What's So Wrong With Profiling?

There are a lot of people bally-whooing that Arizona’s brave new anti-illegal immigration measure will result in profiling. Well good. We need more profiling. And it’s about time to drop the politically correct nonsense and embrace the fact that profiling helps to protect us as individuals and as a society.

.

Profiling is the act of using specific characteristics to make generalizations about a person in a specific situation. If people are honest with themselves, each and every one of us profiles people all day long. It’s one of the ways that we stay safe and protect our families. And politically correct or not, we expect the police to do the same thing to protect our community.

.

But let’s not get things confused here. Profiling is not about singling out a specific race or sex or religion or age or any other characteristic. It is about keeping aware of surroundings and looking for behaviors which don’t belong in a particular situation. The problem is that people seem to confuse “right” (as in “it’s my right” to do this or that) with “should” and then scream that they are being singled out because of their race, religion, sex etc. instead of accepting the fact that they are being singled out because of their actions.

.

As a parent, if I notice a guy hanging out around the kiddie playground, who doesn’t have a child or other legitimate reason for being there, I make an assumption. Because men that engage in that behavior are more likely to be pedophiles, I have “profiled” his behavior and determined that he could be a danger. I expect the police to find out who he is and why he is hanging out at the playground. Does the guy have the “right” to hang out at the kiddie playground? Yes. “Should” he? Not unless he wants the negative attention.

.

If I am slowly driving down a street known for having a bunch of crack houses, the police will pull me over. They look at my behavior and assume that I may be in the area to buy drugs. They are “profiling” me based on my actions. Do I have the “right” to drive slowly down a street of crack houses? Sure. Maybe I’m lost. Maybe I’m looking at investment property. But “should” I drive slowly down crack house lane? Not unless I want to earn the potential repercussions.

.

Now media outlets are claiming that Hispanics are fearful of being profiled, thanks to the new law in Arizona which would give the police the ability to verify the legal status. This is ridiculous. Hispanics, just like everyone else, will be profiled IF they are engaging in illegal or suspicious behavior. Good. That is exactly how it should be. The new law doesn’t suggest that the police will be trolling neighborhoods, stopping anyone with dark hair. It simply says that the police have the right to ascertain legal status when investigation is warranted.

.

How is this oppressive? As a driver, I know that I have to have my driver’s license with me when I am in the car. If I don’t carry it and I get pulled over, I can land in jail. So, I carry my license. In an area of the country where violence is being perpetrated largely by people who are here illegally, it is completely reasonable for police to seek proof of citizenship from those who are in high crime areas, are hanging out in places populated by illegals, or engaging in illegal activity. The goal is not to detain people who can show that they are legal citizens, it is to quickly weed out the people who have the legal right to be here from those who do not.

.

Arizona is under siege from illegals coming from Mexico and South America. Entering the country illegally is….shock….ILEGAL. Once here, a disproportionate number of these criminals engage in additional crime. Some of this crime is against individuals and businesses in the form of assaults, robbery, drugs, and murder. Lots of crime is against tax payers and society as a whole in the form of welfare, medical and educational expenses and additional social services. Until all citizens, but especially Hispanics, refuse to harbor, employ, and support illegals, they will continue to come into our country, breaking the law and devastating our communities and our economy.

.

There is no denying that LEGAL immigrants contribute in important ways to every aspect of society. But there is no place in this country for illegal immigrants. We must use every means at our disposal to repel illegals at the border as well as create an environment that is so hostile as to stop them breaking into our country.

Arizona Is Fed Up With Illegals – Presidential and Otherwise

This week, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill which would give the police the power to arrest anyone who was unable to prove that they are entitled to be in the country. Despite a Rasmussen poll that suggests 70% of Arizona citizens approve of the measure, civil rights groups are screaming foul.

.

Congressman Luiz Gutierrez, a radical proponent of a borderless country and ultra-liberal Chicago Democrat, has been very vocal in demanding that the Governor of Arizona refuse to sign the bill into law, claiming that the civil rights of anyone who looks like they might be illegal would be violated. Gutierrez states that the bill would amount to systematic profiling. He also called to Hispanics to refuse to back Republicans due to their support.

.

