So what to do about all the illegal immigrant kids?

About 250 unaccompanied immigrant children are coming across our southern border every day. Why are they coming here and what can we do.

They are kids, so it's not like we can just send them home. Any one who even mentions doing that would be considered heartless and inconsiderate.  But Lord knows that doesn't happen in America.

Who are they?  Most of these kids are not from Mexico, but from El Salvador, Guatamala, and Nicaragua.  They are crossing the southern border into Arizona and Texas.

Once they get here they are transferred to Borer Patrol facilities, who then try to find placement for them.  Based on immigration and asylum laws, many of these kids could be held up so long here that they could be granted the right to stay here.

Lord known kids don't leave home without a parent or guardian pushing them across.  Parents know that Obama and Congress have considered a dream act, whereby the parents and family members of kids who are in the U.S., whether citizens other not, may also be set on a path to citizenship.

I think that even our president, Barack Obama, knows this. A part of me believes that he champions amnesty and the dream act implicitly so people will come here, and kids will come here, because some day they will become democrats.  And, worse, I think Obama knows that if republicans cry out to send these children home, there will be a public outcry against them -- republicans that is.

In this way, I think Obama is using the kids against republicans.

Breitbart Texas reported that these kids get immediate assistance, including classroom education, healthcare, socialization, recreation, vocational training, mental health services, and family reunification.  Many of these kids, most of them, will be put into the foster care system.  They also get a pro-bono attorney. All of this costs a ton of money.

Well, the attorney usually doesn't cost money, because usually they are volunteers. But the rest costs a ton of money. Bottom line is, they are treated like U.S. citizens without a home.  As good Christians and virtuous Americans this seems like the only right thing to do.

The kids are then reunified with their parents.  Those who say they should leave are considered inconsiderate.

Is it possible this set up was an intended consequence of Obama's immigration policies? Some say that it was, or is.  They say that nothing like this has ever happened before under any other president, and the borders have almost always been open.

Some say that 90% of these kids and their families will be eligible for amnesty, and will some day become democrats.  Coincidence?

Ironically, many republicans are making no efforts to stop Obama.  In fact, even George W. Bush and Mitt Romney had their own amnesty plans.  Even while most Mexican Americans vote democrat, some say it was the hope of Bush and Romney that if they were to sign an amnesty law they would change their vote.  So, if this is true, Bush's amnesty attempt, much like Obama's attempt, was all about politics (which was uncharictaristic for Bush).

The only people standing in the way of this all happening, the amnesty thing, are tea party conservatives, libertarians, and a few democrats.  They are the only ones willing to stand up and defend what 77% of Americans want: no amnesty.

Bottom line: there needs to be something done to force Mexico and Central American countries to tell their people to cross the U.S. border legally or not at all. Until that time comes, the crisis will not come to an end.

Has George W. Bush been vindicated?

Few people would disagree that former president George W. Bush was an amiable and sociable guy. He was also a humble president who made decisions based on sound principle

He is a humble guy who put his country first, even when his legacy and the future of the republican party stood in the balance,. 

He showed time and again that he loves and respects his country so much that he refuses to respond to criticisms that he was wrong about the Iraq war, even while doing so might have saved his legacy and lead to a republican monopoly in Washington.  

From the moment the Iraq war began in 2003, the Democrat Party, after a couple days of making it look like they were all for it because public support was, it didn't take long before the Democrat Party and the media began an ongoing, never-ending 24/7, 365 effort to discredit the effort, to discredit the war, to discredit the motivation.

During the initial fighting in Iraq there was no effort to search for WOMD, as the effort at this time was to secure the area.  Yet one the fighting started to slow down in 2004, evidence started to come in that Saddam did indeed harbor such weapons.  Yet even when Rick Santorum came forward with evidence back in 2006 (and, yes, he's gloating today), George W. Bush refused to release the evidence to prove Santorum right.  

While the decision must have been that of George Bush himself, a new report suggests that Karl Rove is taking the blame for covering up the fact that WOMD were indeed found in Iraq.  As evidence of discarded WOMD started coming in, he simply said, "Let sleeping dogs lie."

To me, that does not seem to be the type of decision that Karl Rove, Bush's political advisor, would make.  As political advisor, you'd think he would have preferred for such evidence to become vastly available for the media to pounce over in order to vindicate a president who had otherwise been vastly criticised by democrats in Washington and the media.  

However, a decision to let sleeping dogs lie would go right along with how Bush handled his presidency, whereby he would often make decisions he thought were best for his country based on principle, and let the people decide for themselves.  

In fact, as you can see for yourself in this video, in 2007 Bush ordered a surge in Iraq while critics were calling for a pull out.  Bush, however, went on TV to defend his decision.  He said: 

"I know some in Washington would like us to withdraw from Iraq now.  Begin withdrawing before our commanders say we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.  It would mean we would risking mass killings on a horrific scale.  It would mean we allow terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq that they lost in Afghanistan.  It would mean that we increase the possibility that U.S. troops will face on a later date an enemy that was even more dangerous." 

This was a surge that would indeed end up stabilizing the region.  And, after Obama pulled troops out of Iraq, ISIS entered the region.  ISIS, as you may know, is quite possibly the enemy that is even more dangerous than Al Qaeda.

The problem with any news that appears to vindicate Bush is that it will always be underplayed by the media.  Even as the New York Times reported that WOMD were in fact found in Iraq, they down played this news by saying, "but it was a pre-1991 weapons cache."

But what does it matter.  The fact of the matter is that Bush was right. He was right to go into Iraq to in an effort to create stability in an otherwise unstable region, and to make it so terrorists could not harbor weapons and find safe havens that allowed them to regroup in their efforts to convert or kill non Muslims.

