Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Terrorist Allowed to Become a US Citizen - My Thoughts

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21081443-chicago-woman-hid-terrorist-past-on-citizenship-application-say-feds

In case you didn’t follow the link to the actual news article, the basic facts are this: a woman who committed an act of terror years ago lied on her application for citizenship to the U.S. and it was granted.

After reading this article, I wondered, who is stupid enough to ask “why did she not disclose her terrorist past?” The article quotes William Hayes (acting special agent in charge for Homeland Security in Detroit) as saying, “The United States will never be a safe haven for individuals seeking to distance themselves from their pasts.” Wow! A powerful statement if it actually had any meaning. Apparently, Homeland Security is working hard at keeping terrorists out of this country by asking them if they are in fact a terrorist. If they answer “no”, then they MUST be telling the truth, so we let them in. Why would we want to check into their past to see if they might be lying? I’m sure if we asked all of the illegal immigrants in this country, “are you an illegal immigrant?” they would all answer “yes” because the fear of being deported or prosecuted would never make them lie. And why would they lie? It’s not like they broke the law by coming here without the proper visas and documentation that are required. Oh, wait, that IS what makes them illegal. So if you’re willing to break the law to enter a country illegally, would you also be willing to lie on your application for citizenship? OK, who needs time to think about their answer? Anyone?

In the particular case reported in the article, the woman lied on her immigration papers to come to this country. And then she lied on her application for citizenship. Why are we surprised that she lied? She was willing to commit terrorist acts, but we think lying is so bad that we don’t expect her to do it? Since when was lying worse than killing people? The more I think about this, the more I wonder if the root of our immigration problems is that we are so afraid of offending someone by questioning their statements that we just believe every word out of that person’s mouth. But then I have to wonder, since our current administration is so weak on existing immigration law, are they also willing to let everyone into this country regardless of any danger they might pose? If they are going to allow illegal immigrants to stay by NOT enforcing the most basic laws currently on the books, why would they enforce the stricter immigration laws that would prevent terrorists from entering this country? We aren't allowed to ask the hard questions or check into someone’s past because that is “racial profiling”. I also wonder why we have people fill out paperwork to become U.S. citizens in the first place when anyone can come into the country illegally without any sort of repercussions? Filling out paperwork just creates another government job that costs the taxpayer more money when the government has no plan to prosecute someone who is here illegally anyway. So until the time where being a “legal” citizen has meaning, we are just wasting money and time “processing” people through the legal channels. If the current president gets his way, he will just declare all illegal immigrants to be legal, so why bother filling out the paperwork?

I said this before, I am in favor of immigration. However, those who truly want to become citizens of our country have the obligation to follow our laws and will have to “earn” the right to become a citizen. Those who are willing to do that deserve to become citizens, but those who are not, should be sent back to where they came from.

Friday, October 18, 2013

Marriage - my thoughts


Today, I decided to go a different route with my thoughts. A picture was posted on Facebook that got me thinking. It was a picture of an old couple and it read, “A reporter asked the couple, how did you manage to stay together for 65 years? The woman replied ‘We were born in a time when if something was broken we would fix it, not throw it away...’”

I could only think about how right she is. I was not born during that period of time, but I am happily married for almost 27 years, how did WE keep it together all that time? We had our ups and downs like everyone else. We have gone through sickness, loss of jobs, a major car accident, children and so many other things. What keeps us together?

In the beginning stages of marriage, we experience “infatuation.” This is the feeling that your partner can do no wrong. There isn’t anything they can do or say that bothers you. We have all talked to people while they are in this stage, and the sugar that runs from their mouths is just so sickening sweet, you want to vomit. I don’t know why we feel that way, because we have all been THAT person and made our friends want to barf. This is the stage we all wish would stay around forever. We can’t eat, we can’t sleep, we can’t concentrate. Our world revolves around this new person in our lives. Guess what? That stage eventually dies down. Don’t get me wrong, I still have moments when I look at my wife and it rekindles the fires of infatuation and I am riding high and again hope it never ends. But we cannot maintain that state forever, because it’s not real.

