What Obama's legalization of 5 million illegals really means.

President Obama effectively gave 5 million illegal immigrant legal status recently. They're not 'undocumented', they're illegal. Want proof? Next time your drivers license is due for renewal, don't bother getting it renewed. Then, when you're pulled over by a Police officer and he asks for your drivers license - just explain to him you don't have one. Tell him, your not driving illegally, merely undocumented. Yeah, see how well that works out for you.
The President and his party like to talk about compassion and fairness. This mass amnesty offers neither, especially to hard working Americans. Think about it. While the President remarks how the hard working illegal clean our homes, take care of our kids and prepare our food - he leaves out the fact that once they are made legal and given work papers, they wont be satisfied to perform those tasks. Oh no, like everyone else they'll want to better themselves. And doing so means competing for the jobs Americans now hold. The first group to have competition for jobs will  be the black community. With unemployment already far above the national numbers, the black community will compete with newly minted legal immigrants for jobs. With their new legal status, they wont have to settle for menial jobs. And because they aren't US citizens (yet) employers don't have to offer health care insurance, making employing them much more cost effective & attractive. (The President left out that part during his impassioned speech) Legal status will open up a host of new benefits for these people as well - on the state level if not yet on the federal level. The costs will be passed onto the rest of us. Meanwhile, those who have spent thousands of dollars and years waiting in line to come to America legally, will still be waiting in line. No fast track for them. They'd be better off sneaking across our southern border and coming here illegally. THEN, the President might show them some compassion. The President's unilateral and illegal move to circumvent congress and the Constitution will have ripple effects for years to come. He and his party are hoping to turn these new immigrants into a powerful Democratic Party voting block - eventually. Why else wait until after the mid-term elections? This move will become a magnet for others to trek across our southern border in hopes of getting legal status themselves. Of course, he already knows that. It's part of his long range plan - one that he hopes will continue long after his Presidency is over. And he did this all without Congress's approval. Apparently, we are no longer a Representative Republic but a dictatorship, where the whims of the King is all that is necessary to write law.

Is it time for American ground troops against ISIS ?

Listen. I know there are a lot of you out there who have no appetite to reintroduce American ground troops into the middle east theater. If you're a member of this club, know that I was counted among your numbers not that long ago. After 13 years of American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have certainly spent enough blood and treasure. I thought that if the Iraqis and Afghans could not train and field a tangible defensive military force after a decade plus - when would they? After all, it's their country to defend - not ours. We certainly did our part by eradicating Al Queda and setting up a democratically elected (though far from perfect) government in both countries. They have been the beneficiaries of American blood, sweat, toil, loss and money. Frankly, I would love to withdraw all American forces from the region and let them have at each other until the Shiites kill the Sunnis or vice versa.  Let them enjoy their centuries long hatred of each other. But the problem with ISIS goes far beyond the borders of either country. And unlike Al Queda which preferred suicide bombers and the like, ISIS is a tangible military force with arms greater than vintage AK-47's and box cutters. And also unlike Al Queda, ISIS controls land, and a lot of it. So barbaric is ISIS that Al Queda distanced themselves from ISIS claiming that their tactics were too brutal. This coming from an organization that flew commercial airliners into office buildings. Whether crucifying Christians, beheading 10 year old boys, raping women and selling them into slavery - ISIS makes Al Queda look like your local Red Cross chapter. Sure, we could walk away from ISIS if we chose to. After all, all this is taking place thousands of miles from our shores. But the planning for 911 also took place from a similar distance. We ignored the threat for a decade. And 3000 Americans paid with their lives.

Our current President says the ISIS threat is real. But insists that an air campaign will be sufficient to turn the tide against them. Virtually every military advisor says otherwise. Either he is lying to himself or us. Last week, he telegraphs our plans to the enemy by informing them that he will not introduce American ground troops in any assault. That bit of information was intended for a war weary domestic audience, not ISIS. Yet ISIS gains confidence with the proclamation that America's commitment to victory against them apparently has limits. He will try to convince our allies to contribute arms and aid against ISIS. But it's unlikely even the Brits will send any troops. Whether we like it or not, the United States alone has the military assets to destroy ISIS. It sure would be nice to have someone else do some of the heavy lifting, but ultimately the job is ours. I too wish it weren't so. But American exceptionalism carries with it responsibilities that no other nation has.

Current estimates say that ISIS has about 15,000 members in the field. With superior intelligence, arms, tactic, air power and training - less than half that number of U.S. troops could annihilate ISIS in Iraq. The Kurds in northern Iraq are finally being armed by the United States as they should have been a year ago. But I do not believe in arming the so-called "moderate" Muslims in Syria as Senator McCain and other advocate. Although ISIS is integrated in Syria, it is a far more complicated situation. I am less convinced than some that moderate Muslims even exist. Removing ISIS from Iraq and destroying their capabilities there should be the primary effort.

