It's About Time.

Finally, someone is taking action to restrain the typical illegal and unlawful conduct of the Obama Administration.

A group of Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have filed suit in Texas to stop the de facto "amnesty" program rolled out by the Department of Homeland Security. If you are not familiar with the program, DHS has basically decided the it will "reallocate resources" to deport only some illegal aliens, primarily only those with known felony criminal records.

As you may remember, part of the reason the Arizona Immigration Law was declared unconstitutional was that immigration and border protection is explicitly a Federal responsibility. And Federal law requires that Illegal Aliens (the correct legal name for "undocumented workers") be given a fair hearing as to their status and be deported. Some countries, like Mexico, complain about the supposed harshness of American policy. However, it's not as harsh as that of some countries, like Mexico, which imposes criminal penalties and years of imprisonment, but that's another issue.

DHS, for its part, denies there is any amnesty program in place. Rather, they say, they have utilized their "prosecutorial discretion" to determine that entire classes of illegal aliens will not be prosecuted for deportation to save resources. The DHS action is similar to a local prosecutor refusing to prosecute rape, drug, burglary cases or any crimes other than murder in order to save resources. While there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion, it is hard to think of any case where it has been used to rewrite the law that grants it.

Vaulting over the limits of the law has been a hallmark of the Obama Administration. Amnesty is implemented in fact, with the DHS thumbing its nose at the constraints of Federal laws passed by the people's representatives. The Justice Department sets up a gun-running operation shipping thousands of guns to Mexico despite Federal laws prohibiting such transfers. Mr. Holder is summoned to Congress to explain the operation- and simply refuses to cooperate to the point of earning a Congressional Contempt citation. Like DHS, the Department of Justice thumbs it nose at the laws it swears to uphold. Remember the Gulf oil spill? Obama issued a moratorium on drilling after "clarifying" a report to say the opposite of what the authors had said, and without any legal authority. A Federal Court overturned the moratorium, and the administration then turned to "slow-walking" permit applications to stall and prevent drilling permits.

These ICE agents are doing what needs to be done, and should be done, when the Obama Administration acts illegally. Go to Court, and get the matter heard. Of course, you can't always trust the Courts to uphold the Constitution, because sometimes raw political calculation in the Courts will result in an obviously unconstitutional result, as the Obamacare decision shows. Yet, America cannot be abandoned to the lawlessness of this Administration. It's about time that someone tried to put the brakes on this lawless Administration.

GOP, hold on to your records!

The Democratic party is trying to create a stir by demanding Romney's tax records for the past decade. Harry Reid says Romney is not showing his taxes because of tax dodging; there's no evidence at all, but it plays well for the media. Madame Pelosi isn't releasing her financial information, either. Pelosi says she doesn't have to release her taxes because "she's not running for President." Which is fine, but there doesn't seem to be any legal requirement that candidates for President release tax returns.

Pelosi highlights an interesting, if perhaps psychotic, contradiction between the standards liberals hold themselves to, and those they hold conservatives to.

Remember the "birther" controversy? The entire reason that came about was Obama's claims that he was born in Kenya, and his intransigent refusal to release any records at all. Not even a certified birth certificate, until four (4) years of intense public pressure. And after four years of pressure, still nothing else; no school records, medical records, service records.

Candidate Obama simply will NOT be vetted. Given a chance, the mainstream media will continue to sit in the Obama campaign camp and point fingers at Republicans.

The GOP, and the Romney-Ryan team in particular, have a great opportunity to make "transparency" a campaign issue, and to go on the offensive if they have the guts to do so. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration. He didn't do it and never intended to: he didn't deliver anything but Chicago-style corruption and backroom cronyism.

For the GOP, it's simple. GOP, hold on to your records; release only what Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid have released, and only when they do. They are the incumbents and they've had years to release important records. Let the incumbents lead by example.

And don't let the mainstream media off the hook, either. Many in the GOP worry that they will alienate the media, but they don't need to worry. The media folks are, for the most part, firmly planted in the Obama camp; they are no friend to the GOP, and some public accountability might do them some good. In fact, gently highlighting the left-wing bias in the news might open the eyes of some otherwise complacent voters, and cause them to become more aware of the subtle leftward push in news reporting. That would help level the playing field.