It appears, however, that Bush has indeed been vindicated.  

Should republicans fight social justice?

Some people say that in order for republicans to remain a viable second party is to support the liberal agenda, that includes the fundamental transformation of America from a melting pot to a salad bowl.

What do I mean?  Well, until the 1960s the United States was melting pot, whereby immigrants who came here voluntarily assimilated. They willingly studied American history and learned English.  They were proud to be here.

Today, we are considered intolerant and racist when we do this. So, instead of being a nation united, we are a nation divided.  So it's this divided nation that is the salad bowl.  Instead of being a nation of Americans (traditional America), we have become an America of Spanish Americans, African Americans, etc.

On June 12, Peter Beinart said that republicans either need to become democrats or they will lose viability.  That means that if they continue to hold on to their traditional American roots, they will cease to exist as a viable party.

He said that America today is no longer the America of WWII, that it is changing. He said there is nothing we can do about it, so we might as well accept it rather than fight it.  In fact, if we fight it, we will no longer be viable.

Beinart believes there is a demographic shift in America that includes a rising tide of immigrants, Hispanics, African-Americans, Native Americans, single women.

We as a nation need to be tolerant of different nationalities, as opposed to simply assimilating them. We need to be all for social justice and social change. 

The America of WWII is old news.  That country was racist, bigoted and homophobic.  That country was denying people their social justice. We were a superpower, but only because people got rich in this country at the expense of the poor and downtrodden in this country and everywhere else in the world.

He believed democrats are optimistic toward this.  He said: 

When grassroots Democrats look at the growing percentage of Latinos, African Americans, and young people, they see a growing constituency for tolerance and social justice.

Republicans, on the contrary, he believed are more pessimistic toward immigration.  He said:

When grassroots Republicans do, they see a growing constituency of takers, who want to turn America away from its exceptional nature.

In other words, he's saying the only thing we republicans can do to remain viable is to give up on our principles, give up on the American dream, and accept the fundamental transformation of America. Because if you don't, it's going to happen anyway.  If you don't join us, you will not be a part of us, and you won't be loved and adored as we will be.

There is a lot of truth in this.  There are a lot of republicans, or at least mainstream republicans, who are afraid to stand up for their principles and oppose Obama on amnesty, because they are afraid of just what Beinart was describing.

I honestly believe that the reason many members of a republican controlled congress keep trying to push for amnesty, even though most members of Congress, and most Americans, oppose it, is exactly because of what Beinart was describing.

I do not, however, think it is ever a good idea to give up on principle. America is always worth fighting for, even at the cost of losing elections. In this way, the only thing standing in the way of the republican establishment is the republican base, or the tea party.

Further reading:

• Washington Examiner: On Immigrant Surge, White House Story Falls Apart
• Breitbart: Pro-Bono Lawyers: Most Unaccompanied Border Children Eligible for Amnesty
• Heritage: Did Obama’s Amnesty Program Cause Spike in Child Immigrants?
• RushLimbaugh.com: Peter Beinart's Advice for Republicans: Become Democrats or Lose Forever - 06.16.14
• Newsbusters: Peter Beinart: ‘Fearful’ Republicans Hoping to ‘Reverse History’s Course’ Make a 2016 GOP Loss More Likely

Negative action has doomed the republican cause

Negative action is doing the opposite of what you believe in order to make people think you are not evil and wicked.  While such negative action has become popular among republican lawmakers of late, it has resulted in a poor public image of the party, inhibiting the parties ability to capitalize on an unpopular president.

Negative actions have doomed the republican party.  For example, there are christian republicans who love all people but do not support gay marriage laws.  However, some of these folks have become convinced republicans are not winning elections because they are seen as anti-gay.  To remedy this they support gay marriage laws.   In essence, they do the opposite of what they believe in order to get votes.

Most republicans are in favor of shoring up our borders in order to prevent immigrants from illegally coming into this country.  They also favor the enforcement of immigration laws already on the books. They believe this is necessary to reduce the financial burden to states, and keep criminals and diseases outside our borders.  Yet since there are those who believe amnesty would secure the Spanish American vote, some republicans, such as John McCain and George W. Bush, support amnesty programs.

There are many people who believe Obama should be impeached because he has violated the Constitution with all his executive orders.  They believe this is unconstitutional on the grounds that the constitution allows this executive privilege so a president may take action in the face of emergencies when Congress is not in session.  Yet in order to not offend voters they have resisted attempts at impeachment.

The result of such negative actions is that we end up with laws the people don't want.  This should help explain why Congress is so unpopular.  It should also help explain why the checks and balance system created by the founders has not been able to stop the president from abusing his powers,

Negative actions also cause obscurations, or things that hinder people from learning the true power of what a person, or faction, can do.  When this happens, people lose the ability to see whether a politician is truly a conservative or a liberal.  A good example here is Mitt Romney, who ran for president as a conservative, but because he used negative actions to become governor of Massachusettes, many saw him as a liberal, or moderate, republican.  This might explain why conservatives were not excited about a Romney presidency.

Obscurations, therefore, create more ignorances.  The more ignorant a populace is as to the potential that could be obtained by voting for republicans, the less likely they will vote for them.  For instance, by telling the people you are for amnesty because you think people Spanish Americans would be more likely to vote republican, fewer Spanish Americans vote republican. Why would they change their vote to republican when both parties stand for the same thing?

By taking the negative action of blocking impeachment attempts you are in essence enabling ignorance on the errors of our president.  This is because, lacking impeachment, there will be no effort to educate the people as to the unconstitutional behavior of the president.  When people are not educated, they continue to remain ignorant.

