The Rise of the U.S.S.A.

While the rest of us were busy preparing for the holidays, Congress was busy trampling on our freedoms and torching the Bill of Rights.  How did they do this, you ask?  A little publicized piece of legislation known as the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA.  It allows the U.S. military to pursue and indefinitely detain suspected terrorists on U.S. soil, including U.S. citizens.  The pursuit of terror suspects in America was previously the sole domain of the CIA and FBI.  The bill passed the House and the Senate but was threatened to be vetoed by the White House.  That threat was lifted when some language was changed and a small provision was added.  That provision gives the President, rather than the Secretary of Defense, the authority to issue a waiver of the military custody requirement and also gives the President the discretion in implementing the new provisions. In plain English, it gives the President the authority to determine who will be placed in military custody and who will go to a civilian jail.

So let me get this straight; President Obama was going to veto this until he was given the power to determine who gets put into military custody and who goes to a regular jail?  He gets to determine who is so great a threat that they need to be locked away at Guantanamo Bay? Hmmm.  Sounds very concentration/internment camp-like to me.  Let's not forget that it was under our own President, F.D.R., that U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were placed in camps out of fear they may be "enemies of the state."  Now this same power is in Obama's hands, as well as the hands of whomever succeeds him as President.  Obama, after signing this into law, issued a signing statement that he would not use this authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens.  Well, sure. After all, Obama keeps his promises, right?  Bipartisanship? Transparency? Unemployment no higher than 8%?  I think you get the point.  Furthermore, signing statements are meaningless.  The President has no legal obligation to uphold anything in a signing statement.  What makes this bill even more frightening is the ease with which it passed the Republican-controlled House and the Democrat-controlled Senate.  These two bodies couldn't agree on a lunch date yet THIS passes with flying colors? The bill passed the Senate with an 86-13 vote.  The 13 "no" votes? This may surprise you:  6 Republicans, 6 Democrats, and 1 Independent.  This simply furthers my assertion that the "D" and "R" mean absolutely nothing.  Two of the Democrats were Dick Durbin of Illinois and Al Franken of Minnesota, 2 of the most liberal politicians you will find.  The Republican nays included Rand Paul of Kentucky and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, 2 of the most vocal small government advocates in D.C.  The Independent was Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-avowed socialist.  This simply goes to show that while some people may have differing opinions of the role of the federal government, they agree that the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, should be left alone.  Apparently, 86 other Senators, including Harry Reid, John McCain and Mitch McConnell, don't feel the same way.  Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."  Apparently most of our elected officials in our nation's capital need a refresher course on our history.  Or maybe they're just two sides of the same coin and they all want to "transform" this country into their own image of what we should be.  Well I'm sorry, I don't want their vision, I want the Founder's vision.  I for one will continue to fight to stop us from becoming the United Socialist States of America, will you?