The second stage of marriage is when we start to notice that this person we love so much actually has some flaws. It can be just a little thing, but when repeated over and over, begins to grate on our nerves. Perhaps it’s in the way they pronounce a certain word. You know it’s wrong and during the infatuation period, it seemed so cute, but now, it just seems like it needs to be fixed or you’re likely to scream. It’s ok to feel this way. An example in my case is that I never put the toilet seat down. In the beginning that was ok, after all, love conquers all! But after a while, it became an issue. Just a little background, I grew up in a house of all boys. Putting the seat down wasted a lot of people’s time. But NOW, I’m sharing a bathroom with someone I love deeply, and she is asking me to make a change. So do I change the way I’ve done something my whole life, or do I stand and fight for doing things the way I want and make HER change? I can easily argue that she just needs to look before sitting down. (Those who have been married for a while will probably say this is so minor, why use it as an example? I do it just to illustrate a point. ANYTHING can be an issue, big or small. We all have something that gets under our skin and we are going to have to deal with it. Too many people keep their mouths shut on little things and when the big things come along, it only adds to what has not yet been resolved. It has been said that the way you do anything, is the way you will do everything. So if you won’t talk about the little things, you won’t talk about the big things either.) Back to my example… what I decided to do about the toilet seat was make the change in myself. I decided that since it was not a “life or death” situation. I could change because my love for her is greater than my need to do things my way. Again, a very minor situation, but later in life when the big things came along, we handled them the same way.

The third stage of marriage, I have heard called “the stage of misery.” Sounds ever so sexy, doesn’t it? This is the stage when you wonder, why did I ever get married in the first place? I heard about this stage during pre-marital counseling. The counseling was required by the pastor who married us, and it was eye-opening to say the least. I recommend ALL couples go through it and actually pay attention, because what is being taught is real, no matter how much you believe you and your intended spouse think you’re different. But the point of the counseling is to say, this stage will come, and half of all marriages fall apart at this time. After learning about the “misery” stage, we were told, here’s how to shorten this period and survive it. Guess what, we actually listened during the counseling and when this period came in our marriage, we talked about it, wrestled with it, and it passed very quickly. I hate when people say we were “lucky” that our marriage lasted so long. There was no luck involved. It was nothing short of being completely committed to figuring out what to do during the hard times and putting in the work to make it happen. One key to our success is that we took divorce off the table before we got married. So if divorce is not an option, you are forced to find other ways to go at the problems. As long as divorce is an option, you leave the door wide open to the idea of avoiding putting in some hard work. And never forget, marriage is work. It is very rewarding work at that. And yes, it can be very hard at times, but the rewards are great for staying with it.

I don’t remember what the 4th and 5th stages are called, but it is when love actually becomes mature. You made it through the hard times and now it’s a matter of happily living out the rest of your days with the one you love. Nothing is going to tear you apart short of death.

I can hear the critics already saying, but what if the person I married changed after we got married? Or what if he beats his wife? Or my spouse is so selfish and won’t work on our marriage? Or my spouse had an affair? Ok, first of all, I don’t believe EVERY divorce is wrong. Some marriages SHOULD end. I would never advocate a woman staying in an abusive marriage. Or if one partner refuses to work at the marriage that it’s all on the other. We all know couples that have been together 50 years and were never happy. They are proud to have “stuck it out”, but I believe marriage should be joyful, not miserable. So what I AM saying, is that 50% of all marriages ending in divorce is simply not acceptable. Divorce should be rare, not an everyday occurrence. I am not a marriage counselor. I do not claim to have all the answers. I can only speak from my own experience. Earlier I gave the example of the toilet seat. Most people reading this probably thought it was so insignificant that they ignored it. Well, I think it is more significant than it appears. I think my wife and I got through the really tough times because we talked about the little things first. Those little things that may have bothered you but seemed too petty to bring up, actually gave us practice on how we would eventually handle the big things. When a little thing bothered one of us, we talked about it. If it was bigger, we talked about it. If it was huge, we talked about it. Holding it in, only allows it to fester and grow. If you couldn’t talk about it while it was small, how will you talk about it when it’s big and ugly?

