Obama's State of the Union Address

Did you watch Obama's State of the Union? I didn't. To be honest, I just couldn't bring myself to set there a listen to an hour long love fest between Obama and the Democratic members of Congress while the Republicans sat there and groused. And, of course, while you're watching Obama talk about his plans, not America's, you have to watch lap dog Joe Biden sitting there in the background with that goofy look on his face like he's waiting for a treat, and then there's Boehner. He always looks like he's trying to sneak out for a smoke. And in full disclosure, I didn't watch the Republican response which was delivered by rookie Senator Joni Ernst R-IA (as someone who worked on a farm castrating pigs and now Junior Senator, I think she's qualified to be the next President). From what I did hear, however, was well delivered and unlike Obama's speech, mercifully short and straightforward. If only they all could be.

Nevertheless, I did spend some time today reading reviews of the speech by liberal and conservative commentators. I figured it must have been interesting when the first article (from a liberal leaning news site) started out with "fact checking" Obama's speech. All I could think was "wow, he must have told some whoppers". Still, from what I read and the snippets of video I saw, it appears that Obama did take liberties with the truth; taking credit for things that either simply haven't happened (like jobs or the war on terrorism) to outright lies (Obamacare, tax rescue for the Working Class and those who formerly made up the Middle Class). He seems to have forgotten all about overturning Citizens United which gave corporations the same (and more) rights of flesh and blood human beings, or Benghazi, or securing our national borders, or efforts to destroy the net neutrality of the internet, or the increasing spying on US Citizens by various government agencies.

Obama did, however, cover topics like providing two years of community college "free" while not covering how the former Middle Class will shoulder this extra burden. He mentioned tax reform and helping the poor (always great topics in my book), but failed to explain how this would be accomplished while not ticking off the mega rich donors and the corporate oligarchs who now rule America. That should prove interesting. He touched on terrorism but without naming the culprits so to speak. He's repeatedly promised "no boots on the ground" while at the same time trying to find ways to do just that in Syria (Assad isn't exactly a "good guy" but as Middle Eastern dictators go, he's not all that bad). He failed to explain why ISSI or Boko Haram are still functioning (the former a creation of the US, which, like Al Qaeda, has become our "Frankenstein's Monster"). He didn't address our new status as the number two economic power in the world behind China, which happened in December. Not a peep about our declining academic rankings, crumbling infrastructure, or our falling quality of life and the purchasing power of the dollar.

President Obama also didn't address foreign policy. That may be because to most world leaders he's kind of a joke. Most of the major international leaders don't take him seriously anymore. He's proven long on rhetoric and short on follow through. In the world of the never-ending crisis that is foreign policy, credibility is everything, and sadly for the US, Obama has very little while that of Russia's Putin continues to grow. Obama has claimed in a few instances to speak for the American People when, in fact, polls show that he was at odds with opinions of most Americans. Just recently, the Obama Regime failed to send a representative to Paris in show solidarity with the French People following the murders at a French magazine, a police officer, and Jewish citizens by Moslem cowards-sum-terrorists.

Pretty much every European country, including Russia, had someone there---mostly their presidents. America? Nope. Nada. Nix. In Obama's defense, Secretary of State John Kerry did, however, ask folk rocker James Taylor sing a song to the French People a few days later. Seriously. To our French readers, we are terribly sorry; sorry for the pain you endured at the hands of those who do not speak for or represent Islam, and we're sorry for a American political regime which does not represent the American People. We value our long history of friendship and cooperation. Please know that the American People stand, not behind you, but beside you.

Finally, I would like add just a few more thoughts about Obama and his State of the Union address. Just a few months ago, the American People gave the Democrats a thumping at the ballot box. The thumping was not inductive of a sudden change of heart in support of the GOP. Hardly. The Republican Party is still viewed slightly above used car salesmen and bill collectors. The American People are overwhelmingly registered as Independents, followed by Democrat, and lastly, as Republican. The recent election results reflected America's disapproval with the failed policies of Obama, and those of his party. This results were more "anti" Obama Regime and less "pro" Grand Old Party. The American People will vote the newly ensconced Republicans out just as fast.

