The Truth About the Border Crisis

Share via email

It’s time to have a straight talk about what’s really going on with the current immigration crisis.  We’ve all seen the images of rooms stuffed full of “kids” in that 6-12 year old age range that somehow miraculously managed to travel across half a continent all by themselves only to hearken at our doorstep seeking asylum.  These are the “official” images that are meant to slip out of these facilities.  However, there’s always an alternate reality involved when unofficial images are banned from also slipping out.  A bit of fact checking reveals what’s truly going on. 

According to Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst only between 12-20% of those currently being detained fall into the category of “unaccompanied minor” status that we’re being led to believe make up the overwhelming bulk of those currently showing up at our border.  Furthermore, according to PEW Research of those “minors” 90% are actually teenagers.  That translates into the reality of the images we are being spoon fed by the media only representing somewhere between 1 and 2% of the true crisis.  It’s no wonder they don’t want any real images coming out of those camps.  To make matters worse roughly 25% of those that are currently being detained in those camps have criminal records in their country of origin.  It’s also no wonder nobody wants to see those white windowless DHS buses pulling up in their community. 

In typical Democratic fashion Obama’s political allies have put forth a bill to supposedly solve the crisis.  Their “resolution” involves an additional $4.3 Billion in funds to handle the situation.  However, for those that have actually bothered to read the bill the first thing that pops out is that only $25 Million (less than 1%) of the proposed funding is even slated to be spent this year.  The rest is nothing more than a glorified back ended slush fund for liberal causes that has nothing to do with fixing anything (reminiscent of the $ Trillion stimulus package that did little more than stimulate liberal politicians). 

Unlike many of the other scandals of this Administration (i.e. IRS, VA, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, etc) this one in particular can easily be traced directly back to Obama and his own actions.  What’s currently going on at our border didn’t happen by chance, but rather by invitation.  It was completely orchestrated by this administration as an effort to push an amnesty bill to the forefront as per his earlier promise.  Obama figured that by creating a humanitarian crisis Congress would have no choice but to cave on immigration reform.  What Obama didn’t count on in his political calculation was either the public backlash he’s now receiving or the horrific optics of having dead kids floating in the Rio Grande.  Yes, having abandoned kids showing up at our doorstep is a humanitarian crisis, but it’s also a man made crisis of pure political convenience.  There is no debating that Obama has blood on his hands this time. 

The liberal talking point on the subject of immigration has always been that we’ve all come here either directly or by the proxy of our ancestors via immigration.  Therefore, to deny others such an opportunity is hypocritical.  However, just because I need a drink of water doesn’t mean that I’m now required to leave the faucet running forever, lest it create a mess.  The same holds true as a nation.  Just because there was a time when we needed and could handle as many immigrants as we could get our hands on that doesn’t mean the immigration tap needs to be perpetually left turned in the wide open position.  Our existing immigration laws still welcome immigrants here with open arms, just in a practical manner that doesn’t leave a big mess. 

Our role as a nation isn’t to solve all the world’s problems.  That would be both logically and mathematically impossible.  Instead it’s to be as President Reagan put it “a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom loving people everywhere.”  In other words we aren’t supposed to fix the problems of others.  We’re supposed to be the example used by others to fix things for themselves.  To repurpose a famous quote, our role as a nation isn’t to provide a fish for others.  It’s to teach them how to fish for themselves.  Obama’s current political strategy isn’t meant to teach anyone how to fish.  It’s only meant to use innocent children as bait.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Choice of Dependence or Independence

Share via email

Before 1971 having health insurance was a rarity.  Even rarer still was having an employer sponsored plan.  Up until that time the few that did have coverage typically had their own self-funded individual policies.  All that changed in 1971 when President Nixon did something really foolish and signed an executive order creating wage and price controls as he tried to tame the inflation that was created as we dropped off the gold standard.  The poorly thought out plan of direct centralized control over the economy ultimately created chaos.  Yep, improper and ill-advised executive orders tend to suck even when they are issued by republican Presidents. 

One of the unintended consequences of Nixon’s edict was that businesses now had to figure out a new method of recruiting and retaining talent since they no longer had the ability to offer them additional cash incentives.  The end result was that non-cash compensations such as stock options and company based healthcare coverage were implemented.  At first only high level talent received these newly discovered perks.  However, it didn’t take long for unions to see the potential of such benefits and the pool of recipients quickly began to grow until today employer sponsored coverage is more the norm than the exception for most full time employment. 