By taking the negative action to not deny funding to Obama that would allow him to advance his agenda, Obama has no incentive to stop using his pen.  Lacking funds his pen would become academic, yet republicans don't want to do this because they think inaction would cause the public to hate them less.  However, the public continues to hate them due to their inaction or, more specifically, their negative action.

So, negative actions may cause obscurations that result people thinking worse about republicans, and not better. Negative action causes people to remain ignorant.  Negative action does not win people over to the cause.  Negative action does nothing more than weaken your position and draw fewer people to your side.

You see, polls show that Obama is unpopular right now.  Most people don't like Obamacare, they are upset about the way he has handled the economy, upset about how he has handled immigration reform and border security, and upset about how he has handled the Ebola crisis.  Yet republicans have not capitalized on this because they have a public relations problem that has essentially been caused by the constant use of negative actions.

Reports have it that, after the midterm elections, Obama wants to take executive action to create give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants already inside this country. If republicans want to stop him they must take positive action in order to educate the public as to the worthiness of their cause.  Republicans could win on this, because, as CNN reports, 75 percent of Americans are already opposed to amnesty.

Reports have it that he wants to cut back on our nuclear stock because he thinks it will show other nations we don't mean them any harm, thus encouraging them to set down their weapons.  Yet republicans claim, and history shows, that other nations will do the opposite: they will stockpile and destroy a weakened and naive United States. This is what thug nations and terrorist factions do.  Just look at what happened in Israel for a good example.  If republicans want to stop this behavior, the only option they have is to take positive action against the President.

The lesson learned here is that republicans have a public relations problem, and it has been caused by too much negative action.  The simplest remedy for this is for republicans to simply stand up for the principles they believe in by positive actions, or actions that support the causes they believe in.

The crisis on the southern border

I am not an isolationist per se, although I do think it's time we close our borders for a while in order to regroup as a nation. I also think it's important that we close our borders until we decide what to do with all the illegal immigrants that have made their way into our country.

Keep in mind here that I am not hostile to immigration.  I am hostile to illegal immigration and the accommodation of illegal immigration.  I am hostile to the fact that we have given up assimilating immigrants to the American culture, the American way of life. We're losing our country here, slowly but surely.

I think the uncontrollable influx of immigration over the past several years is a severe crisis, mainly a crisis of the southern border.  Surely most of these people are good people trying to make a living for themselves and their families. Yet they have become a burden to our healthcare system, both literally and physically. The entovirus that has spread across this nation is thought to have come from the influx of American children entering our country.

They have also become an economic burden particularly to border states, who are forced by law to treat them in hospitals, and even to allow them a share of a welfare and social security system that they have in no way paid into.  To the states having to deal with the massive influx of illegal immigrants, this is a crisis indeed.

Then you have the issue of the twelfth amendment, which reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Some people interpret this to mean that if you are born in the U.S., even if you are born by an illegal immigrant who just crossed the border, you are automatically a citizen.  So, what do we do with these kids and their parents?

So you can see how complicated this issue becomes.

Polls show that I am not alone in my concern.  I am not alone in wanting to seal our borders.  I am also not alone in my belief that there are plenty of laws regarding immigration already on the books that should be enforced, and by enforcing those laws the immigration issue could easily be resolved.

Polls show that about 75 percent of Americans want the borders secured and immigration laws enforced. Polls show that 77 percent of Americans want the 60,000 unaccompanied children on the southern border who came into this country illegally sent back home.  Polls show that 68 percent disapprove of Obama's handling of the immigration issue in regards to these children, and in regards to the amnesty issue,

To be straight, polls show that George W. Bush was wrong in this regard as well, meaning neither of the last two presidents are on the same page with the American populace on this immigration issue. The people believe it to be a crisis, while Bush and Obama simply want to forgive these criminals of their crimes.

Texas Governor Rick Perry has said that over 203,000 illegal immigrants are now in Texas jails, responsible for 3,000 homicides and 8,000 sexual assaults.  These are not the types of immigrants we want in our country.  What we want here are people who are willing to assimilate, and have something to offer.

Estimates show that 250 children come across our borders every day, and, instead of being sent home, they are sent to unmarked homes in unmarked states.  They are sent to sanctuary cities, or cities that do not enforce immigration laws and provide shelter for illegal immigrants.

There area also those who believe the borders should be secured in order to control and prevent the spread of diseases like the Ebola virus and Entovirus 68.  In fact, about 75 percent of Americans are in favor of securing the border to West African nations infected with the Ebola virus.

Obama has continued to say that he would like to give illegal immigrants presently in this country amnesty, while many republican leaders seem to support him on this issue, possibly because they fear doing otherwise would cause a backlash by voters.  They also feel that, once given their freedom, illegal immigrants, once they earn citizenship, will reward those who voted to give them amnesty.  

Other republicans, however, believe the issue of amnesty is not a good idea, and that the laws should be enforced, the borders protected, illegal immigrants hunted down and sent home, and the borders protected to prevent the illegal crossing of our borders again.  Most Americans, apparently, support this vision.  

Are these kids coming here, or being sent here (because I have trouble with the thought of kids leaving home on their own), because "their parents" want to become U.S. citizens by strike of the Obama's pen?  If so, that's scary. 

Some are actually postulating that Obama is purposefully allowing these kids to come here, knowing that they are future democrats.  They believe if republicans send these illegal immigrants home they will be seen as bullies, and, therefore, amnesty is a win-win for democrats. 

Republicans are in favor of amnesty because they believe Spanish-Americans will start voting for them if they are seen as responsible for amnesty.  Yet most evidence shows that Spanish-Americans, while fiscally conservative, generally vote democrat.

