Saturday, June 29, 2013

Third Party? Perhaps...

When I was 16, I decided that I was most like a Libertarian, but I realized that it was not a viable solution.  My beliefs define me; my party membership does not.  Most of my ideas are compatible with the Republican party, but no politician is perfect.  No politician represents everything I believe, nor can any politician be reelected who pursues my priorities.  In order to be elected, a politician must return money to the district, but I believe that politicians should refuse money--not good for votes.

I believe that in each election, I must vote for the person most fit to lead--not refuse to participate.  In the last election, did I believe that Romney was the perfect person?  No, of course not, but it did not stop me from voting for him because I believe Obama is the devil incarnate.

Vote for Gary Johnson?  Gary Johnson needs to demonstrate that he has a basis of support before I go into the voting booth and cast my vote for him or any other Libertarian.  Show me a new party that shares my principles and can garner double digit percentages.  Then I will join ranks.

Friday, June 28, 2013

Back to basics

I'd like to see us disband a great deal of what we know. Order and discipline are good when it comes to discouraging people from killing or hurting one another or another's property, but somewhere along the way, we took a wrong turn. Nowadays, if there is even a perceived hint of public benefit, we do it. Once the reg passes then it's tax and fee time.

We don't need trail hands. We herd ourselves off to the slaughter.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Hillary Says She Wants a Female President. Yeah, Right!

Hypocrisy of the loud female movement.  The loud ones do not represent all women, and they become hypocrites when they refuse to back all females regardless of political viewpoint.  Backtrack to 2008 when Palin was the VP candidate.  Did you see any of the leading female outlets like NOW backing her candidacy?  Having a female VP would have broken a thousand glass ceilings, but NOW would have nothing of it because Palin is an independent female who stands on her own two feet.  Not a part of any feminist movement, she made it to the top through hard work, not by compromising principle.

Save me the rhetoric Hillary.  If the Republicans fielded a Female candidate against a white male Democrat, none of your words would have any meaning.  In spite of the fact that you state that a female president would make a grand statement to everyone in the world, you would only back her if she were necessarily Democrat.

For your overwhelming imbecility and hollow words, I award you fifty BAHAHAs, a lifetime of idiocy, and three virtual backslaps across your face to be awarded by the Conservative female of my choice.

Clinton: Female President Would Send Right Signal

Friday, June 21, 2013

Responsibility to Lead!

Failure of Accountability--A  tremendous shortcoming in the world today.  Given a chance to hold rank, privilege, or responsibility, is it not common to see those entrusted with it to fail, to point fingers, and to blame others for what they did not do?  I see it all the time.

Do you know my greatest frustration?  I am sure that many others share my concerns as well.  It involves those in position of power who work daily to run our government and fail to do it properly or to hold themselves accountable.  How many politicians are "on the take", spend their time collecting benefits and privileges, and use their positions to advance themselves only to use the same position to deny any knowledge of problems in the very government that we sent them to Washington in order to run?

People in charge ought to have an abundance of intellectual curiosity. It should be mandatory. When you supervise operations and manage departments or people, your number one priority needs to be to root out problems, inefficiencies, corruption, and waste. It is incumbent upon authorities not be political or to be vindictive and vengeful. Everything must revolve around total accountability, and if something cannot be managed effectively, then it should necessarily be eliminated.

Having served in the Marines, I witnessed leadership, good and bad, first hand.  Mostly good, I gleaned lessons from my seniors, peers, and subordinates that I will carry with me for the rest of my life, indeed I use them everyday.  Although most of my experiences were positive, I had the distinct misfortune to experience the negative a time or two, and the consequences were tremendously adverse to those unfortunate enough to be in subordinate positions.  In fact, when subjected to negative leadership in the military, the consequences sometimes make the difference between life and death.

As a civilian now, I still see circumstances in day to day life where people choose not to be responsible.  Out here, bad leadership does not often lead to death, unless entailing the more dangerous elements of public service, but nevertheless, the negative consequences can be totally demeaning and hurtful to morale.  Why does it happen?

I own my own business, and failure to accept responsibility seems to be a common occurrence, whether it be a customer, employee, supplier, or myriad other people.  Of course, I have to deal with it on a daily basis; what else is there when you own your own business?  I take it like a Marine, and I move on to the next project inasmuch as I can do so effectively.  What I have learned in this life, as the sum of my previous experiences, is that in order to ensure it is done right, or at least the way you want it done, you must do it yourself, or at least accept the responsibility for getting it done right.