Haven’t we seen enough of politicians using their ethnicity to claim the right to speak for ALL people of the same race? The idea that those who are legally in this country, especially those who have made the effort to become citizens through the proper legal channels, would support the behavior of those who break the laws and flout the system, is ridiculous.

.

Of course, for Gutierrez and his ilk, this is NOT a matter of protecting people from profiling. It is simply a vehicle to progress the Obama, borderless America agenda. In fact, the bill would protect Hispanics (and others) who are citizens of the US or are legally allowed to be here, by removing the stigma of the illegal immigrant.

.

Border States like Arizona are going bankrupt thanks to the costs associated with illegal immigration. This means that those who legally entitled to be in the US are dealing with reduced services for education, social services, health and medical services and of course increased crime. Legal citizens, especially Hispanics, are paying both in taxes and in perception for the actions of those in the US illegally.

.

Despite Mr. Gutierrez’s assertions, the current lack of protection for citizens from illegals and the problems that they bring is already affecting Hispanics in a negative way. Let’s not pretend. If you live in a community where 90% of the people who wear green shirts are gardeners and you come into town wearing a green shirt, people will assume that you are also a gardener. If Hispanics want to protect themselves from the stigma of guilt by perception, they should be first in line to demand illegals are removed and prevented from coming into the country.

.

Of course this problem only exists because the Federal government refuses to protect American borders and citizens. A combination of a wall, increased border security, and tough enforced immigration laws would end Arizona’s need to protect itself and would quickly end any potential “profiling” issues.

.

Gutierrez and others suggest that forcing people to show an id proving that they are allowed to be in the country is a violation of their civil rights. This is ridiculous. Every citizen is required to provide proof of their eligibility all the time. In the United States, we are required by law to carry our driver’s license while driving. While it has been a few years since anyone asked to see my id when ordering a glass of wine in a restaurant, anyone who wants to have a drink or go to a club or bar or even an R rated movie is required to show id proving their eligibility. In fact, most activities, from getting on a plane to going to the emergency room require that a person present valid identification to the authority in charge of that activity.

.

Do I want to live in a police state? Absolutely not. Do I think that giving the police MORE power is generally a good idea? No. But the people of Arizona have the right to be safe. They have the right for their tax dollars to be used for the good of citizens. Unfortunately, as long as the federal government continues to fail to protect citizens, the people of Arizona have the right to protect themselves.

.

Arizona has also taken a very impressive step to protect its citizens from political charlatans. The House passed a bill requiring all potential candidates to prove their eligibility prior to having their name on the ballot in a Presidential election. While liberals will howl that the issue is geared towards Obama or is a “birther” issue, all Americans should welcome the bill as protection against an illegible person from ANY party, taking power in the United States.

.

Hats off to Arizona. They have finally had enough of waiting for the federal government to do their job and have reaffirmed states rights. I can’t help to think that at least some of the illegal immigration problem will disappear in Arizona quickly once Governor Brewer signs Senate Bill 1070 into law. If you were in a state illegally and knew that you could be checked at any moment, the likelihood that you would stay in that state is greatly reduced. Of course it might not be so great for neighboring states which may see an exodus of illegals from Arizona into states that protect illegals by failure to move against them. But, maybe it will make other states follow Arizona’s lead. If Obama won’t put the security of the country ahead of his need for new liberal voters, states will have to do it themselves.

.

And it will be interesting to see if Obama’s on the ballot in Arizona in 2012….

Obama Loses Ground With His Base

From Obama’s angry reaction, it must have come as quite a shock. Expecting a love fest as he lent his time and effort into trying to revive Barbara Boxer’s political career at an LA Democratic fund raiser, Obama was heckled, interrupted, and abused by members of the gay community, one time slavish devotees.

.

Promising everything to everyone who might be swayed early in his candidacy, Obama pledged his support to the gay community in two key areas; same sex marriage and allowing openly gay people to serve in the armed forces. Claiming that he would do all in his power to give same sex couples full equality under the law and use his “bully pulpit” to repeal both the Defense of Marriage Act and the so called the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the military, Obama won the gay community’s very vocal support.

.

Of course, as is so often the case with politicians, Obama failed to live up to those early careless promises. Instead, Obama has back tracked, blamed, and avoided the volatile issues, earning him no points on the right AND the anger of the left. Unfortunately for Obama, these issues are of fundamental importance to liberals and his popularity with his base is diminishing rapidly.

