Restoring Independence

How ironic is it that we take this week to celebrate American independence while we’re closer to utter dependence on the government than at any other time in our history? We’ve had other eras where government overreach was achieved—think Wilson, FDR, and LBJ—and the fruit of those years has been with us ever since, yet never have we witnessed such a concerted effort to subjugate the American people as that which has occurred during the reign of Obama. As someone commented recently, we seem to have replaced George III with Barack I. And the most prominent means for establishing this new budding tyranny is the misnamed Affordable Care Act. The facts about Obamacare, which many have warned about throughout this presidency, are now becoming clearer even to those who have voted this man into office:


Don’t just take my word for it. The Congressional Budget Office has a few things to say about it also:

CBO Report

How appropriate to relate it to the wording of the Declaration of Independence.

The silver lining in all this is the utter ineptness of this administration in its attempts to carry out the act. Not only may bureaucratic incompetence spell its doom, but the baneful effects are becoming so obvious that administration officials are beginning to run away from it. The complaints from small businesses have been growing. They aren’t hiring because they will be subject to its provisions if they have more than fifty employees. One way they’ve found to get around it is to reduce the hours of current employees to less than thirty per week, thereby eliminating thousands of fulltime jobs.

Disaster looms, and Obama’s people know it. That’s why it was announced this past week that the employer mandate has been postponed from January 2014 to January 2015. The president himself avoided making that pronouncement; it was shoved off to an assistant secretary of the treasury at a time that most people weren’t paying attention. They tried to cover it up as much as possible; it would be rather embarrassing to come clean about the unworkability of the entire plan.


Another twist is that the administration simply declared it could initiate this delay, despite the fact that the law says it goes into effect this coming January. While I don’t ever want it to go into effect, and therefore am relieved by this postponement, how can the executive branch of the government decide not to carry out the law as written? If you’ve been following closely the past five years, this is nothing new for President Obama. Adhering to the concept of the rule of law is not one of his priorities.

The other angle is that they know if the population feels the full effects of Obamacare prior to the 2014 congressional elections, the Democrats will be in real trouble. They are already poised to lose control of the Senate; a fully enacted Obamacare might seal the deal. Why not put it off until after those elections?



What? Am I intimating that this administration is playing politics? No, I’m not intimating. I’m openly accusing.

My fondest hope is that Obamacare will ultimately self-destruct. That would help restore independence once again.

Political Disillusionment & the Christian Calling

I understand why people are turned off by politics. It seems to attract more than its fair share of charlatans and those who are in it primarily for their own personal gain. Anywhere power and authority exist, there will be those who take advantage of it. Sometimes, the allure manifests itself in grandiose misstatements of facts for purely political purposes. We had a rather obvious example last week on the Democrat side when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, commenting on the loss of seven Marines in an accident in his home state of Nevada, sought to somehow connect the tragedy to the now-infamous sequester. The implication was clear: Republicans were to blame. While he was careful not to phrase it too blatantly, everyone knew what he was doing:

It was a disgusting display, which, again, speaks to the disdain many feel toward politics. For some politicians, there are no boundaries:

No wonder there’s the perception that basic morality doesn’t apply in the political realm:

Then there are the problems on the other side of the aisle. Right now, they’re of a different stripe as Republicans try to find their way in a wilderness of their own making. I commented last week on the RNC report that tossed aside steadfastness in principle for a path of expediency, pandering to society’s cultural trends. The siren song of “change” has an allure of its own, particularly after a stunning loss:

What the party should be doing instead is reevaluating the prevailing wisdom of its mainstream consultant class. The counsel the party has been receiving may be its undoing:

Somehow, these wizards of political genius have never figured out that the media is the enemy, and a clear strategy for dealing with the media arm of the Democrat party [which consists of most of the media] is nonexistent. They try to play nice with the media, believing they will receive fair treatment—but they are always disappointed.

So on the one side we have dishonesty and political gain without any principle; on the other, foolishness and wavering principles. Yes, I understand why there is widespread disillusionment with politics, but Christians have to remain steadfast in their commitment to bringing Biblical principles into all areas of society, politics included. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of standing aside; we are called to the fray, no matter how difficult.

We are reminded in the book of Galatians, “Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.” We must be obedient to the call.

Losing Our Minds–Part III

Common sense and a knowledge of history both favor allowing “new blood” into a society, particularly those who will work hard, obey the laws, increase productivity, and increase the moral fiber of that society. Immigration has been good for the United States. All of us currently living here—including the Native Americans—are descendants of immigrants. Never in the history of the world has a country been so inviting of new people, and from diverse backgrounds.

