Living the Fairy Tale

Fairy tales are created as nonsensical stories meant mainly to entertain children. Here is an adult fairy tale:

Once upon a time, a young drug dealer named Jojo ran out of product to push on children at the local Middle School. He was very depressed because the US Border Patrol had seized a shipment of cocaine the cartel had meant for him. He was distraught and feared he might have to resort to running a chop-shop or prostitution ring if he couldn’t get enough dope to sell to kids.

The Department of Homeland Security decided it would be more compassionate to give Jojo the shipment they confiscated at the border. After all, they had already arrested the drug mule that tried to bring it in. Jojo was so grateful he wrote a personal note of thanks to President Obama, and the children at the Middle School lived high ever after.

Okay, I said it was a fairy tale. The entire story premise is absurd. Why would anyone in our government want to forward the interdicted package confiscated from smugglers to the intended criminal recipient? That is precisely what Texas US District Judge Andrew S. Hansen thought when he discovered a DHS policy regarding smuggled children of illegal immigrants (see http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/19/judge-claims-dhs-parents-smuggle/).

Is this a great country or what? The people running the US Border Patrol and responsible for securing our borders are in fact complicit in breaking the very law they are charged with enforcing. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house …

We have people who are living in the country illegally now paying smugglers to bring their children across the border. When the Border Patrol catches them entering illegally, they reward the parents by dropping the kids on their doorstep. Apparently, two wrongs do make a right!

So now, we have a whole family of people living illegally in the country. Isn’t that heartwarming? Now the children can go to American schools and are now eligible for education under the Dream Act. In California and several other states, they can get drivers licenses when they turn 16, and with Obamacare they can now get healthcare under their parents’ insurance.

Their parents can’t legally get a social security card … yet, but they and their children can get disability coverage even though they never paid a dime toward it. If they or their parents can’t find a job, they can go on welfare. And oh, by the way, if the parents are collecting welfare, they now have increased their support from taxpayers by increasing the family size in the US.

Now that Obama has managed to pack critical government offices with liberals, it’s not surprising that the DHS claims this is the “compassionate” thing to do. They claim they are uniting families. But if they deported the parents, as the law requires, the family would be united in their home country. Is that any less compassionate?

All right, I get it. Central America is a dangerous place. The drug cartels are the de facto government in most of those countries. Violence, murder, kidnappings, and crime are a way of life and amount to big business there. It is hard to make an honest living in places like that.

The fact is, though, someone down there is living large. There are big (legitimate) businesses in those countries. Mexico had a higher GDP than Canada last year. With NAFTA the law of the land, many of the products we buy here are manufactured in Central America. If the crime rate and living standard were on par with us, there would be no reason to cross our border illegally. Their governments need to get their act together, oust the drug cartels, execute cartel leaders, eradicate the drug crops, seriously clamp down on corruption, and let the legitimate business environment spread its benefit throughout the land.

If we deport the 22 million illegals now here and keep them from coming back, maybe – just maybe – they might force their own governments to do the right thing. Now that’s compassion bound to last.

Why Secede?

Why is Cumberland, Maryland resident Scott Strzelcyzk pushing to break the state in two (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/08/secessionist-movement-emerges-in-rural-maryland/)? The answer is: for the same reason the rural populations in other states, including California, have been longing to secede from the mother state. The key in this quest is the word “rural.”

Stereotypes aside, those living in rural America do tend more toward the conservative bent, while city dwellers are generally on the more liberal side. Yes, that is a generality, and no, not everyone fits that mold.

Referring to rural Americans, Obama told San Franciscans at a fundraiser that, “it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” He was preaching to the choir.

Those living in cities are a diverse lot, but their common denominator is that they all rely on the services provided by city government. Those in the rural areas are of necessity more independent, and they relish this independence.

Cities expand. As they expand, ever more rural land is lost as is the rural lifestyle and independence once enjoyed by those still living there. Unwanted city services and the accompanying taxes are foisted upon the once rural population. They must choose to comply with the urban lifestyle or move.

By definition, cities (including suburban areas) are more populous than rural areas. In our democratic form of government, there are no provisions for leveling the playing field. At the state level, rural residents must follow the dictates of those living in the cities. All too often, those living in the cities trounce the interests and desires of those in rural areas.

The obvious solution is to secede from the cities. Unfortunately, secession is only allowed with the consent of the majority in both areas -- fat chance. Then too, just where would the boundaries be? Rural areas surround most cities. In most states, it would be difficult at best to segregate the cities to form a cohesive separate state.

This is not a new conundrum. The country’s founding fathers grappled with this same problem at the national level. The original thirteen states were divided with sparse and dense populations as well as industrial and agrarian areas. It would be unfair for the more populated and richer industrial states to overwhelm the rural states in a presidential election. In fact, it was a potential deal breaker for acceptance of the Constitution. The solution was the Electoral College. Each state’s vote was weighted to give a level playing field.

While there is much discussion about eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote, this would make the less populous state completely irrelevant in a presidential election. Perhaps instead of eliminating the Electoral College, we might better apply this concept toward statewide elections too. By weighting city and rural votes, we would finally allow rural areas an equal say in governing the state. An alternative would be to give rural areas an equal representation in each statehouse.

Any way it is achieved, states are going to need to give rural areas a voice in the running of the government, or the call for secession will become increasingly louder until it becomes a rural v/s urban war.

Another Obama Stimulus Package?

Here’s a challenge for the logic of common sense: In addition to the unaccounted for sacks of money dropped off on Hamid Karzai’s desk each month, we are now going to pay the Russians a billion dollars to build Karzai a fleet of helicopters (see http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-accusations-dog-russian-081242871.html).

Despite defying all logic, according to an Associated Press report, “U.S. military officials insisted a top-secret Pentagon study proved the need to buy Russian helicopters for Afghanistan's security forces.”

Illogical? Yes. Truthful? No! Again, according to the AP, “the excerpts show the U.S. Army's workhorse Chinook, built by Boeing Co. in Pennsylvania, was the most cost-effective single platform type fleet for the Afghan Air Force over a 20-year period.”

Wow, is this part of Mr. Obama’s economic stimulus plan … for Russia? It’s not enough that many of the hi-tech components of our military’s weapons are manufactured off-shore – often by the Chinese – now we are going to pay the Russians a billion dollars to build helicopters so we can give them to the Afghan army.

Let’s put this in perspective people. Our own government is taking one-billion dollars out of your and my pay to give to a country that doesn’t like us much to provide jobs making a weapon system that we will give to another country that doesn’t like us so they can protect themselves from the Taliban that doesn’t like anyone.

Does anyone honestly believe that this makes sense? Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate's No. 2 GOP leader doesn’t. He said DOD "repeatedly and disingenuously" used the 2010 study to justify the Russian helicopter as the superior choice for the Afghans.

Although this deal was set in motion in 2010, Congress only recently received a copy of the document.

Now get this, the Pentagon continues to insist that they have made the right decision in this acquisition! The rationalization used is "that the Mi-17 stands apart" when compared with other helicopters. If that’s true, then why aren’t our forces equipped with these great beasts?

The Pentagon denies it misled Congress. They insist the refurbished Chinook would cost about 40 percent more to buy and maintain than the Mi-17.

AP said, “Boeing executives informed congressional staff during a meeting held in late September that the cost of a refurbished CH-47D would be in the $12 million to $14 million range, according to a person knowledgeable about the discussion but not authorized to be identified as the source of the information.

That would make an overhauled Chinook $4 million to $6 million less than what the department is currently paying for Mi-17s, according to figures compiled by the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell, the Pentagon office that fills urgent requests for equipment from battlefield commanders.”

I smell a rat! In a country like Russia where corruption in business dealings is simply the cost of doing business, it should come as no surprise that this deal wreaks of misconduct. The amazing part is that our own Pentagon has guzzled the kool-aid and steadfastly insists this is a “good deal.”

Maybe they should try convincing the workers at Boeing of this “good deal.” And while they are at it, they might tell our troops why they think the Mi-17 is a better helicopter than the Chinooks we rely on. I’m afraid both cases would be a hard sell.

I guess this sort of dealings is why many think that military intelligence is an oxymoron.

