After Four Years Of The Amateur We Deserve Better

During the course of my relocation to "places not Arizona", I read a great book entitled The Amateur by Edward Klein. The book grants an honest profile of Barack Obama, his closest advisers, his staff, his inner-circle supporters, and his chief bureaucrats also known as "Czars". If you do an internet search on Mr. Klein, you will find numerous interviews. In many of them, he not only talks about some parts of the expose, he expounds upon information not included in the book.

The book delves deep into Obama's failures. It demonstrates not only his inexperience, but that of some key individuals. The book explores, in depth, the relationship between Valarie Jarrett and the Obamas, showing exactly how much she assumes the role of puppet-master despite her complete lack of knowledge and experience on the majority of subjects she advises.

The book also contains information from interviews with other prominent liberals and so-called blue-dog democrats. When even the more extreme socialists refer to Obama by the book's title, all voting-age Americans need to heed the warning.

Regardless which side of the aisle your political ideology may reside, this book is a must-read before Election Day in November.

While on my little 26-hour unplanned trip to Chicago to take care of some business, I filled the waiting hours and flight time with Monica Crowley's What The (Bleep) Just Happened? .  This book will infuriate the more deep-ceded socialists, fascists, "progressives", and liberals. Blue-Dog Democrats may find themselves cheering with some of Ms. Crowley's diction and rhetoric while nodding in assent at some of her indictments.

Monica's book chronicles the first three years of Obama's administration. Unlike Klein's book, this one is an indictment. Ms. Crowley juxtaposes Obama's promises with his actions. She sits Obama in front of the floodlight and interrogates him through this book. Armed with the facts from Obama's constant self-contradiction and blatant anti-American actions, Ms. Crowley executes this questioning utilizing both indisputable evidence and a challenge to Obama's narcissistic ego. Her catchphrase from the book "What the @#$& just happened?" will leave your average Constitutional Moderate, Libertarian or Conservative Republican feeling like a teenager at her first college frat party.

This book is another "must read" prior to Election Day this November.

Another is How To Kill Eleven Million People .

Then you need to see the documentary "2016".

He's been an Illinois State Senator. He's been a US Senator for the State of Illinois. Now he's almost done with his first term as President of the United States. Isn't it about time people actually got to know Barack Obama, what he believes, what he intends, and the real direction he wants to take the USA?

Those who don't are lazy, afraid, illiterate, or complicit in trying to destroy our country.

Let's take a quick look at some considerations in this upcoming election:

Obama's staff

Most of his staff had little to no private sector experience. While some may say these public sector jobs need public sector people, the reality is that our country and our economy are based upon the private sector. They are based upon individual, natural rights. They are based upon individual responsibility, accountability, effort, merit, rewards, prosperity, etc. The "public sector" staff is about making people dependent upon government, and enslaved to the few in power -- namely the oligarchy of the bureaucrats themselves. If you need a prime example, look no further than Valerie Jarrett. 

Obama's Czars

These bureaucratic heads have been operating under "executive authority" with impunity. They have enacted policies that step outside of the limited powers of the executive branch in attempts to undermine legislative and judicial authority. The EPA and the US Dept. of Education are two great examples. However, look under the banner of the Department of Homeland Security for some of the gravest violations. If one reads the US Constitution, you will find that immigration is one of the enumerated legislative powers. DHS has no right to look away, ignore, and fail to prosecute illegal immigrants while ordering elderly women in wheelchairs to be strip-searched in airports.

Worse, they overstepped their authority when, in conjunction with Eric Holder's "Department of Injustice", they ordered an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran held in a psychiatric facility without just cause, warrant, or due process.

Then you have the joint "gun czar", "drug czar", "immigration czar", and "terrorism czar" get in bed with the ATF and Eric Holder to conduct an operation to field working US Weapons to foreign threats with no intentions of tracking them or using them for prosecutions. Operation Fast and Furious led to countless deaths, including two known Americans and over 300 law-abiding Mexican Nationals.

Executive Over-reach

If you have any doubts this has been going on since day one, take some time to review and remind yourself about Solyndra. Remind yourself about the executive branch mandated union buyout of GM. Remind yourself about the attempts to fine farmers for "kicking up farm dust".  Familiarize yourself with the regulatory fees (in addition to taxes) imposed upon sugar producers and fossil fuel refiners. The fees and fines are for companies failing to comply with standards that are impossible under current technology, and may be impossible until technology catches up in 10-20 years (if at all).

Statism and budding Tyranny

The suits against Arizona and Texas for attempting to uphold federal laws are nothing short of tyranny.  It's like some jerk from the next county over coming onto your property and telling you that you cannot put a swing set in your yard for your kids. It is like some jerk from Botswana coming to your house and telling you what to feed your kids and what school you should send them to. It is like the above do so while pointing a gun to your head.

And they do so while imposing the greatest tax increase in history, the PPACA also known as Obamacare, down our throats. The tax law (as decided by the US Supreme Court) is the government telling you what you can do with your body, how you can live, and how you can die, then making you pay for it. Worse, they are making you pay more for it than if you purchased a regular healthcare plan plus catastrophic/emergency medical care insurance.



As you look through all that has happened in Obama's administration and make your decision for Election Day 2012, this November, keep one thing in mind. The harsh reality is that, if you do not want Obama to be re-elected, you need to vote for Mitt Romney. Sitting home is the same as voting for Obama. It is actually worse, since you will probably complain about something the government is doing in the future. If you don't vote, your opinion doesn't matter. Why? It doesn't matter because you have proven that you won't do anything about it other than blow hot air. If you vote for one of the other candidates or write one in, you are voting for Obama. If you vote for anybody other than Romney, the simple truth is that your candidate will not gain enough votes to win. Your vote is wasted on folly, and we'll be stuck with Obama. It is simple math.

Regardless of your decision, I urge all of my readers to do their own research. I urge you to not take any rhetoric or commentary (including mine) at face value. Do your research. Read. Fact-check (that means do it yourself, don't just listen to Politifact, etc.). Read the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Make an informed, conscious choice.

Higher Education Is A Business Not a Right

Enrollment Down 98%, Foreclosure, Bankruptcy, Fraud,
Embezzling Taxpayer Money
Is Morris Brown College Closing?

Among the various false narratives pushed by oligarchic socialists on the left and their useful idiots among the so-called "Occupy Movement" is one that "education is a right". The primary point of that narrative is that college educations should be cheaper of free. Among the motivating factors behind that false narrative is the fact that many students and recent graduates cannot afford to pay their student loans and education-linked debts.

Student loans should be for tuition, books, room and board. Students taking these loans should do so in addition to working part-time jobs, at least, or participating in a work-study program. Many of the students choose, instead, to live on the loans, using the money to buy beer, drugs, and cars. They use them to fund apartments instead of living in the dormitories. In other words, they do not exhibit the high school level skill of budgeting themselves.


The students then pursue degrees in subjects that interest them. They imagine that they are owed a job upon graduation. Their Millennial Generation upbringing has not given them the faculties or skills necessary to compete for employment. They were conditioned, many from kindergarten on, that competition is bad and nobody should be keeping score. They failed to learn that the real world keeps score. It is a fact of life. So, they do not take courses that provide them competitive skills necessary to gain employment.

They believe that the government should mandate companies hire people with degrees in "Gender Studies". They believe the government should pay their bills for them, since they were not smart enough to pay tuition on pragmatic academic pursuits.

Colleges are in the business of providing a service, education and academic resources, for just compensation, tuition and fees. Failing to pay them is theft, pure an simple. The services they provide, usually, do not include guaranteed job placement, though colleges and institutes of technology such as DeVry used to employ that message as a marketing ploy. Employment after graduation is the responsibility of the graduate, not the school. They did their job and gave you what you paid for.

These students also blame the colleges, especially private ones, for the tuition. They do not blame their liberal professors. They blame the bursars, trustees, and administrators. What they fail to realize is that the above do need to be paid for the actual work they do to keep the college running. If students default on student loans or fall behind on tuition payments, it hurts the school and impairs present and future faculty and resources. If they really cared about "education for all" they would pay their bills.

In Atlanta, GA, one college is bankrupt and facing possible closure. Morris Brown College posted a notice on their website concerning these financial troubles that are plaguing the 131 year old university. The school's financial problems are rooted in federal grants to students. The college was receiving up to $8 Million a year in federal student aid. With this "free government money" (taxpayer provided funding) coming in, a former president of the school and a former financial director were embezzling funds and defrauding taxpayers. the funding they stole was not intended for personal use, but to allay some of the college's financial woes. The college is currently over $27 Million in debt, struggling, and taking on volunteer lecturers and professors in an effort to maintain its various curricula. Alumni are even volunteering hours to provide maintenance and janitorial services.

