Why Judge Appointments Cannot Be Taken Lightly...

The activist ruling today on the components of the Arizona 'Immigration' Law is evidence that judgeships should not be appointed without heavy consideration. Over a decade ago, Clinton appointed Judge Bolton, which was seemingly inconsequential. Turns out, she would play an ENORMOUS role in today's political landscape. As the Administration tries to create chaos and tension, she just drove a divisive wedge between two aggravated groups on a collision course with conflict.

Conservative talk radio commented today that the legal argument for an injunction must be very, very strong. Consider that the people of Arizona elected the legislators, who in turn are governing with the clear consent of the people. The Federal Government should take note of this, as about 60% of the people of America support this law. It carries even stronger support in Arizona, which has become dangerous as a result of the lack of enforcement and resources by Federal Border Agents.

There are two giant problems with this issue and this Judge as well as the Administration are on the wrong side of both. First, the Federal Government is failing to enforce the existing immigration laws and protect our Southern border. The second problem is that the States have every right, frankly an obligation to it's citizens, to protect the residents.

While the Judge will be touted and enjoy her fifteen minutes of fame, the Democrats will claim a victory here. Nonetheless, the righteous citizens of Arizona and the rest of the country realize that the 'war' in November will be won. This battle was lost because Liberals bought a trump card many years ago when Billy Clinton appointed this judge.

This brings us back to the point - Judge appointments matter. Supreme Court appointments are very significant as they endure for life. Activist or politically strategic appointments are simply a trump card to be played at a later date. What might come before the court over the next decade? It is my opinion that every piece of destructive legislation this President and Congress have passed against our will should end up before the highest Court.

Will judges like Kagan interpret laws and defend the Constitution? I'm afraid that the answer is not certainly 'yes', which means that she and other radical political allies should be voted down. The day will come when the toils of the Nation fall into the lap of one key person, one moment in time when a single vote matters.

Why Don't We Fight to Win?

Believe me, I'm far from anti-war. I am, however, against the pathetic version of modern 'international conflict' or whatever we call WAR these days. My understanding of war has always been simple - Destroy the enemy. Once the mission is accomplished, get the boys home and move on. When war is waged in this manner, the outcome is certain. The more determined, technologically advanced, more powerful force will win. Without a doubt, the U.S. Armed Forces has been that power for the last one hundred years.

So, what is the problem with Iraq and Afghanistan? There is no question we took down Saddam within weeks and had his army on their knees, controlling the landscape within the first few months. The same circumstances exist in Afghanistan, Al Queda was toppled quickly and could no longer organize there. Despite effectively 'winning', we are still maintaining an enormous presence in both countries. Why?

The canned answers are clear: rebuild them, install 'friendly' Governments, promote democracy... I get all that. Haven't we done all that before with countries like Lebanon, Iran/Iraq, and even Afghanistan? If so, why do we need to do it again? The frank truth is that the people of these countries cannot govern themselves, they require a constant policing. I'm reminded of that goofy satirical marionette movie - Team America: World Police. Unfortunately, it's no joke any more.

The sad truth is that the Islamic societies of the world either can not or choose not to rise up against radicalism within their communities. As long as those radical members have homes and families, who know full well of their brothers and sons involvement in such movements, but continue to shelter and support them - they have nothing to fear. These radicals can terrorize, keep the fight going, and at the end of the day hide with the women and children of their communal family lifestyle.

The fact is that our rules of engagement protect them. Americans carry with us a value for humanity unlike any other part of the world. It is this compassion for life and fellow mankind that both compels us to help and ruins our efforts to destroy the evil of the world. Americans also know that advanced societies are lands with laws, and those laws must be enforced.

Let me pose the question: If you have a family member that you know has robbed a bank, murdered a police officer, and is now knocking on your door... will you provide them asylum and protection? Only the most uncivilized and worst among us would consider helping this person, family or not.

This decision is more affected by principles than it is by fear, as we know even hardened criminals won't turn their weapons on their own family. Further, we know and understand that by agreeing to provide protection we are also GUILTY of a crime and taking a risk.

It is my opinion that these terrorists (radical Muslims) must be made to live in fear of the long arm of the law. They can be safe nowhere, protected by no one. They must cower in caves and roam the streets, absconded by their own society that rejects their choices of action. Those that provide protection and asylum, they know who they are. These enablers should not be surprised when we knock down their door and enforce the law, and they won't if we make it the rule.

Is it reasonable for us, Americans, to call on the supposed peaceful Islamic communities to begin policing their own? If people are truly for peace and don't support radicalism or terrorism, they should take a stand against such behavior and help the cause. Without such action of the masses or changes of the rules of engagement, we will not be able to accomplish the mission and destroy the enemy completely.

With the cooperation and help of peace loving Muslims, we will rid the world of such terrible and destructive people. Either we wait for Islam to help or begin fighting to win, those are the choices.

America: How Do You like having a 'Boot on Your Neck'?

This Administration has bragged about keeping their 'boot on the throat' of BP while they ultimately deal with the tragic oil spill. The real story is that the White House and Congress have had their boots on the throat of the entire tax paying private sector since they gained control of the Government. With every piece of destructive legislation they force through the Congress they are leaning on and choking our economy, along with every American that works and pays taxes.

The private sector is the force behind our amazing growth over the last two centuries. They are shackled in fear and uncertainty - afraid to invest, hire, or do much of anything! This is not due to normal economic cycles, but directly a result of legislative risk and the enormous impact to come of laws already in place.

Take for instance the overall cost of hiring a single employee. Say you own a small business that makes boots. Now, with a growing government that needs heavy boots to deal folks that pay taxes, you are considering adding another sales person to increase your market share. Good and experienced boot sales persons will earn a salary of $40,000. 

Now, keep in mind that you (the employer) will be paying $2,400 in SS and Medicare taxes, around $1000 in unemployment insurance each year. Now you need to count on either paying around $12,000 in annual health care benefits for the new employee or pay thousands of $$$ in fines. What's that? You want to offer a low cost, high deductible plan with an HSA so you and employees save money... Sorry, can't do that any longer. You are going to have to offer a 'government approved' health plan (up until private insurance fails and we go to single payer) that covers what is mandated by those who know better than you.

Oh, while you gasp for air under that boot - keep in mind that those added expenses will apply to your existing employees too. They will probably demand more money since their taxes are going up in 2011. Your taxes will be going up too, and that applies to capital gains if you are incorporated. 

So, the bottom line is that adding a sales person is going to cost you more like $60,000 each year. Combine that with the added costs of doing business with your current staff and rising taxes... How do you feel about hiring now? In fact, if sales don't go up your net income will be going down... Hmm, now you feel the 'choking' effect of legislative risk. What's the result here? You struggle and employees work harder to keep their jobs by increasing production and a boot sales person has to keep looking for a job and remain on welfare - NO ONE WINS!

The scariest part of all this is that Obama and his rubber stamp Congress is just getting started. They have done significant damage in less than two years! Now they have just passed 'Finance Reform' which brings a number of new industries under the boot. Is 'Cap and Trade' on the horizon, maybe during a Lame Duck session of Congress after they are voted out? What will the effects of increased supply and transportation costs do to your business?

Americans need to Reject this Administration and vote for conservative candidates this November!