Are You Ready for Sol Invictus?

Have you finished your Winter Solstice shopping, opened windows in your Advent Calendar, or put up your Yule Tree or Festivus pole? As the saying goes, “what goes around comes around.” The latest trend to take Christ out of Christmas is nothing new.

Not even the best Biblical scholars or archeologists can say with any certainty the precise day of the birth of Jesus Christ. There are strong arguments and historical record that, for whatever reason, that day has been celebrated on or near pagan holidays. Sol Invictus (the day of the unconquered sun) is a Roman Saturnalia day of celebration occurring on what is now December 25 of our calendar. The Winter Solstice occurs on December 21, and was a day of celebration long before Jesus was born.

Is it mere coincidence that these dates were chosen to celebrate His birth, or did the Catholic Church pick these Pagan holidays to give recent converts an alternate reason to celebrate the day? Since sometime around the 16^th century, celebration of the day Christ was born has grown in nature from a pious religious observance to the crescendo in the 20^th century of joy and good tidings surrounding His birth.

Here in the 21^st century, we are seeing increasing trends toward secularism and yes, even atheism. Separation of church and state is becoming separation from church by the state. Today we have recently manufactured celebrations for the season such as Kwanza and Festivus (yes folks, there are actually people who have adopted the ridiculous holiday made up for the Seinfeld comedy show). Christmas is increasingly replaced with X-mass, Christmas carols sung in school can not contain references to God or Jesus, some stores no longer play Christmas music, and Nativity scenes can no longer be displayed on public grounds. They have all but taken Christ out of Christmas.

Maybe the downward slide toward a secular holiday began in the last century when the drive was on to give bigger and more expensive presents each year – not just to your kids, but an ever-expanding list of others. Retailers began to rely on the Christmas season for their entire year’s profit. Christmas music was timed to get people in the mood not to merely celebrate the birth of Christ, but to buy. Thanksgiving and Christmas became “the holidays.” Christmas music is piped throughout stores and malls beginning on Thanksgiving. Mailboxes are stuffed with catalogs, and television commercials inculcate children with the latest gotta have toys and Christmas goodies, although that is not the limit of their brainwashing. These days, even adults are imprinted with big ticket items such as luxury cars as gifts.

We have reached the point where the day after Thanksgiving, aka “Black Friday,” is a major highpoint marked on every calendar. And now even one day of incessant spending is not enough. They have an entire week of “Black Friday” sales and the stores are even open on Thanksgiving! What a day to be thankful for. We can gorge ourselves on Turkey, Yams and cranberries then go right out and splurge on junk and trinkets you never would have bought at any other time of year – and for people you haven’t given even the time of day the rest of the year.

Secularists have even managed to re-name the holiday so those not of the Christian faith won’t feel like they are celebrating the birth of a religion they don’t believe in by buying presents. That is sure to help the bottom line of retailers.

Okay, let’s get back to the “reason for the season.” Presents? Sure, the Magi brought the newborn Christ presents of Gold, Frankincense, and Mir. The baby Jesus was destined to become the founder of the largest religion on earth, and as many believe the salvation of our souls. For someone like this you give presents (I’m not sure what Mir is, though, but a hotel room might have been more appreciated that night).  For your grouchy old Aunt Henrietta and Uncle Charles, you don’t spend money you don’t have on your credit card to buy presents they would never appreciate. They can’t save your soul and probably won’t even leave you in their will.

Some people say we are recovering from the “great recession.” Maybe someone might be doing a little better than they had been the last few years. I’m not one of those fortunate people, and I’m not likely to shower gifts on hoards of people at Christmas time.

I will celebrate December 25^th as the birth of Jesus Christ, and wish everyone a merry Christmas, while I forgo the Festivus pole and Kwanza festivities. And just so I don’t alienate all the secularists and atheists, I wish you a prosperous season and a happy Sol Invictus (be sure to wear sunscreen for the celebration).  

Life is Not a Video Game

Have you ever watched people as they leave a movie theater? For instance, a man who just spent two hours watching a John Wayne movie might tend to walk a little different, or a young person leaving a Star Wars movie might imitate a “Wookie”. It happens; I have seen it. I even noticed it happening to me on occasion.

For most people the effect doesn’t last long. There are some, however, who will spend the rest of their lives imitating their favorite character.

Enter the video game. Here the player is the main character even though the environment is made up. The player can act out a personality guided by actions programmed into the game. In other words, the player becomes the lead character in a surreal world. It is a world where he or she must make decisions and take actions that affect the outcome of the game’s fantasy. While playing the game, the player’s world is only what the game maker intended. The player experiences emotions that go with the actions.

This is the same technique used to train pilots on flight simulators. Pilots receive the very realistic experience of flying an aircraft in an environment controlled by the simulator’s program. When they have completed the training, they know what it feels like to fly under any number of adverse conditions and will act according to the response made under simulated conditions. The simulator programs an automatic response by the pilot.

Is it any wonder, then, that people who spend untold hours playing a video game will become “trained” to react to situations experienced in the game? When the games or a particular game becomes an obsession there should be some serious red flags raised – especially if it involves the many violent video games. Repeated playing by young, impressionable minds can blur the line between the real world and the fantasy world of a video game. Play by someone with autism or a mental disorder can have a disastrous outcome.

One case-in-point is that of Adam Lanza aka the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooter. Investigators found that Lanza became a recluse in his own home. He had cut off contact with nearly everyone in his life and only communicated with his mother by email. The windows of his room were covered with black trash bags.

Diagnosed with an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) named Asperger’s Disorder, he was obsessed with “Dance Dance Revolution” a non-violent dance simulation game played with the wii game platform. He was known to spend as much as ten hours a day playing the game.

The November 2013 final report names the following twelve video games as being part of Lanza's collection: Left 4 Dead, Metal Gear Solid, Dead Rising, Half Life, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Shin Megami Tensei, Dynasty Warriors, Vice City, Team Fortress, and Doom. No one can say how much time he spent with any of these violent games, but Lanza’s OCD and obsession with another video game might lead us to believe he could have been similarly obsessed with them.

Adam Lanza is just one instance of a connection between horrendous violence and violent video games. I would wager that taking look at the evolution of homegrown violent incidents, one could find a direct correlation in the increase in numbers and severity with the increase in realism and mayhem in video games.

Yet mainstream media and anti-gun groups would rather highlight the fact that these acts were committed with guns. Most of the tools used in the violent videos are guns – some very realistic and others quite fantastic – but they are weapons that “shoot” some sort of projectile. Are these mass-murderers being programmed and trained to use guns in their distorted world?

A Supreme Court ruling that sights the First Amendment currently protects violent video games. While concerted efforts are being made using these horrific acts to tear up the Second Amendment, there seems to be little to no action or even inquiry into the role violent video games have played in them.

It must take a very sick and twisted mind to program the carnage and mayhem found in many of these games. The creators of these games need to take some responsibility for the horrible consequences of their creations. As I see it, they might even be considered co-conspirators in these savage acts.

Life is not a video game. You can’t reboot and start over when you are killed off.

The Storm on the Horizon

Talk in the media has it that Obama wants very much to take on the immigration legislation change issue, which keeps getting derailed by “manufactured” crises. Yep, the Obamacare crises was manufactured by (wait for it …) the Obama administration!

When they do get around to the immigration issue, you can bet it won’t be pretty. Already, several states – including California – have given what amounts to amnesty for those sneaking into our country – driver’s licenses, in-state tuition rates, college admission preferences, housing, welfare, healthcare, and admission to the country of pregnant women for the sole purpose of the baby being born a US citizen. It was even reported that non-citizens voted in the last election. Life is good if you are here illegally.

I have known a few illegal immigrants. Many are good hardworking people who only want to make a descent living and support their family -- a laudable goal. Some are merely drug mules, gang members, and lowlifes looking to make a quick buck and cause trouble. Many criminals are deported only to keep popping back on this side of the border and committing more crimes.