Now that I’ve said my piece, I want to finish by saying that I am an advocate of teaching young people how to live for others and stop focusing on themselves. The first step to a successful marriage is to focus on making your spouse happy. If I focus on my wife’s happiness, and she focuses on mine, we will both be happy. Not just happy, but happy beyond what we could possibly imagine. I don’t mean thinking, “If I do this nice thing for her, I get in return…” I mean, “I am going to do this nice thing for no reason other than I love her.” What ends up coming back is far greater than what you could have planned for. So if you teach your children nothing else, teach them to live for other people and not just for themselves.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Obama's Spending Record - my thoughts

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577450910257188398.html

I have been reading about Obama’s spending record. What I found so hard is that there is no longer an actual un-biased news source for American’s to trust. Those in favor of Obama will only read left leaning news and those who oppose him will only read right leaning news. I found what I call the most un-biased news sources, and even those two sources disagree on the numbers.

What sparked my interest is that Obama is claiming that spending under his regime has risen at the slowest pace in the last 60 years. A left leaning news source made this claim and apparently Obama took advantage of it to toot his own horn. On the other hand, many right leaning news sources are claiming that his spending is out of control. The GOP jumped on that in a heartbeat. And then, several other news sources took on the challenge of figuring out actual numbers to see if Obama’s or the GOP’s claims were accurate.

In the end, what I found is that no one was able to agree whether some of the massive spending should be accounted to Bush or if it should be accounted to Obama. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), however, lumped the two Presidents together as the two administrations who took spending to new heights. I have to agree that between both of them, spending went out of control. But because one is a Republican and the other a Democrat, everyone wants to blame one or the other, not both. This is also supported by the news media. Since news is no longer unbiased, there is no way to get accurate information. The purpose of the news today is to divide the country into factions in order to continue creating more news. In turn this makes money for the news industry.

In my opinion, the WSJ got it right. We can’t blame just one President. Spending is often attributed to the President, but in actuality, spending bills come from Congress with the President’s approval. Bush, a Republican, was dealing with a Democratic controlled congress. So if Bush overspent, he had Democratic support to do so. Obama, a Democrat, had a Democratic controlled House when he passed Obamacare. This is one of the biggest spending bills of all time, but it is not accounted for yet, because it is just getting started and the spending has not yet begun. He is now dealing with a Republican dominated House. They have fought him all the way as far as spending goes. So he claims to be spending at a lower pace, but the House is actually reigning him in and not “allowing” him to spend more, plus Obamacare spending has not yet begun. There was additional billions requested by Obama that the House never approved. So should he be taking all the credit for not spending too much?

The second item where I think the WSJ gets it right, is that Bush gave out billions in bailout money (the spending obviously attributed to him), but when the funds were paid back, they were attributed to Obama as income against spending. This actually skews the numbers of actual spending. So the accounting of who spent what is not clear at all. Depending on your news source of choice, you will hear nothing more than an opinion of who is doing the spending, it will not be legitimate news. The left leaves out the facts that make the President look bad, while the right leaves out the facts that make him look good.

As I see it, we need to stop trying to figure out who to blame for our problems and get to the business of running the country and solving the problems we have. We also need politicians to stop campaigning by passing laws just to gain votes. And while I’m on that subject, we need politicians to live by the laws they pass, both Congress and the President. They do not participate in Social Security, Obamacare, Pensions for Federal employees, etc. They have systematically exempted themselves from having to suffer like the rest of us every time they make a decision. When was the last time Congress proposed a spending cut that included reducing their salary? They’ve made cuts to the pensions of Federal employees, but they have income FOR LIFE because they “served” our country as congressmen and women. I put the word “served” in quotes, because I believe most of them are “serving” themselves and not the interests of the country. They draw a full salary FOR LIFE even if they only served one term. When I retire after being on the job for 45 years, will I continue drawing the same salary as when I was working? Not at all! I don’t think that’s a realistic expectation for any job, unless you’re in Congress where “realistic” doesn’t really exist.