The embezzled taxes defrauded from the citizens of this great republic are even more indicative of the false narrative that somehow taxpayers should assume individuals' responsibilities. In the case of Morris Brown's scandal in the early 21st century, the president, financial director, and school administration believed that tax payers should pay the debts of a private university.

The financial troubles are further exacerbated by the school's rapidly declining enrollment rate. At the time of the fraud scandal, the school had approximately 2,500 students, with 80% of them on federal scholarships and grants. The school is now struggling to keep over 50 students matriculated at the university.

Now, the school faces a very real possibility of closing due to foreclosure and bankruptcy. 

The school  would do better to restructure how it takes federal grant money and student loans. If the school implemented, instead, a more aggressive work-study program, then they could defray many of their operating costs by having students maintain the school and provide some of the services as part of their tuition. That would alleviate payroll costs and the like for the majority of the routine services and administrative functions on campus. It would provide real-life work experience to the students. It would reduce overhead and leave more of the college's gross receipts for paying bills and professors' salaries.

Faculty, staff, and students need to realize that colleges are businesses. They provide goods and services for appropriate compensation. If they want "free education", they will get one that is worth exactly what they paid for it.

Like other businesses, should the colleges mismanage their funds and fail to employ a working business model, they will fail. They should not seek government bailouts or taxpayer money to allay their failure, especially when their failure is, in part, due to defrauding taxpayers. 

Gun Accountability vs Gun Control In Anti-Gun Chicago

"I'm from the Government. I'm here to help. How many guns do you own?
Can I come in and confis-err-- see them? I promise, it is for your own safety and welfare.
Why would I need a warrant? You're just going to cooperate, right?"

  Along with torrential rains and flash flooding, two other stories dominated the early morning local news shows in Chicago on Monday, August 27, 2012.

One story was a typical media love-fest with the local socialist-in-charge, Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former Chief of Staff and current Mayor or the windbag city. It seems that Rahm fancies himself an amateur athlete, having taken 27th place for his age group in Chicago's triathalon. While it is great that Chicago has a Mayor willing to set an example of fitness, I'm sure the city would be better off if he didn't waste all the time training for the race, spending it cutting pork out of the city's budget and doing the job he was elected/hired to perform.

The other story came on the heels of the violence reported early the morning of August 24th. That previous night contained hours of violence and terror with mass, serial shootings including 19 people shot in just one 30-minute period.

In reaction to the violence as well as actionable intelligence, the Chicago police executed a series of raids over three days resulting in over 300 arrests and the seizure of over 100 unregistered, improperly registered, or illegally owned firearms. In an interview on one of the local morning television news shows, Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy stuck a feather in his cap, recounting how great it was to actually go out and lead some of  the raids personally. His little self-tooting-horn is much reminiscent of certain other politicians from Chicago. The narcissism displayed reminded me of Rahm Emanuel, R. J. Daley Jr., and Mr. Obama.

During that same interview, Mr. McCarthy brought up one point that seemed, on the surface, a good idea that links to an understandable issue concerning firearms ownership -- accountability.

Despite the egregious violations of the Second Amendment on the books in Illinois, such as requiring somebody to apply for permission to own a firearm (FOID) and not allowing citizens to bear arms at all, concealed or otherwise, Illinois has no real accountability laws. That is surprising, given the state's stern anti-gun laws.

Accountability laws, in a nutshell, are laws that require owners to register items and to maintain some form of responsibility for them. One example is automobiles. If you own a car, you most likely have it registered. The VIN is most likely listed on documentation that demonstrates who the owner is and who is responsible for the car. If you sell the car, you will likely transfer that title to the new owner. The same applies to real estate. If you sell your home, you transfer the deed and title to the new owner.

With weapons, the concept of accountability is not a violation of the Second Amendment. Proper accountability laws can actually help protect gun-owners. For example, if you purchase a new pistol, the sale is recorded and reported. However, if you sell it to your buddy, Joe, the transfer may not be recorded. If that weapon is stolen from Joe's house while he is at a Disneyland Resort or Six Flags and used in a murder 2 days later (before he returns to find it missing), then we have a bit of a problem. The police won't be knocking on Joe's door first. They will be knocking on yours. However, if transfer documents are filed, then Joe listed as the owner  and the cops don't waste your time.

That sounds good, so far. The issue that arises is who pays for all of this. That is an easy answer. Just like vehicle ownership registration transfers and land title transfers, the new owner pays the fee. No additional taxes are necessary. However, socialists won't like that answer. They'll want only wealthy people to pay through their taxes.

Mr. McCarthy used the example of a lawful gun-owner with an Illinois FOID purchasing multiple pistols, keeping one, then reselling the rest to non-FOID holders. There is no recourse and no accountability.

First, the FOIDs are a violation of the Second Amendment. The words "shall not be infringed" come to mind. Requiring somebody to qualify to own or carry is, indeed, infringing upon that right. That point removed from the equation, however, still chimes of some level of sense. If a gun owner resold his weapons to somebody else, the last thing he should want is to be interrogated if Johnny-B took that new pistol and shot up a parking lot. The accountability law would also prevent those gang members who have not been convicted of any felony from supporting the gang through legally purchasing weapons, then illegally distributing them knowing they will be used in crimes. Of course, doing such is still being an accessory to a crime, intentionally and willfully, and is still a crime, regardless of accountability laws.

This whole scenario, however, is a page right out of what Eric Holder and his ATF did with Operation Fast and Furious. It is exactly what he did. He purchased guns, legally, then smuggled them out of the country and into the hands of terrorists and cartel members. I wonder if Eric got the idea from his buddies on the streets of the windbag city.

On the surface, these accountability laws make a lot of sense.  If specific, stated simply and clearly, and restricted to just proper transfer registration and accountability, they do protect your average law-abiding gun owning American. However, the eventual abuse becomes abundantly clear.

First, the information will be used to track private citizens and violate the 4th Amendment. the number and type of guns you own will be public record. That violates the Privacy Act and the 4th Amendment. In the future, the laws could be used to limit the number and types of weapons your average American can own. So, they could limit you to one pistol, one rifle, and one shotgun. I can hear the argument now. "That's three guns. That is 'Arms'. The right is, therefore, not infringed".

Second, it opens up for actions should bans on certain types of firearms again infringe upon the Second Amendment. Should a ban against anything larger than 9mm be issued, the police can now go straight to the homes of lawful .45cal owners and demand they willingly turn over their lawfully owned and purchased firearms.

The list of potential abuses goes on. The "left" side of the political spectrum wants to instill a tyrannic oligarchy, by its very definition. One of the first things such an oligarchy wishes to do is disarm its current and future opposition so that it can retain power and further its abuses upon the people. This is the very thing the Second amendment was written to prevent.

Gun owners need to be responsible. If a weapon is stolen, it is just common sense to report it stolen. If it is lost, it is just common sense to report it missing. However, it is not in the authority of the Nanny State to force common sense down people's throats through legislation. Doing so is a flagrant theft of liberty.

On the surface, "gun accountability laws" may be spun as not "gun control", Mr. McCarty. Through that transparent surface, sir, it is obvious that they are designed to facilitate Second Amendment violations of the most extreme sort. Your bright idea just flickered out. 

NYC and Chicago Shootings vs. Second Amendment

Early reports the morning of August 24, 2012 indicate a shooting occurred just outside the Empire State Building in New York City. The initial reports indicate that at least eight people were shot, with three dead,  including the shooter. Those same initial reports state the shooter may have been shot by police who eventually responded after being alerted of the shooting. The motives, at this time, are unclear. Some witnesses indicate the incident may have been over a dispute between two co-workers.

15 years and 6 months ago, on February 24, 1997, there was another mass shooting outside the Empire State Building. That shooter killed one person, seriously injured six others, then shot himself in the head. He was a 69 year old Palestinian man who uttered some unintelligible phrase about Egypt during the incident. It was an act of terrorism, pure and simple.

New York State has some rather restrictive legislative violations of the Second Amendment  enacted. New York City is even more restrictive, joining cities such as Chicago, Boston, and San Fransisco in the top ten cities that despise the Second Amendment. Yet, statistically, those cities with the harshest and most restrictive anti-gun laws are also highest in gun-related crime. The reason is simple. Criminals do not care if they break a gun law in the process of breaking another laws, like attempting mass murder.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, an additional 19 people were shot, 13 of them early the morning of August 24th in less than 30 minutes. Chicago is the US city with the gravest Second Amendment violation, requiring a state permit just to keep a firearm, and not allowing anybody to bear them. The city banned all handguns except for police until the US Supreme Court found Mayor Daley's executive order a violation of the Second Amendment. Yet criminals have shot 19 people, including 14 year old teenagers. This is violations of the second amendment and tyrannic disarmament hard at work. 

