If I Ran The United States, How Would I Attempt To Modify It?

Suppose you awakened one morning to discover that you had been appointed imperial leader of the United States while you slept. What would you do with that ultimate human power? Would you rule or would you govern? Would you dictate or negotiate? Would you desire to be reasonably benevolent, or would you rule with an iron hand? Would you have personal advisers or boot-licking lackeys? If you chose to have advisers, would you actually listen to their advice and carefully consider it, or would they simply be "window dressing"?

The world of politics is treacherously labyrinthine, as evidenced by the almost annual coups d'état (the sudden, illegal deposition of a government) somewhere on this planet. For centuries a ruler's worst enemies were his closest relatives (it was a matter of "succession to the throne")! Second place on the "enemies list" seems to have been held by the general(s) in charge of a ruler's military forces, and Julius Caesar was stabbed twenty-three times - unto death - from dagger wounds inflicted by members of his own Senate.

Today, total strangers are also assassins of leaders. In 1950 an attempt was made on President Harry Truman's life by two Puerto Rican nationalists. Lee Harvey Oswald, with no known relationship to President John F. Kennedy, took that President's life. A lone Turk attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II. The Pope was shot and severely wounded as he entered St. Peter's Square in the Vatican. The would-be assassin, Mehmet Ali Agca, was a member of a Turkish terrorist organization known as the Gray Wolves. The list goes on and on, showing perhaps hundreds of attempts we have never heard of.

Politics and large scale leadership positions can be a very dangerous place for those who have the strength of their convictions, but a safe-haven for the cowards of the world. Someone once said that "The United States of America has the best politicians money can buy", and money apparently does buy them. Who - enjoying good mental health - would spend millions of dollars running for an office that only pays in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars? An altruist? If you can show me an altruist in national politics, I'll show you a nun in a brothel!

If I became the Grand Poo-bah of the USA, there would definitely be some changes made. Let's begin with the most hotly debated issue affecting primarily the southwestern United States - "Immigration Reform": We have federal laws in-place forbidding entry into our country without the proper authorization, but the feds choose not to enthusiastically enforce those laws. Illegal immigrants have demonstrated their disregard for our laws simply by their unauthorized presence within our borders. Our government, disregarding the will of the people, has chosen to reward the illegal aliens by allowing them to not only remain in the country, but to provide them with benefits that average American citizens are denied. What's wrong with this picture?

In my world here's what undocumented visitors to our country would get... NOTHING!

1. It would be a violation of the law for illegal aliens to be given bank loans and, if they were given, the loan officer, the bank manager and the president of the bank issuing such loan would be arrested and prosecuted.
2. Housing would not be available to anybody unable to prove citizenship or government authorization. Anyone providing housing in violation of that law would be subject to arrest and prosecution.
3. Medical care - for anything other than life saving procedures - would not be available to illegal aliens. Hospitals would be required to report anyone without documentation - who requested a life saving procedure - to Homeland Security/I.C.E. Division. Failure to do so would make the offending medical personnel subject to arrest and prosecution.
4. Illegals would not be eligible for welfare, unemployment insurance or Social Security benefits. Any agent of a municipal, county, state or federal agency permitting illegal aliens to apply for such benefits would be subject to arrest and prosecution.
5. Any child born to an illegal immigrant would not receive automatic citizenship status upon birth. The child is determined to be as illegal as the parent(s) inasmuch as it was transported into the USA in violation of our immigration laws.
6. There would be no amnesty for reasons other than political persecution, and even then amnesty would be on a case-by-case basis. There would be no automatic amnesty.
7. Border enforcement would be the responsibility of the "National Guard". What is the purpose of a "National Guard" if not to guard the nation? The Governor of each state has the right and responsibility to activate that state's National Guard in times of emergency. What's the emergency? A subtle, silent "invasion" of our country - primarily across our southern borders.
(The presence of a foreigner in Mexico without proper authorization is classified as a felony. The penalty for the first offense is imprisonment, not to exceed 2 years. The penalty for the second offense is imprisonment, not to exceed 10 years. The Mexican government seems to take its sovereignty much more seriously than the US government takes ours.)


My second objective would be the elimination of Obamacare - the mandatory national health care program. The people don't want it... but the left-wing, bleeding-heart, Marxist, liberal-"progressives" in charge do. It's just another way for the government to increase citizen dependency upon the "Nanny State".

1. The government does not have the Constitutional authority to require citizens to buy a non-competitive government product or service, nor do they have the authority to monopolize any industry by legislating its competitors out of business. On the other hand, the current administration doesn't seem to be aware that we even have that pesky document call the Constitution.

2.Healthcare for all U.S. citizens is desirable, but those of us who have our own health insurance should not be forced to purchase that demanded by the government. Again, life-saving procedures should be available to all, regardless of their ability to pay. Colds, sprains and other sources of discomfort not being seen as "life-threatening" should not be treated on the public dime. Deal with it - as responsible people have for centuries.

3. No single "class" of people (i.e. - illegal residents) should be free from any taxation imposed upon the majority of citizens. Nor should our elected officials be free from the same healthcare system that would be forced upon the general population.

4. Healthcare should be available nationwide, and at reasonable rates in a competitive environment. Competitors should not be restricted to providing coverage only in a particular state or region as they are now.