Once again, America is called upon to defeat a barbaric enemy who has plans to inflict damage at home just as they are doing abroad. If we shirk from this responsibility, ISIS may gain so much territory, power and influence that it will become an even larger player in Mideast politics and ideology. Should that happen, we may one day look back at this moment and wonder why we didn't seize the opportunity to destroy ISIS while it was much smaller and less effective.

Like Free Speech? Boycott Firefox Mozilla Now!

In 2008, Mozilla Co-founder and CEO Brendan Eich, donated $1000. of his own money in support of California's Proposition 8 which outlawed Gay marriage. Proposition 8 passed. But it's opponents didn't like the "will of the people" so they went to court to have it overturned. At this point it may be of interest to mention that  Barack Obama held the exact same view at the exact same moment in time. Only in 2012, a few months before his re-election bid did he change his mind. Hmmm.

Last week, Mr. Eich was forced to resign due to his opinion and monetary donation in 2008. Mozilla's Executive Chairwoman, Winifred Mitchell Baker used the most twisted Orwellian logic in explaining her actions by saying, "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality."   No one is stopping the Pro-Gay Marriage community from espousing their views. In fact, they are quite vocal. But Mr. Eich is not afforded that same right. Apparently all free speech is not created equal. They have re-defined free speech to mean, "those who have a set standard of beliefs we approve of."  All others - beware. SLATE Magazine's William Saletan, is now calling for the "purge" of all 35,000 donors to Prop 8. He goes as far as to provide a link that lists the names and donations made. This is a dangerous witch hunt. McCarthyism. And it threatens every one's free speech. Every ones.

Free Speech means not only the ability to speak our minds but also to speak our minds without fear of reprisals. I don't give a damn whether you're pro or anti Gay marriage. This goes far beyond a single topic or agenda. It's about tolerance. Without tolerance for opposing viewpoints, there is no tolerance at all. The hard left now employs Fascist tactics. The message is simple - believe as we do, or we will demonize, attack, libel, intimidate and threaten you. Perhaps next,  Mozilla will not enable their web browser to access websites that they find politically or socially offensive and intolerant. And how long will it be till other search engines or web browsers follow in an attempt to be "tolerant" lest they be targeted as intolerant. This is how it begins. And where true free speech may end.

CRIMEA JOINS RUSSIA & ARIZONA VOTES TO JOIN MEXICO

 

Well, they haven't. Not yet anyway. But imagine that the number of Americans with Mexican heritage in the state of Arizona becomes the majority. Not too difficult, is it? Then let's say that those individuals felt they were being persecuted in Arizona. Many Mexicans feel that Arizona (along with a huge swath of the American Southwest) was stolen from Mexico anyway. They believe that region rightfully belongs to Mexico. In fact,  Mexicans have a word for this. It's called "La Reconquista". And their future plans are well explained. 

The Mexican Organization NWO, National Will Organization states; "We reject the occupation of our nation in its northern territories, an important cause of poverty and emigration. We demand that our claim to all the territories occupied by force by the United States be recognized in our Constitution, and we will bravely defend, according to the principle of self-determination to all peoples, the right of the Mexican people to live in the whole of our territory within its historical borders, as they existed and were recognized at the moment of our independence." And this isn't some fringe group. Oh no. They are quite passionate and in great numbers.

Now imagine that the heavily Mexican populated state of Arizona held a referendum seeking to join Mexico. It might very well pass even though it would be illegitimate. The United States can not be dissected by the will of any group or groups of people. But let's say it does and Mexican troops cross the border to protect it's Spanish heritage people and the annex the state into Mexico? What should and would the United States do? Well that's pretty much what just happened in Crimea. And with Putin's shocktroops massing on Ukraine's eastern border, more Russian Reconquista may occur. So when you hear about Putin restoring a region into it's rightful Russian realm, he's using the same script that the Reconquista's are employing. It's an invasion of sovereign territory. Votes mean nothing. Without firm U.S. resolve, Putin's dream may well become a reality. Then again, so may the Mexican Reconquista's.

Beware. History always repeats itself.

Weakness breeds adventurism. This is nothing new. But apparently a lesson that Barack Obama and his misguided children needs to learn...again. The parallels between Putin's adventurism today and Hitler's adventurism in the 1930's is mesmerizing. For those of you who slept through your history class in Jr. High, Hitler didn't devour Europe in one bite. Oh no, he took small nibbles. By claiming to come to the rescue of persecuted Germans living outside the motherland, (sound familiar?) he swept into Austria, occupied the Sudetenland, followed by Czechoslovakia before invading Poland in 1939. His original premise was to regain land that was lost at the end of WW I, which he felt should still be part of the empire. And he wanted to re-establish the borders of that empire. (Again, sound familiar?) At home, he played up National pride to a fever pitch - claiming that the "reunion" of these lands was not only just but a national right. (Are you getting this?) While he amassed a large army on the new expanded border, the World stood by doing nothing except lodging protests and proposing sanctions. (Now you getting it?) When it was obvious that the World would sit back and do nothing of any significance, he marched toward the English Channel and took France. In the year that would follow, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and the Netherlands would surrendered.

