Democracy or Republic

When Thomas Jefferson was asked to write the declaration of independence, he looked at different forms of government. A monarchy, even a constitutional monarchy, was out of the question. A Roman style Dictatorship with a Senatorial representation was also rejected. Pure democracy was the downfall of ancient Greece, and socialism wasn’t even in the vocabulary at that time. The monarchy in France was going through some seriously troubling times that eventually led to a rebellion which ended in a Republican form of government – although, Jefferson could not have known that outcome at the time.

The eventual form of government for our country was not officially declared until the Constitution was ratified in 1790. From the time of the Declaration of Independence to ratification of the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation governed our country. The United States Constitution gave us a Republic of states represented by democratically elected representatives.

Why such a seemingly convoluted form of government? Well, for one thing a pure democracy – where every person has a vote and every vote counts equally – would allow huge voting blocks, such as those in large cities, to overwhelm the process and essentially give them ruling power. States and areas with lower populations would have no voice in government. A bicameral Congress with apportioned elected representatives from all states was seen as assuring equal representation for all populations.

For practical purposes, the government was split into three branches: Congress, Executive, and Judicial. While Congress has the sole decision-making authority regarding laws, budgets, taxation, and treaties, the Executive branch embodied in a single elected President is empowered to execute the will of Congress and day-to-day operations of the federal government. The President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the military. The President is elected, not by the majority of the voters, but by vote of the Electoral College. This too was engineered to allow equal representation of all urban and rural areas of the states.

Why have I gone to such lengths to explain our government? Astoundingly, I find all too many American “citizens” have no clue how our government works. If you ask people randomly on the street what kind of government we have, the majority would likely say Democracy. Sadly, many would simply shrug, and say, “I dunno.” You see, civics is no longer being taught in schools. By the way, both answers are wrong. We have a Republic.

Our congressional representatives, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, are elected democratically. Every voting age citizen is entitled to vote for a Representative from their apportioned district and two Senators from their state.  While many politicians are grouped into a party, citizens can vote for whomever they choose.

It may seem like there are only two political parties. In reality, though, there is no limit to the number of parties that can be represented in our government. Political parties were formed to define a cohesive policy among like-minded individuals. Each party has a platform that they present to the voters during elections. Generally, the elected members of a party will vote for policies consistent with their party platform. It’s not a hard-and-fast rule that a politician must vote with the party platform, but more often than not this is the case.

Our form of government has served us well for more than 225 years – the longest form of government in history. Many other countries have tried to emulate our government with variations here and there, but none have been as economically or socially successful as the United States of America.

So, when someone proclaims we are a democracy, you can proudly correct them and say that we are a constitutional Republic with democratically elected representatives. And, despite what our current President seems to think of our constitution, it is still the law of the land, and Congress still makes the rules.

An Affront to Logic

Just when you think it couldn’t possibly get more bizarre, the Obama administration continues to top itself in incredibly stupid actions.

I’m sure you will recall the flood of children illegally entering the United States – according to Border Patrol figures that would be 198,155 Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) from 2009 to March 31 of this year. You may also recall Obama’s executive order giving not just the children but also millions of other illegal aliens amnesty. Then just to rub salt into the wounds of taxpayers, Obama decided to give these illegal aliens an amnesty bonus. It started by allowing the illegal aliens to receive a social security number that will allow them to legally file an income tax return. Through come creative accounting, these illegals will now be able to get a refund for money they may or may not have paid into fraudulent social security accounts.

But wait, it gets even more insane! It was an insult to all those who legally applied for entry into the United States and have been waiting years for approval when these thousands of children received legal residency status for no valid reason other than they were children. Now the Obama administration has decided to bring the families of these children to this country as well. No, they are not just receiving legal residency status. Obama is going to pay to bring and resettle them here – of course with your tax dollars.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the 2014 budget to care for these kids was $376,080 but was expected to skyrocket to nearly one billion dollars. I could find no estimate for the cost to bring – and resettle – the families to the US. How could it cost a billion dollars to care for these kids? They get special diets, full room and board, first-class Spanish education, and complete healthcare all paid for with your tax dollars. We can only imagine what the reunited families will receive compliments of the US taxpayers.

Apparently, the Obama administration was not satisfied spending precious tax dollars to reunite families merely of these Unaccompanied Alien Children, they are now planning to bring families of all the other millions of Illegal aliens here as well.