Initially most policies were meant to focus primarily on catastrophic events.  However, it didn’t take long for a whiney public to start demanding more and more out of their coverage.  Policies originally designed to cover surgeries and hospital stays were now covering more trivial items such as aspirin and band aids.  Eventually things that were normally considered “optional” such as hair transplants and breast implants were getting redefined as necessities.  The cost of premiums for having such coverage rose accordingly until it created the inevitable breach in cost practicality.  To counter the loss of coverage created by this breach healthcare was suddenly redefined as a “right” instead of the perk it was meant to be. 

The recent Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case has finally placed focus on just how warped our healthcare system has become.  Healthcare is no longer about maintaining health.  It’s about placating whiners and pushing political agendas.  Once the ruling came down on the Hobby Lobby case there was an immediate outcry from Liberals that somehow women’s rights were being violated.  However, there are a couple of things that they conveniently left out of the conversation.  For instance, out of 16 different potential types of birth control the ruling only affected the 4 that Hobby Lobby felt were more closely related to abortion than actual birth control (i.e. the morning after pill). 

The second thing that was conveniently ignored by the Left is that the mandate for “free” birth control has only existed since August 1, 2012.  Prior to that coverage had always been considered optional.  So basically the whining, waling and gnashing of teeth response we’ve witnessed since the SCOTUS ruling has been blown way out of proportion.  Finally, nobody has been denied access to anything.  The only thing this ruling has done is state that if someone were to choose one of the four methods not covered they can still get it, just not for free. 

My wife and I have two progeny, one boy and one girl.  When each became a legal adult at 18 we gave them a choice.  At that point they could either declare their independence or their dependence.  If they declared their independence they would be able to enjoy all the freedoms adulthood had to offer, but would also have to bear the burdens that such freedom brings.  Conversely, if they chose the opposing path they could continue to share in our good graces, but only as long as they continued to live under our rules.  They couldn’t choose both.  

The problem with liberalism is that it has ruined an entire generation by convincing the mindless that they can enjoy the best of both worlds and that dependence and independence can somehow magically co-exist.  People have been falsely led to believe that they can enjoy freedom of choice without suffering the burdens and consequences of that choice.  Personally, I find it a bit ridiculous that the outcry over the Hobby Lobby ruling is “it’s our bodies, it’s our choice” when the outcry would be just as valid coming from employers if they were to say “yes, but it’s our money”.  Just like with the option we gave to our kids it’s time now for our nation to grow up and decide.  Do we prefer to live under the burdens of freedom, or the rules of dependence?  

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Last Man Standing

Share via email

It would be far easier to explain the logic behind common core math than it would be to explain what on God’s green Earth the logic is behind Obama’s foreign policies related to the Middle East.  Whether you agreed with Bush’s policies or not, at least they were somewhat coherent.  To say that Obama’s policies are a bit befuddled doesn’t even begin to cover the chaos and confusion he’s created.  It doesn’t help that his past tags for Secretaries of State, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, would be lucky to even find the Middle East on a map let alone have a clue about how to solve issues there. 

So let’s take a look at just how incoherent Obama’s policies have been so far.  Keep in mind that this all comes from the same bipolar nitwit that claimed Bush didn’t have authority to go to Iraq even though he had Congressional approval and 16 U.N. resolutions, yet he himself went into Libya without even bothering to ask anyone’s permission.  In the Middle East Obama doesn’t like Russian backed Syrian Strong man Bashir Assad, nor does he like Iran or Al Qaeda.  So when rebels stood up against Assad he put his backing behind those rebels which are made up primarily from the group ISIS, which by the way also happens to be made up of Sunni Muslims from the group Al Qaeda (you remember them, the same group that attacked us on 9/11). 

So Obama is now supporting the very same people who attacked us, right?  Well, yes and no.  You see he fully supports them right up until they cross over the border from Syria into Iraq where they are now fighting the Iraqi government that we put in place and which happens to be made up mainly of Shi’ites who are being backed by our other enemy Iran.  So currently we are supporting ISIS on the Syrian side of the border while at the same time we are poised to fight against them on the Iraqi side of the border.  In order to do that we would now be forced to team up with the very Iranians that we are currently battling everywhere else.  If this all makes since so far you need to have your head examined.  Since Obama can’t decide who is friend and who is foe he has managed to single handedly add an entirely new word to the English language, “Frenemies”.  It’s no wonder it’s far easier for everyone over there to simply go ahead and hate us regardless of which side we claim to support simply so as not to be confused by our policies. 