Fast and Furious

In the fall of 2009, the department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), under direction of the U.S. Justice Department, began a gun-walking operation known as "Fast and Furious."  Here was the premise:  allow "straw purchasers" (someone who buys weapons for someone who cannot buy them themselves) to obtain automatic weapons, including .50 caliber sniper rifles, from a dealer in Arizona, cross the border into Mexico with those weapons (hence the "walking") and get them into the hands of Mexican drug cartels where they would then be arrested for possession of illegal weapons.  ATF had GPS tracking devices on the weapons and would track them until the cartels obtained them.  Here's where it all went south, no pun intended.  First of all, the batteries for the GPS devices died, so the weapons all but vanished.  Granted, they still had the serial numbers of the guns, but serial numbers don't emit a signal.  Next, neither ATF nor the Justice Department notified the Mexican authorities of what they were doing.  Oops.  But what really set this off was the murder of U.S. Customs Agent Brian Terry.
     A total of 2,020 weapons were purchased and walked into Mexico.  To date, over 1,400 of those weapons are still unaccounted for.  Over 500 have been linked to violent crime in Mexico.  At least 2 were found at the crime scene where Agent Terry was murdered.  A botched operation no doubt, but it gets worse.  When Attorney General Eric Holder was questioned about it on May 3 of this year by the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said that he had heard of Fast and Furious "a few weeks ago."  But a memo that later surfaced from November 2010, Assistant AG Lanny Breuer notified Holder of a sealed indictment against alleged gun traffickers in Arizona that would remain sealed "until another investigation, Phoenix-based 'Operation Fast and Furious', is ready for takedown."  And in a memo from July 2010 by Michael Walther, director of the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) claimed Holder was notified that NDIC and a Phoenix drug enforcement task force would assist ATF with an investigation of a suspected gun trafficker being run under Fast and Furious.  Again, oops.  So not only will Holder not admit how long he's actually known about Fast and Furious, even when under oath, he accepts no responsibility for this operation nor will he apologize to the family of Brian Terry, only saying he "regrets" what happened to Terry.  Now the White House has sealed the documents about Agent Terry's death.  This is getting dangerously close to the textbook definition of a cover-up.  Democrats have tried to lessen the impact of Fast and Furious by pointing out that there was a similar operation run under the Bush administration, operation Wide Receiver.  While this is true, there are 2 key differences:  1) Under Wide Receiver, Mexican authorities were notified and involved and, 2) No federal agents lost their life under Wide Receiver.  So Democrats are going to justify Fast and Furious with "Bush did it too?"  Really? I'm not saying Wide Receiver was acceptable DOJ policy, but why can't Dems come down on one of their own for such an egregious error in judgement?  As heat has increased on Holder to resign in the wake of Fast and Furious, he is growing agitated.  He actually confronted a reporter from the Daily Caller, saying, "You guys need to - you need to stop this.  It's not an organic thing that's just happening.  You guys are behind it."  Why is it when liberals are caught in scandals, it's always some "right-wing conspiracy?"  What makes this even worse is someone in the White House knew about this.  According to Human Events, during recent Congressional testimony, former Phoenix area ATF special agent in charge William Newell claims he "discussed the operation with the national security director for North America, Kevin O'Reilly."  This proves a White House official knew about Fast and Furious.  President Obama claims he had no knowledge of Fast and Furious, yet $10 million was set aside for the operation as part of the 2009 stimulus package and he talked about "gun tracing" and "gun enforcement policies" at a joint press conference in Mexico City with President Felipe Calderon in April 2009.  So, obviously someone is lying.  The bigger question is who and about how much?  Obama continues to stand by Holder enacting no discipline upon him whatsoever.  I fear as more details unfold in this investigation, the fallout could be so immense it could make Watergate look like child's play.  Personally, I think this whole operation was botched on purpose to push an all-out assault on the 2nd Amendment.  I hope I'm wrong.  I really, really do.

An Open Letter To The Tea Party

Dear Tea Party,
     Congratulations on being a true grass roots political movement that is the first of its kind in quite a long time to actually affect change in Washington, D.C.  The results of the 2010 mid-term election showed not only that the voice of the people could be heard, but that together citizens could shake up the establishment in our federal government.
     Now a "common goal", if you will, of the Tea Party is to make Barack Obama a one-term President.  You claim that it is because of his failed policies and his "tax and spend" and overtly socialistic philosophy.  Opponents of the Tea Party claim that your desire to defeat Obama is racially motivated.  So let's fast forward one year.  It's now November 2012, and Barack Obama has failed in his bid for a second term.  To the Tea Party I ask this:  now what?  Mission accomplished, let's go home?  Because if it is, all your opponents will get a big "I told you so" to play over all forms of media.  So if you were formed or if your members joined for the sole reason of getting rid of Obama, do us all a favor and leave now.  Leave and don't look back.
     Now those that joined the Tea Party for it's fundamental principles of smaller, limited government and adherence to the Constitution, I pose a stern warning:  Be careful what you wish for.  You need to understand that drastically cutting spending and eliminating many government programs and departments will hurt.  Bad.  But stick with it because it will turn around, and sooner than you think.  Look up "Great Depression of 1920" and you'll see precedence that shows it will work and work quickly.  However, there is one important thing you absolutely have to do.  Stay involved.  Don't assume that because Republicans are in control that all your demands will be met.  They won't.  Stay on them.  Make them fear for their jobs.  Because, as I've said before, the "D" and the "R" next to a politician's name is meaningless.  Just because you elected them doesn't mean they'll do as you wish.  I needn't go any further than Scott Brown to prove my point.  If you want adherence to the Constitution, you had better know the Constitution and all the things the government is NOT allowed to do.  You can't pick and choose which parts you like and label the ones you don't as "open to interpretation."  It isn't.  It never has been and it never will be.  So stay focused, stay informed and above all stay involved, and you will indeed put this country back on the path to greatness.