Some people say we have always been a nation of open borders, so we must continue to keep our borders open.  Yet this is not true.  Between 1924 and 1965 we shut down immigration. We closed the borders so that those who had arrived could assimilate and become American, which they wanted to do, by the way. 

They learned English. They became accustomed to American holidays. They wanted to become Americans.

So it's not unprecedented to take a break and regroup on immigration, especially during times of war or in times of crisis.  But instead of making efforts to lock our borders and enforce laws, Obama is now threatening to create amnesty with his executive pen.  Republicans seem to have no interest in stopping him.

The bottom line is that three quarters of Americans want the borders secured and the laws enforced, yet the people with the power to make this happen seem more concerned with their own political ambitions.

Further reading:

• Dick Morris: Immigration is key issue
• Washington Examiner: On Immigrant Surge, White House Story Falls Apart
• Breitbart: Pro-Bono Lawyers: Most Unaccompanied Border Children Eligible for Amnesty
• Heritage: Did Obama’s Amnesty Program Cause Spike in Child Immigrants?
• RushLimbaugh.com: Peter Beinart's Advice for Republicans: Become Democrats or Lose Forever - 06.16.14
• Newsbusters: Peter Beinart: ‘Fearful’ Republicans Hoping to ‘Reverse History’s Course’ Make a 2016 GOP Loss More Likely

Obama defends executive powers

Obama has been accused of executive overreach.  Some say that his use of executive powers is violating the separation of powers, which are meant to prevent one branch of government from getting too powerful.  Yet Obama defended his executive usage to move forward his agenda.

At a press conference at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit on Wednesday, October 6, 2014, he defended his use of executive power as a means to bypass gridlock in Congress.  He said:

"The American people don't want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs and waiting for Congress to get something done,"

This is a perfect example of what I wrote about in a previous column, where I discussed that liberals, or progressives, like Obama believe that it's okay to ignore the law if the ends justify the means.  It's okay to ignore the Constitution so long as the progressive/liberal agenda is moved forward.

Those of us who love and cherish the Constitution and the rule of law, which would include all presidents prior to Obama, would put the Constitution and the rule of law before themselves and their political agenda.

Once again, this proves the Limbaugh Doctrine, whereby the President believes he is not responsible for anything bad that ever comes out of his term as President. He is not responsible for the down-trending polling numbers: it's the republicans fault.

Here's what I have to say on the matter:  "It's better to do nothing than to do something stupid.  It's better to do nothing and let the people solve problems, than to risk signing something into law that has never been tested before."

In other words, gridlock is better than passing stupid laws.  There's a reason for gridlock, and that is to prevent laws from being passed that will trample on the natural rights of those in the minority.

The honorable Nixon put his country before himself

There is no doubt he made mistakes, as most people make them.  The biggest of which, as you probably know from your study of history, was the Watergate scandal that lead to his becoming the first president to resign the office of the President of the United States. Yet scandals and politics aside, Richard M. Nixon was one of the classiest presidents we ever had.

I know I am in the minority with this view, but I think it's important to be honest about the men we allowed to lead our great nation; to let the facts speak for themselves.  I will also be doing this with other presidents, both on the right and on the left.

To put it bluntly, Nixon was set up nicely to win the Presidential election of 1960, and it wasn't even supposed to be close.  He was very well known, and was vice president for eight years under a very popular Dwight D. Eisenhower. He was going up against John F. Kennedy, who, at 43, had been a U.S. Senator since 1953.  Nixon clearly had Kennedy beat both in experience and popularity.

What the Nixon team did not bargain for, and therefore probably didn't even prepare for, was this new thing called television. You see, many consider the first televised debate, the one where the aging Nixon was sweating profusely and Kennedy look cool, calm and collect, and one of the turning points in American presidential campaigns.  Some say it was that debate, more so than any other reason, that allowed Kennedy to squeak out a victory over Nixon.

As anyone who was alive at the time would tell you, if you wanted to see the final results of this election you had to stay up late, very late, into the night.  Yet in the end, Kennedy won by one of the slimmest margins in presidential history.

In fact, it was so close that many experts believe he could easily have made the case that the election was fraudulent in both west Virginia and Chicago, Cook County. He could have fought it -- like Al Gore would later do-- but he didn't want to take the country down that path.  He sat on the sword for his country.

When he was being impeached, he could have hung in there and caused a lot of trouble, and he might even have won.  But he didn't.  He bit his pride, and he sat on the sword once again because he didn't want to take the country through that.

We don't have people like that today. Today many politicians put themselves, and their political aspirations and agendas, before their Constitution and Country.  If necessary, they would drag their nation down with them.

Not Nixon.  He fell for his country; he fell right on the sword and he did it proudly.

In a recent column, "Nixon- Before Watergate," Patrick Buchanan reminds us of the accomplishments of Nixon before he fell on the sword.  He said:

Once again, aging liberals will walk the children through the tale of that triumph of American democracy when they helped to save our republic from the greatest menace to the Constitution in all of history.

Yet Nixon was more liberal than most liberals would care to admit, and he did have quite a few accomplishments, such as winning a 49 of 50 states landslide victory, ending the Vietnam war with honor, and ending the draft.

A trial may also have found Mr. Nixon to be innocent of all charges against him.  Regardless, his fall is a quintessential example of what can happen when the American media uses its natural right to be the watchdogs for the American people. It's also a quintessential example of the classy man that Richard M. Nixon was.

Does Prince Charles hate Capitalism?