In contrast, cities that comply with the Second Amendment and do not restrict non-felon, law-abiding, adult US Citizens from carrying concealed firearms have some of the lowest violent crime rates. The reason why is simple. Criminals in those cities cannot know who and how many of their potential victims are capable and prepared to shoot back (or shoot first). Criminals are cowards. They use guns against the defenseless because they need that security blanket. If that security blanket is removed, by and large, the criminals are too cowardly to risk their lives. If they were valorous and brave individuals, they wouldn't prey upon others in the first place. They wouldn't be so selfish as to take what others spent portions of their lives to accrue or create. Instead, they would defend such people, placing them above their selfish and childish desires.

Again we have a shooting incident that leaves open the questions:  "What if there were people with legally concealed firearms? Could this criminal have been stopped earlier? Could the damage he caused have been mitigated or stopped by an armed law-abiding citizen?". Granted, the large and chaotic crowd may have prevented a clear shot preventing collateral damage or stray rounds. However, the questions still persist.

The tyrants who want to disarm the average law-abiding citizens will try to spin this shooting as an excuse to pass more legislation or enact additional executive orders that violate the Second Amendment. However, even permits, concealed or otherwise, are already violations of the very clearly stated "Keep [own] and bear [carry] arms" that should "not be infringed". In reality, this event, just like the terrorist attack in 1997, is yet another statistic proving those violations of the Second Amendment need to cease.

The fact is that if guns are taken away from the law-abiding citizens, then only criminals and tyrants will be armed. The rest of us will be screwed. That is exactly what the leftist anti-gun Marxists want.

Molon Labe.

Failing USPS Demonstrates Government Waste

 The struggling US Postal Service (USPS) demonstrates, yet again, what happens when you mix both the government and unions with a business model. the woes and evident failures continue to aggregate.

For years, the USPS has been struggling. The government-run mail and package delivery service attempts to blame modern electronic communications systems (such as email and the internet) and the sluggish economy for their woes. In the mid-20th Century, the USPS used the more proliferated telephone system as its excuse to necessitate raises in stamp prices, claiming that the telephone replaced written communications. However, the total number of mail traffic actually increased.

In contrast, however, UPS and FEDEX are doing quite well. The internet and email have actually led to increases in their businesses as people are purchasing items more and more through the internet. The private package delivery services have used this trend to their advantage. Yet the "public business" run by the federal government is, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt.

The main reasons individuals and online businesses are choosing FEDEX and UPS over the USPS is simple -- reliability and price. UPS's maximum package size is much larger than the USPS's maximum. UPS will deliver to the door of a physical address. The USPS has, in many neighborhoods, gone to community mailboxes located as far as 1/2 mile away from a residence, with small lock boxes for letters and packages. Anything larger will require the recipient to travel to the post office to pick up the package. Some times, that drive to the post office is farther away from the originator's address.

US Postal workers are unionized. That is the root of many of their problems. The US Military is not allowed to unionize. It makes sense that to not be allowed. If unionized, the lower ranking could go on strike, or legally commit mutiny, over contract disputes and pay re-negotiations. It would completely undermine the US Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). That same theory applies to all government bureaucracy workers. Government workers should not be permitted to unionize.

The USPS (we, the taxpayers) just defaulted on a $5,500,000,00.00 payment it owed to the federal government. That bill was for medical benefit payments to union retirement benefit accounts. There is another payment, this one will be $100 million higher at $5.6 Billion, due on September 30, 2012 (just in time for the end of the fiscal year). The USPS gave notice they will be defaulting on that bill as well. That will be $11.1 BILLION in defaulted debt. That is bankruptcy from any direction you look at it.

Then the USPS invests in a debacle. They paid over $1.2 million to print approximately 1,000,000,000 (1 Billion) stamps depicting Matt Groenig's iconic Homer Simpson. The USPS sold only about 318 million. That leaves the USPS with  over 682,000,000 stamps unsold with an inventory cost of over $300 million. They are also defaulting on the bills for the printing services provided by the companies contracted to produce the stamps. A proper market study before investing in this endeavor may have prevented the waste. However, this poor decision aggravates the $5.2 Billion Dollar quarterly operating deficit for 3rd quarter FY12. The net overall loss for the business is projected to be over $15 Billion for the FY12, which ends on September 30, 2012.

If the enterprise operated more like a private industry, the owners would take a serious look at operating in an effort to lose money. Operating in a manner that leaves a business $15.2 Billion more in debt at the end of a fiscal year is not considered a lucrative business. In fact, it is an abject failure.

The Postmaster General directed his Postal Inspector General to audit the Atlanta Distribution and Processing Center. The Atlanta facility's primary purpose was to increase efficiency especially in regards to commercial and business mailings. The results of the audit proved that the facility does anything but increase efficiency. The audit estimates that the center wasted over 8,000 man-hours and a half-million dollars. The main contributors to the waste were identified in lackadaisical loading, unloading, and sorting of parcels combined with wasteful and unnecessary shell-game moving of "spotting trucks".

Union drivers move the trucks around unnecessarily, creating additional hours of work and wasting resources (fuel). The other workers are not doing the minimum projected amount of labor necessary to justify operations. The union mandated breaks and production rates impede the facility's mission. The 24/7 facility appears to be mismanaged. The audit prompts questions concerning similar sorting and distribution centers around the country. If just one such facility in each state is wasting at a similar rate, the USPS could cut $25 Million of its deficit just by forcing union workers to operate according to current  USPS standards. Those additional 400,000 man-hours would save taxpayers a huge chunk of cash as well. At just minimum wage (and postal workers make well over minimum wage), those wasted man-hours would equate another $2.9 in human capital operational waste, if one facility in each state is at the same level as the Atlanta facility.

All of the above are indicative of a necessity for a complete restructuring of the USPS. The enterprise is not supposed to be a burden upon taxpayers. It is supposed to provide a service that patrons pay for as they use it. The costs are designed to be incurred by the senders. The enterprise is supposed to break even if not turn a small profit. They are not. They are failing.  

The USPS lists itself, by charter, as a "self-sufficient government enterprise". Given the example of "self-sufficiency" the USPS demonstrates, there is no wonder about why members of Occupy believe "self-sufficiency" means "living in my mom's basement, eating her food, and having her pay at least half of my bills, though I am 25 years old". If the USPS were truly self-sufficient, they would restructure their operating model. They would eliminate mandatory union membership. They provide competitive services at competitive rates in order to compete with FEDEX and UPS. They are not self-sufficient. They are increasingly dependent upon taxpayers being forced at the barrel of a gun to pay for their failing business model.  

CBO FY13 Assessment -- Cut Or Worse Recession

The direction our current tax and spend, spend, spend government it taking us... (Courtesy of Texas GOP Vote)

In May 2012, the CBO adjusted its January 2012 study on what effects the FY13 budget will have on calendar year 2013, if current trends are maintained. The result was, simply stated, not good.

Recently, they updated that study and found that their analysis to be most likely correct, however the results will likely be even more extreme. If taxes are increased and federal spending are not restrained, reduced, cut, or made reasonably responsible; then we are headed towards another deep-dip recession.

This is the "fiscal cliff" that Obama and his Keynesian-theory-loving advisers are driving us towards. It seems he is not interested in playing a game of chicken, either. He does not intend to speed towards that edge only to attempt to stop short. the direction Obama's proposed budgets, tax plans, and executive-invoked regulatory fees (such as EPA fees, USDA fees, increased regulatory fees on fossil fuels, etc.) amount to kicking in the NO2, putting on a blindfold, and disconnecting the brakes.

The CBO predicts that the current course will lead to shrinking the economy even further, as much as reducing GDP by another 0.5%. Our country cannot take any reduction in GDP. We need a 2-3% increase, not a decrease. In addition, unemployment will jump several points as businesses will reduce in order to preserve necessary capital in efforts to weather out the storm. That will mean some cuts in production, not taking risks in expanding product lines or services, and cutting payroll expenses. Those payroll expenses will mean anything from reductions in benefit packages to reductions in starting pay to layoffs.