.

But why? What exactly do gays want from Obama? Initially passed in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act is a federal law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Act further protects states from being compelled to recognize same sex relationship ceremonies performed in other states. Obama pledged to use the full weight of his office to repel the Act, which would essentially provide same sex couples with the rights and protections in matrimonial and family (adoption) issues that traditional couples enjoy.

.

Due in large part to Obama’s campaign promises, gay rights organizations pressed a dozen states to put same sex issues of the ballot since he took office, expecting a more favorable climate for their cause and for Obama to lobby publicly for the repeal of the DOMA, as promised. Instead, Obama said nothing.

.

Without his assistance, four states and Washington DC legalizing same sex marriages and another four states granting legalized domestic partnerships. While conservatives cheered the rejection of same sex marriage in California and New York, Obama’s failure to even address the issues, let alone, use his position to further the gay rights agenda, sent waves of shock and anger through his base.

.

While Obama was silent, other law makers were not. Nearly 100 members of the House of Representatives co-sponsored a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. This fact makes Obama’s failure to use his position an even more bitter pill for liberal supporters to swallow, since it would have been particularly easy to publicly support measures that had already been brought up.

.

If Obama had hoped that this betrayal would soon be forgotten, he was mistaken. Just yesterday, a Texas court determined that a lesbian couple who live in Texas (which doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage) couldn’t divorce there, insuring that this issue won’t go away.

.

Already feeling betrayed, Monday’s hecklers (members of GetEqual, a gay rights activists group) were upset that Obama has also dragged his feet in repealing the 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which prohibits gays from openly serving in the armed forces. A major campaign platform in California, Obama had promised that gay rights would be a significant part of his first year in office and that repealing “DADT” would be a top priority in his military policy. On this issue he has been impotent.

.

Attempting to regain control of the crowd, which had begun chanting “Yes We Can,” in response to the heckler’s demanding to know if and when Obama was going to keep his promise and repeal DADT, Obama continued to declare his commitment to repealing the policy. However, for many previous supporters, his pledges are falling on deaf ears.

.

Obama’s ability to help struggling politicians is almost non-existent and often his presence is seen as a hindrance instead of a help on the campaign trail. Independents and many conservative Democrats who supported him during the election have migrated in mass to libertarian and Tea Party candidates. Now his most ardent liberal supporters are beginning to see him as a deceitful and duplicitous.

.

To bad for Obama, Alinsky only wrote a manual explaining how to take power, not how to keep it.

Bill Clinton and the "Unhinged"

Oh Bill, could there be an ex-President as desperate as you to stay in the public spot light?

.

Yesterday, after taking Wolf Blitzer on a delightful trip down memory lane where he regaled the news reader with tales of near misses by crazed conservative snipers during his Presidency, Bill Clinton postured himself as a veteran (no pun intended) in the war against murderous, right-wing, zealots.

.

A frequent re-writer of history, Clinton explained that death threats against him during his tenure in the White House as the result of “white, southern, Protestants” who were the “heart and soul of the right wing movement” attacking him because they considered him a traitor to his “class.”

.

Arguably, the most memorable of the Clinton would-be assassins (Francisco Duran) however pledged to kill Clinton, not because he felt that Bill abandoned his “class” (again, no pun intended), but because (depending on the source) he was a paranoid schizophrenic who wanted to rid the world of the “alien mist” emanating from the White House or he was a fame seeker who idolized John Hinckley Jr, the would be assassin of Ronald Reagan.

.

Of course, Duran did have a bumper sticker on his pick-up truck that read something along the lines of “Those who beat their guns into plowshares end up plowing for those didn’t” and one that said “Fire Butch Reno,” a reference to Clinton’s divisive Attorney General, Janet Reno. The bumper stick slogan about Reno was a tag line of a popular, ultra-conservative talk radio personality Chuck Baker. Ergo, in liberal fantasy, Duran was the instrument of a right wing conspiracy.

.

Clinton went on to reduce Obama’s lack of popularity to deep seeded racism and an irrational fear of change. “Obama symbolizes the increasing diversity in America… symbolizes the loss of control, of predictability, of certainty, of clarity that a lot of people need.” But in his attempt to smear the right as backwards, KKK members he actually got some of it right.