Americans are beyond sick and tired of being sick and tired with both parties and with politics as usual. The fact that Obama, Congress, and the Supreme Court haven't been tarred and feathered and run out on a rail is a testimony to the fortitude of the America People and the fact due to our crumbling infrastructure, there is no rail service to Hell currently running right now.
Obama's tenure as the worse American President thus far is coming to a close, amid the worse performances recently by Congress and completely moronic decisions by the Supreme Court. It will soon be up to us--not them---to write their legacy. Frankly, I have a feeling that Herbert Hoover and Warren G Harding will soon have company. As for us, America can do better; we must do better. We have no choice. Yes, the system bequeath to us by our Founding Fathers is gone. We are no longer the democratic republic they left to us. We are an oligarchy, controlled by the elite rich---the 1%-- and their corporations. But together, we can reclaim our country once more, but time is quickly running out.

2014 Election: What Changed?

I purposely held off commenting about the recent election until now. I figured there would be a plethora of the proverbial ink and verbiage spewed forth that most everyone (except us political junkies) would be in a need of break. I also wanted to wait until some of the dust had settled in order to gain a better insight as to how the lay of the political landscape has changed.

It appears there were several changes of significance. Let's start with the States. The Republicans were the primary beneficiaries, going from controlling majorities of 59 legislatures to 67. Specifically, pre-election, Democrats went from controlling the State Senate in 18 States to 15 post election while the GOP went from 31 to 34. In State Houses, the Democrats went from controlling 21 to 16 while the GOP increased from 28 to 33. For Governor, the Republicans went from 29 Governorships to 31 while the Democrats went from 21 to 17. Meanwhile, marijuana became "legal" in three more States, plus Washington DC., bringing the total to 23. The biggest and perhaps most important change was, of course, to the US Senate where the GOP finally, and some would argue, convincingly, took control but that wasn't only change.

The Elephant's Heard

To loosely paraphrase Mark Twain, "Reports of the GOP's demise are greatly exaggerated". First, let's deal with the seat pickup. The Republicans needed six seats to take control of the Senate from the Democrats, which they got, thus giving them 52 seats to 44 for the Democrats with two seats undecided. The victory will elevate Mitch McConnell (R-KY)---often accused as the nation's obstructionist-in-chief---to Senate Majority Leader, replacing uber-liberal and occasional "funny guy", Harry Reid. (D-NV). This should dramatically change the national direction on a while array of issues, such as Obamacare, the War on Terrorism, government surveillance, and illegal immigration just to name a few. As important as this is, there was a back story which has received almost as much coverage as the election itself, and that's the makeup of the incoming Republicans.

Despite claims by partisans on the Left, the Republican brand seems to still have some life in it yet. Long accused by the Left of being the "Rich Old White Man's Party" and bastion of institutionalized racism and "war on women", the Republican Party appears to have finally got the message that those of us in "fly over country" have been preaching for years now. Forget the fact that the GOP had the first black female Secretary of State or had the first black head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now they can add Mia Love of Utah. Ms. Love is daughter of Hatian immigrants, a mother of three, and a Mormon. Will Hurd became the first black Congressman from Texas since Reconstruction while Tim Scott has become the first black Senator from South Carolina since Reconstruction (and first to be elected to both House and Senate). In addition, Shelly Moore Capito became West Virginia's first female senator (winning the seat which had long been held by Democrat Jay Rockefeller), and the State's first Republican since 1956.

Joni Ernest, whose campaign burst onto the national scene thanks to her humorous spot-on "pig" commercial, and becomes Iowa's first female Congresswoman. Meanwhile, Elise Stefanik has become the youngest women ever elected to Congress at 30 years of age, and the first Republican to win New York's 21st district seat (on a related subject, 18 year old Millennial Sara Blair became the young person ever elected in US by winning a West Virginia's State House seat). So, anyone on the Left looking to place the race or gender card needs to find a deck.

Bidding Their Time?

As for Hispanics, the nation's largest minority, they voted two to one for Democrat candidates, however, in certain key races,

Hispanics voted for Republican candidates, specifically in New Mexico and Nevada, where two Republican candidates of Hispanic origin, Susana Martinez and Brian Sandoval, were running for reelected as governor of their respective States. In Texas, Greg Abbott won 44% of the Hispanic vote in defeating Democrat Wendy Davis for Governor who won 55% of the Hispanic vote. In Georgia, which like most Southern States has a small but growing Hispanic population, Republican incumbent Nathan Deal won 47% of the Hispanic vote in defeating his Democrat challenger, who received 53% of the Hispanic vote. In Kansas, the incumbent Republican Governor, Sam Brownback, got 47% of the Hispanic vote compared to 46% by Democrat challenger, Paul Davis. Not majority numbers, but definite improvements.