The easiest brain dead response you’ll get from the Left defending Obama’s policies is that this is all Bush’s fault, except it isn’t and here’s why.  Obama and Kerry already took a victory lap on Iraq declaring that they were the ones who brought peace and stability to the region.  That means that any new conflicts that are now arising have been borne out of the peace and stability that Obama and Kerry declared.  Thus this is now totally on them because, after all, taking credit has consequences.  It’s also important to remember that it was Obama who backed Maliki as the new Iraqi President and it was Maliki who decided to abandon the Sunni part of his army by not bothering to pay them. This is the exact same part of the army that just melted away when their brethren Sunni’s from ISIS showed up in places like Mosul.  That’s why it’s actually easy to understand why ISIS was able to make so much headway so quickly in Iraq up until they reached the Shi’ite controlled areas near Baghdad

Iraq is by no means Obama’s only Middle East blunder.  Remember, we just sent 5 high ranking Taliban terrorist back to the battlefront in Afghanistan in exchange for one lone traitor.  This means we’ve embolden our enemies to seek out further hostages for trade.  In addition the death of four brave men from the embassy in Benghazi represents bloodstains on Obama’s hands no matter how hard the press tries to ignore it.  Also, don’t forget the Iranians are now but a mere whisker’s width away from having their own nukes and Israel is currently feeling like an abandoned child amid all the chaos surrounding them. 

The reality is that the Sunni’s and Shi’ites have been waging a religious war against each other for more than a millennium with no end in sight.  All we can really do for now is thank God that Bush did manage to get most of the WMDs out of the area before it all blew up.  At this point there are only two reasons why we should even care about the Middle East (Israel and oil).  Therefore, our foreign policy should be simple.  We should setup a security zone around Israel to protect it and start pumping our own oil for which we have more than enough of ASAP.  In the mean time we should let these morons go ahead and destroy each other.  We shouldn’t waste anymore American blood or treasure by showing up there again until all we have to deal with is whoever happens to be the last man standing.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What the Brat Victor Really Means

Share via email

If you listen to the talking heads on the Left they are claiming that Tea Party member David Brat’s surprise win yesterday over incumbent Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor is a sure sign that Republican’s are moving to the extreme right.  Never mind that they can’t point out a single part of Brat’s platform that would qualify as “extreme”.  Conversely, if you listen to the talking heads from the Right they are claiming that Brat’s victory is a sure sign that all hope is lost in Republicans ever gaining majorities on anything ever again simply because in their mind being a true conservative is an unwinnable position in a general election.  Apparently establishment republicans have REALLY short memories about recent presidential elections.  Personally, I think both sides are completely misreading what just happened. 

Several months ago I attended a candidate’s forum where I got to ask each of the candidates what they felt was most important for a politician to focus on; party, politics, or policy?  What happened last night was that the voters of Virginia’s 7th Congressional District gave their own response to that question and got it right.  David Brat was hardly the party pick.  After all, he was competing against one of the establishment republican’s favorite sons when he went head to head against Eric Cantor, so party obviously wasn’t important to the voters.  Brat also didn’t waste time preaching the establishment’s populist mantra of “let’s all just go along to get along”, so politics also wasn’t that important either.  The one thing Brat did do in his campaign and on his website was state emphatically what things he believed in and why.  In other words, Brat bet it all on policy and in doing so pulled off one of the biggest political upsets in history. 

Being a democratic politician is easy.  It’s all about providing a populist mantra that everyone wants to hear.  Democratic politicians are like the bad parent who is perfectly fine with telling kids that eating candy for dinner is OK just as long it means they remain the ‘favorite parent” on election day.  As for establishment republican’s they are no better at playing the adult in the room, instead preferring to bury their head in the evening paper rather than risk the wrath of an unruly child by speaking up about what is actually good for them fearing that doing so might cost them votes.  However, at some point when the child is sick from too much of the sweet stuff and spewing the consequences of such over-indulgence from every orifice the best most mainstream politicians can offer is more political promises to get the bad taste out of their mouth.  Heck, at some point even Hansel and Gretel became smart enough to figure out that the witch’s candy was nothing more than a cheap trick meant solely to get them to cooperate. 