The CBO already calculated the nightmare the PPACA will present to businesses, especially small businesses. Adding in those mandatory taxes and fees Obamacare forces upon those businesses, healthcare packages are not cuts that can be made without laying people off. So, that may be the policy of choice should this recession strike.

Legislators (and voters) on both sides of the aisle need to take some deep breaths and read economic studies written by Steve Moore and Art Laffer. They need to pay attention to the supply-side of the economy. It has been ignored too long. Raising taxes on those working will decrease the national marginal propensity to invest, to save, and to spend. There will simply be less disposable income. The supply curves will also adjust, making even necessities such as milk, bread, and corn more expensive. Those are the results of raising taxes. With fewer people working, the tax base will also be reduced and the overall revenue will be lower.

On the "demand side", the government needs to act responsibly. If your teenager maxed out three credit cards and spent every cent he made at his part-time job (without saving for college), you'd cut him off (and probably ground him until he paid back every penny). Well, the budgets Obama proposed (and were defeated outright even in the left-dominated Senate) wanted to max out not only his parents' cards, but those of every adult living in your neighborhood.

Proposing a reduction in spending increases is a start. However, real cuts need to be made, and soon. The FY13 budget starts on October 1, 2012. Cuts that impede national defense, national security, and intelligence gathering are not responsible. Cutting funding to the thousands of other wasteful programs are responsible.

Items the FY13 budget needs to spend money on, other than intelligence and defense, are paying down our nation's debts to foreign powers. In addition, those who have already paid into Social Security (especially those living off of the dividends) need to, at least, not lose what they have already invested.

With the elections coming up this November, voters need to consider the financial security and potential prosperity of themselves and their families. They need to do so on the municipal, state, and federal levels. The question is: do you vote for responsibility and accountability or do you vote for fiscal ruin, unemployment, and a dismal future. It's time to vote out those who want to start up more programs, increase taxes, and increase government spending, regardless of which party they claim membership.

Principles and Guts? Akin Stays In Race

It is now international news that US Senate candidate from Missouri believes that fallopian tubes tie themselves in cases of legitimate rape. If the trauma occurs before ovulation, the stress may, indeed, throw a woman's cycle off its normal rhythm. However, is not some mechanism a woman has to prevent pregnancy in the case of "legitimate rape".

Then there was Mr. Akin's qualifier "legitimate". It was a serious gaffe demonstrating a belief in "illegitimate rape". If such exists, I'd like to know what one is. If an "illegitimate" rape is one where a lady says yes at night, wakes up with "coyote ugly" and changed her mind after the fact, I could accept that term. However, that is not a rape by any definition of the term. It is regret. Rape is rape.

The debate over abortion in cases of rape and incest will continue for decades, if not centuries. There are plenty of valid points on both sides.

Through that misunderstanding of basic biology, Akin stood upon his principles. He continues to do so. Americans love underdogs who pull through, despite overwhelming odds. Akin has made himself just such a candidate with his remarks. His tenacity is admirable. What conservatives need in office is more than just somebody who stands upon principles. We need somebody who stands on principles and can accurately articulate those principles. We need somebody who will prioritize what this country needs most instead of trying to legislate morality, an endeavor that fails 999 times out of 1000 and tends to alienate independent and moderate voters.

Akin further demonstrates his fortitude. Many conservative and libertarian pundits have stated Akin should drop out of the race. Even Gov. Mitt Romney asked him to drop out of the race. The deadline came and went and Akin is still in the race. Now the Republican National Committee has cut-off funding to Akin's campaign. If Akin wants to continue his fight, he will be doing so through the fundraising efforts of his own local campaign. If he is able to raise the funds to win a national level campaign, as Senate races tend to become, it will be a remarkable feat. The odds and common sense are against Akin at this time.

Akin may not be the ideal conservative, constitution-loving candidate, but he has guts. He is not afraid to stand on his principles. He may do so to the detriment of the rest of the conservative candidates around the country. This may not be the wisest or smartest decision he's ever made. However, it is a "gutsy call", at least more "gutsy" than Obama giving the go-ahead to the SEALs.  It is about as selfish as Obama was in claiming all the accolades, though. If Akin stood on all of his conservative principles, he'd do what is necessary in order to assure socialists, progressives, and liberals lose their respective races. His fortitude may be admirable, but he lacks the wisdom this country needs in our legislative branch.

I'm just glad he's not a candidate in my state of residence.

SATX Council and Mayors Seek To Fleece Taxpayers Through Pre-K Scam

Over the past several months, politicians in Georgia publicly lobbied voting taxpayers for support for a rise in taxes to support a complete waste of money called TSPLOST. TSPLOST was a poorly designed plan to increase public transportation using old and failing technology, among other services. The proposed means to cover the costs was through an increase in sales taxes. The research demonstrated that the project would never bring in enough revenue to cover the maintenance costs, much less the daily labor costs and the initial construction costs. By and large, the citizens of Georgia voted against the TSPLOST Referendum.

The city council of San Antonio, TX should have paid attention to the outcome of that referendum. The Mayor of San Antonio should have followed that whole debacle in Georgia. The seven former mayors of San Antonio who have endorsed a current proposal to raise city sales taxes to support a program that may (and probably will not) assist a small demographic should have followed Georgia's TSPLOST political drama. Those in the above named current or former public offices are seeking to do the same in San Antonio, TX.

San Antonio's latest proposal, due to go to the election polls in referendum for ratification, has one point of heart-string-pulling emotive argumentation supporting it that the TSPLOST debacle didn't. The pending San Antonio proposed fleecing has the argument "It's For The Kids!".

Like most proposals done by politicians and teachers' unions in the past two decades, the "For The Kids" argument actually translates to "For the Unions" and "Let's Fleece The Taxpayers to Line Our Pockets".

The proposal is to raise the city's sales taxes what appears to be a meager 1/8th of a percent. While that doesn't seem like much, it adds up over the course of the year just in paying utility bills and purchasing sundry items. It creates a greater tax burden on those making just enough to not qualify for state and federal handouts. It will also induce a greater propensity to save among those who make more, therefore actually retarding or stagnating the local economy. Obviously, these local politicians need to go back and repeat Economics 101 and 102.

The detractors enumerated so far are before the intended purpose for the tax hike is even discussed.

"It's For The Kids!"

No it isn't. However, that is the argument that will be presented.

The tax hike is an effort to increase local funding in order to expand the city's pre-kindergarten program. Currently, according to the City of San Antonio, there are about 5,700 3 and 4 year old kids that are eligible for pre-k programs that are not engaged in them full-time. About 3,400 of those attend half-day programs.

The city assumes that the lack of participation in their early government-sponsored socialist indoctrination programs is that parents cannot afford to send their kids to the schools that already provide those programs. The kids that are not enrolled are not enrolled by parental choice. Increasing the funding and bumping the average wages for what amount to government provided daycare services to $70,000 a year will not increase participation.

You have not misread that figure. The proposal is to provide additional pre-k babysitters to cover that 5,700 estimated number of kids at an average annual salary and benefits package of approximately $70,000 per year. Currently, the average elementary (K-8) teacher's salary is $48,863 a year, not counting benefits, which bumps the whole package to $70,477 funded by taxpayers. (Starting pay is approximately $34,000 salary for an entry level position, not counting the $21,585 in benefits, making the starting entry-level teacher's FULL salary and compensation over $55,000 a year for a simple Bachelor of Arts degree). 

The city's study failed to look into why many of these children are not enrolled. First, it does not take into account the number of them that are here illegally or are "anchor-babies".  Parents have to prove citizenship (or resident alien status) in order to register their children. So, if either the parents or the kids are here illegally, they cannot be enrolled in the first place (without committing ID theft and defrauding the government).

Another demographic the study fails to consider is the number of children that enrolled in some form of private, free-enterprise program. I was unable to find those numbers or statistics. However, the city's study does not even address that demographic. It automatically assumes that parents would prefer the taxpayer provided services.

Given the current employment market and economic conditions, more and more families are choosing to have one of the parents home-school the children to some degree. This can be anywhere from supplementing education with classes and activities done at home to full-home-school programs. The city's study fails to include that demographic.

While those schools that provide half-day programs may claim they cannot afford to provide full-day programs under the current budget, the question concerning how much of their retirement and health insurance they are willing to pay out of pocket comes to mind. If they truly wanted to provide these services "For The Kids", why not do so budgeting the pay and benefits packages at $35k-$40k a year with the taxpayer employees matching their retirement and benefit funds? No, they don't care about the kids.