So, what does this mean for both Republicans and Democrats? While the national trend for Hispanics, as well as for Asians, has been away from affiliating with both parties, the GOP has much more to do in making inroads with Hispanics, who are expected to reach near parity with white non-Hispanics in about 10 to 15 years. Much will be decided on how the GOP handles the immigration issue, especially concerning illegal immigration. Meanwhile, Hispanics seem leery of Democrats which have come to treat minorities (not to mention unions) merely as resources to be courted, used, and discarded. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a new political party formed out of the Hispanic vote. They certainly have the numbers, which will continue to grow, and they have a unique shared culture and language as well as specific needs which neither the Republicans or the Democrats are equipped to or willing to deal with. Lastly, they have a political infrastructure already in place with organizations like La Raza, not mention all Hispanic media outlets. Now, wouldn't that be something?

Following (Executive) Orders

As for Obama, he's already made it clear that with two years to go, he's going down fighting. Obama has made it abundantly clear that he will use the Executive Order to push through whatever agenda he wants unless Congress capitulates. First on his list will be some form of amnesty for the some 12 million illegal immigrants now living in the US. In addition, we can expect further confrontation between the Obama Regime and Congress over ISIS and the promise, now apparently broken, of no more boots on the ground in Syria, Iraq, or other parts of the embattled Middle East, Obamacare, and the economy. Meanwhile, cracks are already appearing on the Republican side of the aisle, as Speaker of the House Boehner, the soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader McConnell, and the Tea Party have begun to argue about whose message it was that the voters were endorsing.

One thing is clear though. Voter turnout was low with just over 36%, the lowest for midterm elections in 70 years. That's down 41% from 2010. It was not because of the weather, or being too busy. It was because of voter anger and frustration. Those that did turn up and voted many Democrats (and some Republicans, but that appears to be more localized) out did so not in support of the GOP's message. They did so to send their own message that the policies of the current regime are not acceptable. If the direction of this country doesn't change, voters will be just as happy to vote the Republicans out next time. Americans are miffed, and they've been miffed for some time now at both political parties. A major housekeeping of huge portions may be coming sooner than later.

Election Review: Big Gains
http://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2014

Riding Wave of Discontent, G.O.P. Takes Senate
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/us/politics/midterm-elections.html

West Virginia Elects America's Youngest State Lawmaker
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/04/west-virginia-elects-americas-youngest-state-lawmaker/

Meet Elise Stefanik, The Youngest Woman Ever Elected to Congress
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/elise-stefanik-youngest-woman-elected-congress/story?id=26694806

More Trouble on the Border

As I've said since the outset of this "humanitarian crisis" on our southern border, there's more here than meets the eye. There was simply no way 60,000 children from three different countries---El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala---some with a parent but many not, simply decided all at once to show up on our border, with an estimate 40,000 more on the way. We were expected to believe they traveled the back roads of their respective countries, and then the entire length of Mexico alone, except with the aid of Mexican drug smugglers (at US $7000 at pop per child), and then enter the US with, at least, the tacit knowledge of the Mexican military who, on their own initiative, escorted these kids several miles into US territory and otherwise harassed US citizens. Seriously? There's no way that many parents would give up their children (not to mention where they got the money) and somebody somewhere doesn't know about it, and there's no way a movement of that size travels 1800 miles through Mexico unnoticed. Not these days. No way. No how.

Many of those who have been processed "promised" to report in at the nearest immigration office when they reached their alleged destination have vanished. Imagine that? Simply gone, and they "promised" too. Now how about that? So now, we have even more illegals floating around somewhere in our interior to go with the 12 million already here. In addition, individuals, mostly Hispanic, are showing up at several on these intake centers claiming to be a relative of child, however, some have turned out to be no relation at all. They were apparently just trying to get as many of the kidos through as possible. Meanwhile, the Honduran President, Juan Orlando Hernandez says the children have a "right" to come here and the US has a "humanitarian" obligation to treat them well. In addition, he states that until we reform our immigration policies to their liking, he will continue to send kids north. Now, we seem to be having a new problem---Mexican gangs.

It seems all this is simply too good of an opportunity to pass up, so Mexican gangs like the notorious MS-13 have been sending some of their younger members to our overwhelmed border in order not just to sneak through some of these "Baby Face Nelsons", but while they're waiting around to be processed, they're also busy trying to recruit some of these other kids! What a golden opportunity for the drug cartels. While previously, our border agents have been successful in catching and returning most of these bad guys, the shear overwhelming numbers makes for a good chance that some will slip through.

