TRAMPLING CIVIL RIGHTS

.

Last night, I watched Laura Ingraham interview Rep. Lashawn Ford (D) of Illinois. Rep. Ford was calling for the National Guard to be deployed to fight out-of-control crime in the city of Chicago.

At one point during the interview, Ingraham tossed out the question, “Do you also think the National Guard should be sent to protect our southern border?” Ford, without missing a beat, replied, “No. That would be trampling civil rights.”

Now let me see if I understand this. Placing Chicago under martial law would NOT be trampling civil rights, but deploying the military on the border to keep out foreign nationals IS trampling civil rights? Uh-huh. Sure. Would someone please explain to me how foreign nationals who are trying to enter our country illegally have more civil rights than American citizens living in Chicago?

Rep. Ford sounded like a brainwashed automaton, spouting the politically correct (albeit completely irrational) response to every question. I don’t believe he ever paused to consider how completely irrational he sounded.

That’s why it’s so difficult to try to discuss any issue with a liberal. Liberals seem to have put their brains in neutral. They don’t bother to consider any issue in a rational manner or to place it in context; they simply spout the party line, no matter how ridiculous it may sound.

© 2010 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

COUNTING YOUR CHICKENS

.

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell prepared a state budget which included toll revenue from I-80 — even though tolling that interstate had not yet been approved by the federal government — and the legislature passed the budget. Subsequently, the request to make I-80 a toll road was turned down and now the governor and legislator are scrambling to find ways to “make up the shortfall”.

That’s not a “shortfall”, you idiots! It’s called spending money you don’t have!

Don’t any of you bright lawmakers remember your parents telling you, “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch”? It’s as basic as that, folks. You should never spend money you don’t have.

I have a suggestion for Harrisburg: Instead of trying to find ways to replace revenue you never had to begin with, why don’t you consider cutting out of the budget the inflated expenditures which relied on that nonexistent revenue?

Yeah. . . I thought that might be too simple a solution for you.

© 2010 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

ARIZONA

.

Arizona, land of the Grand Canyon, Painted Desert and Petrified Forest — and an estimated 5 million illegals from Mexico and points south.

The federal government, which for decades has been busily regulating and legislating areas into which it is NOT constitutionally permitted to intrude, has been completely remiss in one of its primary duties: to secure the borders.

As a result of this failure, millions of illegals from all parts of the world have been streaming across our southern border for decades. This influx of illegal immigrants has strained the capacity of our educational system, nearly bankrupted many of our hospitals, bloated our welfare roles, and overburdened local law enforcement agencies, especially in those states nearest the border.

However, the impact is not limited to border states. Illegals may enter the country at the Mexican border, but from there, they spread across the entire nation. Carloads of illegals have been arrested crossing Pennsylvania on I-80. And drug trafficking by illegals has become a law enforcement problem even in rural areas.

A few years ago, I met an illegal from Peru names Juan. Juan was living in eastern Pennsylvania and attending Kutztown University. He once regaled me with a blow-by-blow account of his border crossing.

Juan had been a teacher in Peru, but he wanted to make more money than his meager teacher’s salary would allow, so he saved up his money, traveled alone to Mexico (leaving the wife and kids behind in Peru) and paid a coyote to take him across the border. Juan’s group waited until dark to make their crossing at the Texas border. In the event that they were stopped by police or border guards, they were instructed by their coyote to tell the officers they were Mexican. Juan voiced his concern that most of them didn’t have Mexican accents. The coyote told them not to worry, that Yankees can’t tell one Hispanic accent from another. Juan was told that If he revealed his true nationality to the police, he would be returned to Peru and would have to make that journey again. However, if he told the officer he was from Mexico, he would simply be sent across the border into Mexico and could make another border crossing attempt the next night.

As it turned out, Juan’s group was caught, the illegals were sent across the border to Mexico, and they made a successful crossing the very next night.

Another illegal of my acquaintance had a different story to tell. Jesús had been brought across the border from Mexico as a child, grew up in Laredo, Texas, and didn’t even know he was illegal until he applied for admission to the University of Texas, where his illegal status was discovered. When I met him, Jesús was living in Virginia and working for the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Both Juan and Jesús were granted amnesty under Ronald Reagan. However, granting citizenship to persons living in this country illegally does nothing whatsoever to secure our borders or resolve our massive illegal immigration problem and, in fact, encourages even more illegal immigration.