I have to say all that first because there is a false narrative floating around that those who are concerned about illegal immigration are somehow anti-immigrant. While there has always been a streak of nativism in American society, compared to most countries, we are remarkably receptive to newcomers. Concerns are not based on racism, or any other “ism” you may wish to impose upon one’s motives. What we have experienced over the past few decades is a deliberate flaunting of reasonable laws for entry into a nation. Of course, there is an incentive for many who are not of the hard-working variety:

Other nations are far more restrictive when it comes to immigration and the bestowal of citizenship. If you want to become a Swiss citizen, good luck. If you enter illegally into Mexico, you will suffer harsh penalties; it is a felony in that country. Yet those who push for ignoring our immigration laws spend all their energy attacking the United States as uncaring and tyrannical. Pure bunkum.

For me, the common sense rationale for some type of immigration rules focuses first and foremost on national security. We need to know who is crossing the border. A porous border allows terrorists free access; a porous border permits a flood of drug dealers and other criminals to invade. How many deaths and other violent crimes are the result of our lax security?

Yet many politicians, primarily of the Democrat stripe, show almost no concern for these threats. The politics of it is easy to understand: they hope to convert immigrants into citizens quickly, seeking to increase their voters. How do they know those immigrants will vote for them? Refer back to the previous cartoon.

In Obamaworld, border security is not a priority:

How’s this for a workable compromise?


I’m not opposed to immigration reform, but it must be based on securing the borders first. Anything less than that is irresponsible. Anything less than that is another example of losing our minds.

Negotiating the Fiscal Cliff

Less than one month from now, unless Congress does something substantive, taxes will rise for everyone. If that occurs, the economy will suffer another major hit. Economists are worried that history will repeat itself: during the Great Depression, FDR’s policies never really worked, and at the start of his second term, the country fell into a recession within the Depression. Currently, we have a president in FDR’s mold—only worse—whose policies haven’t worked, and now we’re poised to have a recession that has never gone away suddenly get worse.

President Obama says the problem is not enough revenue. I beg to differ. Here’s the proper perspective on the real problem:

You see, there really aren’t enough rich people to make up the difference. You could confiscate all their wealth and not make a serious dent in our fiscal black hole. The problem is spending. Beneath that spending problem is the ideology that constitutional limitations mean nothing.

Of course, Obama talks a good talk. If you listen to him, he’s a real deficit hawk. Is that why he’s added nearly $6 trillion to the national debt? The claim that he’s fiscally responsible is balderdash on its face, but there seems to be no end to the number of people who will fall for his line. He sounds so reasonable when he promises a “balanced” approach to our financial woes. Maybe people would understand him better if they could see a visual representation of what he means:

He and his party are all about bringing everything to the table for the negotiations. But again, their understanding of what that means differs from how the Republicans view it:

Treasury Secretary Geithner last week revealed what the Democrats are bringing to the table: $1.6 trillion in new revenue from tax hikes; a “promise” of $400 billion in savings in entitlement programs, but talks on that will be put off until next year; another stimulus bill, this one in the range of $50 billion; no limit on the debt ceiling—in other words, we can add debt upon debt without ever saying “enough.”

This is a plan? Where’s the compromise? This reminds me of a recurring image I have from my younger years, found in the comics pages of the newspaper:

Here’s another vivid illustration of what the current negotiations look like:

Obama thinks he can get away with this intransigence because he just won reelection, and he’s well practiced in blaming others for any impasse. Conversely, Republicans are not too good at getting out their message that the president and Democrats are the ones holding up the talks. Republicans fear being demagogued to death and having the American people think they’re the ones responsible for pushing us over the cliff.

The big thing Obama has going for him is that he’s not really concerned about the cliff; his ideology comes first: punish the wealthy and carve out more territory for the government to take over.

Obama is already blaming Republicans for wanting to raise taxes on the middle class. He says the only thing stopping the rise is the GOP’s insistence that the wealthy not pay more. In fact, Republicans are already proposing closing loopholes that would add to the taxes the wealthy will pay. And they are the ones who want everyone to keep their lower tax rates. Yet they are being cast as the evil party that wants to take more of your money. This would make an excellent situation comedy.

What should Republicans do? First, get a spine. Second, since they control the House, go ahead and call the president’s bluff. Pass their own bill that will show the American people they favor giving everyone lower tax rates while dealing seriously with the spending mania, particularly with entitlements. Third, learn how to communicate their policies so it will be clear to all but the most deluded Obamaites that the Republican approach is the only way out of our mess.

Put Obama on the defensive for a change. Take control of the message. Time is short.