Well, it’s looking more like crime pays these days. It is a crime to enter and remain in this country without proper documentation. It is a crime to fraudulently pass off a social security number that has not been assigned to you by the social security administration. But families need to be together, the liberals will say. So why were these children and adults not returned to their families in their own country? Obviously, it wasn’t for lack of funds, since Obama seems to have found enough tax dollars to bring the rest of their families here.

So, this is Obama’s idea of compassion? What about the millions of good people who have been waiting years for the opportunity to come to America at their own expense? Many of them have children too. Where is the compassion for them?

Okay, let’s look at what we American taxpayers get for this “compassion.” Those who have legally applied for immigration are generally well-educated, productive citizens. Many have special skills that could add to the productivity and value of our country; doctors, engineers, educators, administrators, lawyers, musicians, artists, writers, businessmen, and many other valuable professions. Yes, there are probably simple laborers on the waiting list as well.

I wonder how many professionals are in this country illegally and included in Obama’s amnesty program. I also wonder how many of these illegal aliens are involved with the drug cartels of Central America. While it may sound crass, I also wonder just how many more uneducated gardeners and landscapers we really need. How many more day laborers do we need? How many more laborers for below rate non-union construction do we need?

Well folks, if Obama is the man you voted for twice, is this the kind of performance you bargained for? Is this the way you expected your tax dollars to be spent? Do you actually believe that any of this makes sense? Can you honestly answer yes to these questions?

The Obama administration is a horrendous affront to logic. This is what happens when voters select a person simply because of his or her race, or gender, of because they would be the first president of any stripe. When voters ignore experience and competence, you get Obama. You don’t get reason, frugality, or even true compassion in your government.

The Religious Right or Religious Rights?

If you have been following the news, you may have seen the uproar over Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Listening to celebrities like Miley Cyrus and Aston Kutcher you might get the idea that Indiana had just signed anti-gay and lesbian laws into effect. Well, that only shows how uninformed and off-the-wall celebrities can be.

While we might be able to overlook knee-jerk reaction by celebrities that have little knowledge of the real world, it is inexcusable for someone like Hillary Clinton to go off half-cocked. After all, it was her husband, Bill Clinton, who signed a federal RFRA law in 1993 after 97 of the 100 US Senators voted for it.

Here is the text of the Indiana law: A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Nineteen other states have similar RFRA laws as well. So what makes Indiana’s law so onerous?

According to some wordsmiths, the language in the Indiana law gives broader powers to include corporations and businesses to practice their religious beliefs universally. They carry this idea to mean that businesses and chains can discriminate against the GLBT community through a religious exemption. Indiana’s Governor, Mike Pence says it isn’t so.

The Weekly Standard writes,  “Indiana's RFRA does not grant a license to discriminate. First of all, the state of Indiana, like 28 other states, has never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations. Even without such laws in most states, discrimination doesn't commonly occur because the United States is a nation that is tolerant of gay people and intolerant of bigots. Mean-spirited actions by a business owner anywhere in the country would almost certainly be met with a major backlash.

“It is true that several local ordinances in Indiana prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but RFRA does not declare that those ordinances are invalid if someone requests a religious exemption. Again, RFRA simply establishes the balancing test courts must apply in religious freedom cases.”

Frankly, I can’t see why there is such a problem with people practicing their religious beliefs. After all, the First Amendment to the US constitution clearly states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; […].

But what happens when Muslims want to practice Sharia law? Should we allow stoning and forced amputations? Should a woman be stoned to death because she was raped? Should Wiccans be allowed to 'sacrifice' live animals? 

Well, the Indiana law, along with other RFRA laws, provides an out for these radical religious actions. The law allows the government to prohibit religious actions if it harms an individual or is a detriment to government interests.

As for discrimination, every state in the country, including Indiana, has laws against discrimination for any number of reasons including gender preference. I applaud Indiana for joining the ranks of nineteen other states and the US code in reinforcing the rights clearly spelled out in the first Amendment allowing every individual to practice their religious beliefs.

I have to wonder if Democrats had promoted this legislation, would there have been any demonstrations? Well, the answer is probably no since Bill Clinton and Democratic Senators already signed similar legislation, and not a peep was heard. I guess it’s only wrong when it’s Right.

Time Thieves

I’m sure you have, at one time, wished for a do-over on something that didn’t quite turn out to your satisfaction. I know I have … many times. In fact, there are major portions of my life I would like to relive again. It might be safe to say, those were a waste of time.