What the headline from last night’s victory should be reading is that the voters in Virginia simply got tired of being sick from being fed too much political candy.  If the politicians from neither mainstream party were going to look after their well being the voters would find someone else willing to play the adult role model they desperately needed.  That adult came in the form of an economics professor who also happened to be from the Tea Party.  I’m certain that between now and November Democrats have every intention of attacking Brat over his policies the same way a spoiled child throws a tantrum to a parent that won’t give in.  However, what the voters of Virginia have already declared after suffering for so long is that they’ve decided to go on a diet and live a politically healthy lifestyle for a change.        

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Offensiveness of Liberal Stupidity

Share via email

Liberals are constantly whining about how offended they are because I call them stupid.  The honest truth is that I am more offended by them because they ARE stupid.  Rather than snipe back and forth about the realities behind their lack of intellectual prowess I’d prefer instead to illustrate my point with a real life scenario that is currently being brought about by their profound ineptitude. 

If you ask pretty much any Liberal about the idea of simplifying the tax code and going to a flat tax model you’ll get roughly the same reaction as my cat gets from my dog when it wanders too close to her food dish.  It doesn’t matter that Liberals can’t explain why they consider a progressive tax to be a fairer model because, after all, liberals can’t even define “fairness” in the first place.  Therefore, expecting them to explain fairness in relation to the math behind a taxation model is simply a bridge too far. 

In steps liberalism with one of it’s even less intellectual ideas, the raising of the minimum wage to some new (and totally arbitrary) “living wage” standard.  So what does raising the minimum wage rate and flat taxes have to do with each other you ask?  Well let’s let liberalism expose itself by showing exactly how easily the two can become hopelessly intertwined.  As you read further please keep in mind my motto that liberalism is nothing more than an emotional implementation of one-step-forward thinking. 

For our example let’s take a look at the liberal bastion of SeaTac, WA to see how this all comes together.  In SeaTac they have already raised the mandatory minimum wage rate to $15/hour.  Thus in order to afford this suddenly elevated labor cost many local businesses have been forced to implement a “surcharge” to their receipts.  Basically, this surcharge acts similar to a sales tax, which for anyone above the age of 7 understands is nothing more than a glorified flat tax.  So as ironic as it sounds the very same morons that won’t hesitate to express vitriol toward a flat tax model are now indirectly imposing this very same tax model on the masses through their unrealistic wage demands.  

But wait, it gets even worse!  A recent study using McDonalds as a model suggested that the implementation of such an increase in wages could ultimately correspond to an increase in pricing at McDonalds by approximately 27%.  Well here’s a newsflash for the brainless among us, wealthy people rarely eat at or shop at places like McDonalds and Wal-Mart which are the typical targets against employees only making the current minimum wage.  So who are the most likely victims of this new elevated pricing/flat taxing model?  Ding, Ding, Ding, you guessed it, the very POOR that Liberals claim their ideas are supposed to be helping.  We won’t even get into the detrimental affect that job losses through things like layoffs, off-shoring labor, or automation would have against the very same people who rely on these jobs to have any living standard at all, but can only be offered if done so at realistic rates.

Liberals simply aren’t smart enough to understand even basic economic concepts (i.e. hiking the minimum wage is actually nothing more than a tax on poor people, or that raising taxes on the wealthy creates an even greater wealth divide).  The reason they aren’t smart enough is because Liberals can never get beyond their one-step-forward mentality to see that implementing feel-good policies instead of sound well thought out policies will always have the greatest consequences against those unable to defend themselves from such stupidity.  That is precisely the reason I find liberal stupidity to be so offensive. 

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Ignorance of Proportional Response

Share via email

POTUS_West PointObama said something in his recent speech at West Point that caught my attention.  Specifically, he said that the U.S. should be focusing more on the practice of “proportional responses” to crisis (i.e. terrorist threats and embassy attacks).  I hope as Commander-in-Chief of the greatest military on earth that he merely misspoke when he made this statement and what he really meant to say is that we need to practice more “measured responses”.  I would think that his speech writers would be smart enough to realize that there is a profound difference between the two terms. 