It's the Constitution, Stupid!

In June or July of 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the ongoing battle of 26 different states suing the federal government over the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, and more specifically, the individual mandate that requires American citizens to purchase health insurance or face a penalty in the form of a fine from the federal government.  The states all claim that the mandate is unconstitutional.  So let's look at the Constitution, specifically amendments 9 & 10, the last 2 amendments of what is commonly known as the Bill of Rights.

The 9th Amendment says:
     "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 10th Amendment says:
     "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So here's the deal.  The Congress does not have the authority to force the American people to purchase ANYTHING under penalty of a fine.  And since they do not have this authority, it is reserved to the states.  This is why Massachusetts has a state-run health care program implemented under then-Governor Mitt Romney, known as "Romneycare."  It is perfectly within the rights of each individual state to have a state government-run health care system, or any other system if they so desire, as long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution.  If the citizens of said state do not like the policies of their state government, they can as Ronald Reagan once said, "vote with their feet."  In essence, move to another state.  They can also vote all their state representatives and senators out of office and elect people who will repeal the unpopular program(s).  But those powers were never given to the federal government.  That's what is important to remember here.  Each state has the authority, under the Constitution, to implement any program they feel would be in the best interest of it's citizens, as long as those citizens have some say in the process.  But when it comes to the federal government, it does not apply because the citizens cannot move to another country and still keep all the rights allotted them as a U.S. citizen.  So, if Obamacare and the individual mandate are upheld by the Supreme Court, it will essentially render the 9th and 10th Amendments null and void and open the door for Congress to require Americans to do whatever they wish under penalty of a fine or other form of punishment. Further, if the court invalidates the 9th and 10th Amendments, what's to stop them from going after any other part of the Constitution they don't agree with?  Free speech?  The right to bear arms?  Freedom of religion?  Protection from illegal search and seizure?  Does anyone remember Germany in the 1930's?  It's a worst-case scenario I know, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.  Bottom line, the Constitution is not a "living document."  It is not open to interpretation.  It is what it is, the law of the land.  And if Obamacare is upheld by the Supreme Court, be afraid.  Be very afraid.

The Politics of Distraction

Funny thing about the news media, it's kind of like a child with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), doesn't stay focused on one thing for very long regardless of how important that thing may be.  Sometimes the source of distraction is more important than the original issue, most times not so much.  All news outlets do it.  They feed this nation's notoriously short attention span.  Does anyone remember "Fast and Furious?"  No, not the Vin Diesel movie.  I'm talking about the gun-walking scandal that should, but probably won't, lead to the resignation or firing of Attorney General Eric Holder.  Just when the heat was really starting to be applied, here comes Solyndra, and the latest legal issues with Lindsay Lohan, and the Kardashian wedding/divorce.  Next thing you know, there wasn't any time in a news day for coverage of "Fast and Furious."  Now, granted, Solyndra is a pretty big deal.  Half a billion dollars in government money given to a company whose business model was so bad they were initially denied funding under the Bush administration.  The loan was later pushed through by the Obama regime and , surprise, surprise, the CEO of Solyndra is an Obama campaign bundler. Hmmmm. Interesting, no?  But Lohan and Kardashian? Really?  Can't those types of stories be left to TMZ?  I'm sure this isn't just a phenomenon of the Obama presidency, it's been going on on both sides for a long, long time.  But doesn't it seem sad that politicians are so corrupt that they need stories seemingly on standby to cover up their many indiscretions?  I remember hearing about a company, I'm not sure which one right now, that, in 2010, had to lay off a large portion of their workforce and was asked by the Obama administration to delay announcing the layoffs until after the election!  Ridiculous.  All to save votes.  Makes me sick.  The bottom line with "Fast and Furious", and I'll delve into the details of this later, is it's still under investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee and Attorney General Holder still refuses to take even the slightest hint of responsibility for the botched operation which lead to the death of U.S. federal agent Brian Terry.  But the media, for the most part, is ignoring this story (yes, my liberal friends, FOX News is ignoring it too) because apparently, they feel that Kim Kardashian's wedding/divorce or allegations against GOP candidate Herman Cain for sexual harassment from his time as head of the National Restaurant Association in 1997 are of more importance.  Personally, and I may be reaching here but I don't think so, I think that "Fast and Furious" was botched ON PURPOSE to push an agenda of increased gun control measures.  But for right now, until Washington figures out how to spin the scandal to suit their needs, we'll have to continue to be force fed the ongoing misadventures of Miss Lohan and the Kardashian clan.  I'll leave you with this piece of advice:  Please don't get all your information from one source or one type of media only.  