But what does that mean? Out of curiosity, I sat down with a calculator and went through some computations to get a perspective on wasted time. The results were an eye-opener.

According to the World Health Organization, the average life expectancy for a male living in North America is 77.2 years. The ladies do a little better at 81.2 years. To put that in more familiar format, men are allocated approximately 676,272 hours of life: Women get 711,312 hours to do whatever they do with their lives. (Some might say nagging men to death, since the men die earlier. But that could be a subject for another column.)

I’m sure we all strive to live life to the fullest, but do we really mean it? There is a large chunk of this life allotment that we have little choice in “wasting”. If you are like me, I like to get 8 hours sleep. That is a full 1/3 of my 676,272 life-hours – 255,198.5 hours – spent with my eyes closed doing nothing productive. We all spend 183,960 hours in childhood (assuming 21 years), much of which is tied up in school. If you are lucky enough to get a 40-hour a week job at age 21 and plan to retire at age 65, you will have spent 88,000 hours dong whatever someone else pays you to do. So, what do I do with my “free” 149,113.5 hours?

That is a hard question to put a firm number to. Much of life allotment has been and will likely continue to be spent on the freeway looking at brake lights in front of me? That too is probably not very avoidable.

How would I like to spend the rest of my “free” time? Given a preference, I would love to spend more time with my family, fishing, hunting, riding, or camping. Do I do it? Well, no. Somehow, I can’t seem to find the time to do much of what I would like to do. There is always something needing to be done around the house, “projects” that suck up a good bit of my time – whether finished or not – and then there is always time spent doing something for someone else.

You too? Now add time spent on the recent invention of “social network.” It used to be if we had something to say to a friend or relative, we would call on the phone. We might even meet them and discuss things over a beer or two. Now it’s texting, twitter, facebook, or any of the other computerized time thieves. For some reason many, increasingly more people seem to think they have to be in touch with their friends or family every waking hour of the day. If they aren’t tied up texting or tweeting, they are wearing out their thumbs playing on-line games.

Sound familiar? How many “spare” hours of your life, do you have to spend on things you don’t really enjoy doing?  If you were given the like amount of time in dollars, how would you spend them knowing that is all you will ever have? There are no credit cards to give us extra hours in our lives. The numbers of hours you get are all you will ever have.

Looking back on it, I have many regrets in the way I spent my life hours. When I was young, I viewed my life hours much like I would have if they were dollars. If I had a huge stash, it wouldn’t matter to waste a few … then a few more …. But of course, how many young people ever contemplate their life hours? The older I get, the more I think about it.

In the event reincarnation is real, though, I should probably make a note to my next-life self: Take good care of your life hours; there aren’t enough to waste on time thieves.

The Speech We Might Not Have Heard

I had the distinct pleasure today – no thanks to Emperor Obama – of listening to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu address a joint session of the American Congress. It is indeed a sad situation when a meeting of this importance has to be brokered by the Speaker of the House and not our top executive, Barack Hussein Obama.

After listening to Mr. Netanyahu speak, I soon realized why the President and Secretary of State were so against this meeting. It wasn’t because of the perceived “snub” or the timing of the speech with the Israeli elections. The reason for the Obama administration’s disapproval of the speech could only be that Israel has a legitimate dissent against the “bad, very bad” agreement brokered by the US with Iran over their nuclear program.

As a country, the US doesn’t have many real friends in the Middle East. We do business with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, and a few others, but Israel is our one true friend in that part of the world. And no wonder; all of their neighbor countries are out to annihilate them. Israel’s worst enemy, though, is without doubt Iran. Iran and its radical Muslim rulers have stated on many occasions that ‘Israel has no right to exist.’

Of course, Hitler said the same about the people that now populate Israel. In an odd twist of history, it was actually Heinrich Himmler who surreptitiously contributed to the inflation of the Jewish population of British-controlled Palestine (now Israel) before WWII.

Is there anyone on this planet that doubts where the first Iranian target would be if and when Iran finally possess nuclear weapons capability? Well, it is clear to Bibi Netanyahu and the people of Israel what the answer to that question would be. The first rocket would land squarely in the heart of Tel Aviv.