Tell me how you can read the words of Prince Charles at the Inclusive Capitalism Initiative and not think that he hates Capitalism.  He said:

The primary purpose of capitalism should surely be to serve the wider, long-term interests and concerns of humanity rather than the other way around. So critically, it would require the incorporation of environmental externalities. We would have to account properly for carbon dioxide emissions, the use of water and fertilizer, the pollution we produce, and the biodiversity we lose. All of these would have to be comprehensively considered in our economic and national decision making because inclusive capitalism cannot be truly inclusive if our dependence on natural capital, the economic invisibility of nature is not also included in our calculation.

He also said:

We stand at a pivotal moment in history. Either we continue along the path we seem collectively determined to follow, apparently at the mercy of those who so vociferously, aggressively deny that our current operating model has any effect upon dangerously accelerating climate change -- which I feel will bring us to our own destruction -- or we choose to act now before it is finally too late; using all of the power and influence that each of you, ah, can bring to bear to create an inclusive, sustainable, and resilient society. 

In other words, he does not like capitalism at all, and wants every nation to endorse socialism (notice he used the word "collectively," which is another way of saying socialism).  The way to do this is by supporting the notion that modern, man made technology is causing global change, and therefore destroying the planet. The only way to "change" this is to give up some of our liberties (i.e. capital) and except national laws for the good of the collective.

That's what he is saying here.  He believes that unfettered capitalism is destroying the planet, and socialism (or liberalism or progressivism or Marxism or whatever you want to call it) is the only way to save the planet.  Capitalists are selfish, and socialists care.

Essentially, while he's trying to say it in a way that makes him look smart, Prince Charles is saying that we need to give up capitalism in order to save the planet.

Of course, as Rush Limbaugh says, this all makes sense.  He said:

The royal family is the biggest welfare case in the UK. Of course he's going to like socialism. All monarchs do. It's how they survive.
But now Prince Charles is out there attacking capitalism as the root of all evil in the world, and I'm not just gonna sit idly by when I know it to be false.

Look, neither Rush nor I have anything against Prince Charles.  After all, it's not our money that puts food in his mouth.  We're merely criticizing words that came out of his mouth.

What happened to checks and balances?

The founding fathers created a system of checks and balances in order to prevent one of the three branches of government from gaining too much power.  They were afraid that some day someone would gain power and abuse it, much like a king would do in Britain.

Today, however, there are no checks and balances.  The Supreme Court doesn't check anything.  Congress isn't checking anything.  In fact, Congress has given up its power to the president.

Democrates don't care when a democrat president bypasses the law when his pen is advancing their agenda.  Republicans don't care when a republican president bypasses the law when his pen is advancing their agenda.  So there seems to be a problem regardless of what party is in charge.

Republicans surely are afraid if they oppose Obama's executive orders they could easily be seen as Hippocrates.  And those who are willing to fight are afraid they will lose votes, so they stay silent.

The current president has gone crazy writing executive orders.  Surely it might be for good causes, but it's not right to ignore the law to get what you want, even for a noble president.

Gwyneth Paltrow recently said, "It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass."

The problem with that is he already appears to have this power with his pen.  No one wants amnesty, but he appears ready to make it law by ignoring congress and using his pen.  This is what dictators do.  If there are no checks and balances, what we have is a dictator president.

Is that was Paltrow wants?  If that's the case, then what happens when someone is in power that she does not like?  Will she want that guy to continue to have those powers.  What if that guy is Rahn Paul? What if that guy is Jeb Bush?  What if it's Sarah Palin?

I will be honest with you: I don't care if the president is advancing an agenda I like with his pen or not, it is wrong and it is scary.  It is not conducive to a functioning democracy let alone a republic.

The constitution made it very difficult to change or add laws.  The founders wanted to make sure people didn't get laws they did not want.  By it being difficult to pass laws, mainly due to checks and balances, this prevented our leaders from passing laws based on emotion.  This was needed mainly to protect the minority from the majority.

So, as it stands right now, there are no checks and balances.  What we have is Paltrow's Dictatorship.

Perhaps Paltrow would take back her words, and our leaders would make a bit more effort to stop the abuse of executive powers, if they understood why the founding fathers created a system of checks and balances.

The founders knew that for 99.9% of history people lived under tyrannical dictator governments.  The people hated it; they were unhappy; they were miserable.

Under such a system the people had no power, and were often forced to do things "for their own good."  We hear that a lot these days, every time a law is passed that no one wants, such as Bloomberg did in New York when he kept passing laws that told people what they could and couldn't eat.  "It's for their own good," he'd say.  What does he know what's for our own good.  Is he a dictator or something?

Worse is that those in with dictator-like powers constantly yearned for more, and so more laws were passed at the expense of freedom and liberty. It was for this reason the founders wanted it to be very difficult to get a law passed.

Today, however, presidents have found a way to use their pens to bypass the checks and balance system.  They have, in essence, gained dictator-like powers.

Even when laws they pass violate the constitution the supreme court lets it slide by on the grounds of "the president has the same agenda as we do."

The problem with this is that judges are supposed to make sure the laws are followed, regardless of what their personal views are.  So the supreme court has abnegated its powers to the president.

Today's presidents have found a way to bypass the law, and the supreme court, altogether by way of pen and paper.  Surely there is a need for executive power, but it was supposed to be reserved for emergency situations when congress was not in session.

So the checks and powers established by the founders are no longer be followed, not by Congress, not by the courts, not by opposing parties.

It's easy for people to become corrupted.  The founding fathers envisioned this as they put into the Constitution Article V which gives the states the right to form a convention to force the Constitution on the three branches.  Some are now calling for a Constitutional Convention.

It's a shame we have come to this point as a nation of laws.  One would hope it does not take some national travesty to force our leaders to wake up.

Read: Mark Levin: The Liberty Amendments

A big win for gay marriage advocates

By Mike Thompson, Detroit Free Press

There is good news for advocates for gay marriage that came out of a Supreme Court ruling on October 6, 2014, or lack of ruling for that matter.  In essence, according to Politico, the Supreme Court decided to punt on all seven of the seven pending petitions requesting the Court to rule on same sex marriage.