So let’s get back to solving our problems. We have a spending problem. I don’t care who caused it, I just want it fixed. We have an unemployment problem. Again, I don’t care who’s to blame, make it better. Our economy sucks, get it back on track. What the politicians know is that if they make their constituents happy, they will get re-elected. So they propose bills that give away free stuff as a means to getting there. All that free stuff costs money and contributes to our climbing national debt. What they don’t understand, is that if they made actual lasting changes, such as improving the economy, reducing unemployment, and reducing our spending, they will not only get re-elected, as an added bonus, a thriving economy means tax revenues will also climb, allowing them to spend more money on our actual remaining problems, perpetuating them into a lifelong career.

As a bonus, I found this article written many years ago that talks about the "tax and spend" method for prosperity. Very good reading: http://mises.org/daily/3637/

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Students are told that the Bill of Rights is “outdated” and must be “revised” - my thoughts



http://www.infowars.com/sixth-grade-assignment-destroy-the-bill-of-rights/

As I read the actual instructions of the assignment, I viewed it as an adult with many years of experience under my belt. On the surface, it first sets up a fictional scenario of the government trying to revisit and “update” the Bill of Rights. Seems harmless enough from THAT viewpoint. But let’s look at what is really going on.

First, consider that the audience is NOT a group of adults who actually know enough to say it is strictly fictional. The audience is a group of 6th graders who very likely are hearing about the Bill of Rights for the first time. The instructions do not tell the children what the purpose of the Bill of Rights were or why they were written in the first place. I can only assume that they had some previous study on this topic before the assignment was made. But based on the assignment, we don’t know how “accurate” the material they studied may have been. Anyway, they are to study the Bill of Rights and make changes as they see fit. Based on what? Their limited life experience as a child?

Second, they are given the PATRIOT Act as a guide, another document they may have very limited experience with. It does not mention whether or not the children know that parts of the PATRIOT Act were struck down in court for being unconstitutional because they violated the Bill of Rights. If I were a cynic, I would say the teacher probably doesn’t know that little fact.

Let’s see if I remember my history correctly. The Bill of Rights was written and adopted around 1789. This was some years after the Revolutionary war. One of the reasons for writing it was because a group of people feared that the “new” American government would be just a bad as the “old” British government. The document outlines the rights of people (who have them simply because they are human beings created by God) that cannot be taken away by the government. It is not a document that says the government is “granting” or “allowing” its citizens to have them. I’m saying it was written for the purpose of assuring its citizens that they are free to live life without interference from the government. It was written at a time of peace by the people who fought for freedom. The men who wrote it were of a mind of minimal government.

On the other hand, the PATRIOT Act was written out of fear. I believe it is an over-reaction to the events of 9/11/2001. The act takes away rights we have as citizens in an effort to “protect” the country from future terror attacks. It was written at a time when people were still in shock from all that happened on American soil, not only the terror attacks on the Trade Center and Pentagon, but the anthrax attacks that soon followed. It was introduced as “if you vote against this bill, you are voting for terror.” Its very name, which is actually an acronym, suggests that you can’t vote against it or else you’re a traitor. The bill was introduced and passed in October, less than two months after the attacks. With people still in shock and having fear for their lives, the Act was passed ignoring the unconstitutionality of so many of its provisions. Since so many that make up the legislature are lawyers, I would think most of them should have known better. But it didn’t matter.

My belief is that the PATRIOT Act was a knee-jerk reaction that sounded good at the time. Since time has passed, perhaps the PATRIOT Act should be revisited and revised with the Bill of Rights as a guide to changing it. I think that may be a better assignment for the children since our laws are weighed against the Bill of Rights when challenged. We could actually teach them how the process works.

Monday, October 7, 2013

Illegal immigrants allowed to get valid driver's licenses - my thoughts


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57605943/california-oks-giving-drivers-licenses-to-illegal-immigrants/

So the governor of California signs a law allowing an illegal immigrant to get a valid driver’s license. Since I read this article early yesterday morning, I’ve been thinking non-stop about it. I can’t even begin to wrap my head around where to begin commenting on this because it makes a type of sense that’s not. The best I can do is list out what has been bothering me about it and comment on it as I go. So here’s what I found.