Fast forward to 2014.
Putin employs the exact (not similar but exact) same premise to acquire Crimea. His troops are on the eastern border of Ukraine, positioned to invade and "reclaim" land he believes rightfully belongs to Russia. He boasts Russian national pride on Russian TV and incites the people into believing he is restoring their lost empire. (Adolph did this on radio in the 1930's) Clearly, Putin is intent on re-establishing the Soviet empire circa 1989. And while he makes the moves necessary for his dream to become a reality, the west obliges him with pathetic sanctions. Crimea is now Russia's. It's a done deal. What remains to be seen is whether he will stop there (unlikely) or proceed into Ukraine. (My money is on the latter) At risk are also the Baltic countries. Perhaps he'd even be bold enough to pressure Poland.
What's done is done. But it was unnecessary. Led by a community organizer who believed he can change his adversaries minds with his shear personal magnitude - the United States was caught flatfooted. So naive was Obama, that he gave up defensive missiles in eastern Europe without getting anything in return from the Ruskis. Correctly, they saw this as a sign of weakness and inexperience.

Had Hitler been stopped early in his mad crusade, WWII may have been avoided, or at least the WWII we knew. But there were appeasers and those who found it easier to sacrifice everything for the illusion of peace. The Russian military though formidable, is no match for an alliance that America could amass. And I have to assume the Russian hierarchy knows this. I'm not suggesting that the United States should go to war over Crimea or even the potential annexing of eastern Ukraine. But the threat of using our power must be there. Much less provocative actions can be taken including training and arming potential Russian targets and re-introducing defensive missiles. To stand by and do nothing invites more adventurism. And if history teaches us anything, it's that evil prospers when good men do nothing.  As good men, what will we do? And with a President intent on "managing" such situations rather than dominating - we are likely to see the expansion of the New Soviet Empire.

Pennsylvania judge rules voter ID "unconstitutional"

A  Commonwealth judge has ruled Pennsylvania's voter ID law  unconstitutional saying it "unreasonably burdens the right to vote". The lowest threshold one should have to perform in order to vote would be to have a photo ID when voting. Yet this judge feels that producing an ID while voting is too high a bar. While those opposed to voter ID will say this law was racist, I suggest it is racist to assume that minorities aren't bright enough or deficient in some manner to obtain and produce such identification. Frankly, if I was a member of the minority community, I would be insulted by the thought that I am inferior in some way and do not possess the necessary intellect to procure such a easily obtainable document. Never mind that a photo ID is required to purchase alcohol, buy a gun, board a plane, drive a car, get health insurance or any number of other activities. We are no longer represented by elected officials. Now, judges have substituted their own agendas for the laws passed by our legislative officials. Maybe next time I purchase a firearm I wont bother with a background check. Because I consider it an "unreasonable burden on my right to exercise my 2nd amendment".

Get ready for yet another bailout.

Ever wonder what will happen if not enough healthy young people enroll in an ObamaCare approved health plan? Well, you should. Because if 30 million new healthy policy holders don't materialize, your health care plan is going to skyrocket. ObamaCare needs those additional 30 million young people. You know, the ones who are much less likely to actually use their benefits. The insurance companies were promised tens of millions of new policy holders. And if they don't materialize, the ObamaCare promises to bail them out via something called "risk corridors". Obamacare includes a provision that allows the federal government to funnel taxpayer dollars to insurers that face the prospect of losing too much money under the new health care law, and conservative critics want to repeal it. Simply put, the insurance companies will get a bail out. And guess who is going to pay for that? Yep. You. If you thought the $100 billion auto bailout was big. Or the $700 billion bank bailout was massive - how big do you think a bailout will be of one-sixth of our economy? This should come as no shock though. It was listed in the bill that no one read. Remind everyone that this was a bill voted into law without a single Republican vote.

The GOP's common sense approach to healthcare reform.

The dirty little truth is, we didn't need the government to take over one sixth of our economy to improve access to healthcare. We didn't need to be told what policies we could keep and which we couldn't. We didn't need lie compounded upon lie about how our premiums would decline or that we could keep our plan if we liked it. Period. Nope, we didn't need any of that to improve healthcare in America. Even to this day, the President keeps saying that if the GOP has any better ideas, he hasn't heard them. Another lie. He just doesn't want to hear them. When he was running for president in 2008, Mr. Obama admitted he "would probably go ahead with a single-payer (government only)system" if he was "designing a system from scratch." It's no surprise that he professes not to have heard any good ideas from Republicans.  But for those of you who think like the President, here are just a few ideas on how to improve healthcare that don't require a massive government intrusion.

1. Competition. You can buy your car and home insurance from an out-of-state insurance company, why not your healthcare insurance? Currently, that's illegal. But wouldn't it make sense to have competitors from 49 other states? Of course it would. This is basic stuff, people. We're not reinventing the wheel here. Remember, once the government runs healthcare completely, there is NO choice.