To illustrate the difference between a proportional response and a measured response think of the following scenario:  In a proportional response an intruder is attempting to break into your house and is armed with a .22 caliber pistol that holds 15 rounds.  Therefore, in response you get your own .22 with a 15 round clip to confront him.  You fire no more rounds or generate no more wounds to him than he does to you.  Conversely, in a measured response you simply keep count of the number of entry wounds you feel you need to place in the intruder prior to any cease fire.  My personal preference is that the number of holes should be directly related to the number of rounds in my clip. 

The tit-for-tat diplomacy of proportional response is a dangerous concept.  It makes potential victims out of even the strongest of nations.  That’s because it allows your enemies the opportunity to enjoy equal footing regardless of any real strength differentials.  It’s like that idiotic scene in movies where the good guy drops his weapon to go toe-to-toe in a slugfest with the bad guy just to prove a point.  In real life the good guy doesn’t always come out on top like they do in movies, so why take any such unnecessary chances?  The same holds true with our national security.  Why take unnecessary chances by giving the bad guys an even break? 

Sadly, there are numerous countries and groups of ne’er-do-wells that would love nothing more than to trade punches with “the great satan” just as long as they get to call the shots on how often and how hard those punches get thrown.  That’s because it becomes a great recruiting tool and PR blitz to show how brave they are to stand up to the giant beast while at the same time they are still painting that beast as the bully to the U.N. mob and world press.  The ugly truth is that to most countries we’ll get painted as the bully regardless of our response anyway.  So why not just accept that fact at the outset and go ahead and create martyrs out of morons? 

Most of us have heard the motto “Don’t get mad.  Get even”.  Personally, I’ve always thought that was a stupid idea.  I prefer the motto “Don’t get even.  Get ahead”.  We need to be smart enough to understand that if someone were to punch us, our response shouldn’t be to simply punch them back, but instead to pummel them senseless.  Let the potential for real pain be the deterrent to making bad choices.  This is what President Teddy Roosevelt meant when he said that we should “Speak softly, but carry a big stick”. 

The role of a weapon for self defense is simple.  The weapon itself is an inanimate object with no sense of proportionality.  Its greatest use is to stop the bad guys, period.  However, its greatest value is when the potential use of its destructive force deters its very need.  The same can be said of our military.  The greatest use of our military might is the total annihilation of our enemies.  However, the greatest value is when the potential for such a destructive outcome deters its very need.  Therefore, let our potential enemies be warned.  Pacifism is a noble concept, but can only be practiced in earnest by the victor.

Share via email
Categories: President Obama, U.S. Armed Forces, Uncategorized | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

Confessions of a Hater

Share via email

As a part time political pundit I have a decent sized following.  Along with a loyal base of fans I also have a loyal base of critics who are always on the ready with their rebuttals from the opposing viewpoint.  Often times these rebuttals include suggestions for specific activities they feel I should be performing on myself.  Admittedly such activities would seem somewhat physically impossible at this stage of life.  Perhaps in my more limber youth…..but I digress. J Along with these suggestions typically are included descriptives they believe I’ve earned through my opinions which are generally reserved for such things as a person’s posterior region.   There are times when I find myself somewhat in agreement with their assessment depending on the topic du jour.  This is especially true after I’ve just been on a rant about the absolute stupidity behind such left wing luminaries as Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, or Harry Reid. 

However, there is one label in particular that I have to admit I not only agree with, but actually relish.  The label that I’m referring to is the one in which I’m called a “hater”.  Most people would cringe at the concept of being called a hater which is exactly why the Left likes to wield the term like a political sword against the opposition.  They like to play off the Right’s inane fear of not being liked or being called names in general.  I have no such fear.  I come from the belief that I’d much rather be right than liked.  After all, even in biblical times the followers of Christ were smart enough to accept scorn over populism. 

Most people would think it odd that I willingly accept the label of hater, but that’s because most people can’t seem to think for themselves.  One of the greatest deceptions of both the devil and liberals is that the sinner and the sin are inexorably intertwined.  Therefore, they would like for people to believe that to have disdain for one automatically infers a disdain for the other.  Conversely, you can only accept the sinner if you’re willing to also accept the sin.  This explains why Liberals went all bonkers over Phil Robinson declaring his personal belief that homosexuality is a sin.  Liberals automatically labeled him a hater while purposefully ignoring the rest of his statement about also believing that it is important to “love the sinner regardless of the sin”. 