.

As a kid, I grew up with the idea that a President was a sort of John Wayne character, a moral, unassuming, hard working man who was a steady hand at the helm. An American President was a person who was a protector of the citizens and a defender of the Constitution. But above all, the President was a strong voice of authority dedicated to preserving traditional values and ideals, safe guarding the ability for people to strive for the American Dream, while fostering thoughtful and rational progress. Americans went to sleep at night secure in the knowledge that our President had the watch and he would keep us safe and on track.

.

Clinton, to some degree, and Obama to greater degree represent a figure diametrically opposed to that concept of an American President. Depending on your position, Obama is either veering radically off course (driving us into socialism) or is simply out of control. People do not feel confident that he has the ability or the desire to be that steady hand at the helm. He has proven in word and deed that he has no interest in protecting citizens or defending the Constitution. Even assessing his tenure generously, he has initiated change for change sake and has arguably done more to undermine American values, traditions, security, and ability to pursue the American Dream than any other President in history.

.

Of course, according to Clinton, none of this is Obama’s fault. Our failure to understand what a “great” job Obama is doing (and what a fantastic job Clinton did) is down to a combination of our racism, Tea Party hate speech, and Fox News.

.

But Clinton goes on to make some really interesting statements about the security of the country and the death threats against politicians. Clinton explains, “Since the early 70’s when we still had some left wing problems, by in large these have been systematically coming out of the far right.”

.

Wow! Now that is news to me. Let’s just think about that for a second. Clinton contends that death threats against Presidents over the past forty years have been the result of a systematic effort from the far right. He says that “demonizing” public officials and in particular the President has been the very dangerous, anti-American providence of the right, going so far as to blame “birthers” and the Tea Party movement.

.

I would be interested to find out which “far right” groups were responsible for the decade long demonization of George Bush. For the entirety of his Presidency, at every public event that he attended, he was met with signs and posters, even effigies, calling for his death. A movie, marketed as a “mock-documentary” cobbled together from archive footage, real news reels, and transposing the head of Bush onto an actor, called “Death of a President” portrayed the realistic looking assassination of President Bush, WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE! Screened in movie theatres around the country and shown on prime time television throughout Europe, apparently the televised assassination of Bush didn’t raise the level of hate, at least in Clinton’s eyes, as do signs at protests demanding that Obama prove his citizenship or follow the Constitution.

.

Clinton did half-heartedly acknowledge that there have been a few, random people on the left whose actions “may” have been seen as an attempt to incite hatred or suggest killing a President. However, anyone on the left who would act this way would have to be mentally deranged and not a representative of the feelings or actions of liberals in general.

.

Some of those “lone” lefties who made death threats or uttered hate speech against Bush included Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry, who when asked on a national television show why he didn’t take his wife to New Hampshire to “kill two birds with one stone” Kerry responded “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.” But I guess Bill didn’t consider the top Democrat in the country as a representative of the Democrat Party.

.

It is quite interesting that much of the liberal media has taken to nodding an agreement with Clinton’s disingenuous assessment of the threat posed by disapproving words at a Tea Party rally. Yet, when CBS ran the words “snipers wanted” under President’s Bush during his televised acceptance speech, THAT was “humor” and a clear exercise in First Amendment Rights.

.

Despite Clinton’s desperate attempt to stay in the media spotlight, the issue of threats, real and perceived is important. The liberal media, openly opposed to Bush and the War on Terror, used the anti-Bush placards seen at anti-war rallies to give the impression that the entire country was against the President and US foreign policy. Once people saw that the more outrageous their placards were, the greater their chance to be featured on television, it simply became a matter of one-upmanship. These ever escalating images are then broadcast worldwide and used to support the radical positions of enemies to the US. Is it any wonder why enemy organizations are emboldened when they see news reels suggesting that their acts of aggression against a President would be welcomed?

.

While Clinton can point his finger at the Tea Party movement if that makes him happy, it is the media (all media) which bares the brunt of responsibility in escalating tensions. Thanks to the media, entire generations have grown up to believe that graphic death threats and burning effigies of a sitting President is an acceptable (even desirable) form of self expression. By choosing to be the purveyors of liberal opinion, dressed as actual information, the media is not only fanning the flames of hatred, they are alienating and vilifying a huge segment of the population who seek only to be heard and exercise the freedoms granted to them under the Constitution.

