Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Government Relocation

While some Americans have been busy working, raising families, going about their days--being distracted by transgender school bathroom-related decrees (which are important too)--Obama is actually busy pushing yet another initiative to grow the federal government in a massive power grab against the states, and YOU-- the PEOPLE.  If successful, Obama will essentially have obliterated state and local governments, everything will be federal fair game.  While no one was paying attention, Obama enacted the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation.  This edict is an end around move, bypassing your elected representatives.

This HUD-run program could potentially be the number one way in which Obama fundamentally changes America, a promise he made upon election to office.  And change America it will, unless conservatives start paying attention and fighting back. 

There are many layers to explaining AFFH.  There are the lies the Obama Administration spews to explain it, then there is the truth about what they are really doing.  This is NOT a conspiracy.  

According to Obama, if you are Caucasian and live outside of a city, in a suburb or rural community--you are racist and a bigot against "poor people."  To combat this presumed racism and bigotry, Obama has ordered that free and low income housing for minorities be built in predominantly affluent, white areas.  If your town or neighborhood has a code that requires you to build on .5 acres, an acre, two acres, etc., then that is racist and discriminatory against the poor.  

Obama apparently believes non-whites and the poor people can't afford to build on that much land--and it is his job to fix that.  

I believe all people have the opportunity to make choices and improve their life.  I do not believe that is my responsibility to house, clothe, and feed able-bodied people who won't lift a finger to help themselves. 

What AFFH does is inject partisan, liberal politics at the federal level into your neighborhood's local zoning regulations.  Essentially, some federal HUD employee in DC, an overpaid and under informed bureaucrat, is looking at a census map and seeing the predominantly Red areas..."conservative areas"...and then relocating traditionally poor, liberal voters into those areas to change the demographics.  In much the same way the Obama Administration quietly placed unaccompanied minors and other South American migrants in towns and neighborhoods who voted conservatively, he is building housing for no-and-low income families in similar areas.  

This is the same liberal thinking that created Detroit, Southeast DC, Baltimore, the "west side", the "south side," or the other side of the proverbial tracks.  When people with the means to move away from a deteriorating situation relocate, there are ripple effects such as the loss of tax money collected and then the subsequent loss of community services that the tax money provided. 

Similarly, when you inject a high level of no-and-low income people into a neighborhood, there are ripple effects.  It creates an increased strain on the populace to provide for those who will not provide for themselves.  The schools are overburdened with poor kids; who will pay for a bigger school and more teachers?  Not the no-and-low income families. They can't afford it; but you can. 

If you don't believe me that this is happening and has far reaching ramifications; just ask Dallas residents. 

HUD tested this policy there first in 2012.  Now Dallas has one of the highest murder rates in the nation, and recently had to call in state troopers to help the local police control the crime.  For the first time, violent crime has shifted to the small bedroom communities north of the city.  Three suburbs that have seen the most Section 8 transfers — Frisco, Plano and McKinney — have suffered unprecedented spikes in rapes, assaults and break-ins, including home invasions.

The Obama Administration is so eager to push this forced migration that they are doubling the amounts of housing welfare payments for the poor--OUR tax dollars--and if they refuse, the administration is making them deals they can't pass up.  If your community stands in the way, they will enact a series of Federal punishments in the way of funding cuts to you schools, infrastructure, and economy.  You paid taxes to receive these services and Obama will deny them from you if you disagree with his plans. 

Do you think any of this is coincidence?  Liberals created the "projects" and other low income housing zones.  They created these enclaves where crime and poverty--two thing that go hand-in-hand--form and persist.  These are the most dangerous parts of our cities, and for reasons that continue to escape me, these areas are also solid Blue voting blocs.  

It has become the self-licking ice cream cone of our time--a self-perpetuating system with no other purpose than to sustain itself.  Every election, Liberal politicians con their voters by promising to clean up the 'hood and it never happens, but the impoverished continue to vote for free money, free housing, free cell phones, and a host of other benefits, hoping the hood will get better.  It doesn't.  It's been the norm for people living in these areas since the creation of welfare and they keep voting for the party that perpetuates the problem, and it keeps Liberal politicians employed.

People with the means to do so will move away from this invasion.  

But you can bet your tax dollars, and your salary, that none of these liberal politicians pushing this agenda will have to move.  They will ensure their neighborhoods will be exempt from such policies.  

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."  ~ Benjamin Franklin

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Dumb Luck or Hard Work

Recently Obama made some remarks at a college graduation that really angered me.  He said, “That's a pet peeve of mine: People who have been successful and don’t realize they've been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn’t nothing you did. So don’t have an attitude.