The Obama administration has had Secretary of State John Kerry working overtime to get Iran to halt its nuclear program. A development that on one believes will not end in the development of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, it seems the best Mr. Kerry could wring out of the Ayatollahs was a lame agreement that would give Iran about a year “breakout” period to having a bomb. Netanyahu made a strong case that the “breakout” period could be even considerably less under the agreement brokered by Kerry.

Despite the plea by Israel’s Prime Minister, Obama has no intention to go back to the negotiating table for a better, more secure, agreement. He wouldn’t even come in person to listen to Israel’s case.

But why would our president not even listen to the pleas of the Israeli people?

Muslims and Jews are like oil and water. They may never mix – even though they share the same origin – Abraham. Obama was raised a Muslim. No secret there. A large percentage of his administration are Muslims. Well, yes, there are even Jews in Obama’s administration. However – and this is a big however – there are purported to be documents that claim the Obama administration has strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Actions invariably speak louder than words. When Israel was being pummeled by rockets – made in Iran – from within the Palestinian territories and the Israelis finally retaliated, the Obama administration demanded Israel stop. Did they even bother to condemn the Palestinians? Obama likes to talk tough about the despicable horrors of ISIS/ISIL, but then attempts to justify their actions saying all they need is jobs. In a visit to India, Obama compared ISIS actions to that of the Christian Crusaders of the middle ages.

We must remember that Muslims are permitted to lie. According to the Quran, there are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman.  These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them. In other words, to Muslims, the end always justifies the means.

The United States may be Israel’s best friend, but it is clear that the Obama administration does not have Israel’s best interests at heart. This is very unfortunate because Israel will do whatever necessary to ensure its survival even if that means incinerating huge portions of Iran. “Never Again” is more than a mere slogan in Israel, it is a way of life.

Driving in The Broken Lane

How many miles do you drive in a month, in a year? If you are like me, you might say that’s none of my business. If some in our state legislature get their way, the miles you drive might be public record and taxed.

It’s no secret that California has some – okay, a lot of – bad roads. Many of the bridges we drive on every day are not just decrepit they are dangerous.

In a report published by Transportation for America, a Washington, DC coalition, California ranks 18^th in the nation for dangerous bridges. Of the state’s 24,542 bridges, 3,135 are considered structurally deficient. That means that every day in this state 82,647,465 vehicles are risking a drive on a dangerous bridge.

In Riverside County, 101 of our 1058 bridges are structurally deficient, but in San Bernardino County 195 of their 1366 bridges are on the bad list. The county with the worst bridges is San Francisco County where some 35.4 percent of the bridges are at risk. But they only have 116 bridges.

And that’s just the bridges. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you about the potholes, narrow and odd narrow-to-wide-to-narrow streets that give an extra dimension to the driving experience. Then of course, there is the traffic. It appears even bad roads don’t deter high volumes of traffic. Some days it seems there could not possibly be any cars left in driveways or parking lots. They all must be on the road where I’m driving.

Our legislators say they are running out of money to address the problems. They are telling us that the only funds available are from the tax applied to the fuel we use. They complain that energy efficient vehicles and lower fuel prices are not filling the state transportation kitty as fast as they can spend it. New sources of funding must be found before our bridges collapse and the roads turn to dust.

Several ideas are being floated in the legislature to solve the road maintenance deficit. One idea proposed by Assembly Speaker, Tony Atkins, D-San Diego is an annual road fee of about $52 per vehicle.

Another idea being floated is a mileage tax. Although there are scant details of how this would be implemented, there can be no doubt that you would have to report how many miles you drive in a given period.

The trouble with any of these ideas is that they place the burden of paying for roads squarely on the shoulders of Californians. But we aren’t the only drivers on many of the roads. Over-the-road trucking companies and out-of-state drivers would get a free ride.

And what about the toll roads that seem to be proliferating in the state? Will there come a time when the term “Freeway” will be obsolete? Are our legislators implying that the toll roads don’t pay for their own maintenance?

Germany has some of the nicest roads I have ever driven on. And it’s not just the major highways and Autobahn. Those small country roads that stretch from one small village to another are actually a delight to drive on.

Well, yes, I have been confronted with the ubiquitous construction and road maintenance obstacles in Germany. Those are unavoidable in any country. At least they are fixing the road so the users can drive safely at over 100 mph on them again.

How does Germany pay for these wonderful arteries? It all comes from the General revenue fund and tolls from the few toll roads that exist. The revenues from the German taxes on gasoline and motor vehicle registration accrue to the federation, yet they are not tied to highway maintenance or construction.