There is a myth that illegals only do the work that citizens won’t do; that they live in poor living conditions and make meager wages. Maybe there are some people in that situation, but a friend went to hire a day laborer hanging out near Home Depot. The labored wanted $150 a day – paid “under the table” -- and meals. He would start at about 10:00 a.m. and work no longer than 5:00 p.m. That’s a seven-hour day with lunch break, tax-free. The laborer doesn’t pay into social security, but is entitled to collect from the fund. He doesn’t pay for healthcare (not even for Obamacare), but goes to the hospital emergency room for any ailment, even a cold. He can’t (or won’t) pay for his medical bill, so the hospital passes the cost on to those who can pay. His wife and kids get the same service.

The downside to being an illegal is they might be deported – a free ride across the border. After that, they will need to find and pay a coyote to smuggle them back to this side of the border. Many of the illegals know the trafficking route by heart. Some of the unfortunate ones might become stranded in the desert, they could even die there, but most make it through and settle down until the next time they are deported.

With the sanctuary cities and local police unable to even check for proper documents, the chances of being deported after successfully sneaking through the border are slim and becoming non-existent.

Yet, even that is not enough for some. It has been reported that California is near to or may even now have a Latino majority. One can only imagine how many of those are here with legitimate documentation. There is a constant push in the legislature, though to relax or circumvent the federal immigration policy. Interesting enough, when states like Arizona and Alabama tried to strengthen their laws to support deportation, the federal government sued them, stating only the federal government can make immigration policy. Nothing has been said about California’s sanctuary cities, driver’s licenses or any of the other give-aways to illegals.

There is an active Latino movement called reconquista that is committed to taking back the states we legally bought from Mexico after the Mexican-American war. With the huge influx of illegal immigrants in every state, one can only think that the reconquista movement does not intend to return only a few states. They are quietly invading our country place it all under Mexican control – and our own government is giving them all the assistance they need.

Do we need changes in immigration policy? You bet. We need to deport the 22 million people here illegally and put them at the bottom of the list for legal entry. We also need to buttress the southern border so no one can sneak across, and expand the Border Patrol.

This legislation is far more important than Obamacare, or the failed budget. The sooner we get to it, the better. Legal immigration is what made America. The diversity of immigrants made America great. Illegal immigration is a threat to the sovereignty of our country.

Hope to Change

I found an email in my inbox today labeled “George Will:  We Have A New Worst President”, in which the widely published columnist George Will hits on several of the reasons Barack Obama is the worst president we have ever had. This is not a new concept. I have heard many people remark that Jimmy Carter no longer holds that title. Almost daily, I get comments about Obama’s failings as president.

Worst president ever.  That’s an interesting concept, considering that William Henry Harrison only spent 31 days as president. That means Harrison did a better job in the month he served than Obama has in the five years he has sat in the Oval Office (when not on vacation).

So, what does “worst” mean in this instance? Judging by the explanations and reasoning given, it means Obama has done a poorer job of safeguarding the wellbeing and liberty of our country than any other president in the history of our nation. I’ll buy that. In fact, I would even say that Obama’s actions have been detrimental to the wellbeing and liberty of our nation. Under his administration, we are deeper in debt and spending more on frivolous and unnecessary programs than any previous president.

But that is not the only detrimental product of this president. Besides apologizing to the world for the success of our form of government, Obama has driven us deeper into dictatorial socialism with his czars and rule by executive order.

The Obamacare fiasco – which, by the way, is simply a form of wealth distribution -- is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface of this administration lurks a foundation of lies and outright deceit, from the Benghazi affair all the way to, “if you like your health insurance plan you can keep it.” This sure makes Bill Clinton’s lies – for which congress voted impeachment – look tame.

There was a time when a person wouldn’t (maybe couldn’t) even appear interested in being president. Someone would place a name in for nomination, and the candidate wouldn’t even appear to actually campaign for the job. These days, presidential candidates present a somewhat less humble posture. Obama has taken that a giant leap further. He is narcissistic enough to believe he is a ruler rather merely an executor of congressional legislation. He treats the US Treasury as his own private piggy bank by taking multi-million dollar vacations and giving his wife her own taxpayer subsidized staff.

One can study every character and punctuation mark – even read between the lines – of the constitution, and nowhere will you find the official position of “First Lady.” The president’s wife is not an employee of the US government. Why does the government furnish her with a staff and government funded “vacation” trips replete with government transportation, security, and “staff.” Although the First Lady doesn’t get a salary (not an employee?), she does receive a “budget”, thanks to (who else?) Jimmy Carter. I’m sure somewhere in the White House accounting mess there is an item titled First Lady Budget, but I couldn’t find it. There are 460 employees of the White House, most make around $100k +/- salaries. Maybe the First Lady’s staff is in that bunch. We pay Obama $400k per year, but this president seems to have brought bennies to a new level.

As Sarah Palin said during the last election, “how’s that hopey-changy thing working for you?” Well it’s not working for me. Let’s hope our next president is a dramatic change for the better. Only a reincarnation of Joseph Stalin could make it any worse.

Our Bizarro Legislature

As a youngster, I read a few comic books. I remember one Superman comic that featured a parallel planet that was the inverse of ours. I think it was called planet Bizarro in which everything ran backward, good was bad, bad was good, up was down. Of course, on planet Bizarro, Superman was a green, ugly character in a filthy costume that destroyed everything. It was not unlike the way liberals would like to make our planet.

Since its founding, our country has vigorously promoted the individual freedom and capitalist values that made our country the most successful form of government in the world. We worked hard to insulate our country from the Marxist concepts that enslaved many other nations. Eventually, even the staunch Marxist countries -- China, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovokia, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, and even today’s Cuba – realized the utopian ideals of Karl Marx are altogether unobtainable without free markets and individual freedom.

During the ‘60s and ‘70s the revolutionary spirit struck our nation and some people latched on to the Marxist tenets. Most of these people weren’t actually Marxist – many didn’t even understand the principals of Marxism. They were mostly antiwar and for free-love, loud music, and drugs. But the “establishment” stood in their way, so they rebelled. Many of these “Hippies” were well educated and highly indoctrinated by the communist infestation in our institutes of higher learning.

The “Hippies” grew up. Many are the leaders of today. They have infiltrated corporate boardrooms, schools, Hollywood, the media, and all levels of our government. These people are still left-leaning, just not as openly radical as in the “Hippie” days. Their revolution is slowly taking place, and it is a clear erosion of the values that made America great. With no fewer than 70 members of congress registered, proud, card-carrying members of the American Socialist party and a president who openly associates with avowed Marxists, is it any wonder that America is progressively resembling life on planet Bizarro?

Our Grand Old Party is not looking quite so grand these days. Once the party of the workingman and woman, the Democratic Party evolved to become the party of tax-and-spend liberals, and now it is even the party of socialists promoting the tenets of Karl Marx and Mao Zedong. New York City just elected a radically left-leaning mayor, and the Virginia governor’s race narrowly went to a liberal Democrat.

Once in power, the liberals work to ensure that anyone with conservative ideas is locked out of government by promoting “open” primaries and the demise of the Electoral College. Open primaries allow liberals to manipulate the slate of candidates to ensure a Democrat win. Without the Electoral College, the more populous – and liberal – states swamp the voice of the conservative rural states. It is simply the erosion of the checks and balances that America’s founding fathers worked so hard to achieve.

Nonsense, you might be thinking, America is a democracy. Every citizen gets a vote. Wrong! Our form of government is a Republic. Citizens vote for a person to represent them in the business of the government. Does your representative present your views in governing? It’s up to you to make sure he or she does.

“Ask not what your country can do for you. Rather, ask what you can do for your country.” These momentous words were spoken by a Democrat, John F. Kennedy. Today’s mantra of the Democrats seems to be, “vote for me and I will give you whatever you want.” The Democrats keep the electorate poor and drive jobs away with taxes and asinine regulations then dole out tidbits for votes. Does this sound like the party of the workingman and woman?

Sure, the liberals decry the Tea Party – as if it were a party unto itself. There is no Tea Party. There are people within the Republican Party that denounce the taxes and regulations that are killing our jobs. These people have taken a patriotic stance against the onerous taxes and regulations in the same manner as those patriotic men who threw British tea into Boston harbor over 200 years ago – one of the major actions from which the United States of America grew.

Please, before it’s too late, help stop America from sinking into the quagmire of socialism. Vote for people who will represent your ideals and ideas in government, not those intent on creating a Bizarro planet on earth.