Why have government programs at all?  If the unavoidable result will always be dereliction of duty at worst or inefficiency and waste at best, then what is the point in government services?  Considering that the amount of money in circulation is finite, how much better would the money be managed if it remained in the pockets of the taxpayer instead of flowing into government coffers where large percentages will be doled out to wasteful departments, bloated government contracts, and pork barrel projects?  

Swimming upstream only works for salmon, and even then a vast majority of them get eaten by bears.  Don't fight inevitability.  Shrink the government so that we can all sleep better at night and not be forced to trust two-faced politicians with our money.

Monday, June 17, 2013

Rubio wants a National ID Card? Take a Hike, Rubio....

Do you ever wonder where government officials went to school?  As if they even went to school, perhaps they simply grew up in a fairy tale land where everything they ever needed came to them on a silver platter.  I cannot help but feel like the politicians in Congress stay up late trying to find new things to do so that they can claim to be doing something and not because anything at all needs to be done.

Take the Immigration Bill for instance.  Deep down inside the bill, which is probably too long for its own authors to read, is a plan for a National ID Card System.  As if we do not have enough crap with which to deal and as if it does not take long enough to wait in line at the Driver's License office, some people in Congress, known as the Gang of Eight, now want us to wait longer and to do it in a federal line in order to secure an ID.  Oh by the way, not only a do they propose to implement a National ID but also a national database of pictures so that it will be "easier" to check immigration status.  How many illegal immigrants do you actually see walking around Mainstreet USA anyway?  Not to minimize the problems in certain areas, but let us not make this out to be a crisis in every community in the land.  Get real.

Senator Rand Paul rankles at the prospect of a national identification system to track the photographs and information of every American, and can you blame him?  Has our government not proven through the NSA, IRS, et al that it will consistently push the envelope toward abuse of its own authority?  Was our entire system of governance not founded upon the simple principle of limited government?  I think the answers to these questions about our government overstepping its bounds are an emphatic YES!!  Do not take my word for it though, read Senator Paul's statement about it here.

According to Senator Marco Rubio on the other hand, the national ID system will finally enable companies to check job applicants for citizenship prior to hiring them as if it is currently impossible to do so currently.  Really, Rubio?  What's your problem?  Every hear of the Form I-9?  Since you obviously have not heard of it, here is the link: Form I-9 for Dummies Like Rubio.

Hey Marco, in case you are too intellectually challenged to understand what the I-9 does for illegal immigration, I will tell you, and as one of your constituents, I hope you listen (I'm not stupid enough to believe you would, but it makes me feel better to think it).  The I-9 requires job applicants to produce legitimate identification that they cannot receive unless they have legal immigration paperwork or are citizens.  

Well Rubio, what does that tell you?  It says to me that there is already a form, that the form is actually a federal requirement to complete on every new hire, and that if completed at all, the form prevents companies from hiring illegal immigrants.  In summation, it sounds to me like you are wasting all of our time trying to do something useless to make yourself look good.  What is in it for you? Get your name on the Big Immigration Bill?  Be a part of the Gang of Eight?  Big Freshman Senator Scores Big with Giganto Immigration Bill?  Good Luck with that one....

Save it for the idiots, Rubio.  Open your eyes, and before you get us into another big government fiasco, look into what your government already requires.  Do not be naive either.  If you think for a minute that the I-9 does not work, it is not because the I-9 does not work; it is because no one completes the I-9.  No one completes the I-9 because the federal government does not require it to be submitted; the federal government only requires that the employer complete it.  There.  I just told you where the fly in the ointment exists.  A form to solve illegal immigration, but the government does not want to check it.  Afraid of what you might find, you want to create an even bigger system with even more information because bigger is always better.  Am I right??

Senator Rubio missed a big chance to do something good for his country, but Senator Rand Paul on the other hand is handling the situation masterfully.  I like Rand's stances on many issues, and he continues to make me proud.  I almost wish I lived in Kentucky, but perhaps I will get my chance to vote for him in 2016.  As for me, I Stand With Rand.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

I Believe in America

I am proud of my country, but I do not believe the purpose of my existence is to support everything it does.  I like our history and what we accomplished as a nation, but I do not believe our national interests should subvert the will of individuals.  As a veteran, a Marine no less, I love the capabilities that we have militarily, but I believe they should be used judiciously.  Having served in a battalion that specialized in electronic warfare, the skill set of the intelligence community is highly inspiring, yet it must be controlled.