First of all, what strikes me is that the license is marked to signify that this person is an illegal immigrant. Latino groups are upset by the fact that the license says they are illegally in this country because it may lead to racial profiling. Well, yeah, it will. How is that a problem? My understanding is that federal law requires law enforcement officers to arrest illegal immigrants and get the Immigration Department involved to deport these people. After all, they entered the country illegally and by law, must be sent back to where they came from. If my understanding is correct, then this new law actually contradicts the previous law and somehow one of them needs to be struck down by the courts. So why is no one challenging the new law? Or the old law?

Second, the governor says that in order to get the license, you have to pass the written driver’s test. He explains that this is supposed to make the streets safer because the owner of the license will be familiar with the laws of our roads. How about the laws of our country, specifically the ones that state how to enter the country in a legal way? Perhaps that needs to be part of the driver’s test. Here’s a thought, if we deport illegal immigrants, they won’t be on our roads in the first place. Wouldn’t that make the streets safer?

Third, the reporter who wrote this article interviewed a man who came out to witness the signing of the law. He is here illegally and was very happy because now his two daughters who are also here illegally can now obtain a driver’s license to legally be driving to and for work. The one daughter has a job driving a food truck (roach coach as we called them years ago). So this says to me, she came here illegally, she obtained a job illegally (no social security number), she is driving illegally, she is not paying taxes (also illegal), and now she will be able to get pulled over by police and she can continue her illegal activities because no one is able to do anything about her status. And while I’m thinking about it, if she gets pulled over, she was most likely doing something illegal to warrant it. Just saying.

As I look over my previous comments, I realize that this new law actually ties the hands of the police to enforce the very laws they were sworn to uphold. I have so much respect for our law enforcement officers that I actually feel sorry for them because our leaders have reduced the law to a way to campaign for voters. The governor who signed this law is reported to be popular with Latino voters, who are primary supporters of the law. In California, Latinos are a major voting block and by signing this law, he is promoting himself as the candidate to vote for within that group. Call me a cynic, but shouldn’t someone be yelling “foul” and looking for a way to get this guy out of office? You can say that will be up to the voters, but he just got into bed with a strong voting block by being allowed to sign the law in the first place. How will he get voted out, if he can use the law to gain voters?

Perhaps those reading this can understand where my difficulty in trying to even begin making any sense of any of it comes from. I have tried to imagine any condition where this new law would make sense and I can’t. I am at a complete loss as to how giving a valid driver’s license to an illegal immigrant is a good thing. Don’t get me wrong, I am completely in favor of immigration, but there are laws written as to how that is to be done. If we are going to take the time to write laws, perhaps we should actually consider following them. If we disagree with a particular law, then there is a process to repeal them. Since when is it ok for a politician to ignore current law just because they don’t like it?

8 year old suspended because he had an imaginary gun



A little boy is suspended from school because he is playing cops and robbers with his friends and uses his finger as an imaginary gun. WOW! How can anyone have a problem with this?

I don’t know about you, but as for me and my brothers, we played cops and robbers as kids. We carried all sorts of imaginary weaponry in our imaginary arsenal. The most popular weapon we used was an imaginary pistol made by pointing our index finger at our target and using the thumb as the imaginary hammer to fire the imaginary bullet. What made it so realistic was the “BANG!” sound created by our vocal chords. I actually caused my brothers to obtain imaginary injuries and on occasion, an imaginary death. I was an awesome imaginary shooter! I don’t recall ever missing my target. I can only assume my brothers sometimes had imaginary body armor on because even when I hit them, they didn’t always fall to the ground as I imagined they would. As you can imagine, everyone who played cops and robbers ended up going on shooting rampages later in their lives… oh wait, that happened… NEVER!

What has happened to common sense in this country? Pretending is a natural part of growing up. As children, we take any common household item we can find and pretend it’s something else in an effort to be “grown up”, to imitate our parents or other role models. In a perfect world, isn’t a police officer someone we want our children to emulate? But you say, “what if the child was pretending to be the robber?” Now that changes everything. If I recall, my brothers and I took turns being the “good” guy and the “bad” guy. The reason for this is that you cannot play cops and robbers unless you have both cops AND robbers. If everyone was a cop, the game stops pretty quickly.