NSA, Your Friendly Snoop

“One ringy-dingy, two ringy-dingy, hello, is this the party to whom I am speaking?”

“Hallo Ernestine, Chancellor Merkel here. Ein moment bitte. Barack, you can hank op please. Dis ist nicht ein konferenz call.”

Funny? German Chancellor Angela Merkel didn’t think so when she found out the NSA has been consistently listening to her call phone calls. In fact, the NSA listens to phone calls of many leaders of our friendly allies. While some allies take it in stride, others who grew up in oppressive governments – like NAZI Germany and communist East Germany – are understandably concerned.

But we’re the good guys! The NSA is just trying to keep the US safe from terrorists. Although that is a laudable goal, just what makes them think Angela Merkel would be having conversations with terrorists. Sure, leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood might be cooking up some nasty business, and eavesdropping on them would be a real good idea.

Is there a difference between gathering intelligence and just plain snooping? I believe there is, but to differentiate one would probably be accused of “profiling”. It’s the same affront to logic that requires the TSA to pat down 80-year-old grandmothers and 4-year-old girls at the airport while passing Muslim men for fear of being labeled as profiling.

So now we are paying the National Security Agency to listen to the German Chancellor make a hairdresser appointment, or campaign strategy, or maybe confidential EU strategy with an Italian Minister. It is almost certain, though, that she will not be discussing terrorist hits on America.

The NSA has some of the most technologically advanced equipment in the world, much of it evolved from that of the cold war when spy craft was a necessary factor in survival of the free world. While other countries may not have the advanced technology we do, there can be no doubt they are spying on us too.

When Obama took office, he became the first president to use cell technology – his Blackberry. There was always the fear that wireless technology could be hacked. Apparently, that was a valid fear, but our own security agency seems to be the ones doing the hacking. If we can hack cell phones, it’s a safe bet other technologically proficient countries or groups can too, for instance China or Russia, maybe even Al Qaida. Do you think they might be interested in hearing about Obama’s golf game? Maybe they are spellbound listening to him recount about Michelle’s latest taxpayer-paid multi-million dollar vacation.

I guess the bottom line is even though we have the ability to snoop on anyone in the world, logic and common sense should dictate whom we target. Shame on us for spying on our friends. The thing is, if we can do it, so can other, maybe not so friendly, entities. Folks using unsecured devices for communication should not expect privacy. Critical conversations over these devices should always be handled as if they were being broadcast to everyone in the world.

If Angela Merkel or any other high-profile government leader is communicating critical information over unsecured devices, they are too naïve to be in a leadership position. If your cell phone is limited to benign, droll, personal chitchat, the NSA and probably anyone else listening will become so bored they will eventually give up.

Insanity: noun, the US Government

In our government, there are policies and actions that completely defy rational explanation. Our leaders would like us to believe that budget and spending matters are far to complex for us to understand, so we have to trust them to make the right decisions. Please bear with me as I attempt to simplify and summarize these matters:

Assume you work for a large bakery. The CEO decides to tape $20 bills to every $5 loaf of bread sold in select states. He claims it will make people like our bread. The company doesn’t have enough cash on hand to cover the additional cost, so the CEO gets a loan to cover it. The interest on the loan is so huge, he would need to raise price of the bread to cover the loan payments. Instead, he goes out for another loan to cover the interest costs on the first loan, rather than raise prices and lose customers.

One day you see a report from the warehouse that thieves are breaking in and stealing 20% of your goods. The CEO tells you to just ignore it. We will have to increase production and tack the loss on to the price.

Okay, how long do you thing this business will last? At what point do you think the men in white coats with straitjackets will come and take the CEO to a better place?

If you think this is over-simplifying our government’s fiscal policy, take a look at a real-time view of our monetary situation at http://www.usdebtclock.org. I haven’t seen numbers spin that fast since the last time I put fuel in my truck.

For the 2014 budget, Obama wants $3.77 TRILLION. Our federal government will take in $3.03 TRILLION. That leaves some $744 BILLION to be made up with what, borrowed money? Let’s take a snapshot of the spinning numbers. At this moment, we are some $17 TRILLION in debt. The interest alone on the debt is some $2.8 TRILLION – nearly the entire income for the U.S. Government!

Sad, very sad! But wait, it gets even crazier! We give away BILLIONS to nations just so they will like us. Right now Afghanistan is our largest beneficiary at some $2.2 BILLION requested for 2014. Of course, that probably doesn’t include the “black” money the CIA drops off to Karzai every month. Pakistan is the next runner up at $1.6 BILLION and Egypt had been scheduled to get a billion or so. The list goes on …. Obama tells us the foreign aid is merely 1% of the budget. That’s 1% of a $3.77 TRILLION budget! We’re talking BILLIONS of dollars just thrown at countries that don’t even like us. Money we will never see again.

Sure that’s crazy, but what about spending here at home? Watchdog.org recently found that the Internal Revenue Service mailed $4.2 BILLION in child-credit checks to undocumented immigrants. When Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming, tried to plug that money leak with a budget amendment Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada cut off debate.

People, our government is certifiably insane! The federal government is so huge we can’t even get an accurate count of how many individually are actually employed by us. The budgetary process uses such muddled accounting methods one can’t get a straight answer on where the money is being spent. Our own legislators look the other way while billions of dollars are simply given to people in our country illegally. We have to borrow money to pay the interest on our debt. And we toss billions of dollars at foreign countries and tell everyone it’s “just” one percent of the budget.

If ANY of this makes sense to you, please give me a call. I’ll sell you the Washington Monument cheap and throw in the Capital building for free. But hurry, before they throw a net over the entire city.

Our Can Has Been Kicked

Well, the impasse is finally over and our government is back in business and driving ourselves deeper in debt just to pay the interest on our existing debt. Pardon me if I don’t appear altogether thrilled with the outcome.

Let me try to recap just what has been accomplished. No reductions in spending were made to the budget, Obamacare remains fully funded (even though the odds of being able to sign up are something akin to winning the lottery), those who suffered furlough during the “shutdown” will all receive back pay, and the government is free to continue borrowing. Unless I have missed something, nothing has been accomplished, and those furloughed have had a nice unscheduled, paid vacation – at our expense.

Okay, that’s sad, but the real tragedy is that the government gets to do this all over again at the beginning of next year. Obama likes to use the term “kicking the can down the road.” Well our can has been kicked, my friends. How does it feel?

The lamestream media are busy pointing fingers. The tax and spend liberals are declaring victory, the Tea Party Republicans are saying they made their point, and the “moderates” on both sides of the isle are taking credit for defusing the standoff.

 While I whole-heartedly applaud the goal of conservative Republicans to reduce the size of government and the budget, their tactics and timing were just not right this time. Sure, they made their point. Shut down the government and people will see that we don’t really need huge portions of it. But did that happen?

Actually, the government didn’t even come close to grinding to a halt. The Obama administration made sure only the high-profile services were closed, but most paychecks went out and the “entitlements” were paid. The Military, NAS, CIA, FBI, Justice Department, and congress were all on duty, albeit without some of the civilian contractors. Were the Department of Energy and Department of Education shut down? Both are a prime example of two departments we easily close with no negative impact.

Despite the predictions in the media of massive catastrophic times with the government closed, there were only slight inconveniences to most of the population. Sure, some government workers (mostly non-union) were temporarily out of work. But even these people will get their pay.

Media pundits and politicians all decried the inability of radical wings of each party to negotiate a suitable end to the shutdown. Nonsense! From the beginning, the congressional Republicans – including the Tea Party members – all agreed to fund the budget and keep the government open. They only wanted to exclude funding for the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) for one year. Although congress couldn’t predict the debacle with on-line sign up, it now appears that delaying the start for a year might have been a wise move. It may take that long to work the bugs out of the untested software.

As for political “moderates”, these are the ones setting on the fence waiting for a wind strong enough to blow them to one side of the other. They have no convictions or are willing to sell them out for the right price. It is not the radical wings of the political parties that make our government a jumbled mess. It is the moderates that are willing to sell their very souls for the right price that has allowed our government to balloon up to unnecessary proportions.