I can be proud of my country while expecting it to do the right things.  It is possible to be secure as a country without spying on ourselves; therefore, I reject the notion that because I enjoy the benefits of our intelligence assets and strong military then I should somehow be satisfied with whatever method those in power employ them, even domestically.  I am an individual, and I have rights.  As long as I commit no crimes, I do not cede these rights to anyone, and I refuse to believe that I must do so in order to ensure the safety of me, my children, or my country.

I can be a patriot while expecting the government to respect me as a person, and I can believe in a strong national defense while forcing the government to only employ intelligence and military assets outside of our borders.  I enjoy knowing that my country has its capabilities, but I most enjoy it when used against our enemies.

I believe in America as a country, not a government.  I believe that politicians and people, those hungry for control and power, weaken us, as a general rule, and chip away at our core.  As a patriot, I do not have to be a statist or a fascist to enjoy our capabilities in that I still know that a government governs best that governs least.  Much like the Founding Fathers, I love my country, but I expect it to stay within the lines.

Monday, June 10, 2013

Edward Snowden: Chinese Informant? Not so fast...

I believe in National Security.  I do.  I believe it is necessary to hack into foreign governments, known terrorist networks, and criminal organizations.  I have no qualms about aggressive, proactive efforts to root out terror wherever it grows and then to destroy it with drones, boots, or missiles.  I believe in a strong defense.

I do not believe in subjecting myself to surveillance to help the effort, and I do not think that the government should presume that my data is fair game simply because it simplifies the location of threats.  It is not an anonymous survey that NSA wants us to take, and the information can clearly point back to me regardless of my innocence.  What's more is the fact that if you can photoshop pictures to create convincing fakes, I believe the same can be done to data in order to frame me for something I took no part in accomplishing.  For this reason, at least on the surface, the NSA dragnet appears to me to be unwise and unconstitutional.

To this end, I am hesitant to declare the whistleblower, regardless of his means, as an enemy of the state or a subject of Chinese espionage for the simple reason that I deserve to know what it took him to tell me.  Did I have a reasonable expectation that the government would have brought to my attention how I currently receive surveillance of my non-criminal activities?  The response from the government might be to me, "What do you have to hide?"

With due respect to my critics, it does not matter what I have to hide.  In the Fourth Amendment, does it say that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy as long as you have nothing to hide?  Was the Fourth Amendment not meant to prevent government agencies from seeing exactly what they want to see according to NSA?  I admit that I only care about my own privacy, not those of terrorists; however, I disagree that law enforcement and intelligence assets will only catch terrorists if they can look at my usage data.  Perhaps my data makes it easier because they want to gather all data and sort in order to look for anomalies, but it does not make it OK.  When was the last time a totally unaffected and law abiding citizen received a call from the police department to come to the police station in order to stand in a line up?  We would not accept that practice as OK, so why would this one be any different?  Is it OK because it happens to be less intrusive?

Sunday, June 9, 2013

National Security or Invasion of Privacy?

General Michael Hayden, an employee of both Presidents Bush and Obama, says that the National Security Agency (NSA) practice of dragnetting metadata from all cell phone calls, foreign and domestic, by all people, both innocent and criminal, is not being abused and has very positive counterterrorism results.  If so, then the program would be OK?  Being "OK" with this would require me to have implicit trust that no one in the government would ever use collected information inappropriately.  Look where that got me with the IRS.

We should not create government programs with the expectation that they will run well; rather, we should create only those programs impossible to abuse.  Where it is impossible to guarantee correct use of a program or to prevent a program from being used against a regime's political enemies, the program should not be conceived, and if conceived, it should be ended.

When we reach the point that our government, or any other agency for that matter, has implied trust, then we have created a system whereby we may surrender our liberty in the blink of an eye.  Systems designed to crush bad people by tracking everyone's data can easily be shifted in favor of politics simply by redefining the word "BAD".  All of a sudden, a particular faction or party may be labeled "subversive" by the party in power, and the media can be told as much using manufactured press releases.  How many average people are capable of knowing the difference between false reports and real reports filed to news agencies?  How will the average person know that the FBI has arrested political enemies, not terrorists, when the government can generate its own stories under the veil of "national security"?  Can one be so blind as to think it can never happen?

