Immigrate is defined in Webster’s dictionary as:

“…to come into a country of which one is not a native for permanent residence”

That is, immigrants, by definition, enter a country, a nation state, a sovereign people with the express intent of becoming a permanent resident of that nation state. When a would be immigrant declares their intent as taking back “stolen” territory, they cease to be an immigrant and instead become an invader. They are no longer entering a country to become a resident of that country. They are entering a country to take territory away from that country, to occupy and control territory on behalf of another entity.

That is not immigration, it is invasion.

There are known and vocal groups that openly declare their intent not to immigrate, but to convert, return, occupy, overtake territory currently part of the United States on behalf of a foreign entity. Turn on the news or visit your favorite news website. Look at photographs and watch videos of the pro-illegal immigration protests. Mexican flags flying. United States flags trampled and burned. There is no intent to assimilate, no intent to adopt our system of law, no intent to become a citizen of the United States at all.

That is not immigration, it is invasion.

And how is our federal government responding to this invasion? You know, the one charged with securing the border and maintaining citizen safety and health? We’ll they’re providing housing, food, water, medical care, transportation. They’re locating sympathizing compatriots who will take them into their homes, shield them from deportation proceedings, help them take advantage of our generous welfare system. Our own government is aiding the invaders, ceding territory, moving them into our cities.

This is more than an outrage, it is traitorous. Men and women have died and will die to protect the United States – all of it, every one of us and every mile of our borders. The very government that sends them to die is actively assisting the destruction of what they die for.

Please read this investigative report by journalist Todd Starnes. In it he exposes an active cover up of the medical condition of the illegal immigrant children who are increasingly coming into the United States. Among things being hidden are cases of swine flu, tuberculosis, lice, and scabies.

Medical staff identifying these conditions are being told not to discuss it under threat of arrest. They are being denied access to communication devices such as mobile phones while inside immigrant housing facilities.

Many of these immigrants arrived at these housing facilities after travel on commercial vehicles such as buses and aircraft. That means the general public might have been exposed to a number of diseases previously eradicated in this country.

This concealment of a very real threat to public health and safety is done at the behest of the Department of Health and Human Services, a very clear indication that the federal government has abdicated its responsibility of public health in deference to a desire for political advantage. That’s right citizens, your health and safety is not as important as political power.

Swine flu does not discriminate. Scabies does not discriminate. They do not ask who you voted for in the 2012 elections. They do not ask whether you are a “liberal” or a “conservative”. Yet there are many who will continue to support the very people who are allowing, indeed mandating, that those infected with these diseases remain in the United States and be spread to various facilities around the country.

This is an outrage. My wife and my child deserve better than this. My friends and colleagues deserve better than this. The liberals down the street who support this administration deserve better than this. None of them deserve to contract tuberculosis because politicians want to control the “optics” of the illegal immigration problem.

Write your representative today.

Write your senator today.

Swine flu ladies and gentlemen. Swine flu is walking across our border, being identified by medical personnel who are then told to keep quiet or be arrested.

There is a word for people who support and mandate such a thing.

Criminal?

Sociopath?

Swine.

If you follow conservative news media you already know the story of Brendan Eich, inventor of JavaScript and the man hired as CEO of Mozilla, most widely known today as the company behind the Firefox web browser.

While Brendan was wholly qualified for the job, he was asked to resign (fired) only weeks after beginning his tenure as CEO. Why you ask? Was he caught stealing technological secrets and selling them to the competition? Was his claim to be the inventor of JavaScript found to be a lie? Did he embezzle company funds? Make a fraudulent boast?

No, silly. None of those frivolous things. He did something much, much worse. He thought that marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.

You see, Brendan Eich donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8, which sought to define “marriage” as between a man and a woman. And you know who simply can’t abide that schweizer-apotheke.de/? Liberals. Oh yes, those people who profess to be “tolerant” and just want everyone to be accepted and accepting. Those people? Well, Brendan Eich supported something that the “tolerant” just couldn’t tolerate, so they set out to get him fired.

If your belief system runs contrary to what liberals believe is right, you will be destroyed. You will not be able to keep a job. You will not be able to live in peace. You will not be able to enjoy your life. Because you don’t deserve that. You don’t believe “the right way.”

But let’s shift the focus for a moment, away from the thought police and toward the reason Brendan Eich was targeted in the first place. His donation records were leaked by *someone* at the IRS. This is a fraud. It is a fraud to make public the identities of those who make political donations, yet *someone* at the IRS did so.

So let’s bring this full circle. Right now the IRS is being investigated for bias against “conservative” political advocacy organizations in as much as delaying their requests for tax exempt status and possibly coordinating with other federal agencies in order to intimidate and oppress. Defenders claim that politically motivated bias in the IRS is laughable, a frivolous claim, that there is no systematic corruption or agenda.

I say that is irrelevant. An entire segment of American society believes it is ok to deny someone a job because of a social opinion. A cultural movement claims the title “liberal” while denigrating and destroying those with differing views. With these people spread throughout our society, our organizations, our businesses, our government, you don’t need systematic corruption, individuals acting on impulse will achieve the same results, that is: political donor lists leaked to the public, tax exempt applications delayed or denied, and people with the wrong opinion chased out of good jobs.