2. Teaching Hospitals & Clinics. 40 - 50 years ago, young doctors were given experience by working at hospitals and clinics. These clinics via teaching hospitals, gave free healthcare to those who didn't have insurance or couldn't afford the specific procedures. In return, those young physicians gained experience in treating patients. It was very cost effective. Need cataract surgery? No problem, we'll see you Thursday. But over-regulation has made these facilities non-feasible. Maybe it's time to take a giant step backwards.

3. Low premium/high deductible plans. If you're 23 years old, you don't need a plan with all the bells and whistles. You just require a catastrophic healthcare plan. Low premiums with a higher deductible are uncomplicated and affordable. This should be available to everyone. The government now dictates what plans are good enough for you and which ones aren't. Surprising that the party which touts a woman's "choice", doesn't want to offer you any.

4. Small business group plans. Allow small business groups to merge so that they can have access to plans with reduced premiums. Large pools with more healthy people in them keep costs down. Yeah, some things are just that simple.

5. Tort reform.  ObamaCare doesn't address Tort reform (frivolous lawsuits) at all. Who do you think actually pays for all those lawyers and big settlements? You, through higher and higher premiums. Would have been nice to take a look at this, don't you think? But virtually ALL Senators are lawyers, so...

6. Health Savings Accounts - Maybe you would prefer to keep all that money you might have spent on a healthcare plan. But you would still like to have money put aside for a medical emergency just in case. HSA's offer that. But ObamaCare drastically reduced the tax benefits and availabilities to HSA's. Again, your "choice" has been taken away from you. Nice, huh.

These are just a few common sense approaches to reforming healthcare in America. And we could still have portability and allow children to stay on their parent's policy to age 26 without the massive intrusion that is Obamacare. Those specific items could have been addressed. Instead they were the carrot designed to entice people. (Along with free birth control) Now those same people will feel the stick. Hope you enjoyed that carrot.

The $15.00 an hour question.

On Friday, fast food workers protested in favor of a minimum wage of $15.00/hour. Well, some were fast food workers but many were union organizers ginning up the crowd. Currently, the minimum wage is $7.25/hr. While true, that someone would be hard pressed to keep ones head financially above water with that wage, much less raise a family - very few people actually work for the $7.25 wage. Nationally only 4.7%. (U.S. Dept. of Labor) And the majority of those workers are under the age of 20. The problem with mandating a minimum wage of $15.00 an hour such as the fast food workers are demanding, is that at that rate, profit margins for fast food restaurants drop tremendously. Companies like McDonald for instance, would have two choices. Raise prices or fire workers. Since a large segment of fast food is sold to lower income people, the effect would hurt them the most. Firing workers hurts even more.
Fast food restaurants are a good place for many young people to get their first work experience. But if you plan on making it your career, maybe you shouldn't be blaming McDonalds for your problems. Most people want to move up the ladder of success. But removing access to the first rung on that ladder isn't going to help anyone.
But let's assume the $15.00/hr. rate goes into effect. How does that play to non-commercial food workers? I can hear the howls from a lot of other workers  not employed by fast food restaurants complaining to their bosses that they are worth more than just a few dollars an hour more than the guy who chose to make flipping burgers his career. And they'd be right!
If you are a good employee worth having, your boss will pay more than $7.25/hr. to keep you. That's why 95.3% of workers earn more than the minimum. Quality workers will always be able to bargain for higher compensation.
My first job paid me the then minimum wage of $2.25/hr. Yes, that was some time ago. Of course, gas was about 60 cents a gallon and a Whopper, fries and Coke could be had for under $2.00. Still, I wasn't getting rich on that $2.25 every hour on the hour. After two weeks, my boss came up to me and gave me a 50 cent an hour raise. I didn't even ask for it. I must have been worth keeping around, I suppose. Paying me more than the minimum was a way to keep me from seeking employment elsewhere. That's how the system is suppose to work.
Bottom line - you are worth what someone is willing to pay you. No more, no less. Competition for quality people with skills will drive up wages. However, if you are in a work pool that doesn't compete for quality skilled workers, you are likely to remain at the low end of the wage scale. It really is that simple.

An open apology to everyone under 40.

It's great to be young, isn't it? Well, mostly. But the truth is, you wont be young forever. In fact, you wont be "young" for the majority of your life. Of course, young can be a state of mind as well. I've seen a lot of "old" people under 30 and a lot of "young" people approaching 60. I should know. But that aside, let's talk about one factor of age you can't deny. "Chronological age".  Sooner and not so later, you will achieve adulthood. And the thing about adulthood - it just keeps going. 25 turns into 30. 30 into 40 and so on and so on. And boy does it come quick. And here's where the apology comes in.

