All Hail the Imperial Presidency

When George Washington was elected President of the United States, no one knew how to address him. Suggestions included Your Highness, Your Majesty, and other royal sounding titles. Washington rejected them all saying they made him sound too much like a king. Since we had just fought a war to overthrow the yoke of a tyrannical king, he thought it best not to be seen as a ruler. After all, the presidency is merely the executive arm of the three branches defined in the Constitution. He had no authority to make laws or levy taxes. That privilege had been reserved exclusively for congress. He could only veto a law once congress sent a bill to him for concurrence. Washington was determined not to be a ruler.

Forty-three presidents later, our government has a top executive who apparently believes he is the ruler of our country. Congress and some sketchy wording in the Constitution gave the president the ability to directly administer the office through executive orders. This was intended to create policies and state how federal laws should be executed. George Washington issued eight executive orders. Franklin Roosevelt issued 3,522. Barack Obama has taken the use of executive orders to a dangerous and possibly unconstitutional extreme. Several of his 166 orders could be interpreted as bordering on unauthorized legislative action.

Then there are the “Czars”, appointed directors of policy replete with staff and responsible only to the president. Franklin Roosevelt started the use of czars by appointing eleven policy directors, mostly for economic advice. Since that time, each president has had czars. Eisenhower and Reagan both had only one czar. Obama has the distinction of having the most at 38. Again, these czars all have departmental staff, budgets and are responsible only to Obama.

With the Affordable Care Act (aka. Obamacare) train wreck we now find the terrible consequences of passing a thousand-page bill just to find out what is in it. People are losing the insurance policies that they had selected to suit their individual needs and finances. They then find that the government approved replacement policies will cost considerably more, cover unnecessary medical items, and have a higher deductible.

Oops! The father of this legislation flatly told the country, “if you like your policy you can keep it – period.” Did he lie? Maybe. But he is now forced to backpedal. So what does he do? You guessed it. He issues executive orders to make corrections to the ACA.

But wait, the ACA is the “law of the land.” We know this because Nancy Pelosi adamantly told us. The only way it can be changed is by legislation. That doesn’t stop Obama from ordering changes, though.

Huffington Post reports that on December 26 a letter signed by Attorneys General from eleven states to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius specifically criticizes President Barack Obama's executive decision to give insurance companies another year to continue offering health plans that had been canceled for not meeting ACA standards. That decision came after the political turmoil surrounding hundreds of thousands of canceled insurance plans.

“We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action,” states the letter, authored by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. “The illegal actions by this administration must stop.”

While the correction of one of the many flaws in Obamacare may well be in order, it is not within the authority of Obama to make the changes. This is the sole purview of the US Congress – which, incidentally, has voted 44 times to repeal this abominable law, only to have the action killed by Harry Reid in the Democrat controlled Senate.

In this New Year, we have the opportunity place both houses of Congress under Republican control and give Barack Obama the message that he is not a ruler, king or emperor. His job is merely to implement the laws enacted by Congress.

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.