So in Obama’s mind, successful people were just lucky and did nothing to contribute to their success.  I can see how that view strictly applies to him.  Obama actually is where he is in life because of pure luck.  He was nothing but a sub-par student who used his bi-racial heritage to gain access to prestigious higher education opportunities.  He held no real job--but instead was a communist organizer who slipped into his Senate position when a Hollywood actress in a bitter divorce accused her husband--the man running against Obama--of pressuring her to perform sex acts in public, thus effectively tanking her husband’s campaign and handing it to Obama.  Obama’s one actual talent, despite what some may think, is not public speaking--but the ability to read a teleprompter rather well.  He read the teleprompter well, and gave one well received speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and suddenly his name was kicked in the ring to be the 2008 Presidential candidate.  He then manipulated a country that desperately wanted to shake the racial intolerance of past and he capitalized on the notion that we could either elect our first black president or be seen as a racist country who wouldn’t elect a black man.  My God, he was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for literally doing NOTHING!  So yes, Mr. Obama has been extraordinarily lucky.  

In most cases, attributing someone else’s success to luck is what unsuccessful people do to try and comfort themselves.  Life is a series of choices and decisions with each one taking you closer or farther away from what you define as “success.”  When two people are presented with the same options and make different choices, with one of them leading to success and the other to failure; that is not luck.   That was a choice.

It actually offends me to my core that someone might look at me and where I am in life and what I have achieved and attribute it all to “luck.”   I worked hard to get to where I am today.  School did not come easy for me. Many days, I went in early and stayed late to receive extra help from my teachers.  Though I never failed a single subject--or got any grades lower than a B--I even chose to attend summer school to get ahead in subjects.  So did I get good grades because I was lucky?  No, it’s because I worked hard for those grades—trust me, ask any of my teachers, I’m sure they remember me always being the one to ask a million questions.

After graduating college, I enlisted in the US Army on the Student Loan Repayment Program.  Pursuing military service has nothing to do with luck; in fact it is an opportunity open to almost all Americans, including many that do have physical disabilities.  In the Army, I took advantage of all the training and professionalization opportunities that I could.  My husband was also in the Army and had the GI Bill; he used up every cent to earn his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees and to pay for my Master’s degree.  Am I to believe that both of us earning our Master’s degrees was just luck and not due to choices we made?  We worked full time jobs and then came home every night to attend classes, do countless hours of studying, reading, writing papers, and taking tests.  We know plenty of other people in the military also had the GI Bill but chose not to use it to attain higher education goals.  Were they just unlucky?  Or was that a choice they made? 

All choices have consequences; because we made the goal of earning higher education a priority in our lives, we qualified for higher earning jobs.  We didn’t get the jobs we have now due to luck.  Our current jobs reflect professional paths we have been on since I was 21 years old and my husband was 18; nearly 20 years’ worth of choices and decisions we made to get where we are today.   It was not luck, and the choices haven’t always been easy; many sacrifices were made along the way. 

If you choose to break the law, do illegal drugs, squander your free kindergarten through 12-grade education, then you must deal with the consequence of those choices.  You might go to jail, you might become addicted, and you probably won’t qualify for high-paying jobs; this has nothing to do with being unlucky.

I can see exactly how this notion of luck falls in line with the typical liberal indoctrination and ideology and how it is so much more appealing to liberals, and graduating millennials.  If life is all about luck, then people don’t need to work hard; if people aren’t successful, they don’t have to take responsibility—it wasn’t their fault, they just weren’t lucky.  Liberal politicians do not want self-sufficient people who are motivated to work hard and able to provide for themselves.  Liberal politicians want you to be dependent on them, on big government, and they want more government dictating how you should live.   Sadly, far too many people are lazy, underachievers far too happy to let the government take charge of running their lives for them.  As I have noted in my past blogs---I call this the SLAVE generation—Sick, Lame, And VideogamE.  This defines a generation of people who rush to the doctor to get prescribed drugs, and trumped up diagnosis, for ailments they insist disqualify them from the workforce.  Instead sit in their parent’s basement playing videogames lamenting that “life is so unfair.”

In the end, this all boils down to the difference conservatives and liberals have in defining equality.  While I define equality in terms of opportunities, liberals define equality in terms of outcome and material possession.  While we all have the same opportunities to make choices, we are not guaranteed the same outcome.  Liberals want you to believe there is an inherent unfairness of the system, and that some people are born privileged or lucky, and it is their moral responsibility to rectify this perceived injustice.  They want to redistribute the wealth, they want to take from one to give to another; to legalize theft in name of their version of “equality.” 

It is a simple mind that would resort to defining a person’s success as a result of luck instead of recognizing their hard work and accomplishments.  It is intellectually lazy to make excuses for your own failures in life by belittling another person’s success, chalking it up as pure chance. 

"When we find a man who has ascended heights beyond ourselves; who has a broader range of vision than we and a sky with more stars in it than we have in ours, we may know that he has worked harder, better and more wisely than we.  He was awake while we slept.  He was busy while we were idle and was wisely improving his time and talents while we were wasting ours."   ~ Frederick Douglass

The Dream Team

Like it or not, we have our presumptive nominee.  Donald J. Trump.