Let’s hope that the “moderates” are able to grow a spine by the end of the year. 

The Shutdown: A Blessing in Disguise

Did you notice the Federal government recently shut down? Just what does that mean? How many millions of employees are there in our national government?

Tired of all the hyperbola and conflicting and misleading information in the “mainstream media”, I went to that wellspring of all information, the Internet. Bad move! I couldn’t get a consistent or coherent answer there either. Does anybody even know how many people are employed with our tax dollars?

As near as I can tell, there are categories of employees in all three branches of government: full-time, part-time and contractors. The executive branch seems to have the most people, but then it also includes the Military and Post Office. There are also reports on how many employees are in the judicial branch. I couldn’t find any reports of how many legislative branch employees there are, though.

Adding to the confusion, there appears to be some game playing with how the employees are categorized and thus counted. Many reports show the employment in terms of the fiscal budget (October 1 to September 30), the latest of which is the fiscal 2012 budget. Other reports show the budget size of increase or decrease over time for each administration or budget adjusted for inflation, and other slight-of-hand accounting tricks.

Again, the unanswered question is, how many people are we paying for? If I could get a straight answer on that, my next question would be: what do they all do, of course followed by: are these people all necessary? Several reports show that only some three out of five government employees actually do any work.

Despite the hand wringing over the “sequester”, it proved that across-the-board cuts in budgets doesn’t seem to put a major crimp in operations. Without a functional 2013 budget, we are told the government shut down, but reports are that about 80% of the government is still working. As in the “sequester” scare, the administration targeted areas of the government that would be most noticeable; National Parks, passport services, and other often used departments. Still, we are merely inconvenienced, not in dire need or danger.

Many of the really non-essential governmental departments seem to be still operating -- the education department and the department of energy to name two. The CIA is still dropping off sacks of bribe money on Hamid Karzai’s desk and sending “aid” to Egypt. Although I have no actual way of knowing, I’m pretty sure the NSA is still eavesdropping on all of us. And just to rub salt in our fiscal wounds, Obamacare is charging full-speed ahead.

Just around the corner will be the fight to increase the national debt so Obama can pay for the 2013 budget items. The Democrats and Obama believe we don’t pay enough in taxes, yet they keep increasing the size of government then drive us deeper in debt to cover that increase. At what point does our country quit spending money it doesn’t have or declare bankruptcy?

When will the American public finally realize that the “sequester” and this “pseudo-shutdown” have actually shown that our government is bloated and we don’t really need all of these programs and employees that are driving us ever deeper in debt? Maybe then they will quit voting for tax/borrow-and-spend Democrats and RINOs, and we can finally put this country back on track to prosperity. 

This is Going to Bug You

Eat more bugs; they’re good for you. That’s the message the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations promoted in a 200-page report from a Rome, 2013 conference. There’s even a spiffy name for the practice … entomophagy. I kid you not! Here’s the link, http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e00.htm.

As school kids, our angry retort to each other would often be, “I hope you eat a bug and die.” Is this what the UN is telling the world? After all, they predict that by 2050 there will be some 9 billion people on the planet. That’s 2 billion more than we now have. And every one of those 9 billion people will be addicted to food.

Sure, feeding that many people will be a problem. Contrary to the belief of many city folks, food doesn’t originate at the grocery store. It all comes from land – arable land or water. With 9 billion people, that resource is bound to become a scarce commodity. At what point do we get serious about controlling the population?

Nearly every country has a certain population that are either starving or on the brink of it. Many already include insects in their diet. The FAO report states that, “it is estimated that insect-eating is practiced regularly by at least 2 billion people worldwide. More than 1900 insect species have been documented in literature as edible, most of them in tropical countries. The most commonly eaten insect groups are beetles, caterpillars, bees, wasps, ants, grasshoppers, locusts, crickets, cicadas, leaf and planthoppers, scale insects and true bugs, termites, dragonflies and flies.”

I suspect there aren’t many of those 2 billion entomophagers in our country. You don’t often see cans of caterpillars and buckets of beetles on the supermarket shelves, unless they are in the process of being closed down by the local health department.

As repulsive as the thought of eating insects may be to most of us, they are apparently nutritious. The UN report even talks about disguising the fact that they are bugs by grinding them up and mixing then with other foods. Don’t we have laws against that? The Food and Drug Administration regulates how many insect parts can now go into our food. If the UN gets their wish, that number could go to 100-percent.

I am a confirmed omnivore, but the “omni” doesn’t include intentionally devouring insects. I like meat – red meat, white meat, fowl – it’s all good. I even cringe at the thought of veggie-burgers, and tofu. Now they want us to eat bugs! Enough! Quit messing with food! I can’t even imagine what wine goes with grasshoppers or beetles.

The next time you see cockroaches in a restaurant they may actually be on the menu, and the old gag about complaining to the waiter about a fly in your soup will no longer be funny. I have little doubt that school cafeterias would be lonely places with termites and dragonflies as lunch staples.

Once again, and in true form, the United Nations has come up with an absurd one-size-fits-all notion that is bound to fail.

Global Whating?

“Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” Mark Twain (1835–1910). While the exact author of that statement is subject to debate, the arrogance of the line cannot be disputed. Nobody does anything about it because we puny humans are absolutely powerless to do anything about the weather. At best, we can only pray to a much higher power for more clement weather.

The human race is an arrogant bunch. When one views the forces of nature and realizes that we cannot even fully explain them, you then begin to understand just how impotent we mere mortals are. Have we ever been able to cause a volcanic eruption or stop one? Can we even make rain fall to end a drought or stop a rainfall causing flooding? Can we make high or low atmospheric pressure disperse? In all the forces of nature, humankind is merely flotsam.

Why then are we arrogant enough to believe we are causing our planet to warm to the point of disaster? “Scientists” along with the UN climatologists, planetologists, and alarmologists like Al Gore, and maybe one or more shamans with a bone in their noses, would all have us believe that man-made “greenhouse gasses” are causing the planet to grow warmer.

In 2012 they pointed to the alarming loss of Arctic and Antarctic ice – save the Polar Bears -- as proof that we are in a warming period i.e. implicitly caused by greenhouse gasses. Yet, in 2013 the Arctic ice has grown by 60%. Arctic sea ice averaged 2.35 million square miles in August 2013, as compared to the low point of 1.32 million square miles recorded on Sept. 16, 2012, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

I certainly did nothing to cause this change. I burn wood in my fireplace, drive the same two vehicles (one of them diesel), and use my diesel tractor. Although one of my farting horses did die this year, I doubt that had much affect on the climate, though.

According to scientific sources, the Last 10,000 years have seen some 1500 volcanoes on this planet, of which no fewer than 60 erupted from 1990 to 1999. At any moment in time, there are at least 20 eruptions going on worldwide. The gasses constantly belched out by any one of these volcanoes makes that produced by entire 405 freeway at the height of rush hour look like a pigeon passing gas in a hurricane by comparison.

We can do nothing about erupting volcanoes, so the hubris of powerful people dictates that they place controls on whatever they can. Do humans generate components of what they call greenhouse gas? Undeniably, yes. Do we contribute the major portion of the gas? Debatable. Is greenhouse gas causing “global warming?” Not likely, since we still have greenhouse gas and haven’t warmed in 15 years.

Somewhere deep in some cave around 50,000 years ago, a human noticed that his bunions hurt when the weather changed. It was then that climatology was born. While great advancements have been made since then, we still don’t know exactly what causes the phenomenon we call weather. Mainstream scientific research ties much of the cause to changes in solar radiation and our own magnetosphere – two more forces we are impotent to change.

The tirade against man-made greenhouse gas is merely the product of people whose power has led them to the megalomaniacal idea that since they are powerless against the forces of nature, they can at least control the puny forces of man. Humility is a rare element in the halls of power. And yet here they are still able to only talk about the weather.

Is the First Lady All Wet?

Water; it’s not just for mixing with whiskey anymore. Or so the Obama administration would have us believe. USA Today, that scholarly organ of trivial information, recently reported on yet another world shattering issue from the White House. Michelle Obama wants us to drink more water. "Drink just one more glass of water a day and you can make a real difference for your health, your energy, and the way you feel," Obama said. "So Drink Up and see for yourself."

