Let's Do Nothing

Having listened to all the smart people with their great ideas on what to do about our illegal immigrants I agree with this one: do nothing. I'm serious.  Why do we feel it necessary to tax our citizens (figuratively and literally) and do policy gymnastics for 11 million people who are in the country illegally?

Well, they're "in the shadows," some will say.  Some are discriminated against.  Some illegal aliens do not have easy access to education or medical care. Some are taken advantage of by employers. Those sentences should disturb you. How could this be happening in America? 

Because they are ILLEGAL immigrants!  We should discriminate against people committing crime. If someone trespasses on your property will you not rightly treat them differently than you would an invited guest? Of course you would.  If people enter the country illegally what right do they have to taxpayer funded education or taxpayer funded welfare?  I don't understand how a family of illegal immigrants can show up at the public school with their children and be welcomed.  Shouldn't the authorities be notified and the offenders be directed to leave the country, at a minimum?  Has political correctness and the fear we might offend someone kept us from enforcing our laws?

Any illegal immigrants should be in the shadows. It used to be that people breaking the law tried not to be too public about it.  The fact is, though, our illegal immigrants are not in the shadows. They are signing up to send their kids to public school. They are getting drivers licenses.  They are hired to do many jobs. They are marching in parades and protests about how they are discriminated against!

I have people counter my arguments by pointing out that many illegal immigrants pay taxes. That's nice. Some of the illegal immigrants are not total freeloaders. They are just breaking the immigration law.  I'm suppose to feel better that their illegal status is so ignored that they have jobs (illegally), pay taxes, have drivers licenses, and move about freely known to all for being here illegal!

I am saying, do nothing to solve a problem that has been brought about by the illegal immigrants themselves.  If they do not want to be in the shadows then leave our country and wait in line like all the legal immigrants.  Doing nothing means not encouraging more illegal immigration.  Perhaps if we actually enforce our laws we will get less trespassers in the future and the ones here will be discouraged enough to go home and attempt the legal route.

Now let me say I am not advocating racism or treating people inhumanely. Americans are  compassionate (to a fault).  We should not ignore people who are hungry or sick. It may mean feeding them with compassion and then sending them home.


I am not saying do nothing about our borders.  On that issue I don't know why we are negotiating when and how much.  It is the responsibility of the federal government and they are failing.  But that is another blog for another time.

In the meantime, think about a do nothing policy for illegal immigration. Do nothing, except enforce our law.

What Happened to Separation of Powers?

I don't know if you caught it. Right after the new year (Yeah, when everyone was engrossed with the "fiscal cliff") President Obama issued an "administrative rule" that would give illegal immigrants an easier path to residency.  Doesn't the last part of the previous sentence seem like an oxymoron? Illegal immigrants...and easier residency??

Illegal immigrants who are immediate relatives of American citizens will have an easier path to permanent residency under this administrative rule.  It could affect a million illegal immigrants.  The rule aims to "reduce the time illegal immigrants are separated from their U.S. families while seeking legal status."  If the illegal immigrants can demonstrate that their time apart from an American spouse, child or parent would create "extreme hardship" they can apply for a visa without leaving the United States.

So people who are admitting they broke the law to enter the U.S. and have identified themselves as lawbreakers won't have to be burdened to obey the law and leave.  They just ask for their visa by saying, "I'm here illegally, but it's an extreme hardship for me to be away from family." Sounds good; we should grant you permanent residency with those credentials!

This order by Obama is one of the latest uses of "executive powers" to revise immigration LAWS.  Obama has said previously that these measures are the right thing to do and he can't wait for Congress.  Gee, doesn't the U.S. Constitution give Congress the power to pass laws?  If there is going to be a revision of immigration law it should come from Congress.  Obama is once again trampling on the Constitution and ignoring separation of powers.

President Obama and Vice President Biden are talking now about using the same rationale to institute stricter gun control.  In the discussions VP Biden said the President wants something done!  It's morally imperative that they enact stricter gun controls and if Congress won't do it then they will do the "right thing" and issue executive orders.

Look out Second Amendment, here comes Obama's boot!  Hello, Congress? Will you sit by and let Obama usurp your power and our rights?

Boehner Caves with Plan B and Obama Gloats

Speaker John Boehner offered a "Plan B" to avert the so-called Fiscal Cliff that would raise rates on those making $1 million or more and President Obama had a very predictable response.  Obama welcomed the capitulation from the principle that no one's tax rates should be raised and he scolded and belittled Boehner for holding up an agreement due to his unwillingness to raise tax rates on those making $900,000.

Nancy Pelosi piled on and said her suggestion earlier in the year that we could raise rates on those making $1 million or more (instead of the President's proposed $250,000) was bait.  It was just an exercise to see if the Republicans would accept raising rates at some level.  Now that the Republicans have given up the stand that no rates should go up we can really get down to some negotiations according to Pelosi.