Fair enough, but I still see quite a number of trucks with Polish and Netherlands license plates on German roads. I suppose they get a free ride, but there may be just as many German trucks on the other country’s roads too.

From this example, it would seem that funding road maintenance and construction from the general fund would solve the problem and have us driving on smooth and safe roads. I see only two drawbacks with this method: one, getting a tax increase for the general fund would require a ballot; two, putting more money into the general fund is no guarantee it would be spent on roads and bridges. Once politicians get an extra buck, they always seem to find a new project to spend it and an additional 50 cents on.

Well, we are saving money on gas, but every time the public actually gets to save money, the government wants to grab that savings. Okay, a dollar saved, a dollar sent to tax. That’s a net gain of zero. But what happens when the fuel prices go back up – like they are trending now? Will the taxman adjust for the increase in prices? Dream on.

Consequences of Obama’s Amnesty Order

It’s no secret that our President, in his continuing disregard for the law, has ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to not deport some 11.3 million illegal immigrants. There are some qualifications for these lawbreakers, but the bottom line is that they have been granted amnesty for their crime. What crime you say? Being in this country without proper documentation is a crime. The prescribed punishment for breaking the federal immigration law is deportation.

There are various estimates for the number of people in the country illegally that range from 11 million to 22 million. Since these people live mostly in the shadows, a true count is not possible. That would be the equivalent of deporting every man, woman, and child in a state the size of Ohio.

Our DHS admits the capacity to deport some 400,000 per year. Given the porosity of our borders, that would be like using a bucket to push back the Pacific tide.

The faux compassion of the liberal mindset has long demanded changes in our immigration laws to essentially open our borders and give anyone coming across the rights and benefits of citizens. Congress does not have any sense of urgency to make changes to immigration laws, especially any changes that will grant amnesty or open borders.

Even though Obama stated on numerous occasions that he had no legal authority to unilaterally make changes to the immigration law, on November 21, 2014 he issued two Memoranda that did just that.

As with most legal issues, the devil is in the details. Obama’s action is no exception. But do we know just what those details are?

Obama did address the nation to tell us just what he intended to do. He ordered DHS to not deport certain adults and children meeting a set of qualifications. The order was to take effect 120 days from the date of signing. What he didn’t tell us – at least I didn’t hear – is that he will give these people Social Security numbers! He has also encouraged states to issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. The only thing short of granting full citizenship is not issuing passports and naturalization papers.

Okay, just what are the consequences of this unprecedented amnesty action? For one, now that they will have a legal Social Security number they could be eligible for all the benefits afforded US citizens: Medicare, Social Security benefits, Disability. In addition, think of all the things that require our “universal registration number” (aka Social Security number). They will now qualify for those too.

Now here is the rub: Many of these illegal immigrants have been using forged Social Security numbers for years and paying into the system. Now the IRS wants to issue them a refund of what they paid in! From a system that claims it is going broke, the government will take nearly a billion dollars out to give to people who shouldn’t have been here in the first place and committed a fraud by using false documents, a second crime.

The true logic behind Mr. Obama’s feigned compassion, of course, is votes. That is the lifeblood of every politician. Illegal aliens have voted in every election; that is no revelation. Now, with Social Security numbers and drivers licenses, they can easily pass for citizens at any poll. Who will these new pseudo-citizens vote for? Take a guess!

Recently, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas ordered the government not to proceed with any portion of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, DAPA. The order effectively is a stay of implementation on Obama’s immigration action. By the time you read this, there will undoubtedly be considerable political and legal wrangling and fireworks over that order. I have no crystal ball to tell me where this might go, but it should prove interesting. If it goes to the Supreme Court, would that third branch of the government override the President’s order? What then?

In addition, the US House of Representatives voted to fund DHS, but withhold funds for implementation of Obama’s amnesty order. At this time, the bill is hanging in limbo in the Senate. Even if it emerges unscathed from the clutches of the Senate, there is virtually no chance of Obama signing it into law. DHS says it will have to shut down by the end of this month if not funded.

On the bright side, we have to suffer this nonsense for only a few weeks short of two more years. Hopefully, by November 2016 the people of this country will have wised up to the completely idiotic game the liberals are playing with the future of this once-great country. We can also hope that the damage Obama and his socialist horde have wrought upon us is reversible.