So, GOP, hold on to your records. Transparency should start with the Obama Administration. It's a promise they have broken for years. It's about information the public wants and needs, and information the media wants and needs to ignore.

Which Came First- the Chicken or the Egg?

If Mr. Obama has done nothing else, he has been able to help America discover the answer to an old children's riddle: which came first, the chicken or the egg? The problem, of course, is simple enough. The egg comes from chicken, but the chicken starts out as a hatchling from an egg.

The answer can be found in Obama's rant against business owners. You know the one; "you didn't build that."  In that speech, Obama suggests that business owners didn't build their business, because they use government roads and bridges, and had teachers as children, and used other government facilities along the way.

Obama bootstraps that argument as support for higher taxes on successful earners. Not, by the way, on the unearned income of the truly wealthy, but only on successful wage earners. Such people, he says, should be happy to give a little bit back.

To say the argument is disingenuous is charitable, to say the least. The first and obvious fallacy is that murderers, thieves, and drug users often have been to school, driven on roads, and used many of those same government facilities. While the availability of good schools and roads may promote the success of business, it hardly guarantees the success of a business, and never really causes business to occur, any more than schools and roads cause murder, robbery, or drug abuse.

The second, less obvious fallacy is rooted in the fact that governments don't actually have money; they have collected money to build the roads and schools, to pay the teachers and to operate any other facilities by levies of taxes. And those taxes aren't paid by the murderers, thieves, or drug users, but by the successful wage earners, and usually not the truly wealthy. So to say the successful wage earner needs to "give a little back" when their taxes paid for it in the first place is just absurd.

There are two other important points. It is true that in every society there are disabled and needy, but their care is not per se a government responsibility, but a societal choice between government and private charity. Also, while government may choose to finance projects by debt, that is not relevant, since debt repayment is also premised on taxes on the wage earners.

American history, which liberals ignore and Obama may not even know, clearly shows that business precedes government. People came to the New World, set up farms and businesses, and then created a government, and build schools and roads to service those farms and businesses.

Which answers the old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Without the chicken (the taxpayer) the government would never have its golden egg. In other words- government, "you didn't build that", the taxpayer did.

To Cure the Economy

One hears a great deal about the dangers of the situation in Syria these days. Right now, the Syrian Government is attacking rebels in the city of Aleppo.  Recently the massacre in Houla made world news. Whether it is styled as "civil unrest" or "civil war" isn't particularly relevant; whatever it is, Syria is a dangerous place to be.

CNN recently ran an opinion piece titled "Syria's Christian Conundrum."  The author, noting that she was a Christian herself, expressed perplexity and disappointment that the majority of Syrian Christians had not embraced the "prospect of democratic change... [to] an open, democratic, inclusive, secular and religiously tolerant society" which, she believes, should arise after the fall of Assad. Yet the kidnappings and forced conversions of Christian women in Egypt, being reported in Christian news sites (but not the mainstream media) gives the lie to the delusional belief that democratic governments rather than Islamist governments rise to power in these Middle Eastern countries.

Consider the nations like Egypt and Libya, and Iraq, and Afghanistan, in which the West actively sought to assist or by force of arms bring about the rise of "open, democratic, inclusive, secular, and religiously tolerant society." Or such nations as Turkey, and Pakistan, and a whole host of other nations in the Middle Eastern region in which open and democratic governments were encouraged. In all of these, where there have been elections, the people have chosen to move toward Islamist fundamentalist governments; where there have not been elections, the leadership has embraced the same Islamist fundamentalism.

That is precisely why the U.S. must not become involved in Syria: too little certainty that any involvement can produce a result which has any benefit for the United States- or the West. For example, some reports attribute the massacre to Assad's regime, but others to internecine warfare between the rebels.  Similarly, Libyan Islamists are moving into Syria to assist the Free Syrian Army. Can it be assumed then that the Free Syrian Army is seeking democracy rather than Islamism?  The rise of Islamists means not only another nation rising in opposition to the interests of the U.S., but oppression of women, children, and minorities of any ideology or ethnicity.

Of course, the fact that Syria is a Russian ally, and that U.S. interference in Syria risks direct military confrontation with Russia, should serve as some disincentive as well.

Given all of that, one would assume there is no reason to go to war in Syria. Yet there seem to be many who are beating the war drums, suggesting there may be those who would prefer war. Not from any patriotic or nationalist drive, nor from any motives to pursue freedom, or compassion for that matter.