When will the Republicans learn.  There is no level of compromise or capitulation to the President and his Congressional allies that will appease them.  Obama wishes to rub Republicans' noses in this tax hike - either by total surrender or by allowing us go over the Fiscal Cliff.  I believe either is acceptable to Obama.  And in either case he will scold the Republicans for raising taxes and for not caring for the middle class.

If hearing Obama gloat and then scold him is not enough for Speaker Boehner's blood to boil then he is too far gone in DC's political morass.  He should immediately pull back his Plan B and fight for principle.  He should boldly declare that the federal budget is out of balance because they have been spending too much, not taxing too little. 

Everyone, including Obama, knows that raising tax rates on the top 2% or Plan B's Top 1% is not going to solve anything.  It is merely another attack on the so-called rich by Commander-in-Chief of Class Warfare Obama.  Some say that the revenue raised is enough for 8 days of Washington spending.  Obama is not serious about solving anything. He is acting 50% vindictive politician and 50% re-distributor.

Boehner's Plan B is a bad plan economically and will do nothing to cut the deficit.  Obama has rejected it and insulted and bullied the Speaker.  Now Mr. Speaker, show some spine and call Obama out as the one wanting to raise taxes on all Americans.  Pull back to principle.

Pay Your Fair Share?

Popular political discourse today is rife with calls for the rich to pay their "Fair Share."  This begs the question, what is a citizen's fair share in taxes?  And who is to define what a fair share is?  Does this fall to President Obama to decide, or to Congress, or maybe to those who are not paying any income tax?

Let me pose the following multiple choice question to you in which you have a household income of $100,000 and your neighbor has a household income of $50,000 (I know, some of you want to complicate it with deductions and "unearned" income, but stay with me...): 

You pay your fair share in income taxes if you

(a) pay the same dollar amount as your neighbor - say, an imaginary $10,000
(b) pay the same percent of your income as your neighbor - say 10%, meaning you pay $10,000 and your neighbor pays $5,000
(c) pay a higher percent of your income than your neighbor (since you are obviously much more well off) - say you pay 20%, meaning $20,000 and your neighbor pays 10%, or $5,000
(d) pay an even higher rate (since you are obviously much more well off than 90% of America), say 35%, meaning $35,000 in income taxes and since your neighbor unfortunately just lost his job due to the poor economy he pays $0.

In today's environment of class warfare, a,b,c are not acceptable and you would be accused of not paying your fair share. If each individual receives the same services equally from the federal government you could make an argument that we should all pay the same dollar amount (choice "a" above).  However, this certainly would be unpopular with most people and considered unfair to lower income earners. (And do we all receive the same services?)

In choice "b" above you pay proportionally and so does your neighbor.  You have twice the income and you pay twice the income tax.  Seems fair.  However, do you receive twice the benefits or services from the Feds? No, you probably do not, but because you can pay more you are required to help support others, or perhaps allow the government to do more.  The proportional tax is similar to the biblical tithe principle where one is to give (10%) as God has blessed him.  The difference being- the tithe is freely offered where the income tax is confiscated under penalty of law.

Choice "c" above expresses a simple graduated tax code.  The more you make the higher RATE you pay.  (In the U.S. income tax we use brackets and in reality you pay at the lower bracket and only dollars earned above the floor of the next bracket are taxed at the higher rate.)  So the federal government, through the tax code, has expressed that the proportional tax system (my choice "b" above) is not paying your fair share and that to really be fair the higher your income the higher the rate the Feds will impose.  I don't know about you, but logically this seems UNFAIR to me.

President Obama is insisting that the "top 2 percent pay their fair share."  By this he means the richest are currently NOT paying their fair at a 35% rate while some pay at a 10% rate.  Understand that the rich are in reality now paying more than their share.  They are paying certainly many more dollars than you or I for about the same service and are paying at a proportionally higher rate.  According to Obama that is not enough.

Of course what I am pointing out is that the graduated or progressive income tax system that we have already has the rich paying more.  They are paying three and a half times more than those at the lowest tax bracket.  If Obama was honest he would be saying that while the rich are paying more than their fair share he needs even more of their money to redistribute to those he deems worthy.  (Yes, I know that in my simple example I have not accounted for marginal rates and tax deductions and effective tax rates, et al.  I think you would agree with me that even with those complications that most of the "rich" pay at a much higher rate if not certainly more dollars. Even Romney's effective tax rate of 14% was higher than 97% of Americans.)

How did we get here?  Well, we have allowed the rhetoric of class warfare to go unchallenged. Obama is the king of it.  Republicans fearing to be connected to evil rich will not argue against him.