Next I'll tackle "Outsourcing". This is probably the single greatest source of unemployment in the United States. Outsourcing is the practice of establishing production facilities and/or subcontracting the production of U.S. goods and services to a foreign nation. Why are manufacturers turning to outsourcing more and more? Quite simply it saves them money. How? Because the countries that are benefiting from outsourced American jobs do not have to engage in collective bargaining with the AFL-CIO and the SEIU. Labor Unions are responsible for the recent collapse of two-thirds of the U.S. automotive industry. Automotive assembly line workers in the U.S. (who may not even have a high school diploma) are making (as opposed to "earning") - on the average - approximately 60% more in their pay and benefits package (negotiated by the UAW, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO) than a tenured college professor. At the same time, we still produce an inferior automobile compared to Japan and much of Europe. Why? Because the union contracts make it almost impossible for Ford, GM and Chrysler to fire anybody. The attitude has become one of - just show up for work even if you don't do anything of quality... or anything period, since they can't fire you without facing potential work stoppages from your union brethren. How would I rectify this situation?

1. Eliminate labor unions. (I can hear almost the screams of outrage from the brotherhoods now!) I can understand why they love their union-supported "job". Union members are at the very top of the labor pay scale - stopping just short of junior corporate executives. In closed-shop states (union membership required in order to work) the cost of living is based upon union-scale wages, which is fine for the workers of that state. However, the increased cost of that which they produce, and consume, is felt nation-wide.

2. Collective bargaining between the employees and the corporation/company for which they work would be allowed in order to establish a fair wage and benefit package for the workers. There will be no outside involvement other than independent arbitrators

3. Any American corporation outsourcing jobs outside the 50 United States and its Trust Territories would be required to do the following:

a. Pay normal import taxes upon any product produced either by their overseas corporation, or any foreign subcontractor.

b. Pay complete unemployment compensation, including medical insurance, for each American job or product outsourced to a foreign location.

c. Any American business entity establishing its headquarters overseas will be treated as a foreign corporation and subject to all tariffs imposed upon a foreign corporation, plus be subject to a tax equal to the cost of providing American workers - equal to the total number of foreign employees of that corporation - with unemployment insurance, including medical benefits.

And THAT'S just for openers!

YOU ARE OWED NOTHING EXCEPT AN OPPORTUNITY TO FAIL ON YOUR OWN!

(and if you don't... CONGRATULATIONS!)

The Great "Can't Afford It Giveaway" of the Obama Administration

The Palestinian Prime Minister is seeking $2.8 BILLION to rebuild Palestine after Israel retaliated for continued shelling of Israeli settlements from Palestine. In what parallel universe does this make sense? Rewarding the aggressor for creating an unwinnable situation for themselves makes absolutely no sense at any level, yet - according to Time Magazine - the cash-strapped U.S. is expected to provide approximately $900,000,000 (roughly 1/3) of that money. Where are the oil-rich Arab nations, who have gouged the entire world for years on the price of oil? Why are they not providing ALL the money to repair the damage done to Palestine?

I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who provoke a confrontation of any kind, and then come out on the short end. They, by their direct actions, have earned whatever fate befalls them, be it victory or defeat. Had Palestine been victorious, and crushed Israel, there would be rejoicing and celebrations throughout the Muslim world. As things stand, the Palestinians have just provided one more embarrassment to the Arab nations since the Six-Day War of 1967. In that war tiny Israel defeated the armies of the neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, even with the nations of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria contributing troops and arms to the other Arab forces. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of that war still affect the geopolitics of the region to this day, although Israel has released control of most of those lands.

There is no reward for "Second Place" in a war. There are only victors and the vanquished. The U.S. has been among the recipients of victory in most conflicts/confrontations in which it participated, with two notable exceptions - North Korea, which was more or less called a "draw", and Vietnam, where American politicians lack of support lost the war for us.

Until this year, there had been no incident in the history of the world, where those captured in combat were given civil trials, provided with civilian attorneys, and allowed all the Constitutional rights of a citizen. The Military Tribunal has always tried captured enemy forces (as military if in uniform, and as spies if not in uniform). Spies have always been the recipients of swifter and more severe (i.e. - firing squad) punishment, perhaps just for lacking the courage to don a uniform.

"Assassins" go back to the beginning of recorded history, although the classification of a crime intentionally resulting in the loss of one human life as an "assassination" has, until recently, been restricted to political leaders. John Lennon wasn't "assassinated" - he was murdered. Assassins generally work alone and have only one particular target to deal with at a time. Julius Caesar was assassinated - oddly enough by multiple assassins.

Obama has chosen to disuse the term "enemy combatant" also - perhaps he plans to replace it with "misdirected ally" or "misunderstood friend". Euphemisms change nothing! A spade is still a spade, a shovel is a shovel, and one whom you engage in combat is still an ENEMY COMBATANT!

It follows that the next terms to become politically incorrect are "terrorist" and "terrorism". Granted, one mans' terrorist is another mans' freedom fighter, but when you are on the receiving end of an attack by one or more persons dressed to blend in with the local population, and wearing explosive underwear, parking a bomb-laden vehicle, or firing full-automatic weapons, you often fail to see the "freedom fighter". If commandeering airplanes and flying them into heavily-populated buildings, or setting off bombs in crowded civilian areas, or beheading other human beings are not designed to induce terror within a specific population, by definition becoming terrorism, and making those who comited those acts de facto terrorists, then I do not understand the term at all!

Have I digressed from my topic? No - not really. Palestine has a relatively high concentration of non-uniformed spies, paramilitary combatants, and civilian sympathizers/supporters. Why is our government providing them with $900 million - which we can ill-afford, and which could very easily be redirected from "humanitarian aid" to "insurgent support"? Where does our money come from? Primarily we borrow it from CHINA of all places! So we're borrowing money, to give away to people who at the very least dislike us (and who, if given the opportunity, would probably kill us all as we slept in our beds). Why does an idea like this seem so intellectually foreign to me?

I could be wrong about this ... and the Supreme Leader of Iran , Grand Ayatollah Ali Hoseyni Khamenei, could be a closet Catholic ... but I seriously doubt it!