Coralville Courier

Coralville Courier: Get your SickofSpin gear!

Get your gear today at the Coralville Courier Online Store!

The Obama Administration is lying, cheating and stealing

By Mike Thayer

There are three MAJOR stories out there that are indicative of how the Obama Administration has conducted operations for over four years.

The Lie:  Benghazi

We know there's a cover up going on here.  We know the attack on the American Consulate in Libya resulting in the deaths of four Americans was NOT as a result of a stupid video.  Yet the Obama Administration continues to lie about this situation, despite the whistle blowers testifying before Congress.

http://coralvillecourier.typepad.com/community/2013/05/white-house-blamed-benghazi-murders-on-a-youtube-video-cover-story-knowing-it-was-planned-terrorist-.html

 

The Cheating:  The IRS

We know the IRS targeted Tea Party and Conservative groups to include asking for their donor lists which is illegal.

http://coralvillecourier.typepad.com/community/2013/05/irs-apologizes-for-targeting-conservative-groups-national-liberty-federation.html

 

The Stealing:  The government secretly seizing records from the Associated Press

Over a two month period in 2012, the Justice Department gathered records from more than 20 phone lines assigned to the news agency and its reporters.  That's an overbroad collection of data.

http://coralvillecourier.typepad.com/community/2013/05/associated-press-says-us-government-seized-journalists-phone-records-yahoo-news.html

This is how this administration operates, it's far worse and much broader in scope than anything Nixon did.

The carrot and the stick......Hitler and.... Obama?

By Mike Thayer

Hitler in concert with a cooperative media issuing propaganda, 1933:  If I give you jobs, some food and talk about improving Germany's global image will you support me (or at least not complain...)?  Would you be OK with getting rid of Germany's democratic government?

Obama today, in concert with a cooperative media issuing propaganda:  If I give you *free* birth control ('cause the jobs thing hasn't really worked), *free* health care ('cause the jobs thing hasn't really worked), food stamps and some extended unemployment benefits, will you support me (or at least not complain)?  Would you be OK with becoming anti-Constitutional? 

There are two ways to get a donkey to move.  One way is to hit it with a stick, the other is to dangle a carrot in front of its mouth.  At first, Hitler dangled a lot of carrots.......

• He promised jobs
• He used propaganda
• He promised a transformed Germany
• He manipulated education and German youth
• He worked to control religion
• He found a villain to blame all of Germany's ills on

Hitler convinced about 70 million people to go along with or at least not complain about his agenda.  And we all know that for people Hitler couldn't persuade, he got out the stick.

Obama, like Hitler, has used carrots.

• He has promised jobs, or income replacement such as food stamps, extended jobless benefits
• He has used propaganda
• He has promised a transformed America
• He is working to manipulate education and American youth (supports common core standards in our schools, and then there's....  and then there's.....  and who can forget MMMM, MMMM, MMMM....)
• He has worked to control religion (supports the ACLU and their efforts to getting religion out of the public square, and then there's the forcing the Catholic Church to provide birth control thing)
• He found a villain to blame all of America's ills on (the GOP, the Tea Party, conservatives)

Obama has convinced about half this nation to go along with or at least not complain about his agenda.  And for people Obama can't persuade, will he get out the stick?  Why do you think he's trying to take away our guns (Just like Hitler did)?

 

Supervisor reaction to "Justice Center" loss is unsatisfactory

By Mike Thayer

In November, voters rejected a $48 million+ proposal for a new jail and courthouse makeover. 

Yesterday, voters rejected virtually the same blueprint, a watered down $46 million proposal for a new jail and courthouse makeover.

Not one pro-jail supervisor has come out and said, "The voters have told us twice now that they didn't like the proposal, so we have to come up with something better."

Here's Supervisor Rod "F&^% You" Sullivan's reaction:  "Obviously it's discouraging; particularly tough to get over 60 percent and meet the high bar that Iowa has for bond issues."

Sullivan is blaming the loss on the "High bar?"  It couldn't be that the proposal sucked, it's the "High Bar" that is to blame.......  Sullivan is insulting people with his comments.

In watching KCRG's report on the election results last night, Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek was interviewed and he was understandably disappointed in the outcome, but also bitter.  Instead of acknowledging that voters rejected the proposal not once but twice....   Instead of understanding there's something to be learned from that in moving forward......   He went the guilt trip route and said (paraphrasing) Tax dollars will continue to go out of the county and People don't understand that the jail was only 34 percent of this project.

Like Sullivan, Pulkrabek's comments are insulting.  

'No' voters weren't lacking information, they were armed with it

Some supervisors, the Sheriff and County Attorney Janet Lyness blame the loss on voter ignorance.  That's insulting because the truth is, people took interest in this issue, they looked at the overcrowding at the jail, they looked at the million dollars a year being spent on transporting prisoners, they looked at the outdated and worn out courthouse that should have been replaced years ago......   And voters rejected the proposal that was being offered.  The voters didn't approve the proposal, they rejected it.  Voters realize the problems the county faces aren't going away, they WANT a different plan to address those problems.

