Make them Legal! Why not?

wilsoncenter.org

Many of you have been following the “gang of eight” and the new immigration bill that is making its way through Congress right now. I have been trying to read the details of the bill from both sides, just to make sure I am getting as much of the information as possible. I find that I have to do that these days in order to cut through the political bias that the media pours on us.

Getting back to the topic, I want to provide a little bit of my personal back story on this issue. As many of you know, I am conservative. That said, my initial reaction shouldn’t be too much of a shock to anyone. I was completely appalled by the idea of making all the illegal immigrants legal, which was the main focus of the bill from the start.

Eventually, I took the time to really think about what that would mean. The biggest argument for immigration reform is that the illegal immigrants weren’t paying taxes, yet were draining from our budget through social programs and the prison system. Don’t get excited at that last remark. I didn’t come up with the idea.

So it finally dawned on me – the illegal immigrants would become legal and have to pay taxes. Isn’t that a success story? Doesn’t that solve the biggest problem? The only other major issue I can think of is the sudden saturation in the market when it comes to low income jobs. I am no economist by any means, but if more people are making more money and putting it back into the economy, isn’t that a good thing?

If the illegal immigrants become legal and have the ability to make more money for their skills, couldn’t that bring the trades back? That is an issue that I have been passionate about for years.

What do you guys think? This is only my analysis of the bill when it comes to the legalization process. As I find time, I will try to pick through the other parts of the bill.

- BCS

read more

Link Between IRS "Scandal" and Obamacare... Really Guys?

photo from netrightdaily.com

Until now, I haven’t said anything about the Internal Revenue Service issue going on right now because I haven’t really had an opinion. What they were doing was clearly wrong and someone should be punished. Obviously, the key leadership who really ordered or influenced the headache that was served to Tea Party political groups will not be tried or punished. We have scapegoats for all that. Unless the people being questioned have real political ambitions, I seriously doubt they would take it upon themselves to play in the political game of thrones.

Now we have conservatives like the Minnesotan representative, Michelle Bachman, trying to tie the IRS issue with Obamacare. Suddenly, I have an opinion on the matter.

First, I want to apologize to the Associated Press about my comment on their Twitter post “GOP hoping scandal over IRS will grow to include Obama's health care law”, where I claimed that it was the most ridiculous thing that they said yesterday. I thought at the time that it was just a liberal political stunt, aimed at making the members of the GOP look silly. Thank you, Ms. Bachman for stepping up and taking that responsibility head on.

If any of you didn’t know, my political views sway to the left.  

I don’t like Obamacare. That said, the supposed tie between the IRS “scandal” and Obamacare is Sarah Ingram, who used to be the commissioner of the tax-exemption department of the IRS. In December 2010, she was laterally transferred to head the Affordable Care Act office, but has openly indicated that she worked both positions until 2012.

photo from riehlworldview.com

I did some research on the topic because I didn’t understand what the IRS had to do with Obamacare. I found out that the IRS is responsible for collecting income information from their tax activities and forwards that information to the people who enforce Obamacare.

I really don’t see that much of a link, other than she now collects income information and forwards it. I think this tie is a stretch, at best. So far as I can see, the position she holds doesn’t have much influence on Obamacare legislation. She was simply in charge of formulating and executing a plan to deal with the legislation.

This example comes to mind: I am in charge of an organization’s computer helpdesk. Corporate releases a new information security policy that states all systems will be scanned weekly for personal photographs and my supervisor asks me to find a feasible way to make the requirement happen.

Later on down the road, it is suspected that someone on the helpdesk has been stealing company-owned computer keyboards and an investigation ensues. Someone who doesn’t like the corporate security manager or their new security policy sees that I was in charge of the helpdesk and also worked to make sure that the corporate security policy was executed as ordered. They try to formulate a link between the stolen equipment and the security manager in order to attack them.

photo from georgiapoliticalreview.com

Am I getting this all wrong? Even though I find value in following politics, sometimes it just makes me sick. 

Now the Tea Party is suing the IRS for maltreatment. I’m not surprised about this and I don’t think it is really a story. The only reason I am mentioning it is because the media thinks it adds more drama to the situation. If anyone else was put through the ringer in this way, they would probably sue as well.  I would if I could afford the legal fees.

Let me know what you guys think. I always welcome feedback, even if it contradicts my opinion.

- BCS

read more

What Everyone is Afraid to Say About Benghazi

With all this news coverage on Benghazi, I don’t understand why nobody will just come out and call it like it is. Why is everyone in the media afraid to say what everyone knows to be true? The attack on the embassy in Benghazi took place during the time that the President and his cabinet were campaigning for the election. 

Nobody wanted to deal with the attack, the murder of Americans serving their country, the threat of forced retaliation, or the time and effort that would be taken away from the campaign. President Obama knew that any time spent on handling the incident would be time lost, since Mitt Romney would not have to take that time. The race was close and the polls were close.

Stop beating around the bush, Washington. Stop dragging this on in hopes of someone in the State Department will roll over on their superiors and admit that the decision to downplay the crisis came from the top.

I am not in any way playing one side or the other here. If it were a Republican running for reelection, he would have done the same thing. It’s called politics. The campaign advisors did the math and urged the President toward a decision. The campaign won. There isn’t anything we can do about it now, aside from calling The Man to the stand and seeing what he has to say about it.