The school administration actually states that they have a policy about children playing with imaginary guns. When I read this, I had a flash back to all the movies I watched about the future when the “thought police” were able to arrest people based on what they were thinking. We should be thanking the school administration for getting this kid off our streets and preventing the mayhem he was obviously going to cause throughout his future lifetime. This child should be put away in a juvenile facility, before he infects other children with his capacity to pretend. What would happen to this country if we allow children to use their imagination as God intended. When I played cops and robbers, I actually knew the difference between my finger and the barrel of a real gun. I realize that this probably puts me on the “very gifted” end of the scale, so maybe it’s good that we don’t assume that other children can also tell the difference. That would be a stretch because your finger really does look like the barrel of a gun. I know my kids were often confused by it.

Just a thought, but if I were his parents, I would challenge the school’s policy based on whether or not the teacher reviewed the policy with the students on the first day of school so that they all understood what the acceptable forms of imaginary play were. I mean, a second grader might actually go wild with his imagination if he doesn’t know it’s wrong to pretend. I also wondered why none of the other children were suspended because they were playing too. I can only suppose that their weapons were concealed so that the teacher could not see them. And another loose end, how did they get all these imaginary weapons passed the imaginary metal detector? (Ok, that was a sarcastic remark).

Some people say that their children are afraid of guns and even imaginary guns. To that I say, “Why in the world would you infect your kids with your own personal fears?” Guns do not need to be feared, they need to be respected. I was raised in a house with guns. I was taught how to respect a gun. I learned the dangers of guns when misused. I learned it is wrong to point a gun, even if it is not loaded. I dare say that it is pretty much common sense to properly handle a fire arm. To teach your child to fear guns is to do a disservice to him or her. Yes, they need to know the dangers of guns, and they need to be aware of dangerous people who have guns, but to fear guns as an object is not right. Don’t the police carry guns? Should they fear the gun the policeman or policewoman is carrying? I think they should feel safe BECAUSE the police have guns. I just don’t understand this outright fear of a gun.

Closing of Federal Monuments a Scam

Shutdown overreach: More personnel sent to WWII memorial than Benghazi; Park Service closes park it doesn't run


Until now, I didn't normally make many statements of a political nature, but after reading this, I decided that something needs to be said. I believe our government, both Democrats and Republicans, have no interest in what's best for this country. I see people supporting Obamacare BECAUSE they support Obama, not because it's a good piece of legislation. I am man enough to say that my party of choice is screwed up and needs to get real with what's going on in this world. I am also man enough to say that the party I do not support might have some good ideas. I believe that something needs to be done with healthcare for the 30 million people who don't have it, but to change healthcare for the 270 million that do have it, is not the answer. And if it's so good, why is Obama allowing unions and other select "supporters" to opt out of it? Just asking.

Another problem is that the polarization of political sides is supported by the media, both conservative and liberal. The "middle of the road", which is where I believe most Americans reside, is not allowed to be heard because that doesn't sell news.

This country was founded on principles that have since been lost due to "career" politicians. The voting public votes based on what they can get by electing someone into office, not on what society as a whole would get. Programs that reward people for NOT working, subsidizing farmers to leave fields fallow, basically trying to manipulate our economy instead of allowing the economy to work as it is designed to work. Businesses that make bad decisions should be allowed to go under and those that make good decision should be allowed to flourish. When we "bail out" a company that made bad decisions, we allow that company to continue making bad decisions. AND we give them an edge over a company that is making the right decisions in what should be a "competitive" market. Where were the subsidies for the companies making good decisions? Don't strain yourself trying to figure it out, there weren't any. They had to put their own capital at risk to grow their business, while the "too big to fail" companies got billions of dollars FREE when they should have gone out of business. Capitalism is designed to weed out the bad and allow the good to flourish.

I posted this because I see America going down the tubes and I don't know what the answer is. Actually, I know what the answer is, I just don't know how to get the other 300 million people in this country to see it. We have raised generations of takers and politicians who pander to them to keep their jobs, instead of raising citizens who think of others first and themselves second.