As a baby boomer, I want to apologize for the massive debt you're about to inherit. My generation and the one that preceded us, voted ourselves huge benefits which we called "entitlements". In conjunction with a government that was all-too-happy to see the good times roll while guaranteeing themselves re-election after re-election, we stole your comfortable future. As you may know, the current national debt resides at $17 trillion. The year I was born, the national debt stood at $274 billion. The yearly interest on the current national debt is almost double that figure at $412 billion. That's just the interest. Considering we run a $1 trillion annual deficit, forget about paying off the actual debt itself. Such debts and deficits will gobble up capital that should be available for private ventures that create jobs and wealth. But instead, the federal government will require that money to pay for such items as Social Security and Medicare payments along with everything else. We are the largest retired population that will have their benefits paid for by the smallest working population ever. (See: Pyramid scheme) Some will attempt to tell you that Social Security has a surplus. They're lying to you. At one time SS did have a surplus courtesy of a large working population and a rather small retired population. The federal government "borrowed" money from SS to fund other programs. The problem is, these other programs never budgeted money to pay SS back. Currently SS has $2 trillion in I.O.U.s in it's coffers. Essentially worthless pieces of paper that are promissory notes with no financial backing... at all. But the generations before you are going to demand their benefits. And you're going to pay for them. Medical expenses for an aging population are expensive as well. We'll want that too by the way. Sorry if that doesn't leave much left over for your needs.

There are many to blame here - from both political parties. But the current administration and his party have shown absolutely no interest in controlling spending and debt. If Conservatives show a desire to do so, they are labeled as being hateful and charged with attempting to starve old people, deny young people an education and generally destroy the planet by their very existence. But if we're to spread the blame around here - some of it belongs on your doorstep as well. In recent elections, the youth vote has gone to the Democrats just as it has for the last 20 or so years. I have to admit it, the Dems have done a masterful job of enticing you. They offer the promise of everything including free health care. But they neglected to tell you about the part where you're going to eventually have to pay for it. By contrast the GOP offers you opportunity, liberty and personal responsibility. I guess that doesn't have quite the impact as "do what you want and pick up your free contraceptives as you exit the voting booth".
Eventually, someone has to be the adult in the room and tell you what you need to hear rather than what you want to hear. Take a look at the protesters against big government in Washington. Most of them are older. They're willing to make sacrifices for the future. Your future. We could stand back and just wait for our goodies to kick in. But we see the peril in doing so. America wasn't built to last 100 or 200 years. It wasn't set up to be a buffet of benefits to be paid for by the next two generations. It was designed to be the best hope on Earth for personal liberty and a template for success. And if kept true to original design, it cannot fail. We have drifted far from our founders' intent and the culprits are many. But now is the time to embrace and follow a particular ideology. One will shape your future, the other will dictate your future. Which will you choose?

Who decides what's "Hate Speech"?

Recently, Humbolt State University professor, Monica Stephens developed a Geography of Hate map of the United States. By monitoring tweets that include the words that include homophobic, racist, and disability, Ms. Stephens says she can tell us where the most hateful places in America exists. Uh huh. Allegedly, the areas designated in red and the most hateful places, the blue the least hateful. Notice how the heartland and south are just a sea of vitriol according to Professor Stephen's investigation. Yet the east and west coasts are much more enlightened. You know, the liberal bastions.

I can't help but notice that Ms. Stephen's definition of hate is specifically targeted and somewhat limited. For instance, while she considers gay bashing tweets to be hateful, she provides no similar option for tweets that mention the word "Bible thumpers". Of course, she rightfully included racial tweets but does not allow for the phrase "Teabaggers". Both hateful against Christians and those who proclaim Conservative values. Her exercise was not intended to identify all hate speech, just hate speech one might use against specific categories of people. Therefore, she alone identifies what constitutes hate speech and who the victims of hate speech are. Ms. Stephens mapping of hate made no effort to mention anti-religious tweets nor those who regularly offend those who proclaim right wing principles. It would appear the absence of such groups is by design. And apparently, if you are among either of those groups, your sensitivities are irrelevant. In fact, you can't be a victim of hate. She has not only minimized you, she wont even recognize you. Perhaps that's the real hate speech at work here - words that don't even qualify.

How to win the Obamacare war.

                                                                

This past week, the GOP controlled House of Representatives voted to keep funding the federal government, minus Obamacare. While efforts are underway to convince the Democrat held Senate do likewise, it will fail. Even if some miracle occurred and the Senate mustered 51 votes to go along with the House vote - the President would use his veto power - as the Senate wouldn't produce a high enough veto proof number. End of discussion. Sure, the House could fail to raise the debt limit and even a Senate filibuster may happen. But in the end, Republicans will get the blame for shutting down the government even though they would insist on continued funding for such necessities as Social Security, Medicare and the military, to name a few. Sometimes facts don't matter as much as rhetoric. Sad? Yes. But also true. Our line against Obamacare must be drawn, but not here and not now.