By deciding not to hear these cases, the Supreme Court has, and duly so, decided to honor the tenth amendment which states that any issues not covered in the U.S. Constitution are left to the states, to the people, to decide.  In this way, the Supreme Court is in essence saying that the Federal Government has no Constitutional claim to rule gay marriage.

What this ruling means is that states can rule on gay marriage however they want, and it's no longer going to require a state by state vote.  When state officials want to make gay marriage legal, all they have to do now is have a majority, pass a law, and have their governor sign it.  No longer will it require a majority of voters voting yes for it to pass.

To me, as a Constitutional loving American, this only makes sense.  If the Supreme Court had ruled in this way (or, again, not ruled), if the Court had announced in 1972 that it would not rule on Rowe-v-Wade, state rulings on the issue would have stood.  Abortion would have been legal in some states and illegal in others.

Surely I am against any abortion, and consider it to be murder of innocent children.  However, the issue is not covered in the Constitution, and therefore it only makes sense that it be left to the states to decide.  The same is true of gay or same sex marriage.  Lacking an amendment, the issue should be left to the states to decide.

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post is rightfully giddy about this "non ruling," as she said: "Supreme Court confirms what should be already known: The fight over gay marriage is over."

I wouldn't say that it is over, but this surely is good news for both gay marriage advocates and liberty.

According to Politico, the Justices turned down petitions challenging appellate decisions that overturned same-sex marriage bans in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The ruling clears the way for same sex marriage in five states, and could clear the way in six other states based on appeals court rulings already handed down.  While the practice is currently legal in 19 states, this could soon become 30, according to Politico.

I have said on this blog before that I agree with Ron Pal when he said, in effect, that "No majority should be able to vote away the rights of the minority."

While many states had referendums where the majority in those states opposed gay marriage, those referendums may now be challenged by lawmakers.  This is a perfect example of how the U.S. Constitution protects the minority from the majority.

You'll rarely ever hear me agreeing with Justice Ruth Ginsburg, although I can't deny that I do agree with her in this case as she said, "All three federal appeals courts to take it up have agreed that it is unconstitutional for states to prohibit same-sex marriage."

What she was essentially saying was that because there was no lower court ruling disagreeing with those three, they punted the issue back to the lower courts.  This means that the lower court rulings stand.  This means that gay marriage is now the law of the land; that rulings against gay marriage are unconstitutional.

See my post Seven Myths About Gay Marriage.

Poll paints grim picture for democrats

It's not uncommon for the American people to get tired of one party being in power for too long, but recent polling data shows they are more tired of Obama than Bush, Clinton, and even Jimmy Carter.

The latest polling data was reported by the Associated Press and shows that Americans lack confidence in the government's ability to protect their personal safety and economic security.

The poll also shows that 90 percent of those likely to vote in the November elections call the economy an extremely or very important issue. Considering most consider the economy to still be lagging in a recession, this does not bode well for the party in power, which so happens to be democrats.

Another interesting thing about this poll is that it reveals that 32 percent of voters want to send a message of opposition with their vote, compared to just 20 percent who want to send a message of support.  This in and of itself does not bode well for the party in power.

While the article doesn't do this, I think it's important to put these numbers in perspective.  That 32 percent is 13 points higher than in 1998 when former President Bill Clinton was headed to impeachment, higher than in 2008 when Americans were fed up with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and higher than in 1980 when voters were fed up with Jimmy Carter's agenda.

I'm not the kind of person who takes much stock in polls, although I thought this one was rather significant so close to an election. Similar to how democrats marched to office near the end of the Bush years, republicans might be marching come November -- yet perhaps on a greater scale.

The media: the fourth estate

The founding fathers noted that under the British monarchy, people were not allowed to speak out against their government.  In fact, they were aware that this was how it was for about 99.9% of history for the entire world.  When they were creating the founding documents, they yearned to preserve the natural right to speak out against a government.  

The reason we have freedom of the press is because the media is supposed to hold politicians accountable.  In fact, they used to call themselves the fourth estate, as though they were one of the branches of government.  However, the key here is that they have to look at both sides of every story as unbiased shepherds of the news and be impartial, regardless of whatever opinions they hold.  

Results from polling data compiled by Media Research Center

Since about the mid 20th century this has all changed, considering most polling data on this subject shows that greater than 80 percent of journalists favor democratic candidates. Still, that doesn't prove media bias.

What does prove bias is how the news is reported. For example, polling data showing George Bush disapproval ratings made the front pages of newspapers nearly every day.  Yet since Obama has been president, such polling data has either een bunder reported or hidden deep within the paper.

Consider for a moment that there are a ton of people in the United States, including myself, who believe that Israel has been poorly treated since its inception.  But if you read newspaper accounts, Israel is the bad guy in nearly every war it fights.  If you were a person who simply read a few newspaper accounts regarding Israel, you'd think it was full of evil, wicked people.

Honorable, unbiased journalists should not be trying to shape the news with a political agenda.  But that's what they seem to do now-a-days, and that's why bloggers like myself feel the need to report the truth about Israel.

Truthfully, I'd much rather just read the news and spend my time writing the history of asthma.  Rather than just buy into the first account they hear or see, good journalists used to naturally take information with a grain of salt and do their own investigation.  Such a simple investigation might reveal to them a more revealing side to the Jewish story.

The media in this country has even tanked itself in the polls, as most Americans don't even trust the news they get from CNN, ABC, NBC, and the New York Times.  According to a 2014 Gallup poll, under 20% of Americans have confidence in the media.