Yep, that’s a straight line, if I ever saw one. I will, however, resist the temptation to make reference to the states with water rationing, the possible horrors of telling those getting their water from Lake Erie to drink more, and the nasty things fish do in that stuff.

This reproach to the American public was made without caveat, and without actual knowledge of how much water any individual now drinks. My wife insists that I must drink at least eight glasses of water a day. Is that big or little glasses? She points to the ones in the cupboard the size of buckets. But now the current occupant of the White House is telling me to drink more. Somehow, I doubt even fish drink that much.

One “expert” Stanley Goldfarb, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania went so far as to say, "The idea drinking water increases energy, the word I've used to describe it is: quixotic," he said. "We're designed to drink when we're thirsty. ... There's no need to have more than that." That’s exactly what I told the guys down at the bar … right before I ordered another round.

Seriously folks, everyone knows water is necessary for all life on earth to exist – especially someone hiking in Death Valley in July. My doctor is a big fan of drinking water. He even discourages prescribing a diuretic to people in Southern California. He says most of us lose enough water just walking around in the warm, low humidity So-Cal climate.

Most of us get more water than we realize, though. There’s water in coffee, tea, fruit drinks, and just about any other liquid you drink. Even beer is made with water – although, I’ve been warned against drinking alcohol when thirsty. In fact, that is why beer was invented several thousand years ago. The water was so bad, people were dying from drinking it, and they found that fermented barley actually killed the germs in the water. Egyptians building the pyramids were even paid in beer. Although, without refrigeration, I suspect they didn’t wait for the mountains to turn blue.

It seems that First Ladies must grow weary of sitting around the White House watching their husbands tackle knotty issues day-in and day-out. They want to put their mark on the administration. Eleanor Roosevelt continually pushed FDR for a socialist agenda. Nancy Reagan told everyone to just say no to drugs. Hillary Clinton told Bill to just say no to the White House interns. And now Michelle Obama, fresh from her latest taxpayer paid multi-million dollar vacation, is promoting the health benefits of drinking … water.

This campaign can’t turn out any worse than the one where she promoted fresh fruit and vegetables in schools. You know, the one where one school reported throwing out $75,000 worth of uneaten fruit and vegetables a day. Kids will eat what they like and people will drink what they like. 

Maybe after her next multi-million dollar vacation, she might get us to breathe more air. Until then, I guess I’ll have to drink a few more Jack-and-waters. Can’t disappoint the White House.

Say What?

Is American English an endangered species? I guess that depends on whom you ask. The folks at the Merriam-Webster Company would like you to believe American English is alive and thriving. Every year they add definitions for utterings that heretofore had no official place in the American English language. Apparently, all it takes is a popular usage – or misusage – of words to be added to their dictionary. Do you have any idea what f-bomb, copernicium, gastropub, or sexting mean? Don’t ask me! I’ve never used the words, but you can look them up; they’re in the dictionary.

To the distress of some Germans, the popularity of English words has even made inroads to Duden, the German dictionary. I learned to speak German as a child from my stepfather. When I read German newspapers today, I am often confused. I’m not sure if I am reading an American news article with German words or a German news article with English words. In truth, though, both are the same language. They share a common Anglo-Saxon root.

The language I hear from our young ones today is nothing akin to the English I was taught in school. Okay, if I’m strolling through Harlem, Detroit or Watts and hear ebonics, I’m not surprised – I have no idea what is being said, but I suppose it’s a dialect used in those locations. But when young kids begin using that slang outside of the inner-city environment, I begin to wonder if American English is dying or evolving – maybe devolving – into another language. The vernacular is even popping up more frequently in children’s television programs and even on mainstream programs. Today’s music is infested with words unintelligible to most English speakers.

Then there is the Tweet. Ah yes, that 140 character jumble of ambiguous and confusing abbreviations, insinuations, and emoticons. Come on folks, does LOL mean laughing out loud, lots of luck, left of left, lack of libido, or lost our language? OMG! When I see something that looks like it might be a sentence ended with a mixture of strange punctuations, I am now aware they are trying to convey an emotion in what is called an emoticon. I just turn my head sideways, squint, and try to imagine that odd jumble as being some sort of face. It rarely works, but the sender thought he or she was being clever.

A lot of the Tweet jargon evolved from Instant Messaging, where the senders were just too lazy to use proper sentence structure. All right, I’ll grant you that English grammar is not altogether an easy proposition. For every rule there exists any number of exceptions. Capitalization, punctuation, subjects, verbs, objects, prepositions, split infinitives, ending a sentence with a preposition … it’s all very confusing. But if you were paying attention in grade school, this is what you were taught. We all had twelve years to learn to write and speak correctly, didn’t we?

One thing that irritates me to no end is the email from a person known to be literate that contains all lower case characters, no punctuation, and obscure abbreviations. It makes me want to shout to the sender that all of the necessary keys are on every keyboard to make at least a stab at writing something coherent. The network provider doesn’t charge more for Capitals or correctly placed punctuation. Give me a break! Write something I can read!

English is the (unfortunately) unofficial language of this country. Sure there are a multitude of non-English speakers in the US. I am bi-lingual, and every once in a while a German word or phrase will slip out without me catching it. Usually the person I’m talking to at the time has no clue to what I just said, and I need to correct it. No problem. I apologize and say it in English.

The hard fact is that to be understood, you need to use American English in this country. Don’t expect others to learn to speak your language. There are just too many different languages for one person to understand. Long ago our forefathers chose to use English as a common form of communication in this land – not ebonics, Spanglish, Chinglish, or Janglish, just plain old English. I believe the lingua Franca that is taught in our schools is still English. It is not dead yet, so please use the correct form. You will appear much smarter.

Get Serious Not Syria

Civil war is appalling. Our own Civil War cost about 625,000 lives. Appalling! The Rwandan Civil War lasted from 1990 to 1993 in which some 800,000 people were hacked and shot to death. Appalling! The Kosovo Civil War waged from 1991 through 1999 leaving thousands of civilians dead and missing. Appalling!  There have been a reported 59 Civil Wars throughout the world since 1945. Nine of them are listed as still waging. Appalling!

“War is hell,” but do we need to send our best and brightest, not to mention our tax dollars, to hell each time the people of some country can’t “ just get along?” For some mysterious reason, every time folks start fighting within their own country, we wind up sending troops to subdue one side or another, and then make an unappreciated attempt at nation building. Have we not learned through tragic experience that no one will thank us for risking our own lives to help others?

It is sad that chemical weapons have been brought out of the closet and used against civilians in Syria. But who deployed them? Assad says he didn’t do it. If he had decided to use chemical weapons, why would he stop at just 100 or so casualties? On the other hand, what better way to get the West involved that to gas a few of your own “martyrs?”

The Syrian “rebels” have been crying for our help since the first shot was fired, and the West just sets on the fence. Obama publicly drew a “red line” at the use of chemical weapons. Okay, dig up the stash Saddam hid and lob a small one into a non-critical spot, then blame it on the government. Who knows? Could have happened.

I’m no “peacenick.” I am a study of classical war strategists Carl Von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, though. Both advocate only waging war for political gains. By political, they don’t mean Democrat over Republican. Here, they mean some real gains for your country or state.

There are no gains to be had in Syria for the United States. We have virtually nothing to gain by intervening in the civil matters of the Syrian nation. In fact, it is a lose-lose situation all around.

If we support Assad, we leave a dictator in charge. If we support the rebels, we risk arming terrorists and handing them another place from which to stage attacks on us.

Then there are the monetary costs. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has clearly outlined to US congressional leaders the risks associated with a fourth major military intervention in a Muslim country. Dempsey listed five options: training the Syrian opposition, launching limited airstrikes on Assad's heavy weapons, implementing a no-fly zone, creating buffer zones, and securing chemical weapons. A training mission would cost at least $500 million initially, according to Dempsey, and the other more aggressive options would likely cost at least $1 billion a month.

Let me reiterate that number: For boots-on-the-ground it would cost you and me ONE-BILLION DOLLARS a month. I suppose that number includes the cost of body bags too.