When people hear the term “hater” the media has brainwashed the public into automatically assuming the worst in that it means a hater automatically hates people.  So to the Left if a person hates abortion it must automatically infer that they also hate the women who have abortions.  If a person thinks illegal immigration is wrong then to the Left it infers that you must hate all Hispanics.  If a person hates to see people fail to put forth their best effort to better their own lives then it can only mean that they must hate the poor in general.  In reality, such a concept represents a weak intellectual argument that should only work on the weak minded. 

The reason that I relish the moniker of hater isn’t because I hate people, but because I hate many of the stupid concepts and ideas such as the hater principle that provide false narratives.  For example; I hate the idea of someone telling me “the debate has been settled” without providing any real evidence to explain their case (i.e. global warming or Benghazi).  I hate hearing someone espousing stupidity (like Obamacare) without having even the slightest ability to explain their own position.  I hate being told to shut up and sit down when I ask questions of those attempting to use their agenda to control my life.  I hate watching anyone with authority refuse to take responsibility or be held accountable for their misdeeds.  I hate being lied to, but even worse I hate that people are so willing to accept the lies without question.  And I especially hate that we as a people are so willing to squander our inheritance of such a great nation and put our posterity in peril for the mere promise of table scraps from some socialist master’s hand.  I hate that people can’t see that as God created miracles we are meant to be better than mere slaves to some earth bound elitist pseudo deity. 

Yes, I’m a hater and I’m proud of it.  When judgment day arrives I figure I’ll have plenty to be held accountable for all on my own.  What I don’t need is the additional burden of trying to explain to my Maker why I chose to ignore the difference between right and wrong merely to avoid some label inscribed by people that generally speaking don’t even know me.  Therefore, rather than cowering from such a weapon of words I chose to take that weapon away by embracing their moniker through explanation rather than surrendering to it out of fear.  Yes, I am a hater because I hate those things that are illogical, agenda driven, and are destined to stifle the human race from realizing its fullest potential rather than propelling it forward.  So you see, in reality I can easily explain why I’m a hater.  The real question is why aren’t you?

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Understanding the Political “Sell”

Share via email

Periodically I do volunteer work for one of the local universities.  Each semester I get the opportunity to judge case study presentations from the business school.  It’s a straight forward effort where groups are broken up into teams of 4-6 students each.  Each team then does a 12 minute presentation followed by 5 minutes of Q&A where, as judges, we get to challenge them with questions thereby forcing each team to defend its presentation.  It’s the Q&A portion where they tend to reveal if they truly understand and believe what they just presented or are merely attempting to dazzle us with fancy business terms.  At the end each group is given their composite score and each judge is asked by the presiding professor to provide some sage advice from “the real world”. 

After last night’s competition I was speaking with one of the teams that happened to be made up of students from the school’s marketing program when it struck me.  In real life we are all in marketing whether we realize it or not.  Whether we are trying to sell a product to a client, an idea to our boss, or perhaps our own qualities to a potential future mate, we are all in a state of perpetual salesmanship of one form or another.  Since yesterday also happened to be Election Day it was easy to then relate this concept back to politics as well. 

Just like in the case studies above there are two parts to “the sell”.  The first part is the presentation itself and the second part has to do with creating the credibility that comes from defending the presentation against scrutiny.  Once you understand this concept it becomes easy to understand the difference of politics between Liberals and Conservatives.  It all has to do with the proportional relationship between the presentation and the amount of acceptable scrutiny.  Conservatives believe the proportionality is 10% presentation and 90% scrutiny.  Conversely, Liberals believe that the political “sell” is 100% presentation and 0% scrutiny. This explains why Liberals won’t hesitate to talk about how brilliant Obama sounds when he speaks, yet have never bothered to inquire about any of his college transcripts as proof of his brilliance.  Ironically, the cowardly brain dead middle doesn’t care what the proportionality is just as long as neither the presentation nor the scrutiny offends anyone. 

Here’s a perfect example to illustrate this concept.  If we look at global warming it’s easy to understand that liberals love the presentation.  The only thing required is to parade a team of scientist past the media stating that global warming is real and liberals are pretty much sold on the concept.  The lack of a need for scrutiny explains why the battle cry from the Left has always been that the debate has already been settled.  However, to a conservative an attempted sell using this approach will always fail.  That’s because we expect the opportunity to test credibility.  Let’s face it, even if scientist could prove the earth is heating up there are still a lot of questions that need answers like:  Can you prove causality or is it simply a cyclical event?  Or the one question that never gets asked…Do the benefits of a warming climate potentially out weight the negatives?  Conservatives believe legitimate questions deserve legitimate answers before we are willing to buy into the idea of turning our lifestyles over to a slick presentation of a theory that refuses to defend itself against scrutiny. 