The founders would have been appalled. The principle behind the progressive income tax—the more you earn, the larger the percentage of tax you must pay was rejected by them. James Madison said, “the spirit of party and faction” would prevail if Congress could tax one group of citizens and confer the benefits on another group. In Federalist No. 10, Madison warned, “The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.”

You'll find that in the 1800s thinking usually conformed to the founders’ guiding principles of uniformity and equal protection. There was an exception during the Civil War, when a progressive income tax was first enacted. However, the tax had a maximum rate of 10 percent, and it was repealed in 1872. A Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont declared, “in this country we neither create nor tolerate any distinction of rank, race, or color, and should not tolerate anything else than entire equality in our taxes.”

The temptation was too great and in 1913 a constitutional amendment permitting a progressive income tax was ratified; the ideas of uniform taxation and equal protection of the law for all citizens were overturned. Seven percent was the top rate first set by Congress.  Married couples were only taxed on income over $4,000 (equivalent to $80,000 today). During debate over this tax, William Shelton, offered a selfish reason to support the income tax: “because none of us here have $4,000 incomes, and somebody else will have to pay the tax.”

This leads me to one of my rules of thumb on taxes: Never support a tax increase on someone else, because it is only an amount of time until they have one for you!

I've had it with the demands that the rich pay their "Fair Share."  Let's face it, when President Obama says that all Americans need to pay their fair share he doesn't mean that we all pay the same.  He isn't even suggesting that all Americans pay the same percentage in taxes.  President Obama's definition of "Fair Share" doesn't even mean that the so-called rich pay more total dollars or be taxed at a higher rate.  He means that the rich need to pay more than their "Fair Share."

Change America

Okay, it was disastrous.  Half of the voters chose Barack Obama as President for a second term.  President Obama came out with a sizable lead in electoral votes over Governor Romney.  In Pennsylvania, not only did we go Blue for President, but Senator Casey (D) easily won re-election and the state row offices all went to Democrats.  Disastrous.

This morning after- I am disgusted, discouraged, and disillusioned.  I know, my Democrat friends, you are elated and that is understandable.

As is always the case, the losing party in the presidential sweepstakes immediately begins introspection and finger pointing. The media will soon develop a narrative (they do no news anymore) of how the Republican Party did everything wrong and the Democrat Party had all the right moves.  We know that is not true, and the same narrative was wrong when Bush was winning elections.

The country continues to be deeply divided.  Since the close election in 2000 brought the template of Red States and Blue States, our nation suffers from clearly different visions of what we want for our federal government.

I admit that I grow increasingly distant from the half that wants a government that cares for them and  controls me.  I grow increasingly bewildered that we ask for or accept our federal government to do things that are extra-constitutional.  I think our founders must be spinning in their graves.

There will be much written and said in the coming weeks and months as conservatives examine what went wrong and liberals gloat.  My first thought is that we have reached the tipping point and America has chosen to willfully ignore the Constitution, has renounced Capitalism, and dismissed adherence to a wholesome morality.  Harsh words. Maybe I will moderate them with time, but that is the way it looks right now.

Already I hear the genius talking heads suggest that the Republican Party must change with the times or it will be relegated to a permanent minority party (again, this is always recommended to the loser of the presidential contest).  They must reach out to minorities, particularly Latinos. They must stop the war on women and foolish talk about contraceptives.  They must stop supporting big business over the 99 percent. And so with the caricature of the the Republican Party.

So the Republican Party should change what they stand for to counter the gross misrepresentation of what they stand for?  That is how you become more relevant and a winning party? And if half (or more) of the country believes the Constitution is no longer relevant, or that what we need not defend the innocent unborn should we change?

No my friends, we do not need to moderate or change our defense of the Constitution, of Life, or of Capitalism.  We need to change America.  Too many of our fellow-citizens are ignorant of our founding principles, the utter genius of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Too many of our citizens are adrift morally, having rejected Christianity.  (Our founders cautioned that the Republic is only suited to a moral people, and that without a religious people it would not hold together.)  How sad it is today that success is suspect or outright ridiculed and morality is mocked.

Yes, times have changed and perhaps it has passed the Republican Party by.  But we do not need to change for the times.  We need to change America, or we will lose her.

A Tyrant is Unfit to be Ruler of a Free People

When in the Course of National events, it becomes necessary for Citizens to consider re-election of its President, a decent respect to the opinions of fellow Citizens requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to vote in the negative.  Foremost in any consideration, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of its primary ends, those ends being to secure certain unalienable rights which were endowed by their Creator, that it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.  We have the duty and opportunity every four years to review the record of our national leaders as to their adherence to the primary ends of Government and their various other policies and this present President is found hostile to our unalienable rights and well being.