Now, I like a good war as much as the next guy. In WWI and WWII we came off looking like heroes. In Korea we drew to a stalemate, and in Vietnam we had our rears handed to us, thanks mainly to our indecisive, wishy-washy “leadership.” We just finished feeding American lives to the ungrateful Iraqis, and are about to stop the conveyor belt loaded with American lives and dollars to the meat-grinder in Afghanistan – does anyone have the odds of Karzi lasting the week when we leave?

I know the military has a dilemma of what to do with all the surplus weapons and seasoned soldiers in Afghanistan in 2014, but shipping them to Syria is not a solution. Let those people sort out their own differences. They don’t need us telling them how to build a nation, or foisting our “values” on them. We also don’t need to keep one side or the other in power by dropping off bags of money on the leader’s desk every month. Let’s save the money and American lives for our own problems here at home. God knows we have enough of them.

Keeping Secrets

I tried to think of a card game where opponents display all of their cards, and I couldn’t think of one. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any; I just don’t know of one. So why do the opponents keep their cards secret? Well duh, it wouldn’t be much of a game if your opponent knew your hand! Of course! You wouldn’t want to give your opponent unfair advantage over you by revealing your hand. But it’s just a game. If you lose the game the worst case may be a loss of money.

The game of governments is far more serious than a game of cards, and secrecy is even more important. If our government reveals its hand and loses the game, our people suffer.

There are some who promote the likes of Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange as heroes for revealing our government’s secrets. It’s like playing a high-stakes game of poker with someone standing behind you displaying cue cards of your hand to all of your opponents. While the others at the table may consider the person with the cue cards a hero, I doubt you would.

On the other hand, when we were kids on the school playground and saw others whispering, did we not suspect it was about us? This could easily be considered a form of paranoia. Are we paranoid that our government is keeping secrets about us? If they are is there anything they might know that would harm us as individuals? Was any of that revealed in the recent spate of leaks?

I can think of a lot of private information we willingly give the government that ultimately goes into a database somewhere – private financial information, party affiliation, gun ownership, health information, the list goes on. I’m sure none of us would like that information to be made public. Yet, we willingly reveal this information to our government. Do we trust our government? About 80 percent say no. Do we trust our government enough to willingly give them our most personal information? Apparently, we do.

If Bradley Manning had posted our names, addresses and social security numbers on Wikileaks, would people be so quick to pronounce him (or her, or it) a hero? Yet leaking state secrets can be far more devastating to a wide number of people than the inconvenience of ID theft. People could lose their lives.

I am amazed that the revelation by Edward Snowden that our government is spying on us comes as such a shock. No, I am not attempting to defend his actions; they are equally despicable as Manning’s. I am just astonished that someone, anyone, didn’t already believe the government was collecting data on us. The FBI has been using their Carnivore software to snoop on our email and Internet usage since 1997.

Regardless whether you were surprised by Snowden’s leak, the simple fact that someone with access to secret NSA data would globally publish information labeled as being any level of secret is an appalling, treasonous act.

These are dishonorable people who have violated numerous oaths they have taken and committed acts of treason. They no longer deserve to breathe the free air of the country they have betrayed.

Manning will pay for his betrayal with anywhere from seven to thirty-five years in a federal prison. (Thank God it won’t be in California, where he might get to choose a women or men’s prison.) Snowden is living a self-imposed exile, probably in Russia. I say good riddance to both of them. To my way of thinking, they have both gotten off light.

The big question now is, will they be pardoned? Manning’s attorney was shown wearing a Tee shirt emblazoned with the words, “President Obama Pardon Bradley Manning.” A lot of illogical pardoning usually takes place when presidents and governors leave office. We need to keep a sharp eye out in January 2017, if Obama doesn’t pardon them sooner.

Census and Nonsense

“Vee haf vays of making you talk. You vill tell us efry tink.” Sounds like an old NAZI spy movie with a greasy Gestapo interrogator in a bad German accent salivating over the prospect of torturing the hapless hero for information. But wait, that’s not the Gestapo, it’s… it’s…the US Census Bureau! And they are here to make me fill out the mandatory American Community census survey.

That’s right folks; it is MANDATORY. Section 221 of the US Code Title 13 states:

“Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or

    willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any

    other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce

    or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the

    Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his

    knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in

    connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I,

    II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to

    the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or

    farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not

    more than $100.”

I guess they figure they’re giving us a break. Until 1976, that section carried a $250 fine and sixty days jail sentence. The penalty jumps to $500 if you get any of the answers wrong -- and I thought college exams were tough.

Title 13, enacted on Aug. 31, 1954, chapter 1158, 68 Statute 1012, seems reasonable enough. The US Constitution calls for an “enumeration” every ten years. That would certainly give congress authority to enact a law that pertains to taking the necessary head count. After all, we are a republic. A head count is necessary to fairly allocate the required representatives.

In true government fashion, though, they seem to have taken their authority a step beyond what was intended in that pesky Constitution. No longer do they just want to know how many people live where. They can ask absolutely anything that comes to their narrow little minds, and they can do it whenever they want. Here’s the real kicker, it’s required by law!

I’m no lawyer, but I can read. The language in the US Constitution is clear on this matter. An enumeration is to be taken every ten years for the express purpose of determining the allocation of representatives in congress. There is nothing in the Constitution about requiring the populous to divulge the number of toilets in their house or any other personal data whenever the bureaucrats decide to squeeze us for information.

This law is right up there  with removing tags from mattresses in the asinine factor. At a time when our government is surreptitiously collection our phone information and requiring Internet companies to reveal data on their subscribers, it is difficult to believe they don’t already know everything about us from our birth date to our sock size.

I, for one, have nothing to hide, but the idea that our government can REQUIRE me to divulge personal information without the constitutional authority to do so cuts against my grain.

The Census form is still sitting in my office. The Census Bureau continues to send letters and emails prodding me to fill it out. The other day a nice lady from the local Census Bureau office showed up at my gate to “help” me fill out the form. As politely as I could, I informed her that I needed no help, and am not inclined to divulge my personal information to her or the Census Bureau. I gave the necessary information on their head count in 2010. There is no constitutional requirement to volunteer any other information until 2020.

She was very nice, and told me she doesn’t enforce Title 13, but that participation in all censuses is a requirement.

Maybe they will send the Gestapo to interrogate me. I’ll grant them this much though, they are persistent. For all the tax dollars they wasted on trying to squeeze information out of me, they could have help fund another Obama vacation. Gee, I hope he doesn’t suffer because of me.

Global Warming: The Cause of All Evil?

The headline in a German news article from Der Spiegel read, “Scientific Feud: Does Global Warming Make Us More Violent?” I couldn’t pass this up. Global warming is being blamed for a lot of things, but violence? Are the pseudo-scientists at it again?

Apparently, Der Spiegel isn’t the only news magazine to pick this up. The article spoke of other news reports that displayed headlines such as; "Hotter Weather Actually Makes Us Want to Kill Each Other," a headline chosen by the Atlantic, "Rise in violence 'linked to climate change,' wrote the BBC, "Global Warming Is Greatly Increasing Crime and Other Conflict," it read in the Huffington Post. According to Spiegel, several German outlets have run variations on the "Climate of Violence" theme with Focus Online leading the way sporting the headline, "Agro-Heat Turns People into Killers."

Okay, now I’m worried. Is he old boogey-man, Global Warming responsible for everything bad that happens? I couldn’t find my keys the other day. Was it the fault of the weather? Is Obama missing the boat by blaming his troubles on his predecessors instead of placing the blame on Global Warming? Are we really as gullible as the pseudo-scientists believe us to be?

Deeper in the article we find that this frenzy of misinformation was set off by a study from a team led by Solomon Hsiang from the University of California, Berkeley. Other scientists accuse them of, “using questionable statistical methods, of arriving at dubious conclusions and even of a tendentious selection of data.” Those familiar with my column may recall that I have demonstrated the fallibility of statistics. Repeating a lie enough times may make people believe it’s true but a much faster way is to use statistics.

Sports scores don’t lie; they are a direct outcome of a competition. Recorded temperature measurements are likewise reliable; they are the record of calibrated instruments. It’s when you selectively plot the recorded measurements over time and plug them into mathematic equations that you can make them “prove” whatever thesis you want. Now take the results of skewed statistics and correlate them with a selection of events biased to your desired outcome and you have the Big Lie destined to be accepted as truth.