There is talk of no “smoking gun” connecting the White House with actions taken by the IRS. There is no need for one. Ideology trumps all. The ideological connection is the smoking gun.

This week Barack Obama issued a mandate via the Treasury that businesses affirm that they are not shedding full-time employees to avoid the Obamacare insurance mandate:

Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to ‘certify’ that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said that employers will be told to sign a ‘self-attestation’ on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury indigenerics.com.

Supporters of Obama’s executive actions characterize his usurpation of executive power as laudable because it is being used to help people. The above is proof that he is not.

If Obama wished to use executive power exclusively to help people, he would not use it to eliminate the ability to identify when something harms people. People are losing their jobs because of Obamacare. They are being harmed. Obama has now silenced the voices who would say so. In effect, he has used executive power to harm. He has used executive power to silence opposition to harm, to speak freely in an effort to stop and reverse harm, thus attempting to guarantee the continuation and expansion of harm.

This is a sinister act. Congress must stop this.

For some reason, the political left thinks that their government, the government they would build were they in charge, would be totally incapable of doing anything wrong. That is, if the left were in charge, every single person, every single policy, every single action taken by or on behalf of government, would be good.

While patently absurd, I can only conclude this is what the left believes to be true, otherwise, why would they advocate for ever more government?

Let me posit this another way:

Were there an admission that government is made of human beings and no human being is completely good, there could be no argument that government can be completely good, therefore no argument for an all-powerful government. That said, since the left advocates for an all-powerful government, and views all-powerful government as good, the only conclusion is that the left believes that all leftists are good, that the only bad people are those who do not believe as they do.

This goes a long way to explaining why the left hates the right. We are evil. The only reason government does bad things is because we are a part of it. If only we were expunged and forbidden from being involved, all would be good. Think I’m exaggerating? Consider the recent comments by the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo,

If they are extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York.

Pro life? Get out. Fiscally conscious? You’re outta here.

Now imagine those words spoken by the President of the United States.

Chilling to say the least.

What’s so ludicrous about the left’s apparent belief that “they” are good and “others” are bad, is that people move right to left and left to right along the political spectrum. Do people actually believe that you become magically benevolent when you become a leftist? And who determines where the line is drawn between almost and all the way there?

This is the same ridiculous logic behind defining “rich” as making over $200,000 a year. So if I make $199,999.99 I’m not “rich” but one penny more and I’m an evil capitalist extorting labor from the poor and helpless.

Magically benevolent?

More like chronically malevolent.

Those of you who consume conservative news media are likely aware that the Wendy Davis campaign is in trouble following revelations that her projected persona, while not a complete fabrication, leaves out components of her life that might harm her political agenda, not the least of which are the facts that she only lived in a trailer for the short time it took for her to find a man who would finance her way through law school, and that as soon as she graduated from law school she filed from divorce from the man who payed her way through, and coincidentally gave him full custody of her two children, one of which was from her previous marriage. Sordid and wicked come to mind.

More interesting to me however, is the escalating panic within her campaign as they attempt to spin these new discoveries and maintain control of the narrative. Unless it’s linked from a news source I follow, I do not consume anything broadcast by the legacy media, so I can’t be sure, but considering their historically biased coverage, I can’t imagine there is thorough if any mention of this conflict between the Wendy Davis that is and the Wendy Davis she wants you to think she is. So, if the legacy media isn’t covering it, why the panic to cover it up?

We’re told that our missives on the degrading status and stability of America are only heard in our little conservative circles, that we can scream and shout all we want, the people “out there” won’t do anything about it, they’ll just continue to watch “honey boo boo” and enjoy their hot dinner secured by the soldiers fighting in a land far, far away. I think the Wendy Davis breakdown signals different. I think the flood of new, unbiased, professional, thorough, new media outlets has more influence than we’re led to believe. I think there are more and a growing number of people like me who have shunned legacy media because of its bias and filled the void of news and information with that provided by new media sources. What I think is missing is the ability to judge the “temperature” and scope of those like me. The problem – the reason “new media consumers” cannot be easily assessed – is the same reason for new media’s success, independence.

The reason new media is able to escape the bonds of bias is because they are free to broadcast content without a central means to control that content. This is both a strength and a weakness. Freedom of speech is the strength, difficulty in measuring the impact of that speech is the weakness.

I don’t know the answer. I imagine some kind of emergent polling, petitioning, and aggregation technology might help. The idea should be to collect and distilll opinion as held by new media consumers and morph that into material and actionable political influence. But the answer isn’t the point of this commentary. My point is that we have undersold our influence. The Wendy Davis campaign reaction is proof of that. If new media was inconsequential, her campaign would need to do nothing. I believe the reaction of her campaign should be interpreted as a signal.

New media is rising. It is increasing in influence. To the point that a professional state political campaign must react. Take heart my friends. This is going to be interesting.

I had dinner with a progressive last night. At least, I think I did, because she used the word “progressive” to describe countries that had elected a female president.