The city's fact-sheet for the proposal even states that the whole program is fascist in nature. There will be a "corporation" established or appointed by the city council, under the direction of the city council, that will administrate and oversee the program. For those who failed basic civics, that is the very definition of fascism. Fascism is a form of socialism. If you failed history as well, you are reminded that Hitler and Mussolini employed national socialism and fascism. Is that the type of oligarchic tyranny the citizens of San Antonio want? Think about this. Who stands to gain from this corporation? The city council members, the  socialist Mayor, and the former mayors that endorse this program (as well as the teachers' union administrators).   

2,300 kids who need 100% plus 3,400 kids who need 50%, according to the study, equates to 4,000 full time scholarships. $31M equates $7,750 per student that could be vouchers towards parental school-choice options for these kids, per year, instead of lining the pockets of politicians, unions and their cronies. Or, in other words, that's $7,750 per new child enrolled in a full-time program that these oligarchs wish to steal from tax-payers.

Another argument against the tax-hike revolves around the federal "Head Start" funds. This is one area where I will support the tax hike. Constitutionally, federal money and federal authority does not cover local education. Those "Head Start" funds already violate the 10th Amendment. It is a state and municipal responsibility to cover public education. However, those funds are already being illegally distributed, already fleecing US Taxpayers.

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution comes to mind concerning this tax. It will tax those who do not have children eligible for pre-K programs in order to support that extremely small demographic. It brings up questions of "fair and equal treatment". Why should a 40 year old with no children pay for somebody's 4 year old to attend an indoctrination program?

Within the city's study, on their "fact sheet" is a blatant lie. The lie is that "enrollment will be free of charge". No it will not. It will be paid for by taxpayers. While those within an enumerated list of alleged "underprivileged" qualifiers may be exempt from paying enrollment fees, somebody is covering the costs -- the working, self-sustaining, self-providing average tax-paying citizen will be paying for what is, legally, an optional program. (Next the city will pass a truancy law making attendance mandatory in order to justify the necessity for the $31,000,000 tax bill).

In the cases of those parents that prefer private schooling or home-schooling, will they get a rebate or refund for their "fair share" of the funds? How about those parents whose kids are beyond pre-K age? Will they get a rebate, since they don't qualify for the program? What about taxpayers with no kids?

Basic home economics teaches high school kids the common sense lesson that paying for something you do not use is a waste of money. That is what this increased sales tax for 2,300 kids amounts to -- paying for something that most likely will not be used.  It is just like Georgia's TSPLOST referendum.  

National Security Should Trump Politics

Recently, a group of retired Special Operations and Intelligence professionals banded together as a self-proclaimed watchdog group called OPSEC. They released a trailer, then a full 22 minute-long documentary about the dangers of exposing national security secrets for political gain.

In response, another alleged watchdog group, Media Matters for America (MMfA), and their "Senior Fellow" called those former special operators as well as the current ones, "gutless".

MMfA is anything but a "watchdog" group. If they were, their primary job would be to expose any falsehoods reported by any media outlet instead of being a socialist propaganda tool that attempts to obfuscate facts and deny those biases that are exposed by Breitbart.com, FOX News, and other media outlets. In his statement, MMfA's "Senior Fellow" did nothing to expose any bias or untruth. He expressed a biased opinion that was based upon no facts and no empirical data. It was emotive rhetoric, not a reasonable assessment.

Members of OPSEC responded accordingly to MMfA's claims. In addition, I issued two challenges to that individual.

The full documentary from OPSEC is linked below. It is 22 minutes well spent regardless of which side of the political aisle your personal ideology may reside.

National Security Policy is a political issue. Debates on the subject let citizens know how each candidate intends to keep our country free and secure. However, keeping our great republic free, secure, and prosperous is NOT a political issue. It is a mandate to all federal elected officials. That is must be done is not an opinion. It is a constant, a fact, hard reality.

The facts demonstrate that Obama, or those within his administration such as Valerie Jarrett, have violated OPSEC. They have violated national security. If those in uniform had done the same, they would face court martial or worse. The names Aldrich Ames and Robert Hansen come to mind when considering leaks done by the current administration. Both of those men were convicted of espionage and treason against the US.

Speakers in the video make several key points. I admit my political ideology lends to a level of bias in my articles. However, on the subjects of national security and national defense, my views are largely apolitical. the views I express are based upon my real life experiences in that real world where there are people who want to destroy America. the threats are real. I have seen them. I have seen the face of hate up close and personal, with just a desk between us. This is not politics. It is reality.

Any news release, speech, or casual conversation needs to be guarded. Those of us "in the know" learn how to avoid telling those without proper clearance and access, and "need to know" those mission critical bits of information. Even peripheral details that seem insignificant can be put together, tipping our hand, exposing our assets, and putting our people and their families at risk. For those who doubt that there are those capable of doing so, I must advise you that I not only did just that for 15 years, I taught others how to do it. If there are those in our forces whose job it is to do so, you can bet that our enemies have those who do (or aspire to do) the same.

In explaining security levels and impacts to my younger soldiers, I used an atomic bomb analogy. If For Official Use Only or Confidential information is accidentally (or worse, intentionally) leaked, it can be the same as a 500 KT bomb dropped on your mom's home town. A Secret level bit of info is a 1 MT bomb dropped on her block. A leak of TS level info is a 5 MT bomb on your mother's house. What is the difference? In all three cases, your mother is most likely vaporized. In the first case, she may survive the initial bomb, but will die of radiation poisoning within a week (and ti will be even more painful).

Some of the information leaked over the past three years amounts to drafting death warrants on some of our SPECOPs personnel, our Intelligence personnel, their families, our sources around the world, and their families. In fact, information leaked by the current administration led to actions taken against one of those who assisted our Special Operators in that eventual operation against bin Laden.

Obama did not kill Usama. In fact, in giving his "OK" on the mission, he set it up so he could take credit if it went well, but could claim ignorance if it was botched. Obama never worked in the intelligence field. Obama never served in the US Military. Obama was not involved in any form of operational, strategic, or tactical planning. In fact, Valerie Jarrett advised him to not use personnel, but to do a surgical strike instead. The truth is that US Military Intelligence and CIA personnel have been tracking bin Laden since the late 90s. Given bin Laden's random nature and previous leaks during the Clinton Administration, it took that long to pin HVI #1 down long enough to take action. On VJ's advice (it's obvious she has no international relations of intelligence background), that sort of a strike a few blocks away from a Pakistani Army camp would have been an international incident of epic proportions that could have put us into yet another war.

"Loose Lips Sink Ships". Al-Qaeda Reads the NEW YORK TIMES, too. 17% of the illegals entering Arizona from Mexico come from the Middle East, with at least one in ten of those aligned with Al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group that wants to destroy the US. They sit at Starbucks and listen to people talk. This is the reality of the world we live in.

The security of our nation and protecting the families of those who serve to guard and defend it are not issues for political maneuvering. They are not props for political juggling acts and campaign stunts. They are precious things that must be guarded and protected. Regardless of political affiliation, like the members of OPSEC, I will openly chastise anybody who uses these things as political props thus placing our country in jeopardy.  

Gauntlet Thown Down -- MMfA Claims SEALs 'Gutless'

Billboard on I-35 in Texas Courtesy of San Antonio TEA Party

Some US Navy SEALs and former members of NSWTU-6 ("SEAL Team 6") have recently come forward with some criticisms over the Obama Administration's handling of several operations, especially the mission to capture/kill Usama bin Laden. The current administration, in their view, was a little too open with the so-called news media concerning the Team as well as other Special Forces Operational Units and their tactics. Some former operators have created a group called "OPSEC", after the US Department of Defense acronym for Operational Security.

For those of us who have served in the military and conducted real-world operations in hostile areas, OPSEC is not a new concept. We know how vital it is to mission success as well as the protection of our forces in harm's way. During World War II, even every day civilians were cautioned that "Loose Lips Sink Ships", cautioning that enemy spies could be anywhere, listening to gossip from the front lines.

When it comes to our more clandestine forces such as NSWTU-6 and 1st SFOD-D ("Delta Force"), OPSEC is even more important. Even the smallest details can lead to information our nation's enemies can piece together to determine the names and locations of family members of those special commandos. Should that happen, our nation loses their capabilities and become largely ineffective until better protective measures can be enacted.

When these heroes spoke out over their concerns, Media Matters For America "Senior Fellow" responded, on Twitter, by calling them "gutless". Yes, he called American Special Commandos "gutless".

Members of OPSEC have responded to the "Senior Fellow"'s statement.

I also responded.

I issued two challenges to that individual.