Still better than a vile, lying, scheming, corrupt, power hungry woman who violated America's trust by willfully setting up an illegal computer server to bypass FOIA requests.  Better than a woman who campaigned in 2008 that she'd be the best person to answer THAT call at 3am, then when the call came--she was nowhere to be found, she let four Americans die in Benghazi, and lied to their families and the American public about it not being a terrorist attack while she privately corresponded with her daughter telling her it was a terrorist attack.  Better than a woman who illegally passed classified information to uncleared personnel and mixed her Clinton Foundation donations (aka bribes) with official State Department policy decisions.  

Trump would be better than a woman whose husband is a serial predator accused of multiple deviant sexual acts against woman and who famously took advantage of a young intern in the White House.  A woman whose husband frolicked on convicted pedophile Jeffery Epstein's "Pedophile Island" where young girls were sex trafficked and ditched his Secret Service detail to fly on the pedophile's plane—nick named the "Lolita Express"--over half a dozen times.  I wonder what ol' Slick Willy was doing on the island or plane?  Gosh, one can only imagine.  

As a side note, can you imagine the 24/7 media circus if a Republican candidate or spouse was involved in such scandalous and illegal endeavors?  I guess since so called “TV anchors” like Katie Couric and George Stephanopoulos were also guests of Pedophile Island, you can bet they are not going to report that the former President of the United States was a frequent guest on the island and private plane.  This is why neither of them are actual journalists, no real journalist would be privy to such a massive story and just sit on it.

I believe Trump would also be better than a crazy, old, communist who couldn't even get a job until his 40s. 

Am I a Trump-est?  No.  But I'll vote for him before I vote for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

I am so sick of the cry baby liberals who pretend if people say something they don't like than its “hate” speech. 

Advocating for the vetting of refugees from a war-torn area, full of terrorists who actually do hate America, is not hate.  It is common sense and in line with national security.

Advocating for increasing physical national security--to uphold EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAWS that are NOT being enforced by the CURRENT administration--is not racism.  It's national security.  In fact, it is one of the few things the Constitution actually MANDATES that the President must do. 

While I'm not sure Trump has conservative positions on all the issues that are important to me, I am not a single issue voter.  I have to vote for the candidate who at least holds more of the same views as I do than does not.  Not voting is not an option.   There is simply too much at stake to sit out this election.  The liberals can NOT win another Presidency. 

That said...there has been a lot of talk about who Trump would try to place in key positions.  People worry that he won't place the "right people in the right positions." 

Where was all this concern from the media, or liberals, when the Obama administration picked people to fill key spots?  Not only was Obama himself not vetted, but neither were his aids or appointees. 

Take Ben Rhodes for example, the President's Deputy National Security Adviser for strategic communications.  He is the single most influential voice shaping American foreign policy aside from the President himself.  Surely he must be well educated and have experience with international diplomacy to have been placed in such an important job in the Obama Administration.   Nope.   He has a Bachelor’s degree in creative writing.   He has zero military or diplomatic experience, no master’s degree in international relations.  He has nothing that qualifies him for such a position other than his ideology and his willingness to lie to the American people is in line with Obama.  He has no more credentials to fill this position than Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server administrator, Bryan Pagliano, had for his position.  From Obama down to the lowliest appointee---it's been pure amateur hour for the last 8 years.

As you may know, Ben Rhodes was the mastermind behind the lies told to America about the “Iran deal.”  He even bragged about how he lied to the American public by saying, “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns… They literally know nothing.”  Then he explained that he tells liberal non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and think tanks the same things he told the journalists and the NGOs produce “experts” whose opinions are exactly what Rhodes wants it to be. The ignorant young journalists then quotes the NGOs giving the impression of “independent confirmation” of the White House’s lies. 

But I digress, let’s get back to who Trump might pick to hold key spots in his Administration.  I’m not in anybody’s inner circle, nor am I aware of any backroom deals being made to anyone, but I put a list together of people I’d like to see in some key positions.  My own version of the Dream Team in a Trump Administration.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice for Vice President
General Stanley McCrystal for SECDEF
Dr. Michael Vickers for Director of National Intelligence
Ambassador John Bolton for Secretary of State
Lieutenant General William Flynn for National Security Advisor
Newt Gingrich for WH Chief of Staff
Gov. Jan Brewer for Department of Homeland Security Secretary
Dr. Ben Carson for Health and Human Services Secretary
Peter Morici for Federal Reserve Chairman
Gov. Chris Christie for Attorney General
Sen. Ted Cruz for SCOTUS
Mark Levin for the next SCOTUS opening
Andrea Tantaro for WH Press Secretary

"Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided upon is being carried out."   ~ Ronald Reagan