me is, to what end statistics will be used? We should never use statistics to make a case for a law. What should be used is reasoned arguments that do not make a case based on emotion. Protecting us from ourselves should never be law, it should be choice, as long as we do not harm others buy are actions.

- M. Garry

An Attempt to Redefine The Tea Party and More....

This was not directed at me but, I thought it a good example to show the misinformation being spread to keep their members from knowing the truth. This was from politablog on FaceBook.


Ha! I didn't even see the posts on here too! oh man... Don't listen to this John Martin guy, he is just another ultra-conservative, right-wing extremist. If you actually want Reason and civility in public affairs; A government accountable to the People; Liberty & Justice for All. Then join the Coffee Party, not this Tea Party crap that spews hate, lies and injustice.They are anti-science and look what they are doing in texas.



They want to remove the seperation of church and state, they want to get rid of Thomas Jefferson's ideas! They also want to make students learn and memorize Jefferson Davis' inaugural address right next to Lincoln's! It is shameful! Take action and learn! Don't try to change history and don't let the right-wing extremists change the US! They are just like the Fascists under Mussolini.



- Ashley





You are being gravely misinformed about the Tea Party. I think you might be misinformed about the failed Coffee Party too. The Coffee Party was set up to counter the beliefs of the tea Party, has in more government, more redistribution of wealth. Hate, lies, and injustice? You will have to be more specific. Anti-Science? If you refer to the believing the religion of Global Warming has a Science, you would be right. After all with Global Warming you have to believe considering there is hardly enough evidence to blame man for it. If man were being tried for crimes of Global Warming, I would say that there is plenty of reasonable doubt to dismiss the charges. It would be an injustice to make man pay for a theory.



Again, in Texas you might be exaggerating a little. Please be more specific. Besides the fact there is no such thing has separation of church and state. All that there is related to that topic is an idea that our founders did not want a state sponsored religion. They were very much all about freedom of religion, a main reason for independence was so men can freely associate with their religion.



Thomas Jefferson's ideas? Have you read any of his quotes. They are all about not using government for social engineering mostly and restraining government growth for the good of freedom.



Fascist? Once more, you need to take a look at the words. The Tea Party movement ideas of less government and more freedom is hardly authoritarian. Now, telling people how they should live their lives and making it law, that fits the definition of fascism and is more towards the liberal activity in government we have today.



- Micheal Garry

Arizona on The Horizon

Some people say that Arizona’s immigration law will ruin the economy. Although I am not sure how my friend Juan came to that conclusion. I would assume only that he may be misinformed on purpose and the nature of Arizona’s new law.

The new immigration law will help legal immigrants in Arizona and if similar bills are past many other immigrants in other states will be served better with stricter enforcement on the crime of illegal immigration. Much like enforcing laws against stealing helps lower the cost for people who choose to pay for their goods, immigration enforcement will lower the cost in waiting and other hardships to legal immigrants enter this country. It will also help in lessening the discrimination that come with being a immigrant when people are more secure in knowing the odds are higher that an immigrant next to them was here by legal means and contributing to society.

So, for the sake of all of our immigrants that come into this country legally, I hope it does work. The immigration process is there for a reason. There is a line of people who want to come to this country for the best opportunities on this Earth, in order to protect our citizens from disease and criminal elements we have to screen people and get to know them before we just let anyone in. That is all Arizona is doing. Read the law! Yes, they will be discriminating against people who are not here legally.

This Arizona law only requires that you follow the immigration laws of this country. Mexico has far more severe consequences for illegally migrating into Mexico. I welcome anyone from anywhere that wants to come to the USA through the front door.

- M. Garry

Seperation of Church and State or Congress Shall Make No Law?

Trying to find the seperation of church and state in the 1st amendment. Only thing I can find so far is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How is that a concept for seperation? All it says has to do with laws nothing more. Has long as laws are not made in support of religion or prohibiting it. Ten Commandments on State property is NOT congressional law, Christmas tree on city property is NOT congressional law. I am going to vote inside a church for crying out loud.

Creationism can be taught in schools because there is no law passed by congress for school teachings for or against the teaching of it, making that decision up to the States(10th Amendment). I'm sorry I had not called anyone stupid, I just thought someone might actually take aim at the issue intead of name calling. I am more comfortable voting for a candidate who wants to limit government and by proxy stop attacks on our freedoms versus a candidate that is for bigger government and by proxy voting for people telling me how I should live my life. Remember folks, all of us have more freedoms under smaller government.





M. Garry



.