11/11/11

Holidays mean different things for different people, and everyone has their favorites.  As a Christian, I appreciate Christmas as when we were given the ultimate gift and Easter as when we received the ultimate reward.  I like Thanksgiving because it involves two of my favorite activities, eating turkey and watching football.  Independence Day is important as well (for obvious reasons), but my favorite holidays have to be Memorial Day, and especially today, Veterans' Day.  Were it not for our veterans, we very well may not even be celebrating Independence Day anymore.  We Americans hold a special place for our veterans, and that is as it should be.  We have the world's only volunteer armed forces.  Every other nation, if they have a military force, require each and every one of it's citizens, especially men, to serve at least some time in military service.  We are different.  Our soldiers are doing what they do because they want to do it, not because they are required to.  That's huge.  The level of patriotism in these men ans women can never be questioned, for they stepped forward when no one else would. They ran toward danger when everyone else ran away.  They stood and said, "I will lay down my life so that this great nation can endure."  My grandfather served in the Air Force for over 20 years and fought in World War II.  My stepfather fought in Vietnam.  There are soldiers that fought in Iraq and Afghanistan that I am proud to call my friends (By the way, Don Meserve and Kris Penzig, welcome home!).  Although I also served, albeit briefly, these individuals and others like them served at a level that I never did and I would say all gratitude and appreciation should be bestowed upon them and not upon me, even though I've been told I'm just as much a veteran as they are.  I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now.  But I will say this, if I was asked to serve again to defend this great country, I wouldn't hesitate.  I'd be at the recruiter's office tomorrow.  Let me close this by saying it is my sincere hope that all future soldiers are welcomed home like they are now, with great love and appreciation.  Let us be sure that what happened to our Vietnam vets upon returning home NEVER EVER happens again.  Tell your children how soldiers should be welcomed home or better yet show them so that we never make that horrible mistake again.  One day a year to say "thanks" isn't enough.  Every day should be Veterans' Day.  Thank you to all our soldiers and veterans.  Your sacrifice and commitment will never be forgotten nor will it ever be taken for granted.  God bless each and every one of you.

Anchor Babies

In Florida, 5 students are suing the state for charging them out-of-state tuition even though they have spent most of their lives in the Sunshine State.  Some of them were even born in Florida, all were born in the United States.  The reason they were asked to pay higher tuition?  Their parents are illegal immigrants.  Now I’m not in favor of extending rights reserved for U.S. citizens to illegal aliens or their children, but these children were born here, hence they are legal U.S. citizens.  This is guaranteed Article 1 of the 14th amendment.  If these kids meet the requirements for in-state eligibility, then they should be allowed to pay the discounted rate for students residing within the state.  The citizenship issue is pretty cut and dry within the law as it stands today, but it is breathing new life into the debate of “anchor babies.”  If you’ve never heard the term, it refers to children born in the United States to parents of illegal immigrant status.  These children then become eligible for welfare, food stamps, and other forms of government-provided economic aid.  This also makes it much, much easier for the parents to stay in the country, becoming essentially “anchored.”  Now, I’m a big proponent of the Constitution.  It is the law of the land.  However, I believe this to be one area that has a problem within it.  I believe that the granting of citizenship simply by being born on U.S. soil should be removed.  One of the parents, if not both, should be U.S. citizens in order for the child to be a U.S. citizen.  I also believe that this will strongly address the problem of illegal immigration.  If the parents know that the birth of their child in the U.S. will no longer mean a free pass to government handouts, they may be less likely to come here.  This could save the U.S. government millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars.  Just think about it.  We would grandfather in those already born to illegal immigrant parents, but for anyone born after the change goes through, no dice.  This problem could solve several issues with one fell swoop.  I can’t understand why someone didn’t think of this sooner.  Oh wait, that’s right, votes.  It all comes back to votes.  Time for REAL change, ladies and gentlemen, and that is term limits for Congress.  It needs to happen, folks.  We MUST stop allowing politics to be a career choice.