This is not good.  The media is supposed to be our watchdog.  The media is supposed to report history.  The media is supposed to be reporting not just a fact, but all facts. The media is supposed to be digging up dirt on both republicans and democrats.  The media is supposed to be unbiased shepherds of the news.

It used to be taught that the powerful were corrupt.  Even when I was in journalism school back in 1988 I was taught to always be a skeptic of those in power.

As a young and naive reporter for the Ferris State University Torch, I was asked by my editor to investigate the 99% job placement number the school reported. Was it really true that 99% of students who graduated from that school were getting placed in jobs.

After an investigation I learned that it was true, although that 99% figure included jobs like McDonalds and Burger King.  So upon a simple investigation that took me only a few minutes to conduct, it was learned that this number was not accurate, and that it was only reported to make the school look good.  If we had reported that 99% figure The Torch wold have been acting as public relations consultants for the school.

But I hated journalism, I hated to snoop on people, so the job of snooping for the truth was left to other people.  Quite honestly, I was naive enough at this time to suspect that what they reported would be both sides of the story. Yet as the years crept by more and more evidence crept up showing to me that what I was reading did not match what I was observing with my own eyes.

Recent evidence of media bias came in June of 2014.  June economic numbers released by the White House showing a 6% unemployment rate and 275,000 jobs created.  The White House championed that the recession was over because Obamonomics had resulted in 200,000 plus new jobs each month in 2014.

Most media reports, but not all, reported these numbers without questioning them. I could understand this from the point of view of a small town newspaper where reporters are mainly interested in local news.  But larger conglomerate newspapers such as the New York Times should further investigate these numbers.  Large media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News should not settle for numbers alone, lest they merely become public relations satellited of the democratic party.

If the media were still acting as the fourth estate, a simple investigation would have revealed that 523,000 full-time jobs were lost in June.  This is horrible economic news.

If the media still acting as the fourth estate, a simple investigation would have revealed that 699,000 low paying part time jobs were created in June.  This is horrible economic news, unless you're fine with a person working 2-3 part time jobs to support a family.

So by dissecting the the 275,000 jobs growth numbers reported by the White House we learn this is not an indicator of positive economic growth.

The net result was a net gain of 275,000 jobs in June, most of which were part time and not full time jobs.  The fourth estate, you see, would have reported not just the number released by the White House, but the dissected numbers as well.

In conclusion, we learn that on the surface the numbers reported by the White House look good.  But, after a simple yet thorough investigation we learn that the 275,000 jobs gained in June of 2014 are not so indicative to the robust economy the White House is champion.

You see, reporting what is released by the White House merely turns media outlets into satellites for the party in power, which in this case so happened to be the democratic party.  Such poor reporting does no justice to freedom and liberty and the quest for truth and accuracy in the news.

Truthfully, and in my humble opinion, Watergate would never happen today unless those involved so happened to be a republican.  A strong and robust economy is never strong and robust unless you are a democrat politician.  Tanking political numbers are never significant unless you are a democrat.  Body counts during wars are never counted unless you are a republican war president.

Media bias is the only thing that can explain why events leading up to the bombing of a U.S. embassy that killed four Americans was never reported. It's the only thing to explain why the fact that global temperatures have not increased since 1998 is rarely mentioned.

In my opinion, reporters and editors and producers and camera men and women who do not report both sides of the story are lazy and biased.  Based on an abundance of evidence, when democrats are in power they cover up scandals and bad news and report only news that benefits democrats.  When republicans are in power they act as the fourth estate.

All in all, this probably explains why most journalists, but not all, usually vote democrat and report from a democrat perspective.  When democrats are in power they become lazy, and when republicans are in power they work hard and investigate and think.

The founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves as they see a left leaning media expressing their privilege to criticize the government only when it's to the convenience of their political agenda. 

Is baseball more humbling than life?

"Nothing is more humbling than the sport of baseball?"  If I could count how many times I've heard that over the years I'd be rich by now.  But is this to imply that baseball is more humbling than life itself?

Has modern civilization made life so glorious and material that we have lost the ability to become humble unless we play a game of baseball?

I don't see how that could possibly be.  Surely if you watch a TV show like the Brady Bunch, or if you spend your entire day rapt in an Internet fantasy world (something more and more of us seem to be doing), you could easily escape reality.

But in the real world, if we choose to pay attention to it, humbling events happen nearly every day.  Look at all this Ebola stuff that's been in the news the past few months.  If you get this virus you have a 50-75% chance of dying. Humbling?

Look at the events transpiring in the Middle East, as another example.  Here we have people over there who are being forced to either convert to another religion or die. These crazy, primitive people want to force YOU and ME to be Muslims too.  I have no problem with Muslim people living their own lives, but I certainly don't want them to force me to stop my Christian way of life.  The threat this could happen should be enough to humble any Christian.

Look at all the married people who try to make it through a day without getting into a fight with their spouses.  As soon as men and women take the plunge, and especially once they make the unselfish move to have children, it does not take long for them to realize that if they do not learn humility their family will not stay together.

So, I ask, is baseball more humbling than life itself?  I don't doubt that baseball is humbling.  However, I think a better thing to say would be: "Nothing is more humbling than life itself."

What little I decide

So I'm sitting here thinking as I'm getting ready to go to hunting camp that there are only four things I do in my life by my own choice:

1. Eat healthy most days
2. Exercise in order to stay fit
3. Spend quality time with my wife and kids
4. Drink coffee and alcohol as needed 

That's it.  Everything else I do, including going to hunting camp, I do because that's what other people want me to do, or what I feel is expected of me.