Is the earth in a warming period? Some credible scientists say it is. Equally credible scientists say it is not. It’s enough to make us all neurotic. Now take this ambiguous data and mix it with a selected set of violent events and voila you have “proved” Global Warming causes violence. But wait…no; it “proves” no warming causes violence.

Now mix in the other ambiguous data on greenhouse gases and you find that we are actually responsible for global violence. Throw in more “data” and you find your car, lawnmower, barbecue, and fireplace are causing your neighbors to be violent. And here all along you may have thought they were just jerks.

All right, that issue is solved. What else can I “prove” for you? How about “Proving” Global Warming causes obesity, or maybe how Global Warming causes politicians to say and do dumb things? That one, I might actually believe.

Crime Now Pays

The old adage “Crime doesn’t pay” obviously no longer applies to California. It appears that Governor Moonbeam would rather spend our tax dollars on a bullet train than apply them toward confining lawbreakers. The Attitude of the courts used to be, “We sentence them, you figure out what to do with them.” It appears that is no longer the case. The courts want those they sentence to be housed in the equivalent of the Hilton rather than Motel 6. Are the jails crowded? Probably. There are a lot of crooks and criminals in California, some aren’t even in the legislature.

When you commit a crime, you are remanded to a penal institution. The key word here being penal. A wrongdoer must suffer a penalty. The people in prison have all committed a felony. Lesser crimes don’t get prison time. That is the penalty they must pay for crimes ranging from drug dealing to armed robbery and even murder. In every instance there were victims that were at the very least inconvenienced. Is it not reasonable that those committing the crimes should also be inconvenienced? In some countries, they simply throw a prisoner in a hole without even considering how many other prisoners are confined there.  As long as they can shoehorn another one in, they’re good.We are more civilized than that, but do we really need to assure convicts a cushy room with three gourmet meals a day — plus snacks and cigarettes and television? Sure makes honest homeless people look like chumps.

“America’s Toughest Sheriff," Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona has no overcrowding problem in his facilities. Each prisoner is assured a spot in an non-airconditioned tent and a fresh set of pink underwear. When he gets too many prisoners, he just buys another tent. Here’s a clip from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s web site:

Arpaio has between 7500 - 10,000 inmates in his jail system. In August, 1993, he started the nation’s largest Tent City for convicted inmates. Two thousand convicted men and women serve their sentences in a canvas incarceration compound. It is a remarkable success story that has attracted the attention of government officials, presidential candidates, and media worldwide.

Of equal success and notoriety are his chain gangs, which contribute thousands of dollars of free labor to the community. The male chain gang, and the world’s first-ever female and juvenile chain gangs, clean streets, paint over graffiti, and bury the indigent in the county cemetery.

Also impressive are the Sheriff’s get tough policies. For example, he banned smoking, coffee, movies, pornographic magazines, and unrestricted TV in all jails. He has the cheapest meals in the U.S. too. The average meal costs between 15 and 40 cents, and inmates are fed only twice daily, to cut the labor costs of meal delivery. He even stopped serving them salt and pepper to save tax payers $20,000 a year.

Another program Arpaio is very well known for is the pink underwear he makes all inmates wear. Years ago, when the Sheriff learned that inmates were stealing jailhouse white boxers, Arpaio had all inmate underwear dyed pink for better inventory control. The same is true for the Sheriff’s handcuffs. When they started disappearing, he ordered pink handcuffs as a replacement.

Another web site quotes Arpaio on the quality of the food:  …Other prisons in the State [Arizona] and around the nation will average a dollar to a buck and a half per meal.  But Arpaio says he doesn't do it to save money...he does cause "the prisoners deserve to be punished."

Maybe the courts figure that if they require the state to release a bunch of prisoners, they won’t be inclined to arrest so many criminals and the court case load will drop. Unfortunately that logic does nothing to reduce the number of crimes committed. It just means we will have more criminals in our neighborhoods that have learned a very valuable lesson — crime pays.

Instead of turning felons lose on an unsuspecting — we are no longer allowed to suspect, that would be profiling — public, Brown could take just a few of those dollars he is wasting on the high-speed rail and invest in some tents at Big 5 Sporting goods. He might even be able to go in with Maricopa County, Arizona and get a discount on some pink underwear and handcuffs. Are you listening, Jerry?

Racial Hyprocrisy on Trial

Here’s an interesting word from the New Oxford American Dictionary – hypocrisy, noun ( pl. -sies): the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

You are probably wondering why I would choose to highlight this word. The truth is, I’m afraid there are far too many people in this country who pretend to know what the word means, but either neglect or choose to ignore it when it comes to their own actions. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised coming from a nation where personal responsibility is an increasingly rare commodity.

The concept of racism is one that is way too often molded from the point of view of the accuser that has created a distinct dual standard. When a person not sharing the genes of the black race uses the “N-Word” in describing another, he or she is considered racist. No matter when or under what circumstances, a person uttering something that even sounds like the “N-Word” will have their life destroyed in perpetuity – they are branded as racist. If you attend a show with a black comedian in it, the chances of not hearing the “N-Word” used are astronomical. It’s also a common street language in predominantly black communities – nothing racist about it.

The irony of the “N-Word” is that it originated in the 17^th century to describe people with black (French: nègre and Spanish: negro, Latin: niger) skin. The “N-Word” was purportedly associated with slavery in the pre-civil war south, and therefore today should be strictly taboo when referring to black skinned people. Okay, let’s purge our vocabularies and dictionaries of the “N-Word”.

“Cracker”, on the other hand, is a term very closely associated with slavery. A cracker was an over-seer who used a whip to keep slaves in-line and working. Even though there were also black over-seers with whips, the word is somehow associated only with the white ones.

Nobody even raises an eyebrow then a black person uses the word “Cracker” in any company to describe a white person. They don’t even bother to disguise the word with a euphemism such as “C-word”. That’s not racist? If not, then it’s at least hypocritical.

During the George Zimmerman trial, there were thinly veiled attempts to cast Zimmerman as racist. Were there reports of him uttering the “N-Word”? If so, it must have been censored in the news, because I didn’t hear or read about it. On the other hand, a witness stated she had a conversation with Martin right before the altercation that took his life where he used the word “Cracker” to describe the man following him. Let’s see, Zimmerman must be a racist but Martin is what, a choirboy?

The left wing news media are always portraying any opposition to Obama’s policies as racist. But while Obama gives $7 billion of our tax dollars to improve African electric power, and simultaneously cuts our National Guard and furloughing people at the pentagon, there is nothing racist about that it’s just plain wrong.

Universities notoriously lower standards for blacks so they can admit them over much higher qualified students of what? Other races! Nothing racist about that (wink-wink).

Now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted of murdering Travon Martin, our black head of the justice system, Eric Holder, is scrambling to find a way to charge this innocent man with some violation of the civil rights law, an act signed into law in 1964 aimed specifically at ending discrimination. I suppose if a non-black person kills a black man in self-defense, it must be discrimination. After all, why couldn’t he have chosen to shoot a white passer by instead of the black man that was pounding his head into the concrete? Was Martin discriminating when he said a “Cracker” was following him? If this isn’t racism, it surely is hypocrisy.

You can bet the farm that if this had gone the other way – Martin killing Zimmerman – there would have been two short paragraphs in just the local newspaper, and most of the country would have never heard of George Zimmerman.

How many Hispanics are killed every day by any race, without high profile news reporting? How many blacks are killed each day by other blacks without even a hint of protestation? How many whites are killed by any race with only back-page coverage in the local newspaper?

In 1995, a black man was acquitted of killing his white wife and white houseguest. White people took to the streets in hoards destroying property in protest of the injustice done to the white woman and man. No wait, that’s wrong! The white people did nothing, while the black people rejoiced at the acquittal of O.J. Simpson. What did reverend Al Sharptongue have to say about that? Do you hear crickets chirping? Or is that the sound of hypocrisy?

Although it’s not, I am certain there will be some people calling this column racist. There is no way anyone can call it hypocritical, though.