.

Unfortunately, Clinton and Obama seem interested in the Constitution only when it protects them and their positions. As soon as people use the Constitution to exhibit opposition to Obama, apparently they become unhinged. To be fair however, during the interview, which took place just days before the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, the fact that Clinton would use that dark event and attempt to link it to Tea Party protests makes him the most unhinged of all.

Dear Islamic Extremist, The US wishes to apologize for making YOU bomb US…..

Last week Obama outraged all rational thinking Americans (not to mention allies around the world) by announcing that the United States would NOT respond to attacks with nuclear weapons.

.

After decades of using the possibility of nuclear reaction as arguably the most effective deterrent to attack by both enemy countries and terrorist organizations, Obama took another major stride in destroying the security of this country and embolden our enemies around the globe.

.

Following fast on the heals of his declaration that he intended to remove the term “Islamic Extremists” from the National Security Strategy, Obama further ingratiated himself to our enemies by announcing that the US would not retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked by a country who was in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

.

This essentially establishes an easy out for terror supporting countries. If Syria doesn’t have nuclear weapons itself and is in compliance with the UN initiative, but a terror organization operating with Syrian funds, even on Syrian soil, takes it upon itself to detonate chemical or biological bombs in the US, Obama gives them a pass.

.

This of course is welcome news to the terrorist organizations and enemy countries that have shied away from nuclear development and avoided chemical and biological warfare against the United States (and long time allies like Israel) because they knew that their own country would be obliterated. Thanks to Obama, terrorists and terror supporting countries now have virtual carte blanch to attack.

.

Hillary Clinton, desperate both to flex her Secretary of State “muscle” and to try to avoid the splash back from such a disastrous position, hurried to contradict Obama by stating that the US would not rule out using nuclear weapons against a biological attack. However she provided plenty of wiggle room for terrorists by explaining that a nuclear attack might be an option, “If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.”

.

Of course, this is double talk designed to placate an electorate shocked by Obama’s overt attempt to weaken America to attack by Islamic extremists. Even Democrats are not running to support Obama’s position which is essentially, “if attacked we will not fight.”

.

Instead, Obama proposes the use of diplomacy or “talking” with enemies, even after the use of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons against the United States. Could Obama’s position be clearer? Is it possible that there are still people who actually believe that Obama has the best interest of the US at heart or that he is not a radical, Islamic sympathizer? After kowtowing to the Arabs, releasing terrorists to return to launch attacks against Americans, attempting to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a global stage with a NYC trail, refusing to acknowledge Ft Hood Assassin Nidal Hasan as a terrorist, his declaration that he would stand with Muslims, his open hostility against Isreal, and now stating clearly that he will not allow the US to retaliate with the most powerful weapon in our arsenal against terrorists or their sponsoring countries, I don’t see how he could make his position any clearer.

.

The US needs a strong, sure footed, pro-American President who walks quietly and carries a big stick. What we have is a militant blowhard who has given all our sticks to our enemies.

Steele Admits Mistakes, Just Not the Right Ones

Since taking over the RNC, Steele, once touted as the great unifier of the Republican Party, has proven to be extremely divisive. In his corner, career politicians desperate to continue using the RNC as their personal financial cash cow. In the opposite corner, almost every one else.

.

Yesterday, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, Steele acknowledged that perhaps using RNC money to fund sex club adventures and private jets was a mistake. Financial abuse of this kind however is not new to the RNC and has certainly continued (arguably increased) under Steele’s leadership. That fact alone makes it clear that Steele and the RNC leadership consider getting caught the real mistake.

.

Clearly, Steele and other high ranking RNC officials want to maintain the status quo. These career politicians rely on the kickbacks, side deals, and wink wink nudge nudge of politics as usual to insure their personal wealth. Sadly, the very things that we distain in Pelosi, Reid, and many of the Democrat upper echelon continue to occur within the RNC.

.