The latest wave of illegal immigration brought into our country violent gangs like MS-13, major drug trafficking rings, even incursions of units of the Mexican army. What has the federal government done about the increased menace resulting from illegal immigration? Absolutely nothing.

Citizens of our border states face increasing violence in their towns and cities. Ranchers face destruction of their land, crops and wildlife — even the loss of their own lives. What is Washington’s answer to these problems. Silence.

And so, in the face of the federal government’s failure to secure our borders and guarantee the safety of United States citizens who live in border states, the Arizona legislature has passed a bill requiring state and local law enforcement officers to enforce the federal immigration laws.

What is the left’s response to this law? They’re screaming that it’s illegal, unconstitutional and racist. Al Sharpton is making pious pronouncements about the law infringing on the rights of citizens, even though the law is specifically aimed at those who are here illegally and, thus, have no rights under our Constitution.

Why is it that the typical liberal response to any legislature designed to protect the republic and uphold the Constitution is to shout foul?? Do these people not want to protect and defend our borders? Are they opposed to the right of U.S. citizens to live in peace and security on their own land? If not, then why all the fuss??

It strikes me that liberals oppose any attempt to reduce fraud and increase security, from opposition to the simple requirement to show a photo ID at the voting booth to the requirement that anyone wanting to enter the United States do so legally.

I think it’s high time the federal government stop its cavalier plundering of the American private sector, stop trampling the rights of the American people, stop its unconstitutional squandering of our tax money, and apply itself, instead, to one of its primary responsibilities: securing our national borders.

© 2010 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE RUSSIAN ORPHAN

.

I find it incredible that the media are beating up on the adoptive mother and including the kid's claim that she was "bad" and pulled his hair — while completely ignoring the kid's claim that he was beaten with a broomstick while at the Russian orphanage. Does no one care about THAT accusation? Apparently not.

We have been given virtually no information about events and/or negotiations that transpired before the boy was put on the plane. Was the Tennessee woman in touch with Russian officials or orphanage administrators about the problems she was having with the boy? I suspect she was and that she was at her wit's end because those officials, relieved to have finally pawned the boy off on an unsuspecting American, had washed their hands of the problem and refused to consider any sort of resolution.

The adoptive mom didn't "send the boy back to Russia alone"; her mother turned the boy over to a stewardess. That is not unusual; many children travel this way. And the woman went to the trouble to arrange for someone to meet the plane in Russia and escort the boy to the proper authorities.

In an effort to make the adoptive mother appear neglectful, the press reported that the boy "wasn't even going to school" but, once again, they provide no details. The kid spoke Russian, for pete's sake. Before he could attend school, before the teachers at the school would even be in a position to deal with the kid, he'd need a crash course in English.

The Tennessee woman made it perfectly clear why she no longer wanted to deal with the boy. She said she feared for her life and safety. The kid was a badass. You could see that in the photo of him being escorted from some Russian agency or other. He'd threatened bodily harm. He constantly threatened to set the house on fire. What was she supposed to do?! Yes, the kid needed counseling! And he SHOULD have been evaluated (and most probably was) while still at the orphanage!!! Yet Russian authorities tried to pass the kid off as stable and normal.

I notice that the Russians are screaming loudest of all about the boy's return, and that's understandable. The louder they scream, the more attention they direct toward the "bad mom" and away from their own shortcomings and responsibility in the matter.

© 2010 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

BIG BEN

.

I have been a Steelers fan since the days of the Steel Curtain. The Steelers are a good team, a team of which a fan could be proud. In the days when the Cowboys were not much more than a band of criminals, the Steelers were principled and disciplined. When the Vikings were condemned for their licentious cruise, the Steelers held their heads high above the fray.

And then along came Ben.

Ben Roethlisberger is, at best, an inconsistent quarterback. But at least he was trying, we thought. After all, he led the team to two Super Bowl victories, didn't he?

But Ben defied his coaches order and his fellow teammates' advice and continued to ride his motorcycle without a helmet. When Terry Bradshaw told him to "park the bike", Bradshaw reports that Ben "got pissed off". As a result of his insolence, Ben was involved in an accident that nearly ended his career.

