The 50 Years War

 No, I’m not talking about Lyndon Johnson’s war on the Vietnamese people or even the war in Afghanistan, although it seems like it has been at least 50 years long. Time flies when you’re getting shot at.

It was around 50 years ago that Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. I remember it well. At the time, I was earning barely enough to put food on the table for my family – wife and three daughters. I didn’t consider us as impoverished, but going to University full-time and working two jobs left me tired and broke. A war on poverty didn’t sound so bad then.

Of course, the devil is always in the details. I soon found out that a rising tide doesn’t always float all boats. Mine must have been stuck in the mud.

Then President Johnson managed to create a HUD sponsored mortgage program for low-income applicants. It was the centerpiece of his war on poverty, intended to give everyone a chance at the American dream of home ownership. It sure gave the home construction industry a shot in the arm.

At that time, I lived in Indiana, just along the south end of Lake Michigan and had to drive through the city of Gary along I-94 to get to school and one of my jobs. Almost overnight the swampy and run-down area on both sides of the Interstate became filled with houses.

In the ‘60s the demographic of Gary was about 70 percent poor Blacks. President Johnson’s HUD program seemed to give nearly all of them a fine new start in the brand new houses along the Interstate. The new developments filled quickly, but within the next couple of years, the area became increasingly depopulated. It wasn’t long until it could easily qualify as a slum.

One day, as I drove by, I noticed heavy equipment leveling the area where just a few years before they had built fine new houses.

If you can remember, the ‘60s was also a time when the civil rights movement provoked huge changes in the racial tenor of the country. When I applied for a HUD mortgage, I was turned down even though I am certain I made more money than many of the people in the Gary housing developments. HUD said I didn’t earn enough to qualify. Really? They might as well have said I wasn’t black enough.

After 50 years, I believe we can declare Mr. Johnson’s war on poverty has fared no better than his war on Vietnam. Both were abject  -- and costly -- failures.

In his recent State of the Union address, Mr. Obama indicated that the middle-class is sinking ever deeper into the region of poverty despite the government’s relentless attempts to regulate and tax the life out of free enterprise. And now the Democrats are certain that raising the minimum wage by phenomenal amounts will pull people out of poverty.

Obviously, you can always tell a socialist, but you can’t tell them much. It looks like they will never learn that by strangling the life force out of business they are merely hastening the departure of the middle-class into poverty. Companies are not philanthropic enterprises created for the sole purpose of providing jobs.

As wages are forcibly increased, businesses will need to make adjustments to maintain their “bottom line.” There are only two ways to accomplish this: reduce the number of employees or raise prices. Either way results in everyone paying more for goods. Eventually, when wages and costs balance out again, those making the new “minimum wage” will find themselves in the hole again.

The best way to win the way on poverty has proven to be through free enterprise. If the politicians want to get serious about winning this war, they need to get out of the business of regulating and taxing businesses to death.

Pole-a-ticks

The political spectrum is made up of many people with a wide range of thoughts on political issues. If we were to chart the number of people and politicians holding beliefs from the left to the right – Progressive to Tea Party Conservative – on the issues, it would likely form an inverse bell chart. That is to say that the center area would be less populated than either end. So where would you be on this hypothetical curve?

You may be a Progressive if you would rather be called Progressive than Liberal but can’t explain the difference.

You may be a Progressive if you are bad at math and believe anyone earning more than you is a One-percenter.

You may be a Progressive if you believe all One-percenters should be taxed to support your lifestyle.

You may be a Progressive if you believe the people serving your $1 hamburger and fries should earn  $25 an hour.

You may be a Progressive if you believe the government has a duty provide you with everything you need in life.

You may be a Progressive if you think anyone against Obama’s policies is automatically racist.

You may be a Progressive if you believe bills should be passed without reading when sponsored by Democrats.

You may be a Progressive if you believe that it is more important for public school curriculum to boost students’ self esteem than teach the fundamentals (reading, writing, and math).

You may be a Progressive if you believe the primary function of companies is to provide jobs.

You may be a Progressive if you believe guns somehow manage to drive their owners to commit heinous crimes.

You may be a Progressive if you take every word spoken on MSNBC as gospel.

You may be a Progressive if you believe babies should be killed on demand, but murders should only be housed at taxpayer’s expense for the rest of their natural lives.

You may be a Progressive if you believe everything but drugs should be regulated by multiple agencies.

You may be a Progressive (and probably delusional) if you are certain Mr. Obama has your best interests at heart.