The call to use RNC power and money to oust Pelosi is only a response to public anger and the RNC’s desperate attempt to stay relevant in what is fast becoming a Tea Party conservative world. Pelosi has been a disaster for this country for years, yet the RNC has only suggested targeting Pelosi, after fellow Republicans have called for Steele to step down.

.

Perhaps more disingenuous, the RNC recently issued a letter of support for Steele claiming responsibility for “….victories in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, and victories in 29 of 37 special elections…” completely ignoring that these wins were largely a combination of independent voter migration from Democrat politicians, Tea Party activists who came out in mass to support more conservative politicians, and regular Americans afraid of the continued liberalization of the country.

.

Once considered a promising spark, Steele has been a disappointment. Between pandering to the liberal media’s portrayal of Republicans as racists and “old, white, men” and refusing to acknowledge the anger at the RNC’s support of the likes of Scozzafava, Steele continues to use his position to elevate himself and the “voting for favors” system, use by both parties, that is largely responsible for getting the country into the current mess.

.

If Steele were genuinely interested in admitting mistakes and moving forward as he claims, he could start by acknowledging that the “politician for life” model is failing the public. He might admit that financially supporting politicians who prove to be liberals in Republican clothing has been a disaster, both for the party and for the country. Steele could even embrace the Tea Party conservative instead of dismissing them.

.

However, with his latest smirking mea culpa over thousands of dollars wasted on luxury jets and stripers, Steele continues down the road to making history. Not as the first black man to head the Republican Party, but rather as the last man to head the RNC.

.

Americans are raising their voices and massing in ever increasing throngs demanding that politics as usual, within both parties, be abolished. It is within Steele’s power to align the Republican Party with this movement, but unless he and the rest of the RNC leadership address the real issues, make the painful changes, and embrace term limits and liberal litmus tests, the biggest mistake that Steele will make is simply failing to be a change agent for the Republican Party.

Move Over Joe the Plumber, Meet Jack the Urologist, Bob the Realtor, Ann the Engineer…….

A urologist, in what perhaps started out as a knee jerk, tongue-in-cheek reaction to the shot-gun wedding passage of Obama Care, has become the latest to find himself in the firing line of both the liberal media and headline seeking politicians.

.

Dr Jack Cessell, frustrated by the sweeping changes that will significantly limit his ability to care for his patients, posted the following sign in his office:

.

"If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."

.

Despite the fact that Cessell has not refused to care for any patients and the Florida Department of Health has publicly stated that such a sign doesn’t violate any licensing laws, Dem headline whore Rep Alan Grayson is canvassing for any constituents that will claim that they are offended by the sign so that he can file complaints against the doctor.

.

“Why don't they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party?" complained Grayson to the Orlando Sentinel, "If this is the face of the right wing in America, it's the face of cruelty.” What Grayson and his ilk continue to disregard is that the opposition to Obama Care is not a Republican vs. Democrat battle. Hatred of the plan is truly bipartisan.

.

Americans are angry. They are angry that an ill conceived, cobbled together mandate, filled with kickbacks and earmarks, adding billions to the deficit, while striping Medicare has been forced down their throats thanks to back door deals.

.

But many Democrats refuse to address the significant problems with Obama Care and instead have turned their focus to either conning the American people into believing that they are better off now that Obama has waved his pen or finding people to become the new face of hate.

.

And just as they did with Joe the Plumber, the liberal media have rushed to dig at the background and potential skeletons in the closet of Jack Cessell because he stood up and dared to challenge Obama’s version and vision.

.

But where Joe the Plumber largely stood alone, now Americans all across the country are standing up and making their displeasure heard. Hundreds of thousands of people are joining Tea Party movements and getting involved in local politics. But in ever increasing numbers, people are publicizing their anger. Groups of citizens are sponsoring billboards designed to call out hypocrisy, issue a warning to politicians, and challenge the liberal media.

.

People are also following Jack’s lead and stating publicly that voting has consequences. In Jack’s case, he made it clear that the choice to support Obama not only directly affects his career and his ability to treat his patients, but affects their ability to get the medical care that they have come to depend upon. I think that this will become more common as the effects of Obama’s socialist agenda are felt in small businesses.

.

Perhaps if more people joined Jack Cessell and made it clear how Obama’s efforts were damaging their businesses, their ability to provide services to customers, and limited their ability to support their families, some voters would be less interested in voting based on race or fantasy ideals and more interested in finding out the reality of their choices.