So you're thinking: "Don't you go to hunting camp because it's fun?"  Yes I do. But because hunting camp contains a plethora of asthma triggers, I would avoid it altogether if not for the pressure to attend by my father and siblings.  I love the quality time spent with them at camp, but the side effects are not negligible.

I'm not complaining, I'm just saying.  

Liberalism is advanced one crisis at a time

Sometimes I wonder if the media, which by the way polls show votes by a 8-1 margin for democrats and liberals, simply creates stories to scare people.  They do this, I imagine, because fear sells.  It sells news, and it sells liberalism.

Well, if you think I'm nuts on this, allow me to give you a few examples.  Consider the war on poverty. Do you think it's called a "war" by coincidence.  Poverty in the U.S. was not any worse during the 1960s than it ever has been, but they trumped it up as a crisis for political gain.  Why? Because where there is a crisis there is a solution.  Where there is a solution, there is political gain to be made.

So democrats raised taxes to wage their war on poverty. They used this "crisis" as an excuse to get their agenda passed. Yet, as with most liberal policies, they create little train wrecks that cannot be fixed; they make things worse.  If you count the number of people in poverty after 50 years of the liberal war on poverty, there are more people in poverty today than when the so called war began.

Climate change is another crisis the democrats trumped up in order to sell their liberal agenda.  The media reports stories on a daily basis that try to blame every disaster on climate change.  The recent strain of Ebola in Africa is a perfect example.

You now have people trumping up fear that this disease will quickly spread across the United States, when there is no evidence that this will ever happen.  Yet they are now also blaming this spread, which hasn't happened, on man-made climate change.  Consider this article: "California Governor Jerry Brown: Climate Change Will Drive Millions of People North Over the Border."

Hurricane season is now upon us, and we are often taken to reporters sitting on the beach along the Atlantic coast with video feed of calm waters.  They are sitting their with their cameras so they can be the first to report the damage from a hurricane that hasn't even come into existence yet.

Or how about this trumped up headline: "Climate Change May Increase the Number of Hawaiian Hurricanes."  People buy into this, even though there is record cold weather all over the world. The winter of 2014 was perhaps the coldest since 1978, and the summer of 2014 also being one of the coolest ever.

Every time there is a heat wave in January democrats, the media, blame it on climate change. Of course, every time there is a cold front they blame that on climate change also.  Folks, there is no such thing as man-made climate change. Take care of the planet because it's the right thing to do, but don't do it out of fear. Fear results results in panic, and panic results in irrational decision making.  A perfect example of such an irrational result is regulations and tax hikes that destroy economies at the expense of some stupid pumped up myth that humans are destroying the planet.

School shootings are another perfect example.  It's a tragedy every time one occurs.  Yet it's not any worse today than it ever has.  The only reason it seems worse is because the media is reporting on every one, and even salivating when they occur.  They use these tragedies to advance their agenda, because every disaster needs a liberal solution.  Of course the solution in this case is anti-gun laws.

Or how about the reporting of every death in Iraq during the Iraq War.  They saw the war as republican politics, and they saw the U.S. as the bad guys in that war.  So every time a soldier died they had to remind us of this in order to make George Bush look like a terrible president and the War America's fault.  Yet what they don't say is that over 40,000 people died just preparing for D-Day.  I'm not trying to downplay military deaths, I'm just saying that the democrats trump of any crisis for political gain.

Just think of the words of Rham Emanuel as he said, "Every crises needs a solution."  What he really means is a liberal solution, as the only way to advance the liberal agenda is by one crisis at a time.

Don't agree. Well, consider the Great Depression.  Here we had more than half the nation unemployed, and so FDR took advantage of this real crisis to increase the scope of government.  Take the Great recession too, as Obama took advantage of it to increase, once again, the scope of government.

Chapter 7: The first counseling session

She said, "... so the problem with your marriage..."

"Hold on there," he said, rolling back in the recliner, looking at the balls in the corner that were obviously a prop to use when a child sat in this room, "There's no problem with our marriage." He looked at his wife, whose expression said "What the F are you talking about?"

He continued: "There's no more problem with our marriage than any other marriage.  There's no more problem with our marriage than that of my parents, and they've been married for 4000 years."

Without realizing it, he was leaning leaning forward in his chair, an indication, perhaps, of his passion.

"So," Dr. Helen Lockhorn said, "Then why are you here?"  She was a corpulent lady with aged lines around her face eyes, rounded out by a large gray bun of hair, perhaps representative of years of listening to the problems of married folks.  Her exuberant personality, her deportment of cordial delight, was perhaps a token of years of practice, a habit, per se, more so than a  sign of what she was feeling or thinking.

"Because my parents didn't have access to the Internet and Facebook," he continued, "a constant barrage of people trying to convince her there's a problem with their marriage. I remember my dad storming out of the house because my mom was mean to him, and then life went on. Of course I saw the opposite many times too.  Men and women have been getting married for thousands of years, and they have never seen eye to eye.  But now all of a sudden when a husband and wife don't see eye to eye it's abnormal?"

"Well..."

"Then you have lawyers and divorce counselors who thrive on this."

"Well...

"The problem with our marriage is the constant barrage of too much information. Or, better, yet, too many opinions.  There are people like you -- no offense -- who thrive on conflict.  Liberalism thrives on conflict.  hey like to convince people there's conflict -- like the war on climate change and the war on women -- just so they can be perceived to be the people with the solutions."

"I've never heard of it put that way."

"I'm not saying you do a bad job, because this is our first appointment.  I'm just saying that our marriage isn't any different than the union of any other intelligent and highly opinionated people."

"Then why are you here?" she said.

He leaned back on the couch and realized the conversation occurred in his mind. It was a euphoric dream, the kind you wished you didn't have to wake from.