Gangs like MS-13, which is predominately Salvadorian, are already established in approximately 13 major US cities with branches scattered throughout the US including Washington DC, Boston, New York City, LA, Charlotte, and San Francisco. Most are heavily involved with drug smuggling, it doesn't stop there. Their activities include people smuggling (like these kids), kidnapping, extortion, prostitution, robbery, arms smuggling, and naturally, murder. In fact, it's the latter which has sealed their reputation and for which our police departments are ill trained and ill equipped, especially in many of the small towns and farming communities.

Already these gangs have proved to be far more ruthless in dealing with their competitors and were successful in eliminating Black gangs like the Bloods and Crips from Los Angeles/Orange County and other cities. Perhaps that's one of the reasons many police departments have been beefing up with military surplus weapons and equipment.

One thing is certain, they have absolutely no fear whatsoever of law enforcement, and for those who do wind up in prison, all are involved with some sort of internal criminal activities and gang recruitment (there has even been a few cases reported of correctional officers being successfully recruited as well). According to the President of El Salvador and the Honduran Security Minister, Oscar Alvarez, MS-13, with its estimated 70,000 members, has ties with Al-Qaeda. MS-13 isn't the only gang to contend with either. Others, like the Latin Kings and the 18th Street Gang, are just as vicious. As an aside, the FBI estimates that 47% of Hispanics are associated with a gang, compared to 34% of Blacks, 13% of Whites, and 6% of Asians.

With the failure of the Obama Regime and House Republicans, Americans are facing a unparallel domestic crisis. We have a human invasion from the south, supported not only by their respective governments, but also by the militarized drug cartels and at least the Mexican military and quite likely the Mexican government itself. All of which is supported by well intentioned but wrongheaded religious groups who believe they can violate national laws with impunity, and greedy unions and corporations looking for cheap exploitable labor, and finally, backed up by what I can only considered to be a treasonous government---both Democrat and Republican. So, what to do? Here's how I think the situation can be resolved.

I think this mostly about economics. First, you need to know that most of those coming here illegally, statistics have shown, have no interest in becoming US Citizens. They are here for a job. Some send part of the money home to support their extended families; some to help their families to come here illegally. They are also here to partake in the many "free" social services paid for by US taxpayers. They come here often with the support of churches and religious institutions under their supposed immunity. There are ample stories of some coming with the aid of the Mexican government (many with "how to" booklets), and even with an escort of Mexican troops. From there, they are assisted with housing, jobs, and how to obtain medical and other services "under the radar". These individuals manage to avoid most of the sweatshop type jobs, the pay and working conditions still aren't great.

Others, however, end up in almost unimaginable working and housing conditions; living in empty houses, barns, garages, etc with no running water, plumbing, or electricity. Sleeping on the floor using infested laden abandoned mattresses, sleeping bags, or maybe, if they're lucky, a blanket. These are the farm or factory laborers, or those who become "roofers" or "gardeners" for the day; basically, they take whatever job they can. Many too become involved with gangs like MS 13, which are already rampant throughout the US, and in US prisons.

The "knee jerk" reaction is to round them all up and put them on a bus back home. However, they'll likely be back a few days later. In many of their own countries, illegals go to prison; the first offense will get you 6 months to a year. A second offense will get you five years (and we all know how Mexican or other Latin American prisons stack up to US prisons).

Since the crime is economic, therefore, the solution need to be too. Mandatory use of E-Verify across the board. At present, only a tiny portion of employers use it. Second, very stiff fines for the first offense per single violation with suspension of licenses or permits for the second and higher fine, loss of their license or permit for a third and their ability to serve as a corporate officer or incorporator and jail time. All fines too should be non-dischargeable. If they employ farm hands, no government contracts or ability to sale product to any business with a government contract applies as well. Simply, you cut the demand out, and Economics 101 says when costs exceeds profit, then there is no demand, and no demand equals no supply. I want to add that this includes churches and religious institutions too and with their third offense, a loss of their tax exempt status. There is no immunity in a criminal act.

At the same time, no tax based services to illegals---no aid, no housing, no bus passes, no nothing. If they need medical care, go to a clinic. No automatic enrollment in public schools. No free translators. No taxpayers funded publications in any language but English. No street signs in any language but English. Make English officially our national language as quickly as possible. Reduce the amount of money that can be transferred out and raise the surcharge to do so.