The first was I challenged him to display his DD Form 214. That form is a record of military service, including all pertinent awards, units assigned, conflicts fought in, and military schooling completed. I am still waiting for a response. My best guess, based upon the data available at this time, is that Mr. Boehlert never served in the military. He must have less guts than those SEALs he called "gutless".

So, I made an easier challenge for the brave Mr. Boehlert. I am not a SEAL or a former SEAL. I am not a current of former operator from any of those units. I am a former Military Intelligence Geek. So, I should be a pushover for Eric. Thus, I challenged him to meet me on the mat. I will wear my gloves and foot-pads for his protection. I even gave him the choice between Gi or No-Gi.

My challenge is for just a friendly sparring match. I have no desire to harm him. For those not familiar with sparring in martial arts, partners have a high level of trust between them. To be willing to spar with an unknown partner requires a high level of courage and confidence in that person. It takes guts.

Just as with the DD214 challenge, I am still waiting for a response. So, now we know where those "gutless" fingers are really pointing.

Arizona Enforcing Laws Obama Disregards/Defers

Miller Canyon, 15 miles north of AZ-Mex border. Photo Copyright P-G Matuszak 2012

 
Arizona is one of four states that directly border Mexico. The mountainous border area in Arizona makes border enforcement difficult and nearly impossible in some regions of the state. The topography of the Arizona border area and the numerous national forest regions stretching throughout the state enable illegal border activity.

Some facts concerning border crossings that many open-borders advocates don't want people to know include the other illegal activities involved with the crossings. Yes, there are those who cross the Arizona border just seeking better employment opportunities and income. Those activities alone include additional felonies. However, there are also the "hidden" activities.

Your "vanilla" illegal border jumper not only breaks US and International laws by crossing the border in an unauthorized manner. Once in the US, they also are involved in identity theft, fraud, and forgery. While they may not falsify documentation or steal identifying information themselves, they are an end-user. They are the demand curve. That documentation is then used to steal US taxpayer money through government handouts, medical costs, and government school enrollments.

However, many of those crossing the borders also bring other contraband. Many "earn" their crossing by paying "coyotes" in trade. The "trade" can be any of multiple activities. The majority carry illegal drugs across the border. Several are even extorted with threats to their families if they fail to do so. Some traffic unregistered and unmarked weapons. These are ones used by other criminals, usually sold on the black market. These are the guns that criminals will still have access to after the anti-second amendment tyrants strip US citizens of their right to bear arms.

A "rape tree" in Southern Arizona (Courtesy of TucsonCitizen.com)

Then you have one of the most disturbing "trades" the illegals use to pay for their crossing:  slavery. Yes, slavery still exists. Some illegals end up in "sweat shops", working for less than minimum wage by "employers" who seek cheap labor while dodging taxes. Others end up as sex-slaves. Along the border, in Arizona, there are "rape trees" where young boys and girls are "broken in". Others are drugged. Others are extorted. However, they end up as prostitutes around the US. The scary fact is that the sex-slavery and human trafficking for that purpose is a two-way road. US Citizens are carted out of the US along these same ratlines, then shipped overseas to be sold into slavery. Some of the illegals brought into the US pay off their passage by aiding in the trafficking of Americans out for this very purpose. It's estimated that at least 30% of the missing US children (many listed as runaways), mostly those 12-16, are victims of this illicit activity. 80% of the victims in the US are female. 50% are pre-teens. The FBI averages 23 arrests of sex-slavers and international human traffickers (for purposes of slavery) a year.



On August 15, 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his deputies conducted their 64th major raid since 2008. the raid included arresting four suspected professional identity thieves directly connected to illegal immigration and human trafficking. The business, Sonoran Doors, located at 21002 N. 19th Ave, Suite 130 in Phoenix, AZ employed several suspected illegal immigrants. A search and audit of their employee records determined many of them were employed on forged documentation and stolen identification information that the four identity thieves assisted the illegal employees in attaining, including helping forge documentation. In Arizona, 80% of illegal immigrants detained have been found involved in identity theft, a felony.

Given the connections between illegal immigration and identity theft, Sheriff Joe cautions that Obama's recent announcement to "defer action" on "child and young" illegals is nothing less than an invitation for increased identity theft. Many of these kids will require stolen identity information and forged documentation such as Social Security cards and Drivers' Licenses in order to attend schools and work in sweat shops (including food service businesses such as smaller fast food franchises). It appears that Obama is not only soft on illegal immigration, but willfully complacent (if not indirectly complicit) in identity theft.

After Obama's announcement that the Federal Executive Branch, responsible for implementation and enforcement of laws passed by Congress, will "defer and delay actions against minors crossing the border", Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed her own executive order. Arizona will not play along with the irresponsible complacency. In fact, Governor Brewer ordered increased enforcement of identity theft and other activities directly linked to illegal immigration. Furthermore, this recent EO reaffirms that illegals will not receive any "public benefits". That includes drivers licenses, food stamps, housing assistance, education benefits, or any other form of benefit. The EO could lead to self-deportation. The only detractor is that illegals can just leave the state of Arizona for a state that is softer on illegal aliens, such as California, Oregon, or Illinois. 

Russian Akula Class Sub Stalks US Undetected

Russian Akula-Class Submarine Hunting Submarine (Courtesy of FAS)

For several weeks, a Russian Akula-Class nuclear submarine stalked US Sovereign waters with impunity.

The Akula-class submarine is designed as a submarine-hunter. Their primary missions are to stalk US Navy ballistic missile submarines and destroy them before they can launch in the case of war. The fact that one could patrol, undetected, for weeks along the US Gulf Coast, within striking distance of Jacksonville, FL and King's Bay, GA, both cities that house large US Naval bases. Among the armament routinely carried by the Akulas are long-range cruise missiles that could have easily created numerous casualties at both these Naval bases from the Gulf.

Meanwhile, nuclear capable Russian bombers (aircraft) crossed into US sovereign airspace near Alaska and California over the Forth of July weekend. There is little doubt that these were planned probes of our national defense capabilities.

Let's recall a few short months ago when Obama told Medevev that he would have more latitude to expose our national defense secrets after his re-election. Obama made his statement believing that the microphone was off. Instead, the world heard his statement and the outgoing Russian president's response: . "I will transmit this information to Vladamir" (Spawning great T-shirts and Bumper Stickers).

These events come not long after the UN's failed attempt to strip the US of our Second Amendment through a treaty. They come as Obama attempts to campaign on reducing federal spending by starting with cuts to national defense. The first cuts usually go to training funds and intelligence programs. For those who weren't paying attention in the late 1990s, intelligence programs were cut back by the Clinton administration. Cross-agency communications became muddled and encumbered. Then on September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda initiated their forth major attack against the US, this time attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon rather than a couple of embassies and a US Naval vessel.

We knew that Obama was willing to play soft with the Russians. However, this latest breach of national security demonstrates he is more than just willing to play soft -- he is willing to let other countries use the US as a punching bag and a tackle-dummy.

Yes, our federal government needs to cut out wasteful spending. They need to trim back on the unnecessary bureaucratic offices. They need to quit spending money in areas in which the federal government has no authority nor responsibility to waste our tax money. They need to stop spending money taking care of criminals who illegally entered our country. They need to stop throwing money to those who would rather live off of the fruits of others' labors. The last place the government needs to cut spending is in the area of national defense. Our intelligence personnel are our first line of defense, since they are the ones looking for any possible threats. Pearl Harbor taught us that we cannot fight a threat we do not know to be there. (In the case of Pearl Harbor, it was the threat nobody high in FDR's administration would listen to the intelligence personnel who detected the pending attack).

These latest incursions and Obama's lack of response is demonstrative of the fact he wants the US militarily weak and ripe for attack by our enemies. Like Jimmy Carter did as a Naval Officer, Obama is running our Naval capabilities to ground. However, he is also grounding our Air Force and arming our Army and Marines with Nerf Reactor Ball Blasters.

This leaves me, a former intelligence analyst, with one question to my compatriots still in the fight:  Who is jumping up in down in their SCIF right now screaming "I Told You So!"?  I want to buy you a beer.

Joey Biden Thinks Deregulation Equals Slavery

"Keep cheering me on, my useful idiots"

In a recent speech, Joe Biden decided to once again infect his tongue with athlete's foot fungus. The feat was attempted with a further feat of gymnastic prowess as he did so while in a state of rectal-cranial inversion. This is just the latest of Biden's gaffes that demonstrates the desperation in the socialist party salons -- forcing them to reveal their complete lack of reason. 