To a Conservative this type of questioning is a necessity.  To a Liberal this type of questioning is a nuisance.  Liberals love to post presentations that promote sweet sounding ideas like “healthcare for all” or “living wages”.  Conversely they hate it when I immediately scrutinize their post by challenging them to “show me the math.”  Beyond these examples all you need to do is look at the day’s headlines to see just how true this concept holds up on practically any subject.  Liberals are currently trying to silence questioning on everything from climate change, to Benghazi, to Fast and Furious; to the IRS scandal where they’ve claimed that the debate is already settled simply because the questions have already been asked.  What they fail to understand is that there is no valid defense of scrutiny until the all questions that have already been asked also get answered.  

I’ve always been taught that the reason someone doesn’t want to hear questions is because they don’t want to reveal the real answers.  When a politician has nothing to hide it also represents the exact the amount of information that will be kept hidden.  When a politician attempts to dismiss the question, that’s the clue that we should all be scrutinizing their presentation even more.  I was raised under the concept that it is both our right and our responsibility to question everything simply because that is how lies are revealed and truths are made believable.  Therefore, my parting words of wisdom to this team of marketing students were that only fools buys strictly off the presentation.  When it comes to selling political ideas it’s the wise person that understands that the successful defense of scrutiny is what turns the verb “sell” into the noun “sale”.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ENLIST Offers Another Path to Amnesty

Share via email

0621-US-Afghanistan-troops-come-home_full_600Members in both parties of the U.S. Senate and House, along with aspiring Republican Presidential candidate Jeb (Act of Love) Bush wish nothing more than to push through amnesty prior to the 2016 election, if not 2014.  In the DC bubble, the narrative is that the Republican Party must take swift action to gain political support of illegals residing in the United States.  Democrats are ecstatic. They realize that achieving legal residency for an estimated 11+ million people living in the U.S., in conjunction with the millions sure to follow via chain migration, secures a voting majority that will overwhelmingly benefit Democrats for generations to come.

Although the comprehensive immigration bill is stalled in the House, this hasn’t stopped some members in Congress from crafting piecemeal legislation to provide amnesty for those living here illegally.

California Congressman Jeff Denham (R-CA) has proposed legislation that uses the U.S. military as a vehicle for amnesty. H.R. 2377 or the ENLIST Act: “Authorizes the enlistment in the armed forces of aliens unlawfully present in the United States on December 31, 2011, who: (1) have been continuously present in the United States since such date; (2) were younger than 15 years of age when they initially entered the United States; and (3) are otherwise eligible for original enlistment in a regular component of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.“   This would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to adjust the status (make legal) of these illegal DREAMers to “lawful permanent resident” LPR status.

There are numerous problems with this plan.  Denham’s bill circumvents current Federal law, offers dangerous incentives to the young and presents a security risk.  Has anyone asked what, if anything, we would know about the background of these new servicemen and women?  They have lived, as often stated, “in the shadows.” We have little to no information about their lives prior to arriving here.  Were they involved in illegal activity?  Additionally, Congress will be tasking every branch of the service with major logistical challenges; acclimating people from many countries, cultures and languages to technical jobs as they learn English and hopefully, some of the historical background required of those becoming naturalized U.S. citizens.

For several years the military has met recruiting and retention goals.  This begs the question, will we be giving enlistment and placement preference to newly legalized young adults over natural born citizens?  Many natural born Americans choose the military as a way to prepare for a career and learn valuable skills.  The ENLIST plan will foster animosity and conflict among service members. This is a valid concern as the military becomes a testing ground for social engineers, unconcerned with the primary mission of military readiness.

People respond to incentives.  The rumors of expedited citizenship has already started a massive influx of young people across the border at extraordinary risk. Heritage explains, “According to the recent testimony of Gil Kerlikowske, head of Customs and Border Protection, the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border has increased from 6,000 in FY 2011 to 60,000 in FY 2014. The incentive is so strong, he explained,that some parents are even “willing to support vile criminal networks” that can aid in the crossing and “place their precious children in harm’s way.