But instead of embracing the message the voters sent, how do the "Justice Center" supporters react?   The 60 percent threshold is too high, the voters weren't informed, the problem isn't going away.... 

It would seem the county *leaders* don't want to learn anything from this.

“I think this was the best plan we had, I don’t know what you do to bring it back before voters.” ~ Board of Supervisors Chair Janelle Rettig.

Why don't you try listening, Janelle?

 

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2013/05/08/Metro/33228.html

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20130508/NEWS01/305080032/STRIKE-TWO?Frontpage&nclick_check=1

http://thegazette.com/2013/05/07/results-johnson-county-justice-center-comes-up-short/

 

 

 

Thought for the day - How much money would American taxpayers save if all government grant programs were terminated? BILLIONS

The Real View by Mike Thayer

Did you know that grant programs are not a proper role of government?  Seriously, they really aren't.

And yet we taxpayers give money to goverment at all levels, local, state and federal in the name of grants.  The taking of money from one person, to 'award' it to another.  In other words, grants are a redistribution of wealth.

Now don't get me wrong, money and/or aid should be given to people truly in need, but government shouldn't be in the grant business.  That's a private, charitable and non-profit sector job. 

Think about just how much money would stay in taxpayer pockets, in businesses, in communities....  If all government grant programs were terminated.   BILLIONS!

We don't need to send money to Washington just to have the federal government "award" some out-of-state outfit a $2 million grant.  Keep that money in the states to begin with!   We send so many dollars in.......  and get pennies back.    The same thing takes place at state and local levels too.  They don't need to get money just so they can 'award' it.   That's a knights giving table scraps to serfs kind of thing.

Why should I give Washington D.C. tax money for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to give to a fire department in Mississippi?    Does that make sense to you?  And talk about the overhead in administering that grant ('justifying' some gov. jobs) My money should have stayed in Iowa and that money spent on my own community's fire department if so needed.  Government grant programs are a loop of waste.   Why should I give the state tax dollars to award some 'grant' money for some 'beautification' scam (buying some big flower pots) in Des Moines?   That's ludricrous.    Why should a resident of Decorah give tax money to the state so it can be awarded in the form of some cultural arts grant to a performing arts theatre in Coralville?  Keep the money in the communties it came from - hence, no need for grants.

Terminate all government grant programs and people have more of their hard-earned money in their pockets.  And guess what happens when people have more disposable income?  They spend it, save it and give it away.  Purchasing = jobs, savings and investment = jobs, giving it away means church baskets are fuller, it means charitable and non-profit coffers have more in them!   And that's the beauty of it, it's VOLUNTARY!   You spend money, save money, give money to charitable organizations as YOU see fit, not how government chooses to 'award' your money (and often against your wishes).

Terminate all government grant programs and we're better off, there's more money in the private sector, there's more money in the charitable/non-profit sector and the nation, the states, our communities are financially healthier as a result.

Seriously, why do we waste tax dollars in government grant programs?   Only because it makes legislators feel good.

The federal government to force states into gun control?

By Mike Thayer

So much for states rights.......

The gun control bill in the Senate - which survived a filibuster attempt yesterday - includes language that will force states into taking gun control measures.  It transforms the Constitutionally protected right of gun ownership into a privilege, where the government grants you permission.  

Ever taken certain drugs?  That may give the government the wiggle room it needs to take your gun away, because gun ownership will no longer be a right, but a priviledge the government can take away.....  like a driver's license.

Has a member of your family been diagnosed with depression?  Sorry, can't have guns in the house if they live there, doesn't matter if the guns are locked up.

And here's where the federal government will force states to do their bidding.  They'll threaten to take federal funding away.  Federal funding programs for law enforcement - taken away.  Federal grants for other first responder programs - taken away.  It will be done on a percentage basis for a few years with a threat like, "implement gun control measures by 2016 or else...." and then the funding will be completely pulled down the road if a state fails to comply.  

That's a problem folks, a big centralized government dictating what must be done.

It's not Constitutional.

Why don't same-sex couples want to come up with their own word for marriage?

By Mike Thayer

Let's look at this issue from a purely logical perspective using the English language shall we?

Webster defines marriage as, 1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife

SYN. - marriage refers to the state of, or relation between, a man and woman who have become husband and wife or to the ceremony marking this union.

That's a definition, a description of what is.

Jeff Gordon is a NASCAR driver, it's a definition, a description of what is.    Gordon is not a Grand Prix driver, he's not an Indy Car driver, he's NASCAR.  That's the description of what is.

Norman Borlaug was a plant pathologist, a definition, a description of what he was.  He wasn't a meteorologist, he wasn't a Heliologist (for those of you who live in University Heights, that's a person who studies the sun).