In the speech in Danville, VA, a town that is approximately 50% black, he stated that those individuals, allegedly like Mitt Romney, who wish to reduce government intervention into private enterprises do so with the intent of enslaving special tribal collectives of stereotyped people. Biden went further to state that freeing people and businesses from the shackles of prosperity-killing over-taxation would result in those same shackles having to go someplace.

President Lincoln would strongly disagree. So would have Moses. Moses didn't tell Pharaoh to put the chains onto somebody else. Lincoln in signing the Emancipation Proclamation didn't order others be enslaved to replace those freed. So why does Joey Biden want his useful idiots to believe that shackles need  to be on anybody? 

Those on the left do not see people as individuals who can succeed, or fail, on their own merits. They see people as groups categorized by some identifying characteristic such as skin color or ancestral language. Joe Biden's illogical, unreasonable, and ludicrous claim just demonstrates even more how ignorant the left believes individual Americans are. Those who believe his statement just prove him right; not in the truth of his statement but in his belief in your ignorance.

The truth is that deregulation is the removal of shackles placed upon individuals by a tyrannic government seeking to restrict, confine, subjugate, and  enslave. Perhaps that is what the lazy, less educated, handout junkies want. Perhaps they want those who produce, succeed, invest, and seek prosperity to be enslaved.

Another truth is should Romney and other capitalist-minded US Constitution followers seek some level of deregulation, it will never be a complete deregulation. Some restrictions may be lifted, yes. That will enable opportunity and growth for those who wish to take the risks. However, a complete deregulation would lead to unethical and dangerous activities. The necessary regulations and government involvement will still remain. For example, the government and its judicial branch will continue to enforce lawful contracts and prosecute fraud. They will also keep regulations and laws against insider trading, to keep the market fair and from being artificially inflated. Doing so is more than reasonable. It is necessary to protect individuals' investments and retirement accounts, to include those of the very legislators. It also protects those 401k and 403b pension accounts most Americans accrue.

When looking at deregulation, look towards Ronald Reagan. President Reagan pushed for several deregulation programs as well as the busting of several unions. Among those unions was the Air Traffic Controllers' union. However, one of the most successful deregulation programs also busted up the monopoly AT&T held on telecommunications. Because of that deregulation, we now have choices for cell phone service, DSL services, internet providers,  Android Tablets with 3G or 4G, Kindles, Nooks, Kindle Fires, etc. Because of that deregulation, you now have a choice between an iPhone or an Android. Because of that deregulation, you can choose between Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, Cricket, and several smaller cellular service providers. Had Reagan not deregulated telecommunications, we'd all be stuck with AT&T's crappy service.

More choice is liberty. It is options for personal accountability and responsibility. It is opportunity. Deregulation means more choice, more options. It is the exact opposite of slavery. It is a removal of those invisible shackles. However, Joey Biden is either too ignorant to know the facts, or he believes you are too ignorant to pay attention to reason and logic. Then again, he believes that his voter base consists of a few elites and whole collectives of "lesser, lower, little people". In reality, he wants Americans  enslaved and dependent upon the government.

No thank you. I'm a big boy. My parents raised me correctly. I can take care of myself. How about you?

Left Reveals Insanity After Ryan VP Announcement

Saturday morning Willard "Mitt" Romney announced his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan.

Since the announcement, the ludicrous and ridiculous (not to mention unfounded) attacks against Ryan have come in a constant deluge. The claims, most intended as serious, have devolved into days of unintended self-deprecating parody conducted by the left.

Among those making a mockery of themselves is DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. DWS has gone head to head against Ryan over the PPACA and budget plans numerous times over the past three years. Each time, Ryan has used what the left considers an illegal WMD:  facts. Ryan used the actual numbers crunched by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and other non-partisan government bureaucracy bean counters. Again, Debbie has come out against Ryan and demonstrated she didn't bother to read any studies.

Then you had the unfounded allegations that Ryan participated in insider trading like Nancy Pelosi did taking IPOs from lobbyists. Not only did these allegations from devout leftist propagandists such as Matthew Yglesias prove unfounded, they proved to be more tied to Sheldon Whitehouse. 

Now the "grandma-tossers" are coming out of the woodwork, trying to re-engage that failed meme. In various social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter, the uneducated are at it again. In fact, the deluge of those who obviously have not read the legislation or paid attention to any actual numbers have brought allegations that, like Neal Rauhauser's Beandogs, these people are being paid to do so. Among the hard facts concerning Ryan's budget, the only thing the leftist demagogues feel (they don't think) they can attack, is that the Medicare portion does not affect anybody currently over 55.

Andrew Biggs wrote a comprehensive study of the Ryan legislation. Extracting from that study, James Pethokoukis gives a great 100-word bomb that destroys all the left's inaccurate talking points concerning Ryan's budget plans.

Ryan's plan does have problems. One of them is that it will take a projected 30 years to balance the budget. The second is that it does not cut spending, just retards spending increases. Libertarians and many TEA Party activists would rather a more aggressive plan that cuts actual government spending and reduces the bloated bureaucracy. However, the Ryan Plan is a start. It is far better than anything else that has been proposed in recent years. In addition, it stands to gain more votes in congress than Obama's abysmal attempts at a budget, which received zero votes in congress. 

Meanwhile, the truth is that it is Obama and his socialist sycophants that want to toss grandma off a cliff and under a speeding freight train:




It has become more and more apparent that the leftist demagogues and their useful idiots need to head to the local library. The library has books for Second through Sixth grades that teach basic math skills. The library also has books to assist in learning how to read. Then again, we know that they don't read. If they did, how many of them would have still voted for the PPACA if they had read it?

Three Dead in Texas A & M Shooting (Expect Anti-Gun Spin to Resume)

Constable Brain Bachman, Killed in firefight in near the Texas A&M Football Stadium

The afternoon of Monday, August 13, 2012 met with another in what seems to be a national outbreak in bizarre shootings. At the Texas A & M University in College Station, TX, a gunman engaged in a battle with local police. The shootout resulted in one dead civilian, one dead police officer (Constable Brian Bachman, pictured above), and the shooter himself. At least 2 other police officers were injured, and one female bystander was last reported entering emergency surgery. Other injuries and casualties were also reported.

As of the writing of this article, not much more is known. The local police caution that the gunman may not have been operating alone and may have accomplices still at large. The nature of the incident and its cause are still not known. The motivation for the shooting is still obscure. Some of the injured have been treated and had non-life-threatening injuries. Others are in surgery. Three are currently confirmed dead, including the shooter.

What we do know is the firefight broke out when a local constable attempted to serve eviction paperwork.

What can be surmised from analyzing the pattern of the publicized, mass, public shootings over the past few years is that mainstream media pundits are itching to blame this, a shooting in Texas, as a result of relaxed infringements upon the Second Amendment. Texas is known as a rather conservative state. A.long with Georgia, citizens of Texas are stereotyped as gun-toting hicks who shoot empty whiskey bottles in their back yards during weekend barbecues.

If one watches the movie, "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil", one of the more startling caricatures occurs when, during a dinner party, several Savannah southerners, including one southern belle of some esteem, proudly display their firearms. Most who concealed carry are not so flagrant in displaying their firearms. The scene is truly not an honest depiction of your average Georgian gun owner.

I recently moved to Texas from Arizona. Texas is not that supportive of Second Amendment Rights. For one thing, you need a permit to carry concealed. You do not in Arizona. In Texas, open carry is still not allowed (from what I have seen in the laws -- if this is not correct, somebody please send me a link to the law stating so). In Arizona, open carry has been allowed for decades.

But non-Texans still see Texas as a state filled with gun-toting hicks. Texas Governor Rick Perry ran for the Republican nomination for President. Texas has taken steps to increase voter integrity and fight voter fraud. Texas is a "right to work" state. Texas has taken its own steps to close the border despite US Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Presidential Executive Policies that refuse to do so. That and Operation Fast and Furious issues put Texas "on the radar".

The above will most likely be spun all over the Lamestream media and NPR over the next few days to be some other right-wing crazy. they did the same with the last two major shootings.

Recall the tragic shooting in Aurora, CO a few weeks ago. That gunman was quickly labeled as a "Tea Party Nutcase". After investigation, it was found that the shooter was not a member of the TEA Party. He also was a left-winger.

The last shooting, at the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, was done by a former US Soldier. That soldier was ejected from the military with a general (less than an honorable) discharge. He was not a "normal" soldier. He was booted out for having a few screws loose as well as being a bit of a discipline case. The Army, it turns out, made the right decision in kicking him many years ago. The shooter turned out to be a white supremacist and a neo-Nazi. For those who failed their basic civics classes on the political spectrum, Nazis are very much left wingers. They believe in collectivism and socialism over individual merits. Yet, the lamestream media tried to spin that kooky left-wing racist as another "right-wing gun nut". Again, they got the story wrong.