You may be a Progressive if you believe humans are responsible for causing natural disasters.

You may be a Progressive if you think patriot is a bad name and pledging allegiance to the flag is a subversive action.

You may be a Progressive if you believe the Constitution is outdated and the Bill of Rights is merely a suggestion.

You may be a Progressive if you believe that pornography is free speech but God is an obscene word.

You may be a Progressive if you love the tenets of socialism and are convinced that Karl Marx was a great philosopher.

On the other hand:

You may be a Tea Partier if you think the Tea Party is merely a patriotic conservative faction of the Republican Party and not a group of goose-stepping fascists.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe in a thoughtful, informed approach to legislation rather than blind experimentation for the sake of change.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe that a14 trillion-dollar debt is obscene and borrowing more just to pay the interest on the debt is an act of stupidity.

You may be a Tea Partier if you know that government is far too engaged in your life.

You may be a Tea Partier if you hate every dirty aspect of socialism.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe that wars should only be waged when the interests of our country are at stake.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe government is bloated and full of unnecessary and duplicated bureaus.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to provide public service for their handouts.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe that Unions have far too much influence in politics.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe Union members should not have to pay for political contributions to candidates they would not vote for.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe immigrants should wait their turn in the quota system and those here illegally have broken the law and should be deported.

You may be a Tea Partier if you believe the Dream Act is in fact a nightmare.

There’s more, but I think you get the point. The spectrum is wide but these days it is more like pole-a-ticks than politics due to the polarization of the two main parties.

Colorado Goes Up In Smoke

It’s a new year, and Coloradoans celebrated by lighting up a doobee. No, not all Coloradoans smoked weed, but a great number did – and still are. It seems the term “Colorado Mountain high” has taken on a whole new meaning.

There are reported lines of customers outside the pot shops rivaling those seen at bakeries in communist East Germany. It makes me wonder just how safe it will be to drive in Colorado once these pot stores get a full inventory.

Not to fear, the state government says. They have laws against driving high. Right, they also have laws against driving drunk, but booze is legal, people buy it legally, and get in their cars and drive illegally drunk. At least when pot was illegal, it was more difficult to drive while high. It’s too early for comparable statistics, but if and when they are made does anyone doubt the rate of driving under the influence will be up?

I’m no teetotaler  (not to be confused with tea partier). I enjoy a beer or two now and again. Okay, maybe more than a beer or two on rare occasions. But alcohol is not a “gateway” drug. Sure, alcoholism is a terrible disease, and yes, it is an addiction. Alcoholics only look for more booze, not stronger stuff.

Marijuana has been termed a gateway drug. It leaves the user craving for an even bigger high, which frequently drives the user to stronger drugs.

Colorado claims to have strict laws regarding the use of this dope, but they haven’t even figured out how to tax the stuff. To keep outsiders from buying the drug a valid Colorado ID is needed for each purchase. Those who can buy it are prohibited from mailing or transporting it outside the state. Just how they intend to enforce these well-meaning safeguards has not been reported.

The laws against driving high have not been repealed, so we should be able to get data on the increase of violations soon. Of course, employer drug testing is still legal and pot smokers can be fired or not even hired.

One thing the sellers of this drug should seriously consider is the report that the cartels that illegally smuggle pot into this country are very displeased with marijuana legalization. These are the same cartels that lop off heads and hang the bodies from bridges in Mexico. How long will it be before the violence takes hold in Colorado?

So far, there are 20 states allowing the sale and use of medical marijuana. Colorado and Washington are the only two states where anyone  18 or over can legally buy and use the weed. It may be safe to say that medical marijuana laws have led to the desire for even more liberal use.

The ridiculous idea that a medical professional – doctor, Physician’s Assistant or Nurse Practitioner – can “prescribe” pot for any malady a patient complains of and requests using marijuana has made a mockery of the law. I have to wonder why this drug is not dispensed by registered pharmacists at legal pharmacies like other legitimate medicines. Has the FDA or any drug company researchers actually found any beneficial use for pot?

California voters rejected the unrestricted use of marijuana twice, but there is currently a possibility that the 2016 elections may see yet another proposition attempting to legalize the weed in the state. We can only hope that two years worth of data on unrestricted use will be enough to show the very real dangers of legalization.

So, now that Coloradoans are now enveloped in a blue haze of pot, will the next call to be the legalization of cocaine, crack, meth, or heroin? How many lives need to be destroyed by this crap before we reject at least one aspect of the sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll legacy of the ‘60s?

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.