Am I wrong? Please let me know.

read more

Congress Unintentionally Cuts Funding for Social Programs

When I initially saw the twitter post from Al Jazeera on this topic (Click here for the original article), I have to admit that I was guilty of being slightly positive about the situation. Now before you get excited and start calling me names, let me explain myself.

I see a horrible trend in our country, which I notice only because I have children. People are getting lazy and people are losing their pride. Scratch that - they are giving it away freely. In the time of my parents and especially my grandparents, a person took pride in their job and their family because their efforts defined them. Even the uneducated could invest their time and their future in a trade, and they were determined to be the best (plumber, butcher, stonemason, steelworker) there was.

Now things are different. The trades are almost completely gone and there are not as many good "Plan B's" for those who chose not to work hard in school. Instead of taking a job that they may not have fantasized about when they were in elementary school, they fall into the ease and pseudo-comfort that can be found in the social support system.

I'm not trying to point any fingers here, but I can say with confidence that this trend has bothered me. For that reason, I have made it my life's goal to raise my children in a way that they should never have to resort to those measures.

NOTE: I am not bashing the social programs in any way. When used for their temporary purpose, they have helped many hardworking people through tough times. I am however, bashing the culture that those same programs have seemed to produce (both intentionally and unintentionally).

Now back to the main topic of this submission - due to sequestration, it seems that some social programs are taking a hit. As stated earlier, I am guilty in that I saw this as a step forward until I actually read the news article. After reading it however, I felt like a bag of pig manure. Instead of getting rid of programs for those that don't really need them, the cuts actually effected everyone from handicapped people on unemployment, Meals-on-Wheels programs for feeding disabled and impoverished seniors, and even public preschool programs like More-at-Four and Head Start.

Needless to say, this was not the anticipated story that first popped into my head. It actually opened my eyes a bit, since I have been directing most of my thoughts on this topic toward the negative. Now for the kicker: All this budget cutting, laying off, and belt-tightening has not helped our economy. In fact, it seems the initiative has done quite the opposite and might have even stretched it's skinny arms around Europe's wallet as well.

If you know anything else about this story or have something to add, please leave a comment. I want to know your first impressions, feelings, thoughts, or what you ate for dinner last night. Thanks for taking the time.

-BCS

read more

Gun Control

Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are the leading cause of death in the United States today. They certainly account for more deaths that the 32,000 who die from car accidents, or the 80,000 who die from excessive alcohol use, right? How about the 443,000 who die from smoking or the other 400,000 who die from obesity?

In 2011, 8,583 fatalities resulted from firearms. Of those, 6,220 were from handguns, 323 were from rifles, and 356 were from shotguns. 1,694 fatalities were caused by knives or cutting instruments, 496 were from blunt objects, and 728 people were beaten to death by hands, fists, or feet.

An assault rifle is an automatic weapon, primarily used bymilitary or police forces with the sole purpose of killing other human beings. These weapons are widely criticized by the American public because they are not generally used for hunting, sport shooting, or self defense. The beauty is, assault rifles have been banned for 30 years.

Assault weapons on the other hand, are semi-automatic firearms that function the same as any other socially acceptable weapons (hunting, sport shooting, or self defense), but have similar cosmetic features as those that are used by the military or police forces. In other words, they are scary looking because they take advantage of technological advances of our time.

Spokespeople that support gun control are taking advantage of the ignorance of the average American people when it comes to guns. They want to use the term “assault weapon” to scare you into thinking that it is something that it is not.

The Virginia Tech massacre was the deadliest school shooting in our nation's history. The gunman shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others. Surely he used those scary assault weapons, right? Nope. He used two handguns.

High capacity magazines are another joke that they are trying to sell on the American people. Since the overwhelming majority of firearms deaths in the United States are committed with hand guns, they must be talking about those, right? More than likely not though, since the average number of rounds in a handgun magazine is already 10 or less. Most handguns cannot even support that many. At Virginia Tech, the shooter had a backpack with 19 full magazines in it. Would things have been different if all the magazines had only 10 rounds (which they almost all did, already)? Probably not. What about Columbine? Certainly that would have made a difference, right? They had 16 magazines and most of the deaths were attributed to a sawed-off shotgun.

This assault weapon ban is new and will cut down on all future firearms deaths though, right? Wrong again. As the President would say, “we've tried his way, and it didn't work”. The previous assault weapon ban was active between 1994 and 2004. Did it cut down on firearms deaths then? According to a study conducted by the National Research Council in 2004, academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and also said "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small.” Oh, but we will do it more effectively this time, right? Nope. President Obama is asking for the exact same ban to be reenacted.

This whole thing isn't really about guns or even about safety. It is about the systematic removal of the rights that make this country what it started as. It is about the gradual increase in big government control and how they are effectively convincing us that it is not only okay, but done for the better of society. We are being dooped and most of us don't even know that it is happening. But hey, they talked us into reelecting Obama, right? We have a system of government in place that no longer allows us to pick the best people to lead us. Instead, we are given a choice between two people who we are most likely to vote for. Americans are enabling this type of management and most of us don't even know it. This is the reason that I do not claim to be a member of the Republican party anymore. I want people who are chosen because they are the best suited for the job.

Stay tuned for a video on the topic.

read more