Now, in College Station, we have a dead policeman. He was shot by a criminal. The criminal was also shot and killed. So was an innocent bystander (shot by the criminal). This was not an act done by a law-abiding citizen. The arguments for stricter gun control are moot. Criminals who want weapons will pay no attention to any laws in their efforts to acquire them. If there were tougher laws, such as the UN-Proposed ATT Small Arms Treaty that is part of the Agenda-21 treaties, were in place, this criminal would have, more than likely, still had some form of weapon. It probably would have still been a firearm. He may have had to pay more for it on the black market. However, the laws and the treaty would not have stopped him.

Of course, this begs the question of how far this would have gone if law abiding citizens were allowed to concealed carry on college campuses. Perhaps one or two fewer people would be dead. Since that is not the case, we cannot know.

A Lay Look At VP Candidate Paul Ryan

The Morning of Saturday, August 11, 2012, Republican Presidential Candidate announced his running mate:  Paul Ryan, the US Representative from Wisconsin's 1st US Congressional District.

Wisconsin is a "purple" or "swing" state that was steeped in political drama over the past year. The citizens of Wisconsin challenged the results of their last regular gubernatorial election and chose to recall Governor Scott Walker. Governor Walker, along with his Lt. Governor and a few state legislators went back to the polls. They were challenged to retain their elected offices. The voters' voices made it clear that Scott Walker, his Lt. Gov. and the majority of those challenged state legislators were Wisconsin's choice. They survived the recall. In fact, Walker and his Lt. won by larger margins than they did in the initial elections.

Wisconsin remains, largely, a "swing" state, though. There is a large socialist-dominated union presence in the state. Like most states, the larger urban areas, such as Milwaukee, are filled with blue-dog democrats and socialists who oppose smaller government and fiscal responsibility.

Paul Ryan helps swing Wisconsin more towards a Republican win for the state. Along with the endorsements of Scott Walker and his Lt. Gov., Ryan on the ticket could very well secure the state for the Romney.

That leaves other swing states out there still swinging. Ohio, the largest of the swing states, could still go either way. Selecting a running mate from Ohio may have made more sense. Ryan is an effective public speaker. He goes to the podium armed with facts, logic, and reason. He is straightforward. So, he could still have a positive influence on Ohio. Only time will tell.

Florida is also still swinging, though it is starting to sway more towards the conservative end. Marco Rubio and LTC West are working diligently to assist. Ryan and Wasserman-Schultz have gone head to head over the budget, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security reforms. Each time, DWS comes out swinging blindly with made-up numbers and emotive rhetoric. When confronted with actual numbers, though, she balks and says "those aren't true" without any ability to present facts to the contrary. DWS is also deep in a battle with Karen Harrington. Her clout is waning as her lack of knowledge and reason now obvious. With these circumstances, Romney's selection of Ryan will not negatively affect the outcome in Florida. 

With the Senate failing to pass a budget during the entirety of the Obama Administration, Ryan could very well push and influence the Senate to do its job. Many people fail to realize that the primary job of the VP is to sit as the "president of the Senate". He will get a vote only in the case of a tie. However, the VP has a large say in what legislation makes it to the floor for a vote in the first place. Joe Biden has spent the past 3+ years defaulting his responsibility to Harry Reid. If challenged on his performance, Joe-boy has a hard fight ahead of him. Given his record in the House, Ryan would actually do this job.

Many Libertarians and so-called "Reagan Democrats" have some issues with Ryan. The Libertarians are not too keen on some of Ryan's stances on such things as legalizing Marijuana and national security topics. Libertarians want to have every military service member not actively engaged in a declared war to be stationed in the US. They don't believe in forward garrisons, stability support operations, and other military actions necessary to our national defense. They also feel that Ryan's various budget plans don't cut enough spending and government intrusion into private business.

On the other side, the "Reagan Democrats" and Blue-Doggers, who see that the old Democratic Party has strayed more towards the far-left in the direction of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Marx, may now be more difficult to sway in Romney's direction. many of them think that Ryan's budget proposals go too far. More die-hard conservatives laugh at that idea, since the plan does very little to cut spending, and is just an effort to cut spending increases. (Basically, the Ryan plan sort of says "we are going to spend more next year, but we we'll not increase that spending as much as we did last year"). However, many of those in this category are now seeing that the PPACA is not the rainbows and unicorns Nancy Pelosi promised. So, Ryan's proposals for healthcare related reforms are appealing.

Ryan was a surprising choice. However, "surprising" is not negative. A good surprise party can be a great event. A surprise gift can turn out to be one of the more sentimentally valuable ones you ever receive. Ryan was one of those surprises. Given his track record, he could do well both in the job and at the voting booth in an effort to secure that office.

Summer Recess -- Where are your Congressmen?

It's mid-August. Do you know where your congressmen and senators are?

Congress is in recess. The Senate went into recess on August 6th and will remain in recess until September 7th. The House of Representatives went into recess even earlier, on August 4th, and will remain in recess until September 9th. That leaves just over one week in-session for both houses until Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) begins on October 1, 2012. They do so without a FY13 budget passed.

Unless they pass a budget in those 8-10 days, there will be no FY13 budget. That will mean that no budget will have been passed during the entire first (and hopefully only) Obama Administration.

Fingers may be pointed at the Republican majority in the House. However, the Democrats enjoyed a majority in both houses dating back to the Bush-43 Administration until January 2011. Since January 2011, the House of Representatives has passed several budget bills. However, the Democrat-stacked Senate has failed to do so.

Obama seems fine with not having a budget. To him, that means he is left with a general power of attorney on all of Mom and Dad's finances. It means he can take out a second and third mortgage on the house, sell the cars, max out the credit cards, and empty out all savings and retirement accounts without being accountable (or responsible) for one red cent. Mom and Dad (the US Taxpayers) will still be stuck with all of the bills (and absolute bankruptcy and resulting destitution).

And where are our elected legislators? Approximately 1/3 of the Senate is campaigning. Most of the House is campaigning. The purpose for the recess is not to campaign. It is to be in their respective states, meeting with the constituents (and meeting with the governor and state legislative houses in the cases of US Senators) to work on bringing the needs and views of the states back to the US Congress.

Most constituents are concerned with the economy. Those who own businesses want to see a more stable, predictable, and responsible federal spending program. They want reasonable regulations from executive bureaucracies. They want a better taxation system. The common member of the workforce wants fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and the government to get out of the way of businesses that seek to grow, thus creating jobs or increasing income opportunities.

And many of the federal legislators are campaigning on those subjects.

One of my favorite Generals to quote is a man named Dick Formica. One of his best quips is "Talking ain't doing. Doing is Doing". That is what the legislators are violating. By being out campaigning, they are talking about what they promise to do.

Without a budget, a FY13 NDAA passed, and other key and long-overdue pieces of legislation still pending, they left their sessions without doing their jobs. Fingers need to be put in their chests. They need to justify what they have, in fact, done. They need to be held accountable for their voting records. Those ion the house who passed a budget did their jobs. Those in the Senate who voted against those budgets that passed the House did not. It does not matter whether Caesar Obamas would sign or veto the budget. If they passed it, then the picture would be clear on why we seem to be going with the first Presidential administration ever to not pass a single budget.

The President of the Senate is also the Vice President of the US, Joe Biden. In the Senate not passing a budget for what appears to now include four fiscal years, the weight falls fully on his shoulders. He should have told the Senate that they would not recess until one was passed for FY13.

If Ronald Reagan were in office, he would have directed G.W.H. Bush to do just that, even if it were a budget he may not like. If Reagan were in office today, he may have Art Laffer and Steve Moore look over the budget and FY13 tax proposals before signing them. But Congress would not be out campaigning and taking family trips to Disney World without a budget passed.

It's time to pull up those voting records for the last 6 years, for those state senators. It's time to pull up the past 2-4 years of voting records for those Representatives. It's time to meet them at their campaign events and ask them point-blank why they have failed to pass a budget since 2008 (for FY09). Then, it is time to ask those Senators why they are out campaigning instead of in DC and doing the jobs we hired them to do.

This is why we need a Balanced Budget Amendment that dictates that Congress pass a balanced budget annually, at least 90 days prior to the start of any fiscal year. There should be a clause in the amendment that states that legislators are docked pay if no budget is passed by that time.