Elections have consequences. We've all heard that ol' chestnut before. But it's worth repeating because it's true. At this point in time, there is nothing Republicans can do to slow down much less impede, dismantle or outright halt Obamacare. To think otherwise is pure self indulged folly. Our focus and energies must be redirected where they can do the most good and have the most results. And that is the midterm elections of 2014 and the General elections of 2016. Yes, I know. That's a long time to wait. But I believe time is actually on our side.

Obamacare becomes less and less popular with most Americans as time goes by. The latest polls show dissatisfaction in the program at or nearing 60%. When the unions are complaining about a Democratic President and his policies, you know they've really got problems. This past week, corporations such as IBM and Walgreens have announced they will no longer be directly providing their employees with coverage and instead will dump them into the Obamacare health exchanges. Other companies have previously announced similar intentions. So much for 'keeping the health care plan you already have' as El Presidente' promised back in 2009. Within the next year, the list of companies both large and small who will follow similar paths will continue to grow. At some point, the avalanche of companies ditching their employees plans in favor of the exchanges will hit critical mass - just as the Obamaites wanted. But what they may not have foreseen, was the uproar this will cause at the polls. The public knows that the Democrats will never undo Obamacare - only the Republicans are capable of producing that result. It must be the main focus of our platform in the next election cycle. If you want this massive intrusion into your life and business gone, you have to vote it gone. In 2010 we saw a 65 seat swing in the House to the GOP. A lot of that was due to the opposition of Obamacare. With a more energized Republican base, we may have actually gotten rid of the King himself in 2012. But that's another argument for another time. With our energies refocused to individual races next year, we could swing enough Senate votes to make the 2016 Presidential race irrelevant when it comes to revoking Obamacare. At the very least, it will set the table for a 2016 GOP Presidential victory and with it, the power to get rid of this monstrosity.

Listen, I know it's tempting to flex our Conservative muscle in a feel good move such as the one Senator Ted Cruz and others are promoting. But it is doomed to fail. And in the end, we gain nothing. Let the Democrats have this one. They own Obamacare. It's theirs. All we need to do is to keep reminding voters of that fact. We have to fight the battles we can win so that ultimately the war is won. It does us no good to wage war upon ourselves when the battle must be brought to the shores of our opposition instead. From this point forward, we must keep reminding the American voter, which party brought this plague upon their houses. And which party is committed to seeing it dismantled.

Syria. Obama's mouth puts our ass in danger.

Red lines ain't what they used to be. Back in the day, when you drew a red line, it meant something. Nowadays, you have to go running behind Congress's skirt after making that ultimatum. Obama draws the red line then embarrasses himself when the heat in the kitchen gets too hot. Makes you wonder if he ever really wanted to take any action against Assad. I could argue that he doesn't have the authority to launch an attack - as there is no discernible "imminent danger" from Syria. But that aside, the President seem to be waffling on what he really wants to do.
What happens if the Senate and House don't approve his planned action in Syria? What does he do if the Senate votes to authorize but the House votes no? (Which is what I believe will happen) Does one legislative house give him the authority or does he require both? Well, if both houses are required for the passage of bills, etc. it stands to reason that both would be required when seeking authorization for military actions. It's even possible neither the house or Senate will give him a thumbs up. Should Obama decline to take military action based upon a legislative vote, he will look weak. Not the image we want presented to such bad guys as Iran and North Korea, let alone the Russians and Chinese. He has painted himself into a corner and now wants Congress to bail him out. Perhaps he should have kept his mouth shut from the beginning and not drawn brightly colored lines.

Assad is a nasty guy for sure. His regime is every bit as bad as Saddam's was. Both gassed their own people for starters. But like many Americans, I don't believe there is much of anything positive that can be achieved by attacking Syria.  If we attack with just enough power to weaken Assad, the rebels may use that to their advantage and make inroads in toppling the government. But Obama says that wouldn't be his goal. Rather he just wants to punish Assad by bombing his Air Force's runways, planes and military assets. And what if Assad is toppled? Who or what replaces him? Some of the rebels have strong ties to militant Muslim extremist groups. Are these the people we want in charge of Syria's chemical weapons? Bombing a Muslim country - any Muslim country, is not going to endear them to us. What if Syria uses their chemical weapons again after we attack? Do we bomb em' some more? How much more?

I'm sympathetic to the plight of innocent civilians. They don't deserve this. But why does it have to be us to take action? Why not let the countries in that regions use their own military to keep Assad in line? America only has one true friend in the Middle East. Israel. Jordan gets the silver metal for second place. After that, it's just a matter of how less than the next country they hate us. Does anyone really think the Saudis like us? Really like us? They, like the Turks and Pakistanis are just looking out for their best interests. Perhaps it's time that we do the same. But Obama has put all of us in a unique situation. The risk is now having America look weak and confused. I fear we may have to cover the President's ass and launch some sort of limited attack just so we don't look so ineffective and stupid. No, I'm not happy with that decision. I hate it. But Barack's mouth got our ass in trouble. This is what happens when you elect a Community organizer to the Presidency. Twice.