The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object, if not the establishment of, an unconstitutional restructuring of our system of government resulting in an absolute Tyranny over these States.  To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid nation. 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, namely the Defense of Marriage Act.  The law passed by the Congress is ignored by the Executive Branch and even opposed in court by the chief lawyer.  Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Likewise, he has refused to enforce applicable Immigration law, and after Congress failed to pass legislation (so-called DREAM Act) he desired providing sanctuary or amnesty for young illegal immigrants, he defied the Separation of Powers of the Constitution and issued orders executing the law anyway.  To add insult he has sued States who have attempted to enforce Immigration law or take action to defend their States from illegal immigration.

Contrary to the First Amendment, he has required people of faith to violate their conscience by forcing them to supply contraceptives, including abortifacients, in mandated health insurance. 

The present President has ignored repeated requests by the Congress to turn over facts regarding the botched Fast and Furious gun-running operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), forcing the Majority Party in the House of Representatives to sue the President and the Attorney General for contempt.

He has engaged in the most unbecoming and offensive examples of class warfare, constantly attacking the so-called rich (the richest twenty percent of Americans pay seventy percent of the taxes) for not paying their Fair Share.  He uses the "Fair Share" argument to fuel envious passions for his own political benefit and to the detriment of the American Dream.

He has exhibited an antipathy to Private Enterprise.  He constantly attacks any manner of "Big" business (health insurance, bankers, oil companies, et al), some directly by name, from the platform of his Office, to foster envy and hatred for successful enterprises, and to further his political agenda.

This present President has taken over private industry, such as automotive manufacturing, in the name of saving jobs, but in so-doing robbing bondholders of their investment and value, and unfairly placing the government in direct competition with similar businesses.

In general, he has favored a policy of "spreading the wealth around" and of attacking Capitalism as an evil impediment to his Statist desires instead of understanding the great engine of opportunity and wealth creation it has been for these United Sates.

He has supported, the crafting, and signed into Law, an unconstitutional mandate that requires the Citizens of these States to purchase a commercial good, health insurance.

This present President has embarrassed us abroad by repeated apologies for imagined offenses while abrogating his duty by ignoring real threats to our security. He has lacked moral clarity and failed to acknowledge the rising radical Islamist threat that brazenly attacks us and our interests at home and abroad.


He has placed an immoral burden of debt on future generations by operating this Federal Government at more than a trillion dollars in deficit per year.  He has showered the People with Government programs we cannot afford, to gain favor with special interests, and to trap vulnerable Citizens into dependency.

These are but eleven serious issues Citizens concerned about Liberty and the future Prosperity of these United States should consider.  There are many others we could list, but these alone are more than enough to provide just cause for our negative vote.

Our repeated petitions over these violations of the Constitution, abuses of power, bullying, usurpations, and immoralities have been answered only by repeated injury: were are described as clinging to our guns and religion, we are selfish, we are racist, we are intolerant!  This present President, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be ruler of a free people.

We must in good conscience, then, exercise our Right this next election and replace this present President with a new one.

America Should Act on Buyer's Remorse

A sizable portion of America experienced buyer's remorse when they didn't get what they bargained for in President Obama. A definition of buyer's remorse is the sense of regret after having made a purchase. It may stem from fear of making the wrong choice, guilt over extravagance, or a suspicion of having been overly influenced by the seller.  Obama sold the American voter in 2008 on Hope and Change.  During the last four years many of those people that voted for him realized they were hoodwinked and bamboozled.


America is a nation of good intentions and hopeful people. In 2008 voters wanted to believe in something bigger than themselves and they got caught up in the emotion surrounding Obama's campaign. America's vote for Obama can be likened to an emotional purchase, not a thoughtful one.  Obama voters ignored dangerous signs such as who were Obama's mentors and friends.  They accepted platitudes such as Hope and Change without asking what that really means in policy terms.

Obama saw ready buyers and played them.  Each buyer/voter  placed their own lofty aspirations into Obama's rhetoric and dreamed with others: "yes we can."  For the poor minority he offered hope that America was full of possibility, and by the way, he would see to it that the rich paid more in taxes.  For the white liberal he offered a way for them to assuage their guilt feelings for America's past racism.  For the peaceniks he offered a nonbelligerent America ready to apologize for past warmongering.  For Hollywood and the Entertainment movers and shakers he offered a grand stage to show how much they cared. For young people he offered a hip, new, feel-good cause and their support validated them as member of the in-crowd.  And so on, through many American population segments and many aspirations.

 (For those that didn't get caught up in the emotion and wanted to be thoughtful about this important "purchase," well, they were clinging to their guns and their religion.)

Now in 2012 we have many Americans with a serious case of buyer's remorse.  It is understandable.  Their particular aspirations for Hope and Change have been unrealized.  There is regret at having bought into the rhetoric and a suspicion that they were overly influenced by the seller.

I want to let those voters know that it is okay to feel buyer's remorse.  And you can feel better by returning your purchase!  Send it back and get a new item.