An Inconvenient Border

What oh what should we do about all those pesky illegals that sneak across the border? Washington seems confused. Lawmakers shake their head and ring their hands. Dems want to open the borders and get them voting, as long as they vote Democrat. But these positions all miss a rather inconvenient truth.

.
People who enter the country without permission are breaking the law.

.

People who break the law are called criminals.

.

Illegal immigrants are CRIMINALS

.

PERIOD

.

The United States already has mechanisms in place to protect citizens from criminal activity and to punish those who commit crimes. There should be no question as to what we should be doing to deal with the 12 million people who sneak across the border, breaking the law.

.
Liberals like to point at economic hardships or lack of opportunities south of the border as a justification for people breaking the law and entering our country illegally.
. 

But does that rational extend to everyone? So if I feel that my economic situation isn’t ideal, I can go knock over a liquor store or rob a bank without fear of being branded a criminal? Do I have crate blanch to break into my neighbor’s home and steal their stuff because they have it better than I do? Ridiculous.
.

In the real world, some people break the law. Because of this fact, businesses and private citizens protect themselves. We lock our doors. We fit our businesses, homes, and cars with alarms. We build fences and put bars on the windows. We hire police and security guards to patrol our neighborhoods. We do what we need to do to protect our property, our families, and our community from people who break the law. We take action to protect ourselves from criminals.
. 

Do we worry that locking our doors might send a message to our neighbors that we don’t trust people? Do we worry that having a well equipped police force may make criminals feel uneasy? Do we worry that having fences may keep people out of our property? Are we worried that protecting ourselves from the realities of life make us appear unfriendly? No?
.

But that is Obama’s justification for not sending the National Guard to our border to get the criminal migration under control. That is Obama’s justification for refusing to authorize the building of a wall. He doesn’t want to send a message to the world that we are unfriendly or aggressive.

.
Great plan.

.
And just like the grocery store, bank, farm, factory, or family home that advertises that it doesn’t protect both its assets and its people, the United States has been pillaged into financial devastation and its citizens live in fear for their lives.
. 

Immigration criminals break into our country and steal an estimated 4.3 billion dollars annually from the local, state and federal government and kill more than 25 Americans EACH DAY. But at least Iran, Sudan, and China and the rest of our world “neighbors” see us as friendly and non-aggressive.
. 

There is an old saying; “Good fences make good neighbors.” Anyone who has ever lived in the suburbs knows that this adage is true. Without establishing boundaries, your neighbors encroach on your space, use your stuff, and generally take advantage, creating an atmosphere of animosity, anger, and mistrust. But well marked and established boundaries help insure that those on both sides of the fence behave themselves and respect each other’s providences.
.

As a country, we have failed to create firm boundaries and have sat by grumbling as our neighbors to the south have run amuck over our property and disrespected our rights. But they aren’t simply using our kid’s paddling pool, parking on our driveway, or hooking themselves up to our cable. These bad neighbors are robbing us into bankruptcy, destroying our property value, and injuring, even murdering us in our own homes.
.

The only way to regain control is to reassert our boundaries, build those fences (both actual and metaphoric), establish well defined repercussions for those who trespass, and enforce those penalties consistently.
.

The idea that we appear aggressive to other countries when we protect ourselves is ludicrous. No other country on the planet would tolerate what we have actively encouraged by failure to react appropriately.
.

Obama, by virtue of his office, is sworn to protect the citizens of this country. He is sworn to take action. Instead, he is continuing a tradition of failure. But he isn’t simply failing those of us born and raised in the United States; he is failing legal immigrants who surely suffer stigma from their perceived illegality.
.

Obama’s border failure is also harming the citizens of Mexico. The recent attacks of Mexicans in border towns perpetrated by Mexican drug gangs, is the direct result of our failure. Securing our borders eliminates the easy access to the US marketplace that these drug dealers enjoy. Without that easy access, there would be no reason for these gangs to take over the border towns.
.

No one wants to build fences or put bars on their windows. But in many areas these precautions are necessary to protect property and people. The same is true for our border with Mexico. A fence is unsightly. It is expensive to build, maintain, and man. But, at this time, it is also a necessity.