Are Starbucks coffee shops the safest on the planet?

Imagine you're a criminal intent on robbing a store. What kind of store? Well, for today's lesson let's make it a coffee shop. Now, coffee shop "A" refuses to allow guns of any kind by anyone on it's premises. While coffee shop "B" actually encourages law abiding individuals to enter and enjoy their beverages while armed. Even though you may have the intellect of a Moldavian Slime Rat, you would probably choose to rob coffee shop "A". With little or no resistance and zero chance of being confronted by an equally powered individual or individuals, you would rather avoid any confrontation that might land you injured, dead or in prison. Simple? You bet. But there are those out there who have the attitude that guns are bad no matter who has them. Better to be disarmed and at the mercy of those who have no qualms about using said gun for illegal and with potentially deadly results. If that's your stance, fine. It's not mine.

Starbucks Coffee is generally considered to be a Progressive leaning company. And I disagree with some of their stances. But there is one issue that I stand shoulder to shoulder with and that's Starbuck's decision to allow the legal carrying of guns into their establishments. This Saturday, there is a national movement by the anti-gun crowd to boycott and in some areas, protest Starbuck's policy.
Starbucks spokesman, Zach Hutson said, he doesn't want either side to use Starbucks as a staging ground for either side of the issue. But added, " our policy is not changing." Kudos all the way around, Zach.

Opponents of Starbucks policy have said they don't like being in an environment where a gun may be present. I've got news for you - you have been in such an environment many times and just didn't know it. And not only at Starbucks. Many states like mine (Pennsylvania) have Concealed Carry Weapons permits issued by your County Sheriff. This permits individuals who have had their backgrounds checked, to carry a concealed weapon on their person. I am one such person. And yes, I have visited Starbuck numerous times while carrying a weapon. Nobody ever knew it. They just enjoyed their lattes, keyed through their laptops and got on with their lives. I even clean up the counter where the cream and sugar are just before I leave. (What a right wing nut!)

There are horrific crimes being perpetrated out there. Some are being committed using guns. But almost none of them are being done by law abiding citizens. The idea of disarming the good guys while the bad guys ignore the laws, is an alien concept to me. I fail to see it's logic or merit. More people will be murdered this year by an assailant using a hammer. Yet I see no outpouring of contempt of hammers or proposals to require licensing hammer ownership. Perhaps we need "Hammer-Free" zones around schools. Maybe construction workers shouldn't be allowed to bring their hammers inside Starbucks.

We live in a free and potentially dangerous society. All one has to do is read the national and local news to see mindless violence rules the day. Recently a man was murdered by youths who were "bored". Yes, they used a gun. An illegal gun used by young men too young to legally obtain one. Yet, they possessed one. The gun control laws that make law abiding citizens jump through hoops, have no effect on those intent on mayhem. Starbucks is a privately owned company and they can make up their own rules regarding guns, hammers or G.I. Joe action figures on their premises. But you may feel a little more secure in knowing that a bad guy looking for a quick score, will probably pass the Starbucks you're enjoying you coffee in. I wonder what Dunkin' Donuts policy is?

Sorry, but Detroit got what it deserved.

Detroit is defaulting to which I say, "Boo Hoo".  What?  Not sensitive enough?
Well, how many times do you have to hit your thumb with a hammer before you recalculate your actions? Detroit hasn't had a Republican Mayor since 1962. And the city council has been in GOP control only once in that time. The city's population has dwindled from 1.8 million in 1950 to 1.2 million in 1980. Then it got much worse. Down to 1 million in 1990.  951,000 in 2000. Today, the population stands at 700,000 - lower than it was in 1920. Things got so bad, the city just starting razing abandoned homes. It you look at Google Maps, locate the Tiger's stadium. Next to the baseball field is the home of the NFL Detroit Lions. But across the street and for blocks to follow, are empty lots where homes once stood. We're not talking about an area at the edges of the city. We're talking about the edges of downtown. Sad. As with most tragedies like this, there are numerous villains. But with Detroit, it's easier to spot the responsible (or irresponsible) parties.
Detroit has over $3 billion in unfunded public employee pensions. In fact, even while the population declined, the number of city employees expanded - as did the generous pensions and benefit packages. Sadly, Detroit isn't alone. New York, San Francisco and Washington D.C. lead the way to financial disaster. Not surprisingly, the top 10 cities on the verge of default are headed by (drum roll please) Democrats! If you think a city on the brink of financial ruin is bad, what about a state? California will probably be the first state to go bankrupt. But that shouldn't come as a surprise when you realize that in Cali you can retire as a firefighter or policeman at age 52 with 80% of your salary and full health benefits. Teachers have it almost as good. Who do you think pays for all that sugar? THE STATE! Funded by personal and business taxes. That might explain why Californians are leaving the Golden State in droves. So are businesses. Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown wants to tax California to prosperity. Sounds like a plan! If you wanted to operate your business, where would you choose to locate? California with taxes a plenty? Or say, Texas with low taxes and a business friendly environment. By the way. Texas is doin' just great! Probably just a coincidence that California has been led by Democrats and Texas, Republicans. Also a coincidence that of the 20 most prosperous states, 18 are firmly in the hands of Republicans. But enough about them. Let's get back to Detroit. The motor city is an American tragedy. But it wont be our last. Detroit is just the canary in the mine. And the mine has been bored deep for decades. But like everywhere else, Detroit got what it voted for. Just like Texas.