Describing either of these men vocationally in any other way than what they practice/practiced would not be accurate.   Each of these men practice/practiced a specialty.  

Shouldn't that be respected?   Changing the specialty of Gordon and Borlaug changes the meaning and their contribution does it not?  Redefining the specialty takes away from what is, it does not add to.....

Shouldn't the argument in the name of equality be to add something to the issue instead of taking some meaning away from people with a redefinition? Shouldn't same-sex couples take pride in creating a specialty?  Shouldn't same-sex couples contribute to marriage not by redefining the word, but by crafting a new one?  Now THAT's something to embrace, something a lot of people can support!  Diversity is healthy and creativity can be an inclusive act.   Adding to unions, not taking away or redefining a specialty....

There is an opportunity for same-sex couples to make their mark on society here, trying to redefine marriage - instead of adding to it - is an exercise in squandering if you ask me.

Why shouldn't there be a new term?  Why don't same-sex couples want to come up with a term as they see fit?  Isn't that a better measure of acceptance?  

Where is Johnson County Supervisor candidate John Etheredge?

By Mike Thayer

Aside from a mailer paid for by the Republican Party of Iowa, what have John Etheredge and his campaign folks done to resonate with voters?

Have you seen or heard anything?

Being outnumbered by democrats in this county 2-1, the Etheredge campaign is going to have to do far more than make a few phone calls and write a couple letters to the editor if the goal of winning on election day is to be achieved.

As I've stated before, it's like the Johnson County Republican Central Committee intentionally shoots itself in the foot.  They don't do what it takes to win in this county, I contend they're content not to.  For them, just having monthly meetings - a social club - and pretending they're contributing to the political process is more important than actually accomplishing anything.

John's campaign manager is long-time Central Committee member Deb Derksen, who has no real campaign management experience to speak of.  John's treasurer is Chuck Seberg, relied upon by Central Committee members but a man who makes mistakes and gives bad advice.  Their track record tells it all......  Losses.   Etheredge is green, so chalk up his decision to solicit these people for help to being new to the political arena, but if Etheredge is smart, he shuns their advice and goes with his gut in moving forward.

Today is February 24, the Supervisor election is on March 5.  

If John wants to make any headway in this election, he needs to be busy from sunrise to well past sundown, knocking on doors, having coffee with folks, talking to a crowd in a cafe, having meet and greets in supporter homes opened up to voters.  The schedule has to get far more intense than it is now.

John cannot rely on the Johnson County Republican Central Committee to help him get elected, they will fail him.  Some of those members ineptly fail, some of those members....  intentionally and progressively fail.

Today's Thought: Dave Loebsack was NOT given serious consideration for Harkin's seat

By Mike Thayer

I've mentioned this before but it's worth mentioning again, what does it say about Dave Loebsack if his own party doesn't consider him for a step up in government office?

For Republicans, it confirms the reality that Dave Loebsack is a party follower, an order taker, a 'yes' man for a liberal agenda as opposed to doing what's right and in Iowans' best interests.....  He's not a real leader, he's a puppet.

For Democrats, it means that party leadership doesn't have faith in Loebsack, that he doesn't have the ability to carry the torch as Harkin's replacement, that Loebsack would not be an effective Senator.

For Independents, it means that Dave Loebsack isn't the leader that Iowans deserve.

That's a sad statement any way you slice it.  Dave Loebsack is a loser in GOP eyes and nothing more than a water boy in Democrat eyes.

Iowa deserves better.

This is worth noting as 2014 nears and don't worry, I'll keep reminding people about this. 

Proposed: Eliminate the income tax and implement a flat tax for 2014

By Mike Thayer

Every reasonable person KNOWS that the income tax is too big, too flawed, too complicated.  We have too many forms, too many rules.   Things are even too complicated for the accountants and tax attorneys hired because they supposedly know all the tax laws.  Heck, even the IRS doesn't even know all its own rules and the oversight of ObamaCare has further complicated matters.

Also complicating matters, the cowards in Washington who are afraid to tackle this issue.  They are more worried about their political career, than they are in doing the right thing.

PROPOSED:  Now ifs, ands, or buts, eliminate the income tax and implement a flat tax for 2014.  Screw the lobbyists, screw the special interest groups, screw the politicians lying to us about how this won't work.

No loopholes, no qualifiers, no refunds, no amendments, no nonsense, effective January 1, 2014, all people getting a paycheck will have 17 percent of their paycheck going to the federal government.

Period.

The government will budget that money accordingly, and if they want more *revenue* then they will do what it takes to get the economy humming, to generate more taxpayers.

This really isn't rocket science folks, it can be reality, it will work.  We just have to demand it.  People who say it won't work, are liars. 

Send this to your congressman and Senators.  Don't take 'No' for an answer.  They work for you, it's not the other way around.