My first thought was that this was an effort to maneuver into a discussion about Hillary 2016. I assumed that the theme would be how America is second rate compared to those other countries that had already elected a woman as president.

My at-the-table response was to share my first hand experience in Brazil, describing the extreme division between the “haves” and “have nots,” which was quite shocking to personally witness.

After replaying the discussion in my head, I have developed a better response, and it is one that can be easily modified and reused for similar situations. Ironically, this improved response developed as I recalled the Benghazi hearing and Hillary’s disgusting attempt to belittle the effort to expose what happened.

When I am confronted in the future by a “progressive” talking point regarding the race, sex, or another superficial characteristic of an elected official, my response will essentially be, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

More specifically my response will be some variation of, “What difference does the sex of the President make? Don’t you want to vote for the most qualified candidate regardless of their sex? In today’s society why does sex matter?”

This forces the opposition to process the fact that their worldview is based on ideologies they claim to reject, that is sexism, racism, etc. It also forces the opposition into a choice: What is more important in an electoral contest, a superficial characteristic such as race or sex, or a fundamental characteristic such as training or experience.

The only counter argument I can anticipate is one regarding gender “inequality,” where the opposition claims that comparing candidates based on fundamental characteristics is not fair because the female candidate will always be at a disadvantage due to societal oppression. This is nonsense of course, but I think the better counter would be to acknowledge that this might be an issue, but enforce that it would be better addressed at the source, rather than allowing a lesser qualified candidate to hold an office (See: Barack Obama).

Even though this brief part of the dinner discussion was awkward, it gave me the chance to craft another counter position to the narrative that someone’s color or sex is important to their political aspirations, or their political value.

You were lied to.

We were all lied to.

This lie wasn’t for self preservation: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

This lie wasn’t for obfuscation: “I had no prior knowledge of the Watergate break-in…”

This lie was for deception: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period.”

This lie was specifically designed to conceal the truth – that millions of people would not be able to keep their health care plan, even if they liked it. Period.

This lie was told to placate opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. To squelch the fear that passage of the Act would impact existing coverage. We were told that it would not. That was a lie.

As per the Collins English Dictionary:

“Fraud: 1. deliberate deception, trickery, or cheating intended to gain an advantage; 2. an act or instance of such deception; 3. something false or spurious; 4. a person who acts in a false or deceitful way.”

This lie was a deliberate deception intended to gain an advantage for those in favor of passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

A deliberate deception intended to gain an advantage.

Barack Obama has committed fraud.

Barack Obama has committed a high crime.

It is high time to call for impeachment.

There has been much hand wringing over the shooting of Miriam Carey after she rammed the barricades at the White House and Capital building. The left is lamenting the senseless shooting of an innocent mother. Conspiracy buffs are claiming the shooting as a harbinger of police no longer serving as law enforcement but becoming lawless tools of intimidation.

Both camps rely on one characterization: that Miriam Carey was unarmed.

Oh, but she was armed. She was armed with a 4,000 pound, self-propelled projectile called an Infinity G Coupe.

If you don’t think lethal force is warranted when facing down a madwoman in control of a 4,000 pound vehicle, think again. Just because someone doesn’t have a gun does not mean they are unarmed. Those accusing the police of using unjustified force are falling victim to the same flawed logic used by the anti-gun crowd, that is to fixate on guns as the only instruments of deadly force. There are many things that can be used to deadly effect, including your own body…

…or a 4,000 pound automobile.

When we are young we are told to be wary of strangers, that it’s better to not trust someone you don’t know, to stay away rather than take a chance. This is exactly why our borders must be secured. We have no idea who’s coming into this country. Sure, they could be a mother seeking safety for her child, or a young man simply wanting to earn a living, but they could also be a murderous psychopath.

All other immigration issues are secondary to border security. Without secure borders there is no basis from which to design immigration “reform” measures or consider amnesty. Why would we want to grant amnesty to people we know nothing about?

For illustration, consider the following…

Picture a town hall or city council meeting discussing the issues of immigration, amnesty, border security, etc. The floor being opens for public comments. A public representative approaches the podium:

“Thank you for being here and thank you for giving me a chance to voice my comments.”

“I’d like to ask you some questions. But before you feel like I’m putting you on the spot. I’m going to give you the answer. The answer is, ‘I don’t know.’ That’s right. For each question I’m about to ask, the correct response is, ‘I don’t know.’ So. My questions…”

“Of those people who are in this country without documentation, how many entered in possession of firearms?”

“What’s that? You don’t know? Ohh. Ok. Next question…”

“Of those people who are in this country without documentation, how many have a debilitating drug addiction?”

“You don’t know? Hmm.”

“Of those people who are in this country without documentation, how many are violent felons?”

“You don’t know that either? Wow.”

“Of those people who are in this country without documentation, how many have a communicable disease?”

“Don’t know?”

Wanting to control immigration isn’t driven by xenophobia or bigotry, it’s about safety. It’s about valuing the security of your neighbors and their children. It’s about trying to make sure we don’t allow people into our communities that will cause us harm.

Doing anything less is tantamount to declaring open season on our friends and neighbors.