And then there was that business in Vegas. But the woman was unstable, so there was a likelihood that she was lying in order to maneuver the Super Bowl star into paying her a nice monetary settlement just to get her off his back. So we gave Ben a pass on that one.

Now, there's Georgia. This time, there are more details, more witnesses. Ben was bar-hopping with friends and they kept running into a group of sorority girls. Ben bought them a round of shots, then had one willing girl escorted to a bathroom by one of his bodyguards. He followed and apparently had sex with her while his bodyguards blocked the hallway. Sheesh, Ben, are you that hard up for sex that you have to hump a woman in a public restroom?!

Now the girl in question is 20 years old — too young to drink in Georgia — so why was she being served? The press isn't interested in that one, are they?

The DA milks the incident for all it's worth, trying to stretch out his 15 minutes of fame, and finally announces that he will not file charges because he can't prove that what happened in the bathroom was rape. But he gave us enough details of the events leading up to the bathroom incident to make us wonder if Ben is an order of fries short of a Happy Meal — or, in Ben's case, one can short of a six-pack.

The guy's 30 years old — certainly old enough to KNOW better than to behave like this! He has a responsibility to his coaches, his teammates, his fans and the league to behave in a manner becoming a Super Bowl star. But nobody can tell Ben anything. Ben will do whatever he damn well pleases, thank you very much. And so he stood before the press in an ill-fitting bright red shirt, with his hair in an overgrown Mohawk tied into a pony tail, to tell us that he was sorry. Yeah, right. . .

Today was dress-down day at the office and I grabbed a Steelers T-shirt — and then tossed it aside and wore a plain blue shirt, instead. For the first time in my life, I find it embarrassing to be a Steelers fan.

© 2010 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

COCKEYED ENVIRONMENTALISM

.

Help!!! Where's Al Gore when we need him??! A volcano in Iceland is melting a glacier, resulting in massive flooding, and is polluting the atmosphere on a massive scale!!

"A massive cloud of volcanic ash lingers over Europe today," began the ABC Radio News at 1:00 PM today. The ash being spewed out by the volcano has halted all air traffic from Heathrow and throughout northern Europe.

The pollution from that one volcanic eruption alone is greater than the pollution caused by all the cars ever manufactured, yet mankind had nothing whatsoever to do with it. We couldn't have stopped it had we tried. That, more than anything else, is proof positive that we are NOT in charge here, no matter how much the left wants to believe otherwise.

The volcanic eruption is a natural occurrence, as is the resulting glacial melting and atmospheric pollution.

Have you ever wondered who has deemed himself wise enough to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a certain circumstance in, say, a national park or a small wetlands area, should remain static and not be allowed to naturally evolve?

I have lived on the same small parcel of land for 20 years. At the bottom of my lot is a small area that the government has declared a wetland, because during and after heavy rain, water collects in several low areas. I have observed that area over the years and have been amazed by the continual change.

When I first moved here, there were a lot of stinging nettles, which I pruned away from a path that my children used to cross the area to get to the creek. The nettles slowly gave way to dame's rocket, a lovely magenta and white wildflower. The dame's rocket gradually gave way to tall, gorgeous, ferny stalks of poison hemlock. How I looked forward to spring and the growth of the beautiful hemlock stalks that towered over me! And how disappointed I was when the hemlock gave way to garlic mustard, a rather blah plant with tiny white flowers. A few years ago, there mysteriously appeared a patch of wild narcissus, which I've dubbed "God's daffodils". The clump of daffodils grows a little larger each year and this spring, they were so beautiful in their perfection that I took a half-dozen photos of them!

Now, my question is this: Which of these natural phases would a rabid environmentalist decide is THE perfect state for my little wetland and should be forever "preserved"? At what point should we have forced a halt to this natural growth and change of my small patch of wetlands. What criteria would be used to arrive at such a decision? And who could possibly be wise enough to know better than God how that patch of land should progress or what plant and animal life it should host?? You see how completely irrational is the average environmentalist mind?

Which brings us back to the Icelandic volcano. The volcanic eruption has impacted the environment in a manner and to an extent impossible for man to emulate. According to current faddish environmentalist thought, shouldn't we rush to halt the eruption before it causes even more pollution and damage? And how would these wise fools suggest we do that?