After the crash of 1929, America slid into an economic depression. The world economy depressed as well, with conditions becoming so intolerable in some countries, notably Germany, that maniacal despots like Hitler could rise to power. Financial conditions only marginally improved until the advent of World War II drove the engines of industry into high gear and gave rise to a tide of prosperity which lasted for decades after the war.

In other words, there may be those who believe a good war is needed to cure the economy. That may sound cynical, considering the human cost of war, and hopefully it will prove to be no more than cynicism. Yet it is difficult to find any other reason for the push to enter Syria, as there are no other perceptible benefits to America. The United States needs to stay out of Syria.

President Obama got it right!

President Obama got it right! At least, he got the context right. In his remarks on the Aurora shootings, he noted that his daughters attend movies, and asked, "What if Malia and Sasha had been in the theater tonight as so many kids do every day." That is a question that bears reflection.

In discussing the Aurora theater shootings, Michael Moore attempted to answer that question, "Mr.President, what if it were your children?" Now, of course, Moore draws the wrong conclusions, that if the President's children had been at the theater, the President would be calling for more restrictions on gun ownership.

Moore draws a parallel with Obamacare, stating that other countries such as Canada have socialized healthcare because they care about one another, whereas in America, we have the attitude, "I've got mine and to hell with you." Moore simply demonstrates that he, as with most liberals, has no comprehension of traditional American values. After all, "I've got mine and to hell with you," is the Liberal version of capitalism, where moral values are "personal" and do not apply to business matters, while those in need are taken under the wings of government.

The conservative version of capitalism is "I'm working hard to better myself and hard work earns its reward." There is also the corollary conservative belief that for those in real need, we give to and through charity and church, as government is inadequate for those works. And as with Obamacare, there have been few who could legitimately come forward with claims that they have not received care under the American system, as opposed to the many stories of those fleeing "compassionate" socialized medicine for American treatments.

Moore then advances the liberal pap that those who do not share their passion for gun control simply do not really care about the Aurora shootings. However, as with Obamacare, Moore's question betrays him.

Had the President's children been present, what would have happened? Remember, if you will, that these children always travel with ARMED GUARDS. In that case, the joker walks in, throws his tear gas, lifts his gun- and collapses, riddled with bullets from the guns of those ARMED GUARDS.

As the scenario played out in fact, the law-abiding citizens at the theater left their firearms at home and went into the kill-zone created by AMC's "Firearms are prohibited to law-abiding citizens" policy. The shooter strolled through the audience, unimpeded, murdering and maiming those made intentionally helpless by AMC.

In other words, Moore and his gun control cronies only succeeded in making sure that the shooter could get a high body count. And following his advice leads to more deaths, not fewer. Is that the desired outcome? Do we really want 71 dead and wounded as opposed to one dead joker? That should be a rhetorical question. After all, remember the effect one armed citizen had on two armed (would-be) robbers.  Stories like this are repeated everyday; legal gun sales go up, crime goes down, yet those of Moore's ilk can't see the connection.

So Americans are left with three options. First, take your chances in the kill-zones. Second, minimize your visits to kill-zones. Or three, don't go anywhere unaccompanied by the President's daughters.

Obama's Fundamental Transformation

As Team Obama moves the campaign into high gear, the Administration is making moves to fulfill the one campaign promise Obama actually made: to "fundamentally transform" America.

Most Obama voters didn't seem to understand what Obama meant by this, because voters generally assume politicians use generalizations and sales "puff". Therefore, centrist voters assumed Obama meant "improve the economy" or "put Americans back to work" or "reduce taxes." Those in the hard-core left- and the conservative right- understood his terminology. Obama said exactly what he meant, and meant exactly what he said. While most Americans have worked in the private sector, Obama has spent his entire life outside the private sector. So while he's seen private enterprise, he doesn't actually have any experience with it. His mentor, a communist agitator by the name of Davis, told him it was really, really bad, though.

Hence, the Obamacare health system takeover. It was not a fundamental plank of the Obama campaign, but suddenly emerged as an emergency; if the government did not take control of the health sector, Americans were told, it would just collapse. So, while the insurance companies still exist as entities, they have become mere extensions of the government. That is how private industry works in the Fascist Socialist model, with government and big business cooperating to control the behavior of the citizenry.