Centralized power is dangerous, and the Founding Fathers sought to decentralize federal powers in favor of states' rights.  We ought to consider divesting the federal government of much of its authority in favor of states and then require that our law enforcement agencies do their jobs the old fashioned way: feet on the ground and human intelligence.  Getting rid of old fashioned police work in favor of dragnets of data does real damage to privacy and keeps on record all history of everyone regardless of expectations of privacy or real suspicions of criminal activity.

When we want to use technology to comb the activities of everyone in hopes that we find the criminal activities of someone, then we fail to see the point of our protective, law enforcement systems.  Their job is to find bad guys by looking at their activities where they expect to find them.  Allowing them access to our records allows them to be the epitome of LAZINESS.  Do not be fooled or lulled into easy complacency.  The government that you trust so much can so easily crush you, and from that, you will not so easily recover.

Friday, June 7, 2013

The latest snatch of information by the government is more about us than the government...

Laziness.  It is about laziness.  When the government seeks to not do its job, it looks for easier avenues to perform its critical function.  In the records grab from Verizon, the government, via NSA, simply plugged in a computer to download data (an overly simplistic view perhaps), but it saved the FBI, CIA, and other law enforcement agencies from having to identify real targets to focus their investigation upon.

It is the same method use to tap the congressional press phones, the AP, and the Fox News reporter.  Instead of enforcing security from within the government, identifying potential leaks, and tapping their employees' phones, they made it easier upon themselves and tapped the phones where the information would most likely be headed: the press.

When the government is lazy, and unsupervised, bad things happen.  We tend to cooperate as long as we comfortably know nothing about it, and as long as we can justify our ignorance under the auspices of a nice title like anti-terrorism, national security, or public safety, then we as Americans are fine with it for the most part.  Shame on us for not being more demanding of our public servants.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Governor Rick Scott Takes Stand Against Illegal Immigration

Well, we have a fight on our hands ladies and gentlemen.  Here we have an honest governor trying to do the right things for lawful residents of the state of Florida by taking a stand against illegal immigration, yet this is only one issue that the left chooses as a lightening rod.  Since Scott began his tenure, he took difficult stands to bring the budget into balance, to check the power of unions, and to stop entitlements.  If you think the fight is over, you are probably right.

As conservatives, we failed to support this man in his endeavor to bring our logic to bear.  We did not properly counteract the left in their propagandatory vilification.  We did not stand in his defense when he made the tough decisions to bring our state back into compliance with true responsibility.

As a result, numerous hard-hitting Democrats chomp at the bit to challenge this good man and take away his mantle of responsibility.  We allowed someone willing to speak the truth and make tough, conservative decisions to be sacrificed on the altar of governmental waste, and so we will pay the ultimate price.  If he fails to be reelected, we encouraged, even assisted, Democrats to take the helm, and we can watch as they roll back the limited government that Scott fought to achieve.

In the end, I guess we actually did get the government that we deserved.

Gov Scott takes a stand against illegal immigation

Monday, June 3, 2013

Old Age and Politics, How long is too long?

Yes, I'm going there.  Senator Fraink Lautenberg from New Jersey died.  When you have people dying in their jobs because they are so old, and they've been doing it for 30 years, and it is a political job, then they have been in the job too long.

Strom Thurmond was another example of someone serving far too long.  Given the nature of politics, every single person in office ought to be shuffled out the door after a term or two, and the fact that he was a billionaire businessman before he ran, well that's just another reason for him not to be serving.

Give me someone who understands business and knows how to work hard.  You can keep the rich, elite pansies.  Is it age discrimination?  Since I'm not advocating a law, I say it is not.  The problem with our government is the fact that there are too many politicians who believe they are God's gift to their constituents.  There are no fresh ideas because people like this gentleman convince themselves that no one else is capable of doing a such a swell job.

Let me tell you what I think of politicians dying of old age in office after serving 30 years or more: Good riddance.  It really is a shame that we have to have people die in order to get the change we deserve.  No one ought to be untouchable, be they Republican, Democrat, or Democrat Socialist like Bernie Sanders.  By the time you've served that long, you have a long list of privileges and monetary gains from lobbyists and special interests that if examined, most people would call you corrupt.  So, I tip my glass to you, Mr. Lautenberg, sleep well, and good night.

US Sen. Frank Lautenberg dies at 89 -