Some people walk through life with blinders on, seeing only that small area on which they are directly focused and unable to see, appreciate or process the larger picture. Environmentalists belong to that unfortunate group.

It's time to take the blinders off, folks, and look at what REALLY happens in a natural environment. Nature is NOT static. To force it into an artificial stasis is more unnatural and more harmful than almost anything else mankind could do.

© 2010 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

HOW DARE YOU?!

An open letter to Congress

How dare you legislate against the will of the American people you were elected to represent and then have the unmitigated gall, Ms. Pelosi, to stand before us and pretend you did it for the good of the people?!

How dare you, Congressman Stupak, trade the lives of a half-million unborn children a year for a few airport improvements?! May the unborn children you have murdered curse you from their graves!

How dare you tell bald-faced lies to the American people, pretending that the outrageous bill you just passed will not become the law of the land?! You know full well that as soon as the president signs your bill, it will become law.

How dare you cavalierly disregard the Constitution of the United States of America which you swore an oath to uphold?!

How dare you make a mockery of the legislative process?! You have shown yourselves to be unfit to govern a free people.

How dare you take over the health care industry?! You’ve bankrupted Social Security. You’ve bankrupted Medicare. You’ve even bankrupted the Postal Service. And now you want to bankrupt the best health care system in the world!

How dare you dictate to me what kind of health insurance I must purchase?!

How dare you threaten me with fines and imprisonment if I choose to pay for my own healthcare instead of purchasing insurance?!

How dare you come into my house and tell me how to raise my children?!

How dare you legislate how often I should visit my doctor?!

How dare you order health insurance companies to violate confidentiality and provide my health insurance information to the IRS?!

How dare you turn the IRS into the Gestapo?! The IRS should be abolished altogether and a fair flat tax enacted. Instead, they will now hire an additional 16,500 agents whose sole purpose will be to enforce your unconstitutional legislation. Will you also provide them with nifty SS uniforms?

How dare you give the IRS access to my bank account?!

How dare you determine how much health care I should receive based on your estimate of my usefulness?!

How dare you lie to me and tell me you’ve committed this outrage in order to provide health care to 30 million uninsured people?! (Who came up with that figure, anyway?) If that were your goal, all that would have been needed would have been a little piece of legislation making those folks eligible for existing government health care programs like Medicaid. It did not require these illegal and unwarranted intrusions into my life.

How dare you “fundamentally transform America” without the consent of the American people?! My ancestors came to America to escape government oppression and tyranny. This nation was the world’s last best hope for freedom, but you are turning it into just another failed experiment in socialism.

How dare you?!!!

© 2010 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT IS TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT?

.

There was an interesting discussion on the Glenn Beck show Friday afternoon. Glenn was discussing political viewpoints and knowing your own mind.

Most of us claim to want less government intrusion into our lives. Many even consider ourselves libertarian. And yet, when the rubber hits the road, we tend to hedge and admit that we want government regulation of certain substances and certain behavior.

Beck and Judge Andrew Napolitano examined the results of that regulation. It was quite an eye-opener.

Here are just a few things to consider.

1) Should the government have the right to control gun ownership and to require firearm registration? The authors of our Constitution did not find it necessary for the government to regulate gun ownership, and yet now our government tells us what weapons we are permitted to own, how many guns we are permitted to purchase, and requires us to register those firearms.

What business is it of the government if I purchase a firearm? Will regulating MY gun ownership prevent the use of firearms in criminal activity? Of course not! When guns are regulated, or even banned, criminals have no problem obtaining weapons. In fact, the most dangerous places in America are “gun-free zones” such as universities, for criminals know there will be no armed citizens to stop them, should they decide to open fire, as in the case of the Virginia Tech massacre.

Gun regulation and registration serve no purpose except to provide the government with a list of gun owners whose weapons they can confiscate, should they deem them too “dangerous”, as tyrants often do.

2) Should the government regulate drugs? If so, which drugs? Narcotics? Antibiotics? Sudafed?? Has government regulation of opiates prevented illegal drug trafficking? Of course not. The so-called war on drugs was conceived decades ago, yet we still have a problem with illegal drugs in this country. As a criminal will obtain a gun, so an addict will obtain drugs, no matter how heavily they are regulated.

I think we’re all aware that the prime result of current government regulation of the pharmaceutical industry is that it takes decades and millions of dollars to bring a new drug to market, and when that drug does finally make it through all the bureaucratic red tape, I’ll need a prescription to be able to purchase it at a greatly inflated cost.

And where will government regulation end? Now, some cities have outlawed transfat and are considering regulating salt and sugar, for pete’s sake! The end result of government regulation always is more and more intrusion into our lives.

Many of you are probably complaining that without government regulation, unscrupulous men will take advantage of the naïve or uneducated. Yes, you’re probably right. Wouldn’t that be a great incentive for people to educate themselves and to check out products before they buy, rather than rely on the government to coddle them?

eBay is a partially-free market. Its main source of regulation, outside the already-existing government regulations, is the feedback of the customers. If a seller is unreliable or sells shoddy merchandise, the suckers who were taken in by him say so publicly on the site. That is a great incentive for sellers to deal fairly with their customers.

Or take your local community. Do you know a good auto garage, one who does good work and charges fair prices? How did you find out about it? That’s right: word of mouth. A mechanic who does poor work will soon have no work to do.

This same dynamic would work with regard to drugs, alcohol and other government-regulated substances. If alcohol were not government-regulated, would we have more alcoholics? Of course not! All government regulation does is add frustration to our lives and, here in Pennsylvania, force us to purchase our beer and wine at government-run or –licensed distributors, instead of simply picking it up at our local grocer.

3) Should the government set “safety standards” for automobiles? Why should the federal government force me to purchase a car with airbags or seatbelts? Why should the government force me to use a “child safety seat”? Such things did not exist when I was a child, yet somehow I managed to survive without government intervention.

Should the government set mileage and emissions requirements for auto manufacturers? Don’t you think the car-buying public is smart enough to choose a vehicle that gets good mileage, if mileage is an important consideration? And if it is NOT an important consideration to me, why should the government force its opinion on me?

We began as a free nation, but look at us now. Where have our liberties gone? Government has extended its reach into each of our lives. We can hardly take a step without government regulation, oversight or control.

The Obama administration is going full speed ahead to try to place even more regulations and restrictions on our lives. If they have their way, I will be sitting in jail for failure to purchase government-approved health insurance. That’s patently absurd and yet, that’s precisely what Congressional Democrats are trying to force down our throats.

We need to stop government intrusion into our lives! And we need to stop it now!

© 2010 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

GAYS IN THE MILITARY

.
During his campaign, Obama vowed to change the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and to allow gays to serve openly in the military. He reiterated his intention to change this policy in this year’s State of the Union speech. His exact words were, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

Like everything else that flies out of his mouth, Obama seemed to give no thought to the real-world consequences of his statement. As a matter of fact, gays are not now barred from military service; they are simply barred from openly flaunting their sexual orientation.

Additionally, no one has a Constitutional “right” to serve in the U.S. armed forces. The left is fond of creating “rights” out of thin air. As a matter of fact, service in our all-volunteer military is a privilege, not a right.

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has been in force for nearly two decades. The military has long contended that to allow homosexuals to serve openly "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

The forced intimacy of a combat unit is stressful, at best. To force such a unit to accept an openly gay member could easily strain the unit to the point where its proficiency might be compromised.

And then there would be the matter of unwanted attention from a member of the same sex. How many straight men appreciate those kinds of advances? None that I know of.

Time was when gay meant happy and homosexuality was considered a perversion. Today, the politically correct thought police insist that we all pretend that attraction to the opposite sex is normal, even healthy, instead of something to be stigmatized. They have gone so far as to teach our children that homosexuality is a normal “lifestyle choice”.

Homosexuality is not normal nor acceptable. It never has been. And to force our military men and women to pretend that it is acceptable is to place an unnecessary burden on our fighting forces. The purpose of our military is the defense of the nation. Our fighting forces should not be used for liberal social experimentation.

Marine Corp Commandant James Conway, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz and Army Chief of Staff General George Casey all have expressed serious concerns about how allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military will impact morale, unit cohesion and fighting efficiency.

It would be refreshing if, for a change, our president gave some intelligent thought to the real-world consequences of the seemingly endless stream of words that pour from his mouth.

Or is he really so stupid as to think such a change will have no consequences?

© 2010 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.