During the Obama Administration, it has become clear that Obama does not need legislative action to "enact" his agenda. There was Fast and Furious, a covert gun-running program designed ostensibly to find criminals, but since no guns were tracked, more likely designed as an excuse to impose gun-control agenda items. There have been the EPA regulations to limit pollution, designed to drive out coal usage in electrical generating plants and remove over 40 percent of America's capacity.

There was the "slow-walking" of applications to deny oil drilling permits in the Gulf, despite a Federal Court Order. There were the "waivers" of Immigration deportations, based on Executive Orders "reinterpreting" statutory deportation requirements. HHS is issuing "waivers" of the TANF requirements in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, in defiance of express statutory language. So another aspect of Obama's "fundamental transformation" appears: the power of the President to transcend Constitutional limitations and statutory law without anyone in authority calling his office to account.

Another important aspect of Obama's "fundamental transformation" is consistency. Obama is not moving to reform immigration. If he did, the Democrats would lose it as a wedge issue. After all, who can compassionately be anti-immigrant (what's "illegal" mean? it's good, right?) He isn't concerned about the economy; private business is doing "fine." Foreign policy? Why, the Arab Spring! Democracy in the Middle East! Why should America be concerned about a few Islamists taking power? No, it is the direction of his administration which counts, and that is always toward a concentration of power into the hands of the government. After all, progress is the result of government action; if you are a mere citizen, "you didn't build that."

Obama's campaign slogan, "Forward", is the traditional cry of the Socialists. It is no accident, but a deliberate coming out of the closet for socialism in America. It is the open acknowledgment by the Democrat party that it has adopted Socialism as its platform. That is the "fundamental transformation" that Obama apparently has been working towards all his life.

Just Throw Money At It

The Euro crisis drags on, and nobody in Europe, at least, seems to know quite what to do about it. Greece, of course, is headed for more elections as it dithers about with no solution in sight. Germany, seemingly the only economy in Europe with any sort of financial strength, is being hammered from all sides; every country in Europe wants German money, but no one is willing to accept any strings. The leaders of both France and Greece have gone so far as to demand money from Germany.

Worse, the debate is being misdirected and obfuscated by the adoption of new terminology by liberals and socialists. Liberals and socialists, at least in America, used to be somewhat distinct groups; since the Obama Administration, America's liberals have practically adopted socialism into the Democrat party platform.

Within the paradigm promoted by this new terminology, the debate is defined by the terms "pro-growth" and "austerity." Both of these terms misdirect the debate. "Pro-growth" in this context is limited to government growth. Those who use "pro-growth" in this context assume the government alone is responsible for all job creation and economic growth; the private sector is tacitly deemed irrelevant. The flip-side of the coin is "austerity." Anyone who seeks to limit the size of government is guilty of seeking to harm the poor citizens, who will suffer from the resulting economic collapse and loss of jobs (or benefits).

By embracing this paradigm, any real debate of alternative proposals is effectively foreclosed. If the private sector is irrelevant, the only question is whether the countries with money (the Germans) will be "caring" enough to "help" those who don't (everybody else.) In this scenario, "austerity" is the culprit, and it's just obvious that the bailouts will have to occur.

However, this is a false scenario. First, the private sector is not irrelevant in any country which is not totally Marxist; only in the old Soviet Union and its satellites did the government hold all property and create all jobs. Second, in Europe, as in the U.S., the private sector is far more responsible for economic growth and job creation; government employment only accounts for a certain portion of the jobs market. Third, increasing the size and power of government suppresses private sector growth, by removing capital from the private sector to the government and increasing the costs of the regulatory burdens. Government "austerity" can lead to an increase in a nation's economic performance when it frees up the private sector.

It's now a liberal article of faith that Europe is having economic problems as a result of austerity; yet austerity was imposed as part of the bailouts required by the collapsing economies in the Eurozone. And the nations needing bailouts are not the bastions of capitalism, but those which lean to socialism. As Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

The socialist-leaning nations of Europe have not only run out of other people's money, but they have borrowed nearly all of the other people's money they can lay their hands on. They have incurred massive debt loads which they cannot pay. Yet they are trapped in a paradigm which prevents them from reaching any workable solutions, so they pretend the debt problem will magically vanish if they continue to borrow more money and just throw money at it- but they are quickly running out of other people's (the German's) money.