This proposed legislation also circumvents current federal law which provides a path for qualified legal immigrants to join the military.  By the way, who speaks for all those around the world that have followed the rules to come into this country through the legal immigration process?  I’ve never heard a valid response to this question. Where is the fairness?

The ENLIST bill is one of several plans being crafted in the bowels of Congress to legalize millions of people living here illegally. In every instance, we must acknowledge a country deeply in debt, $18 trillion and growing. Much of the debt is entitlement programs that stand to increase as more people access the benefits in the coming months and years.  We must let Congress know the voices and money in Washington do not represent the view of most Americans.

Share via email
Categories: American Culture, Amnesty, hispanic voters, illegal immigration, latino issues, U.S. Constitution, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

Taken From Within

Share via email

This may come as a surprise to the Left but most Tea Party members are not big fans of anarchy.  We strongly believe that there is a need to have legal standards to prevent chaos and maintain order in a civil society.  Not everyone is going to agree with every law, but that’s why the best method of ensuring adherence is to have both the laws and the enforcement of laws that make the most logical sense.  We are also not big fans of having people taking the law into their own hands, preferring instead to have legal issues adjudicated in proper fashion.  However, what do you do when it’s the very people sworn to uphold the law that assume the role of the criminals?  Furthermore, what do you do when it’s the criminals who also happen to be in charge of adjudication?  Historically speaking it’s not a lack of control, but the application of excessive government control that ultimately creates the environment that so often leads to anarchy. 

Eric Holder may well be the point of the spear when it comes to not only acting as the enabler, but also as the guardian of government abuse.  Even though it’s obvious what has happened to conservative groups under the scrutiny of the IRS, there is basically a zero chance of Holder’s Justice Department pursuing it in any real fashion. However, Holder is just one of many in such a position that must be contended with when it comes to seeking justice against the government.  For example, we now know that one of the very people leading the committee that is supposed to be doing the investigation into the IRS scandal, Elijah Cummings, also happens to be one of the original instigators.  So how do you seek justice when it can only be obtained if the devil is willing to condemn himself? 

In the recent Bundy Ranch case there are issues not just legally, but also logically.  To put it simply, the Feds lacked a logical argument for being there in the first place.  The very excuse for why they were there, protecting the desert turtle, was based a totally bogus premise.  It was a blatant lie!  In reality, the desert turtle which was supposedly at risk has lived in a peaceful coexistence with cattle on that very ranch for almost 150 years so they were hardly in any danger.  In fact, the overpopulation of these very turtles has even led to a government euthanasia program.  Furthermore, the land in question wasn’t even federal land, but state land, so any references to past due grazing payments should have been a state matter with no BLM involvement whatsoever. 

Where things went WAY off the logical chart came from the excessively blatant bully tactics employed by the government to get its way.  Think about it for a second.  Our federal government sent in 200 heavily armed agents just to take on a herd of 400 grazing cattle.  Talk about overkill!  So what’s next, using Navy destroyers to protect sea turtles?  It’s appalling illogical to realize that at a time when we’re being told all government resources are being stretched to the hilt to find that we’re wasting resources chasing down what is eventually destined to be converted into Big Macs and T-bone steaks.  As a friend suggested, perhaps we should have labeled them as “undocumented bovines” and labeled anyone who threatened them as a bunch of “cattlephobic haters”.  That way the Feds would have not only left them alone, but would also provide them with EBT cards and signed them up for Obamacare. 

The problem with both the IRS case and the Bundy case is that these are by no means the only such cases that have reared their ugly heads recently.  The government has infamously played a heavy hand at times against its own citizens going all the way back to Wounded Knee.  However, lately we’ve been witnessing an ever increasing weaponization of government agencies both from a political usage standpoint, as well as an actual arms standpoint.  Can someone please give me a logical explanation as to why such departments as The Social Security Administration or The National Weather Service are in dire need of hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition?   Is there some secret plan to keep social security solvent by picking off our elderly?  Is the plan to threaten global warming away at the point of a gun?  What gives? 

If someone would have asked me a decade ago whether or not I could ever envision the collapse of the greatest nation on earth through such tyrannical control I would have simply snickered and called them a delusional alarmist.  However, in today’s environment I can appreciate the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln even more.  To paraphrase this great man’s thoughts:  America can never be taken from the outside.  However, when we willfully ignore the misdeeds of bad governance we will find ourselves taken from within.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment