Independence Weekend Quote of the Day - Friday, July 1st

‎"Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases." 


~John Adams

Illegal Immigrant Sob Story: A Challenge to Our Government to Uphold the Law?

Today the New York Times posted yet another immigration sob story but this time with a new twist: the brave, heroic illegal immigrant protagonist is none other than the article’s author and employee of the New York Times! (Cue the pounding, screeching, emphatic horror music!)

It’s true, apparently this article was written by a man, a Mr. Jose Antonio Vargas, who claims he is not only an employee of the NYT but also an illegal immigrant who just happened to just wake up and decide to “come out” by admitting his status as an undocumented worker… oh yes, my pun is intended, considering he does actually narrate about his homosexuality somewhere around page 3, so correction: Mr. Vargas admits his identity as a gay undocumented, illegal immigrant working for the NYT.  My apologies.

I admit, having recently read the media’s recent debaucle involving the scammed identity of that gay, kidnapped blogger girl in Damascus, I’m still a little leery of this man’s immigration and employment status with the NYT.

If he does exist, his article is bold. It’s shocking. It’s controversial and relevant to the mainstream media’s agenda.  Beyond that though, it’s nothing more a drawn-out admission of illegal activity!  In fact, his disclosure admits his repeated failure to not only turn himself in as an illegal immigrant but also reveals his failure to rectify the situation by applying for legal status or returning to his native homeland.

I think this author is expecting a pat on the shoulder for being “brave,” but I’m pretty sure it’s just sheer stupidity. He seems intelligent enough given his multiple (supposed) encounters with the law and years spent lying about his immigration status to know that his confession should have some ramifications.

Aside from the fact that true bravery would have involved him turning himself into the local authorities (instead of just blogging about his life and waiting to see if our system isn't so broken that someone actually comes to catch him), he has now just given the Feds a perfect excuse to come after his employers under violation of Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A) with 5 years in jail and a fine of $250,000 dollars... Though, I’m sure we can all place solid bets on whether any federal authorities will follow up with the New York Times on the legal ramifications of their knowingly employing an illegal immigrant.

I’ve read sob stories before.  Those weepy, mopey, cry-me-a-river narratives that just drag the reader along in some sappy attempt to get the reader so misty-eyed that their reasoning skills are fogged up worse than a windshield on a rainy morning are beyond obnoxious. (Hey, that guy likes bacon cheeseburgers too; he must be just like me!) They appeal to our pity, but that line of logic just doesn’t pass when we’re dealing with solid facts on real issues… like the real, tangible problems and consequences of illegal immigration.

If I tottered over to Germany and demanded a job because I was “hard-working” and just aching to live the German dream without any paperwork (which, of course, means driving a BMW down the autobahn while trying not to get any schnitzel sauce on my lederhosen), the Germans would tell me to take a hike.

I don’t want to hear illogical sob stories woefully reminiscing about long-lost descendants who came to this country 200 years ago on a boat as *gasp* an undocumented immigrant.  That system might have been A-OK for groups of people who came here 250 years ago to literally fend for themselves with no government assistance or subsidies. Unfortunately, fast forward to the 20th and  21^st centuries, and our country now has larger social obligations that require accountability.  Yes, these social obligations, when funded by the U.S. taxpayer, are beholden to regulation and documentation for the protection of the citizens of this country.

Our education, health insurance, social security and retirement and other systems - our government now is responsible for dishing out numerous free lunches, free health care, free retirement packages, free cell phones, free laptops, free educations, and any other free luxury you can think of to those citizens who can’t otherwise get them by their own means.  Furthermore, our law system is designed to protect the rights and benefits of said citizens.  It’s hard enough staying accountable to the citizens of our own country without having to worry about the stragglers wandering in from the rest of the world.

Note: when I refer to “citizens,” I refer to the actual legal, Constitutional definition, not Mr. Vargas’ loose, heartfelt, brotha’-from-anotha’-motha’ interpretation implying that anyone who believes in “hard work, self-reliance, love of [our] country” is a citizen of the U.S.

Therefore, my question is: what is Mr. Vargas’  true purpose in writing this article?

Sure, he’s managed to completely disregard all the hard-working immigrants, who spend their hard-earned resources, time, and money to obtain citizenship the legal way, but just spitting on their American Dream certainly couldn’t have been his goal.  After all, he seems so nice. So hard-working. So honest.  (Gosh darnit, I just really want to like him.) 

No, that can’t be his reason, especially considering that Mr. Vargas questions what will happen next. What will the consequences be, he wonders? In fact, he even goes out of his way to specifically mention that no names have been changed – that all information is verifiable.  He’s taken no effort to conceal either his or the identities of those around him, claiming: 

All the people mentioned in this article gave me permission to use their names. I’ve also talked to family and friends about my situation and am working with legal counsel to review my options. I don’t know what the consequences will be of telling my story.

Here’s another can of worms for you to consider: whose identity has Mr. Vargas effectively stolen for all these years if all of his documents, including his social security papers, are fake?

This article is a challenge: a challenge to the public, a challenge to authorities, and a challenge to the Department of Homeland Security.  Mr. Vargas is flaunting his illegality for the world to see.  Will the federal government take action or shirk its constitutional responsibility to the citizens of this country? Will it turn a blind eye to the laws that have been broken both by Mr. Vargas and the New York Times?

Like it or not and whether intentionally or unintentionally, laws have been broken.

Reason, justice, and the rule of law dictate that corrective action will be taken, but instinct tells me otherwise.

~Gee

Quiz Yourself: How Informed Are You on Current Events?

Think you know what's going on in America today?

This test shows that a majority of Americans don't follow current events and don't know what's going on.  With such a high percentage of our population displaying blatant apathy toward the issues that affect their daily lives, it is no wonder that our politicians take advantage of the population's ignorance on issues.

You can test your knowledge and find out how you rate, but... the real question is:  how can we ever restore this country and return power back into the hands of the people, if the people just don't know what's going on (and don't care)? 

~Gee

Gee's Budget Proposal 2011

Ok, so I haven't yet been able to find any links to the transcript of Obama's speech from last night, but I found some snippets that I cut and pasted together from various news articles and commentary pieces....and then re-worded to see how Obama's proposal sounds when it's addressed on an individual (or small family) scale.

I figure, if his "increase taxes and spend more to get out of debt" budget plan works at the government level, then surely it should work for my personal finances too.

Again... I don't have his whole speech, but I think the quotes I did find encapsulate Obama's plan pretty well:

My fellow Americans: 

My household faces serious economic troubles.  Even after our economy recovers, I will still be on track to spend more money than I take in throughout this decade and beyond.  That means I’ll have to keep borrowing more from companies like Capital One.  And that means more of my paycheck will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans I keep taking out.  By the end of this decade, the interest I owe on my debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Just the interest payments. 

Some people would have me reduce my credit card spending.  A 70 percent cut in fine dining, a 25 percent cut in Amazon.com purchases, a 30 percent cut in vacations…cuts in massages and hair products.  That’s their proposal.  These are the kinds of cuts that tell me I can’t afford the America that I believe in and, I think, you believe in. 

Therefore, my budget plan for 2011 includes maxing out my credit card and making minimum payments on the interest of my debt, because I shouldn’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where I forfeit investments in myself.

I believe that any other plan paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic.  It’s a vision that says if my clothes tear and my high heels wear out, I can’t afford to fix them and buy more. If I am a bright young American who has the drive and the will but not the money to go to Disney World, I can’t afford to go. 

To meet my fiscal challenge, you will need to make reforms.  You will all need to make sacrifices. My employer will need to give me a raise.  But, rest assured, I do not have to sacrifice the America I believe in.  As long as I’m in charge of my finances, I won’t. 

Sure, I will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in purchases I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments I need to grow.  I’ll invest in Save the Whale campaigns and buy new energy-efficient appliances (even though the ones I have are less than 3 years old).  I’ll invest in a new car, better cable TV and broadband access.

I will do what I need to compete and I will win the future.  

~Gee

Expose George Soros - Sign the Petition

For several years, left-wing billionaire George Soros has called for a reorganization of the global economic system, claiming even back in 2009 in a Japanese op-ed article that "reorganizing the world order will need to extend beyond the financial system and involve the United Nations." 

While Soros financially backs groups like MoveOn.org, ACORN, and more than 1,200 other organizations in the hopes of destroying the American economy by creating a "global sheriff," the media continually turns a blind eye to one key factor:  the United States was founded on principles of liberty and sovereignty from other ruling nations. The United States is not and should never be the global socialist Utopia that Soros envisions.

However, unless the media stops laying the tracks for Soros' global plans, our nation will surely face the loss of liberty as we have never seen before.

In an effort to expose Soros' plans to destroy the American economy in favor of a overarching global regulator, The Media Research Center has a petition available for citizens demanding the media tells the truth about his plans.

From the MRC Action petition website:

George Soros is bad for America, and the media aren’t saying a word. That’s why the Media Research Center -- the nation’s foremost liberal media watchdog has launched its national “Demand the Media Tell the Truth About George Soros” petition -- alerting the public, and holding the liberal media accountable for their active participation in Soros’ anti-American plans in bringing our nation down.

Click here if you'd like to sign the petition!

~Gee

The Politics of Pre-Existing Conditions

Throughout President Obama’s tenure in office, we’ve heard a lot of talk about pre-existing conditions.  The public has been inundated with studies and polls attempting to sway opinion in favor of eliminating these alleged hurdles to obtaining quality health insurance.  We’ve heard from politicians, statisticians, and pundits, but who can remember hearing from anyone personally affected?

I’ve been particularly interested in the passage of ObamaCare precisely because of its implications for pre-existing conditions.  Last Tuesday, a U.S. government study reported that as many as 129 million Americans under age 65 face rejection or higher premiums from insurance companies due to pre-existing medical conditions.  Arguments have ensued that this number is inflated and not reflective of reality.  Frankly, I’m not sure whom to believe.  That pre-existing conditions are a real problem affecting Americans cannot be denied, but what’s the real story?  Who is talking to those people whose lives have been drastically altered by their insurance company’s decision to deny benefits, or who have been unable to obtain credible coverage at all?

You see, I’m one of those unfortunate “statistics” who fell through the cracks of the health insurance industry as we know it.  When I was in college and covered by my father’s health care plan – a top-notch union negotiated plan, no less – a congenital condition with which I was born necessitated a series of reconstructive surgeries.  Because I obtained employment with a small business that did not provide health insurance, I continued coverage through my father’s insurance plan on a COBRA policy.  At the end of this 3-year period, I sought to purchase an individual plan. 

The obstacles my family and I faced along the way to obtaining individual coverage were virtually insurmountable.  We were met with a plethora of mis-information, discrimination, and rejection.  The companies that denied my applications informed me of my “rights” under HIPAA to purchase an adjustable-rate policy that would not contain riders, but the cost would vary month-to-month starting from $500 - $700.  This was neither realistic nor how the provisions regarding pre-existing conditions in HIPAA were meant to facilitate increased access to coverage.

Of the numerous health insurance companies to which I applied, only one was willing to insure me, and that policy contained riders for my congenital condition as well as other health issues for which I’d sought treatment in the past.  In other words, this company was willing to cover treatment for anything except the conditions for which I required care. 

To be fair, I didn’t entirely blame the insurance companies.  If I was on the other end of the stick, I’d have a few qualms about insuring a high-risk applicant too.  Yet, I had no lapse in coverage.  I had not acquired health problems through poor diet, lack or exercise, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, or other behavioral risk factors.  I just had the simple misfortune of being born with a condition that required care, and as a result had been – for all intents and purposes – blackballed in the industry. 

This anti-big-government, pro-states rights conservative admittedly leapt out of her seat when she learned of ObamaCare’s provisions regarding pre-existing conditions.  Even as I unilaterally condemned this massive expansion of government, the affront to individual liberties through compulsory conscription into ObamaCare in the name of the “Commerce Clause,” and the potential probable bankrupting of small business (and our nation), I had to acknowledge ObamaCare would in some regards help me.

As conservatives in Congress have mounted an attack aimed at repealing ObamaCare and 26 states have filed lawsuits against the federal government, I couldn’t help but wonder if it was the federal government’s responsibility to overhaul the industry simply because some unknown percentage of the population undeniably needs intervention and regulation.  The Constitution-abiding conservative in me quickly answers no, but the private citizen who has been forced to pay hundreds of dollars out-of-pocket for x-rays knows reform is long overdue and absolutely necessary, especially for those employed by small businesses.

According to most polls, most Americans are generally content with their healthcare options; despite the riders on my policy, I, too, must admit I have access to the best healthcare in the world (an opinion reinforced by a recent trip to Europe).  Gallup polls show this country has not reached a consensus on ObamaCare – 46% of Americans support Republican led efforts to repeal the law, 40% are in favor of the law as it was written, and 14% are ambivalent.  It’s little wonder the nation is so divided.  None of us, including Mrs. Pelosi, knows precisely how the bill’s passage is going to affect our wallets or the health insurance marketplace, so we rely on imprecise statistics and economists’ predictions, hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

Following the passage of ObamaCare, many large companies announced that the costs of providing health care to their employees would necessarily skyrocket: AT&T, $1 billion; Verizon, $970 million; Deere & Co., $150 million; Boeing, $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; Prudential Financial Inc., $100 million; and Lockheed Martin, $96 million.  Moreover, there have been numerous conflicting studies concerning how much the implementation of ObamaCare will increase the federal deficit, but nearly all agree that it will increase.  

Though my struggles with insurance have been great, I have been blessed in several regards – the riders on my policy were not for life-threatening conditions, and I have family who would give their last dime to ensure I received necessary medical treatment.  Others with similar obstacles haven’t been so fortunate.  There are many in this country whose stories are not unlike my own, and whether they number in the hundreds or millions, their stories matter.  Those who denounce recent statistics as “liberal propaganda” need to remember there are faces and names behind numbers.

While I applaud this administration for bringing pre-existing conditions and other deficiencies in the healthcare system to light, I do not believe ObamaCare, as the law is currently written, is the panacea liberals hyped.  Even as I wrestle with the question if health care is a basic human right or a privilege, I know the answer to my own dilemma is not to impose a mandate on someone else or bankrupt the country for the sake of “fairness.”  That’s precisely the lack of personal responsibility that’s wrong with this nation – from Wall Street charlatans down to those able-bodied persons who pilfer social security disability benefits.  

I don’t begin to have the prescription for what ails the insurance industry, but ObamaCare surely isn’t it.  Real reform can be achieved without removing the American citizen from the decision-making process regarding his / her health care, and it can certainly be done so while adhering to the Constitution and free-market principles – by allowing individuals to purchase health care coverage across state lines – to name one.  For those facing pre-existing conditions, centralized control of health care in the hands of Washington bureaucrats and the HHS is simply more of the same lack of choice and competition that allowed insurance companies to implement these restrictions and will surely result in lesser personal freedoms than we currently enjoy.  Don’t give Washington the very power insurance companies banded together to divest from us.

 

"Let's Move!" Away from Party Lines to Combat Obesity

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." 

 Thomas Jefferson 

Everywhere we turn, someone is telling us what, how, and when to eat.  From Marie Osmand touting Nutrisystem success to newly svelte singer and actress Jennifer Hudson boasting of her Weight Watchers victory over the battle of the bulge, the diet industry has become big name and big business.  Each new fad promises a seemingly more effective and exercise-free way to become healthy and stay slim than the last.

In the 1990s, we were told that fat makes us fat, and yet as we filled up on pasta, bagels, and non-fat yogurt, we filled out.  This decade, we have learned that the Dr. Adkins’ theories of low-carbohydrate diets may be more effective at producing weight loss and effecting positive metabolic changes than previously believed.  Even as we stopped vilifying meats and cheeses and the Doctor was seemingly vindicated, his theories haven’t solved the complex problem of obesity.  We’ve been told to monitor our weight according to the mathematical formula of body mass index, but this measurement fails take into account age, gender, or muscle mass or to distinguish between lean body mass and fat mass.  According to this index, a bodybuilder would be considered overweight.  With the constant bombardment of competing and conflicting information about nutrition, it is hardly baffling that obesity and morbid obesity are on the rise, especially in our nation’s youth.  

Television shows such as The Biggest Loser highlight the growing national interest in addressing obesity, which the CDC now recognizes as a “national health threat,” and its “behavioral risk factors.”  More recently, the federal government has confronted childhood obesity.  President Obama created the Task Force on Childhood Obesity to “conduct a review of every single program and policy relating to child nutrition and physical activity and develop a national action plan.”  In conjunction, Michelle Obama’s "Let’s Move!" campaign has brought the need to address nutrition and physical activity to the forefront of national consciousness.  Mrs. Obama admitted she would employ whatever means necessary to effect real change: “No one gets off the hook on this one from governments to schools, corporations to non-profits all the way down to families sitting around their dinner table."  In December, the U.S. House of Representatives passed “The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act,” which contained key measures that will help improve the nutritional content for school lunches and combat childhood obesity.  

Mrs. Obama’s campaign has come under attack by many conservatives, who decry government intervention at any level and argue it will lead to an Orwellian Nanny State for food.  Rush Limbaugh told one of his callers that she would be reported to Mrs. Obama for “being part of the obesity problem.”  On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity sardonically questioned, “Does every American family need a dietitian appointed by the government to tell them that this food is going to make you fat and this food is not?”  Glenn Beck linked government takeover in the health care industry to the need to police food intake.  His libertarian sentiments were captured when he not so eloquently declared, “If I want to be a fat fat fatty and shovel French Fries all day long, that is my choice.”  More recently, Sarah Palin impugned Mrs. Obama’s obesity initiative:

“Take her anti-obesity thing that she is on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And I know I’m going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician’s wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.”

Governor Mike Huckabee, who has been an outspoken advocate for exercise and healthy eating, defended “Let’s Move!” following Governor Palin’s comments: “With all due respect to my colleague and friend Sarah Palin," Huckabee said during an interview on the Curtis Sliwa Show, "I think she's misunderstood what Michelle Obama is trying to do."

As a conservative with libertarian leanings, I’m tempted to tow the party line with regard to President and Mrs. Obama’s initiatives.  Even as I recoil at the creation of task forces and know that the cure for government intervention is never more hair of the dog, as we observed with the healthcare, financial, and auto industries, conservatives cannot simply deny the obesity epidemic.  While I believe Obamacare is more about control and government expansion than it is creating equitable access to healthcare, I cannot deny the need for public awareness about obesity, and “Let’s Move!” is stimulating much needed conversation about weight loss, healthy living, and physical activity.  Admittedly, Mrs. Obama’s campaign has the potential to grow government, and its ties to SEIU are predictable.  Yet, I’m under no dis-illusion that Mrs. Obama or the fairy “food police” are suddenly going to begin jailing parents who serve Pepsi. 

As a fitness enthusiast, I find it appalling that so many prominent conservatives have turned a blind eye to the obesity epidemic in the name of individual liberty.  Historically, First Ladies have championed important social causes from anti-drug campaigns to literacy, and there are none more pressing than the health risks associated with obesity such as Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and high blood pressure – to name a few.  These conservatives fail to realize that there is no freedom in the saga of yo-yo dieting and plethora of mis-information that exists about nutrition and fitness.  Ask anyone who’s ever purchased a can of Slim Fast or gone on the “cabbage soup diet.”

Though conservatives are correct that the Obama administration has no right to control the foods we eat as Jefferson once said, that is not the stated or implied goal of "Let's Move!"  The health of our nation is not a liberal or conservative issue – it is a moral one that should cross party lines.  It is a travesty that this topic has simply fueled the culture war between liberals and conservatives rather than stimulating honest discussion and plans of action.

Fad diets don’t work, because they are gimmicks designed to produce short-term weight loss rather than long-term lifestyle changes.  Mrs. Obama’s campaign promotes those changes by empowering parents with information, providing healthy food in schools, improving access to healthy, affordable foods, and increasing physical activity.  Each of these elements is integral to improving the health and quality of life for our nation's youth and our nation as a whole.  Of all the policies this President and his administration have implemented in this "fast-food nation," this is the first real change this conservative can believe in.

~ elf