Secure the border. Build a wall; barbed wire, moats, whatever. Station US reservist troops on the border in conjunction with US Border Agents. Use assets seized from drug cartels to fund ICE. Authorize troops and agents on the border to use deadly force instead of agents "withdrawing from the area". Instruct foreign countries to stop promoting illegal immigration and reduce foreign aid accordingly. Run commercials on foreign radio programs to warn about illegal entry into the US. Illegals picked up at the border or in country should be processed according to their nationality and dropped off at the nearest appropriate consulate's office to be returned home at their expense following a DNA swab test. We should then deduct the costs of processing from our foreign aid packages sent annually. Again, an economic solution to an economic problem. We currently send US $269.5 million to Mexico, US $58.2 million to Honduras, and US $41.8 to El Salvador for instance. I suspect that will get their undivided attention.

Until we force the spineless Congress and a incompetent President to act, our America will continue to vanish into something we soon will not recognize and would be ashamed to leave to our children and grandchildren. Meanwhile, it's up to us.


Honduran President: Illegal Immigrants Motivated By Hopes of Amnesty
http://houston.thedailydigest.org/2014/06/20/honduran-president-illegal-immigrants-motivated-by-hope-of-amnesty/

Congressional Research Service: US Foreign Assistance to Latin America
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf

Suspected gang members arrested in North Carolina
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/24/ms13.arrests/index.html?iref=allsearch

How Mexico's Cartels Are Behind the Border kid Crisis
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/23/how-mexico-s-cartels-are-behind-the-border-kid-crisis.html

When Enough is Enough?

With all the scandals which has rocked the Obama Regime, there's been a lot of talk about impeachment from the Right. But, as I recall, there was talk about impeaching George W Bush too, just as there's considerable chatter about the removal of Holder, Boehner, Pelosi, or whomever. That would be the logical thing to do, that is if we were dealing with an otherwise legitimate government. However, we're not. This is not the government bequest to us by our Founding Fathers. This is not the government guaranteed to us under the Constitution. It is not the form of government we celebrate the creation of on the 4th of July. It is not a government which represents the will of its citizens. It is, however, the type of government that our Founders warned us about. At present, our voices and our votes count for little. What matters apparently is money, for its money which the Supreme Court said represents free speech. It also money which equates to access, and with access comes power; something "We the People" are denied.

What should we do then? How should a people express their dissatisfaction with a government which no longer serves the People, but instead, bows to the will of artificial entities rather than flesh and blood? Our Constitution, while pandered to by those who go through the motions to serve, is still much in force by the People for whom it was written, gives us the answer. It tells us that if the government fails in its duties, then we have both the right and responsibility to modify or change that government.

Since our votes and Will count for little thanks to the misrulings of the Supreme Court vis-a-vis McCutcheon and Citizens United, and district gerrymandering by Congress and state legislatures, how about another tactic for your consideration? We as Citizens have the right (for the present) to protest. However, we are expected to do so within certain restrictions; restrictions designed in part to take the "sting" out of the our collective voices since all too often the representatives are either not there or fail to even notice us unless they happen to catch mention on one of the local news channels. Certainly not very effective, and since money is not only "free speech", but also access, what if we took it further still to make our point?

Specifically, what if we took our signs; our demands; our voices to the very street and indeed, in front of the homes where "our" so-called representative live? I'm sure there may be some sort of hoops to jump through, but would that get their attention? Would that make up for our lack of "free speech"? I just might be worth it. What if we expanded it to include the residences of their staffs? Do you think they'd make their boss aware our displeasure? If not, I have no doubt their neighbors would.

As for lobbyists, who are little more than errand boys and girls on behalf of the one percenters and corporations, perhaps they too should know our displeasure with plans to move jobs overseas, harm the planet, or get taxpayer based welfare. The names of their presidents and boards of directors are publically available. Use it. Make our displeasure felt not just at public parks, on street corners, or at memorials, but where they live...literally. When they get tired of having their dirty laundry paraded in front of their neighbors, they'll get the message.

Remember, we are no longer a democratic republic; the government given to us by our Founding Fathers, or as Abraham Lincoln once proclaimed, "of the people, by the people; and for the people". The government is an oligarchy. Officially. A government responsible to the top 1% wealthiest individuals and to a small clique of banking and corporate elites. In short, Washington no longer represents Mainstreet America. It represents Wallstreet.

In a land where the rule of people has been supplanted by the weight of the dollar, is this how America must act? Our Founding Fathers would have said yes. However, the decision is yours to make America, once you've decided enough is enough. Think about it.