Thankfully, I'll be dead when it happens.

 

The Immigration Reform bill is yet another sign of the impending American apocalypse. While (almost) everyone agrees the border needs to be secured before any legalization takes place - the bill in it's current form allows the Dept. of Homeland Security head, Janet Napolitano to simply declare the border secure and dismiss the construction of any walls, electronic or physical, from being deployed. Does anyone really think Janet or any other Democrat installed head of the DHS has any interest in securing the border? Of course not. The Dems are real big on telling Republicans that they must change and embrace the illegals. In fact, Dems are more than eager to instruct the GOP on how to remain a relevant political party and get votes. Hmmm. I don't think we should be taking advise from the opposition. They may not have our best interests at heart. The GOP has been losing the Latino vote every year since Ronald Reagan's ill fated 1986 Amnesty program. Although well intentioned, the promises of securing the border after the Amnesty never materialized. Hence, the problem we have today. We're told that legalizing the law breakers is the only way they'll like us. Well, that tact hasn't worked so well for us in the past. And it's not likely to make much inroads into the Hispanic vote these days either. Although most Latinos are Conservative on social issues, they also embrace big government solutions the Dems love to employ. My life experience tells me that money issues are usually the winning issues. The Dems know that if they can get the Latinos, especially the new immigrant Latinos on their side, they'll vote Democrat and all but insure that we will never see another Republican President. In that scenario, the GOP could only hope to have power in the House of Representatives. Forget the Senate. We can be obstructionists but never the party that sets the agenda. If Texas is turned from a red state into a blue state - game over. And it could happen if the American southwest is flooded with Democrat voting Latinos. Should that occur, say hello to an even bigger entitlement demanding and receiving America. And the enormous debt that will go along with it. I hear people say that the Immigration bill wont allow citizenship for many years. But once this bill grants them "legal status", it wont be long before the Dems will insist their new found legality should permit them accelerated citizenship and the voting rights that go along with it. The good news for me at least, is that the changing demographics probably wont have their full effect for another 40 years or so. By then, I'll be in my mid-nineties or... dead. So I wont have to witness the death of my beloved country. America will continue but not the America I knew. Not the America as our founders envisioned. Not the America worth saving. We will follow the path that previous superpowers have. The rise, the glory, the apex, the greed, the decline, the fall. If we're to avoid this path, we must be vigilant and vocal while we still have time. Otherwise, by 2045, you'll be asked to Press 2 for English. If you're given that choice at all.

An open letter to the NSA

Dear NSA,
  How are you? I am fine. But I guess you probably already knew that. After all, I learned that your organization has been collecting information on Americans phone calls, Internet searches, emails, photographs and social media entries. There are 310 million Americans nowadays, so that's got to consume a lot of your time. Keeping track of our phone calls and checking how many times someone types "Tea Party" on facebook must really be arduous. So to make your investigative lives a tad easier, I've decided to get you caught up about me.
  I am a conservative Republican. I love America, believe in the Constitution, personal responsibility, liberty and the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment. In other words - an enemy of the state. Googling my name will show that I write letters to my local newspaper in favor of conservative candidates, ideals and philosophies. I am Christian. I am white. I am male. I am straight. I don't dislike people who don't fall into those categories but I make no apologies for any of them either. Searching my emails will show that I mostly forward funny pictures with odd captions. But you probably already knew that. I have this blog and a facebook version of it. But you probably already knew that. And last week I made sarcastic remarks about the IRS on both. But you probably already knew that too. All my bills are current and I cut my lawn at least once a week. I fly the American flag from my home every day and send donations to the USO and DAV.
  I'm not a terrorist. I have never searched the web on how to make a pipe bomb. Although I just typed terrorist and how to make a pipe bomb - so I guess that probably showed up. Just for fun I'll type Tea Party Patriot and Constitution a lot next week so you have something to do. (I hear the IRS just hate those two phrases.) I don't advocate the violent overthrow of the current government, I prefer to change the regime through education and the ballot. But I will keep my arms in defense of my country against all enemies, foreign and domestic - just like the oath the President takes upon his swearing in.
I do not consent to this invasion. We are not accountable to you. You are accountable to us.
Perhaps you think gathering all this information on Americans helps keep us safe from terrorists. And there may be a need for some level of information gathering. But I also fear how such information can be used against us.  I fear my government as much as any terrorist. After all, a terrorist cell may be able to inflict bodily damage on any given day. But they can't violate my constitutional rights including the right to privacy - every single day.

The 4th Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."